"It is clear that the guests prefer Jekyll Island as a travel destination because of the unique combination of natural, seaside beauty, interesting historic sites and limited development."
There's also a few interesting numbers in the report related to visitation and such. I thought David Egan successfully challenged the "47% drop in visitation claim" that LLC and the Jekyll Island Authority have been spreading around. There's some fuzzy math going on!
On a different subject, Eric Garvy, the "Senior Director of Marketing and Business Development"with the JIA has floated the idea that Jekyll isn't actually a state park (h/t lojo for pointing this out). Now, Mr. Garvy does point out that the full name of the authority is the "Jekyll Island State Park Authority." It even says so on their board meeting reports! Mr Garvy has also put out press releases (at least ones where he is listed as contact, so I assume he knows about them) that refer to Jekyll as "Jekyll Island State Park."
So, just to straighten things out, lest anyone buy this argument- made by an employee of the Jekyll Island State Park Authority- here's the Georgia code that says Jekyll is a State Park:
O.C.G.A. § 12-3-231 (2007)
§ 12-3-231. Definitions
As used in this part, the term:
(1) "Authority" means the Jekyll Island State Park Authority created by this part.
(5) "Park" means present and future parks, parkways, park and recreational resources and facilities of the state or any department, agency, or institution of the state, and any such facility constituting part of the State Parks System and shall specifically include Jekyll Island State Park.
Jekyll isn't listed among the state parks because it's administered by an Authority rather than through GA Parks and Recreation, as the other state parks are. But 12-3-231 clarifies that it's a state park.
Mr. Garvy then takes a sort-of indirect slap at the people who own private residences on the island, saying the moment private residences were allowed, Jekyll diverted from a state park in the traditional sense. Maybe. But the state and public still owns the land- people with private residences just lease it. And the Authority makes money on those leases. The question is whether the public wants to lease more of their land- specifically their beach- to a company that wants to put a giant development on it.
Mr. Garvy points out that "some people who promote the idea that Jekyll is a state park and therefore should not be developed actually own homes on the island." First of all, most of those people don't think it "should not be developed," they think it should be responsibly developed. Big difference- but thanks for giving me the opportunity to bring that up yet again. Secondly, if Mr. Garvy wants to discount those people's opinions, he can just looks at his own Authority's survey of people who visit the island:
When asked, "Which choice best describes your feeling about the future of Jekyll Island?"
- over 50% said any new development should be limited to existing sites
- over 17% said new development is needed but should be strictly limited and increase to no more than 20% (possibly one additional new hotel, 75-100 condo units)
- over 16% said leave it as is
- only a little over 5% said that strict limitations should be eased to allow for more development of new hotels, homes and shops
So essentially, in the JIA's own survey, only 5.2% of visitors to the island thought that what has become the Linger Longer proposal would be a good idea. Go figure.
16 comments:
http://gastateparks.org/system/parks/list.asp?siteid=5&db=georgia®ionid=
Read the paragraph at the bottom of the page that mentions why you can't find Jekyll Island listed on this page of Georgia's State Parks.
Can you explain why there's a difference in that and Georgia code? Between the two, if there was a legal challenge, I assume the language written in the code would prevail.
Who owns the land? The public.
hi larissa -
You should read the mission of the JIA. This is from the official Jekyll Island Authority website.
"The Jekyll Island State Park Authority shall provide trustworthy stewardship and conservation of our natural and cultural resources..."
uh...it's in the name of the governing board....
You know it is ridiculous to try to weasel out of the designation of the island as a State Park. Although I don't know why I would expect any more from you. Aren't you the one that said that if people are so concerned about the distant proximity (to the main beach) of the proposed public parking areas that they should just "buy a cooler with wheels"?
sigh.....
You're gonna have to do better than that.
I didn't make that list. The state of Georgia did. If "The Jekyll Island State Park Authority" were a state park, it would receive funds from the state, which it does not. The name "The Jekyll Island State Park Authority" is merely the name. It says so on the website of the Georgia State Parks. This is just an argument over words, but the reason people get upset over that word being in the name of "The Jekyll Island State Park Authority" is because they think their tax dollars go to support Jekyll Island, and they don't. Jekyll Island sustains itself. Even the $25 million the governor "gave" us is bond money that will have to be paid back. If you want to continue to be able to drive over that causeway, we have to be able to make money to keep it up, we have to make money to plan dune grass to preserve the dune, we have to make money to keep the sea turtle center going. It all takes lots and lots of money.
I'm just trying clarify information that gets posted and is read by people that they then think is true.
And yes, I did say people could get a cart if they couldn't walk 3 minutes to the beach, and that was, admittedly, wrong. I get frustrated over pointing out over and over to people that is only a 3 minutes. That is the distance from the back of the parking lot that is there now. ALSO, there is lots of parking right up there at beach. Not only that, and we keep pointing this out, over and over, this is not the final plan. This is not the final plan.
Hi Larissa,
As one of the point people for the JIA I know you get a lot of comments. I appreciate your dedication to what you do and thank you for taking time to present your POV.
I think most people know that Jekyll is supposed to be self-sustaining. We can argue about "state park" or not but the real point is two-fold: to suggest that it's not a state park just to justify development just ends up angering people; and despite it being self-sustaining, the state and therefore the public owns the land.
And as i said earlier, GA code deems it a state park- it's just not classified that way because it's run by an authority.
Everyone understands that it takes money but the JIA refuses to say how much. The island has lost money only one year, correct? And that was when at least 2 hotels were out of commission.
The new hotels and condos already being built will generate money, a lot more for the JIA than last year. I personally think the JIA could more easily convince people to side with more development if it weren't on the beach and as large as it is.
I know you keep saying that it's not final but nothing that has been said indicates that either the JIA or LLC is even considering scaling down or moving the proposal. And that's the problem.
Well, you can at least get my name spelled right... Here's my point: It is true that Jekyll Island is public land owned by the State of Georgia, and the name given to the land now is "Jekyll Island State Park" and the name given to the Authority is "Jekyll Island State Park Authority" (makes sense given the name of the place, right?). But it is clearly not a typical state park as most would understand it, like those operated under the Department of Natural Resources and the Georgia State Park system. State government recognizes this. That is why (I have to assume, I wasn’t there…) the Jekyll Island State Park Authority was created and given such broad powers. It may be interesting to you to review the founding legislation - http://neptune3.galib.uga.edu/ssp/cgi-bin/legis-idx.pl?sessionid=7f000001&type=law&byte=202468924.
I can't help but be struck by the contradiction by someone who owns a home on Jekyll Island, then tries to make the case that it is a state park and should not receive re-development. You don't see the inconsistency? I know of no other state or national park that allows residences. Clearly, Jekyll Island is not a typical state park, don’t you agree?
Jekyll Island is more similar to Lake Lanier Islands, Brasstown Valley and Stone Mountain - all state-owned properties that are managed by a "Recreational Authority." All "state parks" if you will. All have private-sector partners that have developed hotels and other lodging. All also must be financially self-supporting, also unlike typical state parks.
The “definitions” you reference I believe are in Sen. Chapman's suggested legislation in which he is attempting to redefine Jekyll Island. I am not aware of it in any other code of law, and it is not in the founding legislation I referenced above. You weren’t real clear, hopefully you were not trying to present it as actual code of law?
I think if you are intellectually honest, you would not try and make the case that Jekyll Island is a state park. It appears to be an attempt to spread more misinformation. It’s unfortunate that these tactics are being used, because it does not advance the discussion.
With regards to the survey and the Linger Longer Beach Village concept plan, it is for the most part within an area that is already developed. The part of their plan – which is only a concept and will be changed – that goes outside that developed area is a large green space with a restored wetland. And the development is not huge. I expect with the changes that will be made, it will meet the desires of 75% of those surveyed.
As far as being responsible development, it provides for leading edge environmental-sensitivity and gets us on the road to perhaps being 100% sustainable. It provides a lodging plan that will allow more people to come and enjoy the beautiful beach and natural areas. Families can come in groups and rent the cottage condominiums, gather in the green areas and ride bikes along the beach down to the ice cream shop where they will play in a fountain in the park with others. It puts us on a course to have resources to reverse damage done to the shoreline, expand our work to save the loggerhead sea turtle specie, preserve our 255-acre National Historic Landmark District and make its stories come alive with re-enactment, live interpretations, etc. It seems irresponsible not to this. This is the revitalized Jekyll Island that will best serve the next several generations of Georgians. Just putting new buildings where old ones where is just not the kind of progressive thinking that we have been directed to do.
-Eric Garvey
Larissa,
Thanks for clearing that up. I am so glad to know that this plan isn't final. Please help me understand what parts of the plan the JIA and LL is willing to alter, because it looks like you guys are not willing to make any changes. It really does have that appearance to those that are urging preservation of the main public beachfront.
You are right - people are subjected to incorrect information about Jekyll and the LL rediscovery project all of the time. It is my desire to assist in clarifying the misleading information being put out there by the JIA and LL and their hired public relations firms. I do wish that you were part of the solution instead of part of the problem.
Now - your response about the name of Jekyll's governing authority (Jekyll Island STATE PARK Authority) being "merely a name" is scary. Because, you see, since this is "just an argument over words" then we can just as easily strike out the next part about "trustworthy stewardship and conservation of our natural and cultural resouces..." They are more than words. These words are supposed to have meaning. Just as Jekyll has meaning. Lots and lots of meaning to me. I want what is best for this publicly owned land. You can't argue with that. Whether it's a state park or not - Jekyll is publicly owned land, and it was purchased with tax payers funds (although that was several decades ago).
My tax dollars have nothing to do with why I am mad about LL's proposal, although my tax dollars DO go to Jekyll everytime I visit. Every rental fee, every meal, every purchase on Jekyll is taxed. The JIA gets that money - not the State of Georgia. Whether Jekyll is actually offically considered a state park has nothing to do with my anger about the redevelopment plan accepted by the JIA. I am unhappy with the rediscovery proposal because it is taking something away from me. It is taking something away from other Jekyll visitors. It is taking something away from my daughter. I don't want to have to try to describe the beauty of Jekyll's beaches to her. I want her to enjoy them with her children. I wish you could see what we are trying so earnestly to show you. This is not progress. Help me understand - how much money is needed to operate the island? No State Funds have been used for Jekyll's operations since 1983. How muh more than you are currently working with do you actually need?
Your sales taxes do not go to the JIA. The JIA collects hotel and bed tax and lease money from the establishments on the island. I'm not an accountant and I don't do the budget but all that information is public information somewhere. I think Eric covered the fact that there are lots of things that have been neglected that could be improved with added money. The beaches are still going to be there. It's going to be even more beautiful, the bike paths are going to be even better, and people are going to have nice places to stay. Linger Longer and the Jekyll Island Authority are going to keep to our mission of providing trustworthy stewardship and conservation of our natural and cultural resources. That can't happen without a lot of money. How much? I can't be sure.
ok, my bad on the sales tax for goods purchased. but the money i pay for lodging is taxed. and that money goes to the JIA for administration, maintenence, etc.
Got it.
You see, though, this tedium is nonsensical. No one is mad because they think their tax money is being spent on Jekyll. People are mad because the JIA and LL are trying to push UNNECESSARY commercial development of a public resource.
We aren't incredibly pleased with the way that the matter has been - - and continues to be handled.
1. If the JIA is unaware of how much money they need to operate, how in the world can that be considered responsible management of the funds? How can we be sure that THIS will be enough? What other actions being considered?
2. Why is the JIA moving forward with a plan that willfully ignores the clearly stated will of the people? I am referring to the results of the JIA survey of island's visitors in 2006. A quote from the survey results:
"It is clear that guests prefer Jekyll Island as a travel destination because of the unique combination of natural, seaside beauty, interesting historic sites, and limited development." Less that 6% of the people surveyed expressed a desire to ease the current limitations to allow for developement of new hotels, homes, and shops. Why didn't the JIA listen???? Why did they even bother to ask if they already had their minds made up?
Eric Garvey-
Apologies for not spelling your name correctly. So noted.
GA code 12-3-231 is NOT in Chapman's legislation. It's a code in Georgia Law, Title 12- Conservation and Natural Resources. It's easy to find, here are two places (I can give you more if you need):
http://law.justia.com/georgia/codes/12/12-3-231.html
http://www.legis.ga.gov/legis/1995_96/leg
/sum/hb120.htm#summary
http://www.legis.ga.gov/legis/1995_96/leg
/fulltext/hb120.htm#12-3-231
If I wasn't clear enough, I assume that the Georgia code of law is.
The actual founding legislation you sent includes this language:
-"...render ultimately self-supporting that portion of Jekyll Island now owned by the State of Georgia and now known as Jekyll Island State Park; to grant hereby for and on the part of the State of Georgia a lease for a term of fifty (50) years of that portion of Jekyll Island now owned by the State of Georgia to the Jekyll Island State Park Authority created by this Act, upon consideration of a rental of one dollar per year, and certain other valuable considerations which will result in the operation of Jekyll Island as a State Park without expense to the State..."
- and in section 5 "(c) The word "park" shall mean Jekyll Island State Park"
I don't think I'm the one being "intellectually dishonest" nor am I "spreading more misinformation." I find your personal habit of portraying anyone who doesn't agree with you as "intellectually dishonest" not very helpful to your credibility.
As for the people who live on the island, I'll say this one more time. The ones speaking out are NOT against redevelopment. They are against the Linger Longer proposal, as are most people. They, along with most people, don't want condos and new hotels right on that stretch of the main public beach.
And if you were being "intellectually honest" you would acknowledge that having a 63-acre development there is much less environmental than leaving it as is.
It would be responsible to be an honest partner with the public that pays your salary. To actually listen to the people who visit the island and truly understand what makes it special. To realize that the public likes the main beach as it is. And to have taken that into consideration before you ran headlong into what was truly an avoidable firestorm.
I didn't say the Jekyll Island Authority doesn't know how much money it needs to operate at the level it would like. I said I didn't know. There has been a plan for revitalization for Jekyll Island for a long time, and the concept for Jekyll Island to operate as a tourist destination was made long ago too when they allowed hotels to be built in the first place. In order for people to enjoy nature, it costs money. I'm going to have to leave it at that. I'm sure you guys will be well informed of the updates to plan when they happen.
Eric,
Since you are the Sr. Marketing Director & Business Development guy, maybe you can help answer the two questions that Larissa is unwilling and/or unable to answer:
1. How much money does the JIA need to operate? How can we be sure that THIS (the LL's Rediscovery Plan) will be enough? What other actions being considered? Were any other actions considered prior to this course of action?
2. Why is the JIA moving forward with a plan that willfully ignores the clearly stated will of the people? I am referring to the results of the JIA survey of island's visitors in 2006. A quote from the survey results:
"It is clear that guests prefer Jekyll Island as a travel destination because of the unique combination of natural, seaside beauty, interesting historic sites, and limited development." Less that 6% of the people surveyed expressed a desire to ease the current limitations to allow for developement of new hotels, homes, and shops. Why didn't the JIA listen???? Why did they even bother to ask if they already had their minds made up?
Thanks. I look forward to your response. You really seem to be on top of this.
Mel and lojo,
You both seem to be argumentative, and I will try to provide you some information but I will not continue if you use insults - I have no reason to lie or be dishonest.
Mel - I guess you are not ready to agree that Jekyll Island is not a typical state park like Unicoi, Little Ocmulgee, etc. If you are not, nothing else really matters because this would call for a completely different management structure for the island, one in which it is managed (and funded) by the State Park & Historic Sites Division of the DNR. This has been suggested in the past by Sen. Williams, that the Historic District and all the undeveloped land be turned over to DNR. As for funding, he suggested all the developed land be sold and use those proceeds. The State Properties Committee dealt with this issue last year, and determined the current management under the Authority was the best structure.
So, I suggested that if you were intellectually honest you would acknowledge that Jekyll Island is not a typical state park. Do you agree or not?
Also, I definitely feel that new development offers the opportunity to lessen the negative impact on the environment. This has been a central theme in our planning. The Governor himself laid out the vision for a “conservation community”, one that hopefully will be 100% sustainable and a model for other coastal communities. This is not lip service, and we have started down that road by requiring any new construction to be LEED-certified. The current surface parking lots are about as unnatural as you can get. And the current convention center is an energy hog. I could go on and on, but to answer your question, yes, we can lessen negative environmental impact through revitalization. And to correct you again, of the 63-acres in the concept plan, most is green space, including a very large park that is oriented around a restored fresh-water wetland. I hope we can keep some of those elements. We certainly can’t if Sen. Chapman’s legislation goes through.
Further, most of the people I interact with are in favor of what we are doing - by far. I’ve grown concerned because it is common now for me to speak with someone who has a negative bias based on the amount of misinformation that is being put out. Once I take them through the facts and the truth, rarely does someone remain negative.
We have been working on revitalization earnestly since 2002. Much of work was made public during our Master Plan Update in 2004. We have not gone headlong into a firestorm, and in fact many stakeholders wish we would speed things up.
Lojo - Your financial questions oversimplify the issue. We are not attempting to solve a short-term financial problem. We see our responsibility as creating a solution that will sustain the island for several generations - 60-80 years. And the Beach Village is just one component. As you know, we have other hotel projects in the pipeline. You can be a cynic and accuse me of lying again, but the truth is the financial aspects are very complicated and very fluid - they change as our plans are refined. We monitor our backlog of maintenance and improvement projects, and it stands at somewhere around $64k. It includes the massive amount of money needed to address the Historic District, and also our golf courses that were built in the late 1960’s, and on and on. The more money that is generated beyond the current need can be used for other island improvements and guest services. On the radar there is the selective removal of the “Johnson Rocks” - the rock beach armoring placed in the 1960s and the number one issue affecting loggerhead sea turtle nesting.
Regarding the survey, we feel we are addressing the desire of the majority of those surveyed. The 6% you mentioned would be a small minority, and we can’t please everyone for sure. The development is greatly restrained and limited. And we continue to listen to the public and our stakeholders each day, and carefully proceed trying to do the best thing for the citizens of this State. You can try and vilify Linger Longer and the JIA all you want, but the reality is we are just people like you who wake up each day, get our kids off to school, do the best jobs we can and hopefully return home with our families safely.
Ooops, I mean $64 million in maintenance backlog...
Hey Eric,
Sorry to be argumentative. But I guess you are right. I do not agree with your stated position and I plan to continue to express my differing viewpoint. I do not agree with your current stance on the Jekyll issue, and unless your stance is altered, I am afraid that we will continue to disagree. But we don't have to be disagreeable, do we?
Today's first question is this:
When you refer to the "stakeholders" who wish you would "speed things up" - who, exactly are you refering to?
Now, maybe I can make you smile. Jekyll is not a "typical state park". There. We found something about Jekyll that we can agree on. We also agree that Jekyll Island is owned by the State of Georgia. That makes Jekyll Island public property. Right?
I know that the JIA 'manages' Jekyll, but the owners are the citizens of the state, right?
I am just trying to determine our starting point....
Eric, I don't think that you are a bad guy. You are probably a pretty good guy, and you may be promoting what you believe to be the very best thing for Jekyll. If this is the case, I would hope that you will be able to take a step back and look at this objectively - and maybe eventually from my point of view. I am not opposed to increasing the revenues necessary to sustain and improve Jekyll island. I am not opposed to replacing the old parking lots. I am not opposed to a new convention center. I am not opposed to LEED-certified construction; I think green construction is a wonderful idea. I am not opposed to new hotels, new restaurants, or even to a town center. Our main point of contention is this: I am adamantly opposed to placing any new lodging on the east side of Beachview Drive (where the main public beach is located). If you listen carefully and closely, you will see that this is the biggest concern caused by this Rediscovery Project. You could quite many of the critics by relenquishing the idea of additional new beachside lodging. Beachside accomodations currently exist on Jekyll, and improvements are already underway on many of the lodging accomodations.
Now, to the $ issue. I appreciate that the JIA is not attempting to solve a short term financial problem. I understand that you are attemppting to create a solution (that will sustain the island for several generations). But what, exactly, is the Problem that you are solving? Really. What is the problem that Jekyll and the JIA is facing? I would like to know, because I would love to be a part of the solution. I love Jekyll Island, and I don't want to be unreasonable.
As far as the needed $64 million, I am going to go ahead and subtract the $25 million designated for Jekyll in the state budget. That leaves us with $39 million. Then we will need to seperate the combined maintenance cost from the improvements cost. It is unfair to group these two together to create a budget. Look at your household. Look at any business. The budget needed to maintain my household is vastly different from the budget of desired improvements. I would love to brick my driveway, and I would love additional lanscaping. An outdoor kitchen next to the pool would be super. Come to think of it, a hot tub would be really nice. Alas, my improvement projects' budget has exceeded my maintenance buget more than 10 fold! Maybe you could help convince my husband that all of this is needed? I jest, but you get my point. I guess we are back to the initial question - is a need for $ driving the entire rediscovery initiative? That doesn't make it a bad thing - - I am just trying to decipher what the problem is so maybe I can help come up with a solution that will benefit both sides of this issue.
You are right about something else. I am a cynic. I am cynical of many of the "facts" put out by the JIA, LL, and the various voices speaking up for the Rediscovery plan. If I have called you a liar, then I apologize. But somebody is lieing, and I hope that you will stop them from telling additional lies. It really does ruin the credibility of the JIA and the need for this project. More than once, I have found fault with the "facts" that have been presented by those in favor of LL's redevelopment plan. The need for this entire project was initially based on a "dramatic drop in Jekyll's visitors" - - something along the lines of 47 or 50%. This number continues to be repeated by Jim Langford and others - even though that number is more than a little inaccurate amd more than a little misleading. Can we agree that the reported 47%-50% decline in visitation is not accurate?
Revitalization is not a bad idea, and admittingly, LL's plan is presented in a very pretty package. It does appear to be the answer to many of the problems the JIA is facing. BUT is this the ONLY answer?
I am looking forward to your response, and I have a list of revitaliztion suggestions that I hope that you will consider. I would love for more people to discover Jekyll. It is a wonderful place.
I have a lot to respond to, but I will try to answer all your points. If I miss something, please ask again, it would only be an oversight.
I embrace different points of view… it provides an opportunity for better solutions and what Covey calls “third alternatives” - ideas that are better than the original two that were in disagreement.
Answer #1: I answer to a group of stakeholders that operate businesses on the island and in the area. These folks are, for the most part, the ones that would like to see things “speed up”.
Answer #2: I agree with you that Jekyll Island is owned by the citizens of the state – all 9.5 million of them. And the JIA is a public-service entity that manages the island for the good of those citizens.
Thank you for being clear about your position, and I will try empathizing. With regards to simply moving all development to the west of Beachview Road, as Sen. Chapman’s legislation would require and you propose, I want to share with you why it is a difficult idea for me to understand. Then, maybe you can help me understand.
First, because we have a long view of the change here on Jekyll Island, we have tried to free our ideas from conventional restraints. That includes existing roads. I suggest that Beachview Road was placed where it is probably somewhat arbitrarily. So to use that as a boundary seems also very arbitrary.
Secondly, I think it is an important element of the Beach Village to have connectivity to the beach and ocean. The vision of sitting outside a café, having a beverage while you look over a park with children tumbling on the grass, behind them the dunes that frame glimpses of the sandy beach; and on out to the horizon where across the sparkling water you catch the dorsal fins of dolphin, see pelicans dive for food and shrimp boats pulling nets. Having to see this through binoculars or having a car whizz by would ruin this. And without this connectivity, are all we building is another shopping center? Regarding the Convention Center hotel, our current Center sits adjacent to the beach, why is it a problem to move that off the beach and add the Convention Center Hotel in its place? I guess my point is this, why would we not want to create something that will have the highest likelihood for success in terms of guest experience?
The challenge that has long been facing Jekyll Island and the Authority is economic sustainability. There is danger to oversimplify, but if you try to compare Jekyll Island with other beach destinations with private land ownership and to other state or national parks, it might make sense. Other destinations that have private land ownership generate visitation and therefore revenue by creating new reasons to visit. A new hotel, restaurant, attraction, etc. An existing business will invest in its product to make it better. Or it will sell to someone else, who will invest to keep growing the business. This investment is usually borrowed and supported by the increasing value of the land. This scenario does not present itself on Jekyll, for the most part. On the other end of the spectrum, state parks and national parks are given regular funding from the taxpayers to meet their management costs and from time-to-time to invest in something new.
What has happened on Jekyll is that there has been a regular cycle of investment to mimic what happens with private ownership. Every ten years or so, the state will invest in something on the island usually coinciding with a hotel project or renovation. This would result in five or so years of improvement, and then things would trend back down. Another initiative would begin another small investment and the cycle repeats. We are trying to break that cycle.
The problem with the idea of using the $25 million in bond money to address the backlog of maintenance is that it is not sustainable. That bond has to be paid back by the Jekyll Island Authority, so it must work to generate those additional revenues.
Another danger in this discussion is separating issues. The revitalization of Jekyll Island must be comprehensive, and not only address the financial need but the desire for better environmental stewardship (costs more money), improvement in guest experience and quality of life for citizens of the state. You may not want beach cottages adjacent to the Beach Village and beach, but think of the thousands of families that will come and create wonderful memories here. Why shouldn’t they have that opportunity?
Lastly, regarding misinformation. I have been working with Jim Langford and Linger Longer for the past four months. I have come to see that he is honest and sincere. The people misstating the visitation number (I didn’t say lying...) are David and Mindy Egan. I will share you the data that was compiled by our Museum Director from all available archives. Jim Langford is doing simple math from the data, the Egans are trying to tell you that the data is wrong. They say that they “spoke with” someone who told them the Authority changed the way we count cars. We have no evidence of that, the count is done the same today as far back as we know. They count their money, and divide by the amount charged per car. The count does not include annual passes, multi-day passes, government vehicles, etc. It never did, as far as we know.
The long term trend of our count is a decline of 47.4% (simple math – 474,270 divided by 999,567), the GDOT figures show a decline over the approximate same term as 50.3% The Egans suggest that the GDOT figures are wrong also, that they “spoke with someone” who told them something. Are we to believe that the GDOT traffic data can not be trusted? By observation, we see GDOT set up their traffic counters each year. It seems to usually be sometime in the spring, and they remain for a week. This trend is supported by a myriad of other data points and by observation. So, who is “spinning” the facts?
The “spin” continues with misleading words and phrases like “remove the parking”, “build on the beach”, “high rise condo”, “condo community”, etc.
Also, Linger Longer does not need to try and justify their proposal. They were asked for this proposal by the Authority. The better discussion regarding visitation is what the right amount is in the future. We have hired a consultant to perform that analysis and it will be interesting for all to see what their report says. We are comfortable with the idea of doubling our visitation, but the analysis and report will help determine if we are right or wrong. Yesterday, I could walk on the beach under a beautiful blue and warm sky and encounter 10 people. Will the guest experience be negative if that same walk encounters 20 people? It will be a good discussion to have….
Sorry I’ve gone on and on……
Post a Comment