Jekyll Island legislation: Sen. Chapman's press release

Man, it is COLD in Minneapolis.

Sen. Jeff Chapman Introduces Stewardship Legislation for Jekyll

 ATLANTA –Sen. Jeff Chapman (R-3^rd District), representing the coastal region of south Georgia, including Jekyll Island, introduced three bills, SB 426, SB 427, and SB 428, in response to a ground swell of opposition to the development of a condo-hotel-retail “town center” on Jekyll’s main beach. These bills provide long-term stewardship for Jekyll Island State Park and limit commercial-private development in all State parks, historic areas, memorials, and recreational lands.

Probably the most popular bill of the three, SB 427, provides the legal language needed to prevent the commercialization of Jekyll’s remaining open expanse of beachfront. The legislation would preserve the seashore in its natural beauty into perpetuity. According to Sen. Chapman, the open expanse of Jekyll’s main beach is one of island’s most beautiful features and the centerpiece of the park’s attraction to visitors.

The overwhelming comments Sen. Chapman has received from around the state show that citizens, by and large, stand opposed to building a town center in a State Park, particularly on a public beach that belongs to all Georgians. The major message I hear, Sen. Chapman related, is “Let’s rebuild and revitalize existing facilities instead of encouraging massive new development. My purpose with this legislation is to honor the wishes of the people of Georgia, honor the original charter for Jekyll, and prevent a King Midas touch from destroying the peaceful, natural beauty of the people’s seashore.”

The first bill of the three-part package, SB 426, creates an overarching principle for all of Georgia’s state parks, historic areas, memorials, and recreational lands. Primarily, it seeks to prevent state-owned properties from becoming targets for future residential development. The bill prohibits the building of single-family or multi-family residential housing or condominiums on all publicly-owned land in the state park system.

SB 428, the final bill, addresses the issue of keeping Jekyll Island affordable for all Georgians. It requires that 70 percent of all new accommodations will not exceed the annual average daily rate of other lodgings in Georgia’s state park system. The legislation does not affect existing hotels and allows for up to 30 percent of new rooms on the island to be priced on the high end. In addition, the bill provides needed legal definitions to prevent loopholes that exist in current law from being exploited in future development projects. Overall, these three bills accomplish everything necessary to ensure the revitalization of Jekyll and provide for the long-term stewardship of the people’s park.

Sen. Chapman represents Brantley, Camden, Charlton, Glynn, and McIntosh counties, which comprise the Third Senate District. For further information about bills sponsored or co-sponsored by Sen. Chapman, visit his website at www.jeffchapman.us or contact him directly at 912-399-8683. His email is jeff.chapman@senate.ga.gov. 

 

Yet another Jekyll Island voice

Langford tries to portray the opposition to the LLC plan as a "small group of detractors." It's the largest small group I've ever seen. 

This is a nice summary of the development already taking place and a broader explanation of the Clarion property.

Jekyll Island: Langford spins, Egan responds

I was raised in Tifton GA and my parents still live there. The Tifton Gazette has been following the Jekyll debate, allowing arguments from both sides to be heard in its opinion pages, including this piece written by Jim Langford.

It's telling that Langford complains that there's been misinformation and personal accusations leveled then proceeds to spout misinformation and personal accusations.

 

Mindy Egan's response:

Jim Langford’s Tifton Gazette article captures perfectly why so many people are upset with how Linger Longer is marketing its town center proposal.  Let’s look at the facts and try to separate ‘spin’ from truth.

To begin with, visitation is not down by half since 1990, as Mr. Langford claims. The DOT figures he cites compare peak season causeway traffic counts from the early 1990s to off-season traffic counts in recent years.  The DOT has confirmed that this is the case, and Mr. Langford was informed of this fact weeks ago, yet he continues to repeat the same argument. Why? Because Linger Longer, despite the facts, must insist that visitation has dropped dramatically so it can justify its claim that Jekyll needs major development - a “town center”- if Georgians are to “rediscover Jekyll.”

The truth is the Jekyll Island Authority’s own traffic count figures show a 12% drop in visitation over the past decade, most of which is linked to the lack of decent accommodations on the island, rather to any longing for a town center, as Linger Longer has falsely assumed.

Equally misleading is Mr. Langford’s argument that the decline in golf rounds on Jekyll shows that visitation has dropped by 50%.  True, the number of golf rounds has dropped off significantly, but Mr. Langford apparently is unaware the fact that Jekyll’s courses competed against only a few local  public golf courses in the early 1990s. Now they compete against twelve. 

Mr. Langford says hotel stays on the island are down by 24% since 1990, but he fails to note that Jekyll now has 30% fewer hotel rooms than it did in the 1990s. When he does mention the closing of some hotels, he tries to argue that with fewer hotel rooms occupancy rates should have been up in the other hotels. The truth is the poor condition of  most of the remaining oceanfront hotels has suppressed their occupancy rates.

The two oceanfront hotels (Beachview Club and Days Inn) that have been rebuilt in recent years enjoy fill rates nearly double those in disrepair, yet Mr. Langford says Jekyll needs more than “a new hotel or a coat of paint.” The success enjoyed by these two hotels indicates that occupancy rates will increase dramatically in the other oceanfront hotels that are up for reconstruction over the next five years.

Mr. Langford claims that the Linger Longer project will rest within the existing footprint of developed land. Anybody who knows Jekyll also realizes that the vast majority of the “developed” land being referred to consists of oceanfront public parking facilities. Mr. Langford has said that Jekyll needs “a more reasonable” use of that land, defining “reasonable” as an oceanfront condo and time-share community. Suffocating Jekyll’s open beachfront with what Linger Longer is selling may be a “reasonable” plan for Mr. Langford, but it does not sit well with the vast majority of Jekyll’s visitors, according to surveys reaching more than 6,000 Georgians.

This is not to say that people are defending aging, asphalt parking lots, as Mr. Langford has often claimed. The surface of the existing lots should be made more environmentally friendly, and picnic space could be added as a buffer zone between the lots and the beach.

“Average Georgians” are Linger Longer’s target audience, says Mr. Langford. Linger Longer’s own statistics, however, show that the average price of its condos will be over a half-million dollars, and that its typical condo will rent for above $2,000 a week, more than double what a comparable oceanfront villa now rents for on Jekyll. Furthermore, the largest of Linger Longer’s three hotels (400 rooms) will have an average daily room rate of $183 and well over $200 in the summer season, when Georgians typically vacation on Jekyll. Linger Longer’s ‘economy’ hotel (the one for “average Georgians“) has 125 rooms and is located as far from the beach as the town center development site would allow. In fact, its rear end is hanging off the west side of the 45-acre development tract.

Mr. Langford implies that Linger Longer loves affordability, stating that 72% of the town center’s rooms will be priced under $139 a night. What he does not say is that this figure only holds true if each room in a rental condo is counted separately and then averaged in with hotel rooms.

Mr. Langford labels those who are opposed to Linger Longer’s commercialization of Jekyll’s most popular beach as people who “don’t want anything to change on the island.” The truth is surveys show that Jekyll’s friends favor responsible revitalization of the island, including hotel reconstruction, convention center redevelopment, enhancement of family dining opportunities, expansion of the campground, and further promotion of Jekyll as an ecotourist destination. They do not, however, want to see Linger Longer’s condo/time-share/hotel complex take root along Jekyll’s hallmark open beach.

Mr. Langford describes Senator Jeff Chapman’s recently introduced Jekyll legislation as an attempt to “derail any serious attempts at revitalization” and as serving only “that small number of people who really don’t want ‘average Georgians’ or any other visitors coming to Jekyll Island.”

The truth is Senator Chapman, as most people know, is an outspoken supporter of Jekyll’s revitalization and a long-time friend of “average Georgians.” His legislation would help to ensure that Jekyll is redeveloped in a responsible fashion and remains affordable for most Georgians, allowing more and more people to visit the island and enjoy the splendor of Georgia’s Jewel. Sure, Senator Chapman’s Jekyll bills would protect Jekyll’s public beach from commercialization, but is this a bad thing? Does this constitute “a derailment of revitalization,” or is it just good public policy at work?

Unfortunately, Mr. Langford, in an effort to sell a flawed proposal that would benefit a private developer, has only muddied the waters of the Jekyll development controversy. When fact is separated from fiction, however, the silt disappears and the truth about the Linger Longer project rises to the top. 

Mindy Egan

Co-Director, Initiative to Protect Jekyll Island

Jekyll Island Legislation alert: UPDATED

Senator Jeff Chapman introduced legislation (plus 2 other bills) that will protect the main public beach of Jekyll Island State Park from development. The legislation bans any new development east of Beachview Drive. Information on the legislation can be found in the AJC and Jacksonville Times-Union.

According to the Times-Union:

The first bill limits beachside construction to the footprint of existing hotels. The second prevents any new construction from being used as permanent residences. The third clarifies language from earlier legislation, including how Jekyll should achieve a mandate to keep its amenities affordable to average-income Georgians.

UPDATED: It's imperative that anyone interested in this issue call Senators on the Economic Development Committee:

Chip Pearson, head of the committee; Sen. Rogers; Sen. Carter; Sen. Brown; Sen. Chance; Sen. Hooks; Sen. Thompson; Sen. Mullis; Sen. Schaefer; Sen. Tarver; and Sen. Jackson.

Also, please call your Senator and ask them to support the legislation. Others to call are Lt. Governor Casey Cagle and Senate President Pro Tem Eric Johnson, both of whom favor the Linger Longer/JIA plan.

The Jekyll Island State Park Authority and pro-development advocates are painting this legislation as "effectively stopping the revitalization" of the island. It does no such thing. It protects the main public beach from a massive development unwanted by most of the public, the people who own the island.

The arrogance of the JIA and in particular its chairman, Ben Porter, in working with the public on this issue was nicely summed up in a recent opinion piece from the AJC. In it, Art Hurts says:

"The heated controversy over the master plan for Jekyll Island redevelopment was so unnecessary, so predictable and so avoidable that we must ask ourselves, "What were they thinking?"

He goes on to point out that "With regard to the master plan for redevelopment, JIA has willfully and systematically excluded the public from any participation in the planning process."

Interestingly, in 2006 the Jekyll Island State Park Authority did a guest survey which is included in their 2006 Annual Report. Among other things, the 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."

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 endorsed proposal would be a good idea. Go figure.

Please call committee Senators and your own Senator, along with Lt. Gov. Cagle and Sen. Eric Johnson. Please ask them to support Senator Chapman's legislation. Redevelopment is already taking place all over the island. We need to protect the people's state park.

The 2006 Jekyll Island Guest Survey

As lojo points out, the 2006 guest survey can be found in the 2006 annual report. Among other things, the 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."

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.

Good point on Jekyll Island development

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!

How should development take place?

What type? How much? Where? At what price? All good questions. 

The biggest problem I have with the LLC town center proposal (although I have many problems with it) is that they solved none of those questions with public input. They presented a massive plan then asked people to react to it. Now they say they are open to public input but it seems like they don't really care if people don't like it. They argue for the development to be on the beach in a way that makes me feel it's a done deal, they aren't even considering where else they might put it. Oh, they might save the children's playground or something; but the main plan will stay as is. At least that's my impression.

It's worth repeating over and over that most people who know anything at all about the island agree that revitalization needs to happen. And, there are properties being redeveloped as I type (see post below). So why such a massive development on the beach? From what I can tell, it's because development consultants said that's where it should go. Not the public. Jim Langford and Eric Garvy stated that in a recent radio interview. But what if a development- scaled down to be more in character of the island- was located somewhere else? Say, on one of the golf courses? Would people still come if the new development wasn't on the beach? Of course they would. Absolutely. And one of the unique selling point of Jekyll would remain intact; it's beautiful main beach free of the same hotels and condos that clutter other destinations up and down the east coast.

So. What type? How much? Where? At what price?

While hotels on the island are upgrading or being rebuilt, there's definitely room for one or two more. I'm less opposed to condos than most but I think it should be about 3/4 hotels to 1/4 condos. And being the lover of good food that I am, it would be great to have some more dining options. As for retail, I don't really know what else would be needed. Upgrading or completely rebuilding the strip mall area would be nice but adding more? Between the mall and the historic district, most retail is kind of covered. 

Even if you are for more development, there's an alternative to placing it directly on the beach. Clayton Porter, an island resident and successful businessman whose business is actually on the island, wrote an interesting counter proposal the LLC/JIA which works in the parameters of the RFP the JIA originally sent out.

He suggests that the development be moved inland; re-working 2 golf courses, a 9-hole and an 18-hole. His idea is to take 9 holes of the 18-hole course, which adds up to around 45-acres (what the original RFP called for) and put the new convention center, hotel and town center there. The remaining 9 holes could be combined with the other 9 hole course to create a spectacular golfing facility, one that would surely be a destination if done correctly (and if you know anything about LLC, they can do golf courses).

Porter says that "Once the project is completed then demolish the existing Convention Center and Shopping Center. Allow the area where the Convention Center and Shopping Center are located to return to Nature."

Some of his supporting points include: 

• Convention Center, Hotel(s), Condos, Time Shares and Shopping would be centralized within walking distance of the Historic District and the golf course. 
• Existing roads could provide adequate avenues for transit. 
• Visitors traveling east on Fortson Pkwy would have a great view of the Atlantic Ocean as they near Beachview Drive. 
• If Jekyll Island is hit by a major storm we may avoid extensive clean up of the beach area where structures may be destroyed.  If you have ever seen the clean up process of heavily damaged structures on a beach after a hurricane you may know that it can be more devastating than the damage caused by the storm. 
• Many Guests could have beautiful lakeside views. 
• Hatchling Sea Turtles would not be drawn to the lighting that will be necessary if additional structures are allowed to be constructed along ocean. 
• Many trees may be saved as areas of the golf course are already open where building could be constructed. 
• Shops, grocery store, pharmacy, hardware store and post office would be closer to the areas where most of the residents live. 
• Building the new shopping area and Convention Center Complex near the Historic District will provide a broader range of activities for visitors during their stay on Jekyll. 
• The Fire Department would be closer to the Convention Center Hotel. 
• All Jekyll visitors, whether they are here for the day, week or month will have adequate beachside parking.

He contends that visitors staying in the area that desire to go to the beach can walk, bike, drive or take a scheduled tram that the JIA may provide for a fee.In closing, Porter says, "We currently have Villas by the Sea, Jekyll Oceanfront Clarion, Beachview Club, Oceanside, Days Inn and soon the Jekyll Islands Club’s new hotel, Canopy Bluff and potentially a hotel at the old Ramada site that can accommodate visitors that want to be near the Beach." 

Sounds good, depending on the size. And again, would people come? Yes. Of course. Isn't that the point?