Correcting Incorrect Statements
Regarding the opinion letter by David Egan on February 11, there are many incorrect statements need to be corrected:
- The Jekyll Island State Park Authority has been working with the concept of a “town center” (that is land-planner lingo, not ours) since 2005, not in recent months.
- The Authority asked for proposals through a public Request For Proposals. Linger Longer Communities did not introduce the plan unsolicited, it was a result of the RFP that was brought about in the course of a very deliberate and paced revitalization initiative that began with the Jekyll Island Master Plan Update in 2004.
- Public opinion given to the Authority is strongly in support of the
- There is nothing to substantiate the claim that the Authority’s traffic figures are incorrect or that the methodology changed. There is a variety of data that reflects a decline in visitation over the past 16 years that is on the order of 50%. None of the data is a specific traffic count, so there have been many attempts at estimating actual visitation. The visitation number posted on the compiled statistics takes the vehicle count, and multiplies by the “average party size” recorded in the prevailing guest survey of that particular year. This is not an actual number, and the JIA has only used this to look at a long-term trend.
- A new Convention Center and Convention Center Hotel are key components of the “town center”, which is more accurately described as a beach village. These new facilities are the top priority in order to achieve revitalization as they will attract conventions that once met on
- Outside of the
- The Authority has not placed a label on its critics, but is being clear that Sen. Chapman’s legislation would effectively stop the revitalization of
- The
Misinformation has been generating negative bias towards the Jekyll Island State Park Authority, Linger Longer Communities and our plans for the revitalization of
Tags: , atlanta journal constitution editorial, jekyll island, jekyll island facts, jekyllislandfacts.com
February 18th, 2008 at 4:51 pm
In response to lori’s comment:
A new convention center and a convention center hotel are not only key components of the LL plan, but they are actually very good ideas. Conventioneers bring lots of $. This is an excellent part of the Master Plan. I love the potential contribution to the revitalization of Jekyll that an improved convention center and hotel would bring. It’s a great idea to encourage off-season and mid-week facility and lodging business. That should help with the revenue necessary to operate in the black. You guys really know what you are doing with some of this plan. How important is a beachside location of this convention center hotel? Will the entire revitalization plan fall apart if conventioneers aren’t able to stay at a beachside hotel? Also, Kevin Udell indicated that there had been a substantial increase in the planned size of the convention center. When can the public expect to see the most recent changes to the proposed re-development plans? Please help me to understand how Senator Chapmans’s bills would stop the revitalization of Jekyll Island. I have read the bills, and I don’t see anything indicating that it would stop the revitalization plans. It is clear that the revitalization plans would have to be re-worked. But this just may be the best thing that could happen to Jekyll and the JIA. If we are going to do this the right way, then there is no need to hurry up and get it done, right?
I would like to reply:
The new Convention Center Hotel is a critical component of revitalization, as it is a key to the future of our convention business. I would suggest that having this new hotel adjacent to the beach will give it the highest likelihood of success. It also seems to make sense to have the hotel adjacent to the beach rather than the actual convention center. It is important to note the concept plan has all new construction behind the dune system and the public beachside promenade. Will the whole plan fall apart? Probably not, but we do want to have the best plan possible.
Under the concept plan, the new Convention Center would be 75,800 sq. ft. in the first phase, and a second phase would be considered if it made business sense, adding potentially another 65,275 sq. ft. The current Convention Center is 55,000 sq. ft.
Work has begun on revisions to the Beach Village plan, and is has been announced that we could have a new plan in March. There are many parts to this, and I would be inclined to think it will be a little later than that.
Sen. Chapman’s legislation - SB426, SB427 and SB428 - would stop our current revitalization efforts. Our current efforts depend on engaging a private partner that will bring substantial private investment. With the price controls and the limitation on any new condominiums or cottages, we would not expect to attract the needed private investment. The legislation also re-classifies land that is identified as “developable” in our current Master Plan, and places further restrictions on this land. The Master Plan has been one of our guiding documents in our revitalization efforts. I agree we should take the time to get things right, and I think we will. But we don’t need legislation.