Yesterday's blog started out talking about the process and an opinion in today's AJC is a nicely worded piece that gets to the heart of the issue. Thanks Art Hurt!
I emailed the AJC with this letter following Mr. Hurts column. I hope you don't mind me repeating it here.
Dear AJC,
Thank you for printing Art Hurt's column on the Jekyll Island controversy. He is absolutely correct in his opening statement. This controversy was unnecessary, predictable, and avoidable. I must echo Mr. Hurt's query. "What were they thinking?"
But Mr. Hurt is wrong about one thing: The JIA did seek and allow public input prior to accepting the master plan for redevelopment. From April to June in 2006, guests to the island were asked to take a 28 question survey to gauge public sentiment toward potential redevelopment. The survey and the survey analysis report was made a part of a public Request for Information and compiled and used for a final recommendation to Governor Perdue. You can find the survey results on page 14 or the JIA's 2006 Annual Report. ( http://www.jekyllislandauthority.org/organization/jekyll_island_annual_report_2006.pdf )
The results of the survey follow: 1. The survey asked "what primary leisure activity did you participate while on Jekyll Island?" Guests overwhelmingly travel to Jekyll for beach activities. The second most popular answer was "relaxing".
2. When asked about what best describes their feelings about the natural environment of the island, more than 50% of those surveyed answered "pristine and protected through limited development and traffic". Only 2.7% indicated "unmanaged and in need of attention".
3. When asked about what best describes their feelings about the future of Jekyll Island, more than 50% of the respondents indicated that "any new development of hotels, cottages, and condominiums, restaurants, or shops should be limited to existing sites, thus keeping the amount of guests and residents about the same as now." Only 5.2 % indicated that "strict limitation should be eased to allow for more development of new hotels and condos".
So, you see? The public was asked what they wanted. However, the results didn't please Governor Perdue or the JIA; so, apparently they decided to not only ignore the will of the people but to proceed with the plan that least fit the stated desires of Jekyll's visitors. Why? What were they thinking?
I have my own theories, but instead of using this medium to tell you what and why I think the JIA proceeded in this manner, I will ask you. Why do you think the JIA is pushing this "rediscovery" and redevelopment plan when it goes against everything that public indicated they wanted? Why did they bother asking? Seriously, what were they thinking?
The JIA, whose mission includes responsible stewardship and conservation of this natural resource, continues to tell us that our input is important. They say that they want to hear from all sides on this issue. But instead of listening to public input, they continue to push and defend their assumption that Jekyll needs multiple new beach side hotels and condos in order to maintain it's financially self-sustaining status. Interestingly enough, no State Funds have been used to support island's operations since 1983. What's the reasoning behind the idea that a proliferation of new commercial development is needed or wanted at this State Park? And why does the JIA and its chosen development partner have to hire PR firms to convince us that this is what we want and need?
Mr. Hurt is right about another thing. Jekyll Island is worth the effort. Call Governor Perdue. Call your legislators. Let your voices be heard. It is re-election time for many, and rumors have placed Governor Perdue as a very likely Vice Presidential candidate. Our elected officials just might listen this year.
Thanks- I just checked out that annual report. It's funny that the JIA's own report states "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." Kind of makes me think we're all right in that they ignore the public.
2 comments:
I emailed the AJC with this letter following Mr. Hurts column. I hope you don't mind me repeating it here.
Dear AJC,
Thank you for printing Art Hurt's column on the Jekyll Island controversy. He is absolutely correct in his opening statement. This controversy was unnecessary, predictable, and avoidable. I must echo Mr. Hurt's query. "What were they thinking?"
But Mr. Hurt is wrong about one thing: The JIA did seek and allow public input prior to accepting the master plan for redevelopment. From April to June in 2006, guests to the island were asked to take a 28 question survey to gauge public sentiment toward potential redevelopment. The survey and the survey analysis report was made a part of a public Request for Information and compiled and used for a final recommendation to Governor Perdue. You can find the survey results on page 14 or the JIA's 2006 Annual Report. ( http://www.jekyllislandauthority.org/organization/jekyll_island_annual_report_2006.pdf )
The results of the survey follow:
1. The survey asked "what primary leisure activity did you participate while on Jekyll Island?" Guests overwhelmingly travel to Jekyll for beach activities. The second most popular answer was "relaxing".
2. When asked about what best describes their feelings about the natural environment of the island, more than 50% of those surveyed answered "pristine and protected through limited development and traffic". Only 2.7% indicated "unmanaged and in need of attention".
3. When asked about what best describes their feelings about the future of Jekyll Island, more than 50% of the respondents indicated that "any new development of hotels, cottages, and condominiums, restaurants, or shops should be limited to existing sites, thus keeping the amount of guests and residents about the same as now." Only 5.2 % indicated that "strict limitation should be eased to allow for more development of new hotels and condos".
So, you see? The public was asked what they wanted. However, the results didn't please Governor Perdue or the JIA; so, apparently they decided to not only ignore the will of the people but to proceed with the plan that least fit the stated desires of Jekyll's visitors. Why? What were they thinking?
I have my own theories, but instead of using this medium to tell you what and why I think the JIA proceeded in this manner, I will ask you. Why do you think the JIA is pushing this "rediscovery" and redevelopment plan when it goes against everything that public indicated they wanted? Why did they bother asking? Seriously, what were they thinking?
The JIA, whose mission includes responsible stewardship and conservation of this natural resource, continues to tell us that our input is important. They say that they want to hear from all sides on this issue. But instead of listening to public input, they continue to push and defend their assumption that Jekyll needs multiple new beach side hotels and condos in order to maintain it's financially self-sustaining status. Interestingly enough, no State Funds have been used to support island's operations since 1983. What's the reasoning behind the idea that a proliferation of new commercial development is needed or wanted at this State Park? And why does the JIA and its chosen development partner have to hire PR firms to convince us that this is what we want and need?
Mr. Hurt is right about another thing. Jekyll Island is worth the effort. Call Governor Perdue. Call your legislators. Let your voices be heard. It is re-election time for many, and rumors have placed Governor Perdue as a very likely Vice Presidential candidate. Our elected officials just might listen this year.
Thanks- I just checked out that annual report. It's funny that the JIA's own report states
"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."
Kind of makes me think we're all right in that they ignore the public.
Post a Comment