Comments on: Correcting Incorrect Statements http://blog.jekyllisland.com/in-the-news/just-the-facts/correcting-incorrect-statements/ Events, Musings, & Just the Facts About Jekyll Island Sun, 08 Nov 2009 01:04:41 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.7.1 hourly 1 By: eric.garvey http://blog.jekyllisland.com/in-the-news/just-the-facts/correcting-incorrect-statements/comment-page-1/#comment-299 eric.garvey Mon, 18 Feb 2008 21:51:08 +0000 http://blog.jekyllisland.com/in-the-news/just-the-facts/correcting-incorrect-statements/#comment-299 <strong>In response to lori's comment:</strong> <em>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?</em> <strong>I would like to reply:</strong> 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. 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.

]]>