Jekyll Island State Park is pretty special to Georgians. Bought by the state in 1947 as a park for the "ordinary citizen," many have vacationed there over the years. And they've been shocked by the actions of the Governor-appointed Jekyll Island Authority over the last couple of years.
Those actions- specifically awarding private developer Linger Longer a large new development along the popular main public beach- prompted a grassroots opposition movement (of which I am a member). It's been an uphill battle- LLC has money, a pricey PR firm and friends throughout the legislature and Governor's mansion. But as public awareness rises the issue is getting more and more press, especially in the AJC. Two recent pieces spotlight the controversy; one profiling the Initiative to Protect Jekyll Island and the other addressing the whole issue in general.
Both pieces hit on the general mistrust of the JIA, a body that I personally haven't had much faith in lately. Jay Bookman's opinion, titled "Jekyll Island deserves a planned, professional upgrade," succinctly lays out some one of the problems the public has with the JIA:
How many more hotel rooms can the island sustain without compromising its laid-back charm? How many peak-season visitors can it handle? What proportion of rooms should be priced for economy visitors? There are no answers to those and other important questions, a fact that has raised understandable alarm among those who love the island.
According to (Eric) Garvey, the authority has plans to commission a company to conduct a study and then write a report to address such questions. But while preparations for plans to study are under way, the authority has already committed to major projects that have the potential to dramatically alter the island's character, including construction of more than 1,000 new hotel rooms and condominium units near the island's most popular beach. Several other expansions are also under way or planned, with others yet to come.
Mr. Bookman also talks about suspicion of Authority motives:
At the moment, that suspicion is being fueled by data purportedly showing a 47 percent decline in car traffic to the island since 1996. The number is cited often to justify major changes.
However, even a cursory look at the source of that number tells you it is bogus. Nonetheless, board members and authority staff have responded angrily and unprofessionally to those who have challenged it. Even now, the authority refuses to acknowledge that the number is wrong, as if any concession to their critics is impossible.
"I can't say it is and I can't say it isn't," Garvey said last week.
In itself, the number isn't all that important. But the way it is being mishandled explains a lot about the suspicions generated in this controversy.
Some other numbers that shouldn't be ignored:
- Originally, just 24 acres were to be developed. At some point in the RFP process it became 45 acres. When all was said and done, LLC won by proposing to develop 63 acres of the 104 acres available, even though the other developers bidding adhered to the 45 acre restriction.
- LLC repeatedly said "three state laws protect a total of 75 percent of the island." State law says 35% of it may be developed. LLC's claim included laws that protect the tidal marsh and beach- which, duh, can't be built on. Why that was a talking point is beyond me- even the JIA agrees it's 35%.
- In addressing the concern over affordability of accommodations, Linger Longer spokesman Jim Langford says "72 percent of the rooms brought to Jekyll under the Linger Longer plan would go for less than $139 a night."
Critics of Linger Longer also note that the $139 nightly room rental figure comes from including every individual room in a condominium, for instance, as part of the average.
That's not an uncommon practice in the hospitality industry, Langford counters.
.
- The LLC proposal is actually the 6th beachfront development in the works. The other 5 are or will be complete redevelopments of existing properties (not "spruce ups" as the JIA tries to spin opposition):
There are three properties that we consider to be in the “pipeline” as agreements are in place for a project to move forward. Those are Jekyll Ocean Oaks, Canopy Bluff and the Jekyll Oceanfront Clarion. The other sites you mentioned do not have “Project Development Agreements” yet, although we do expect it once the Georgia Coast Inn clears litigation. And the Oceanside Inn & Suites has as an element of its lease the requirement to replace the existing hotel by 2014 or 2016.
- The JIA didn't make all of their income readily available to the public. They basically "under-reported revenues by $11.3 million since fiscal 1997, according to a state auditor, John Thornton." They didn't break any laws just got a little creative with what numbers were presented to the public.
- The beach village is just 1 aspect of the 6 part LLC "comprehensive investment strategy" for the island.
- More than 50% of guests surveyed by the JIA in 2006 said they favored development limited to existing footprints. Only 5.2% agreed with something like the LLC proposal.
It's taken an enormous effort from the people who started the Initiative to Protect Jekyll Island State Park and Senator Jeff Chapman to get even a semblance of acknowledgement, much less accountability, for these numbers.
Thank God for grassroots heros.