For reference: David Egan wrote:
http://savannahnow.com/node/468722 - and includes a picture of the parking lot. And the legislation can be found here: http://www.legis.state.ga.us/legis/2007_08/sum/sb367.htm
Jekyll resident David Egan is right about one thing in his March 26 letter to the editor entitled “House Should OK bill preserving Jekyll,” the Georgia General Assembly holds the key to the future of Jekyll Island. Either Jekyll Island will continue its downward spiral or investment will be made in infrastructure and accommodations that will bring Georgians back to this precious resource.
Decades ago state leaders had the foresight to pass a law mandating that 65% of this barrier island remain in its natural state and never be developed. Just last year, more restrictions were put in place to limit any redevelopment on the south end of the Island. The public ignored the fact that this additional protection benefitted a Jekyll resident who funds the Jekyll Citizen’s Association lobbying efforts at the Capitol. This year, this same select group of individuals, most of whom live full-time on the Island they like to call a “state park” (no other state park has residences), have decided that even more restrictions should be put in place. They believe that vacationers should not be able to stay in accommodations along the shoreline, which is, of course, where most people would naturally like to stay. This group of individuals has started a campaign to “save” what essentially is a large asphalt parking lot along the beach. What they really want to do is stop the beach village project.
To the dismay of the Coastal Resources Division of the Georgia Department of Natural Resources, the environmental lobby hijacked a bill last week that reauthorizes the Georgia Coastal Management Act, which brings in millions of dollars in federal grants that are critical to protecting vital areas of the coast. An amendment was tacked on that would limit development in the area of this parking lot to nothing but picnic tables and bathrooms. If this misguided amendment were to become law, the Jekyll Island Authority could not even construct the proposed Environmental Discovery Center or Oceanside playground on this property, much less improved bike paths, beach concession areas, improved landscape or even plant trees.
Enough is enough. The vast majority of Georgians wants to see responsible redevelopment of Jekyll Island and do not share the views of the minority who want to close the gate behind them so that they may enjoy their own utopia. The Jekyll Island Authority has no intention of blocking access to the beach, no intention lining the beach with condos and no intention of letting Jekyll fall further into disrepair. This Authority intends to facilitate the most environmentally-friendly development on the eastern seaboard for the 35% of the Island that may be improved. Georgians of all incomes will have a variety of choices in accommodations. The Georgia General Assembly should not allow a small group of residents and some in the environmental lobby to affect policy to the detriment of hundreds of thousands of Georgians who want to see Jekyll Island returned to its heyday.
Ben Porter
Chairman, Jekyll Island Authority
Tags: jekyll island development, jekyll island revitalization, Senate Bill 367 Amendment
This entry was posted
on Friday, March 28th, 2008 at 12:34 pm and is filed under In the News, Just the Facts.
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
March 28th, 2008 at 2:08 pm
Got a question for you, Mr. Porter. You state that must Georgians want to see the JIA move a head with Linger Longer’s plan. Where do you get you numbers? What I am hearing is just the opposite.
March 28th, 2008 at 2:16 pm
I am anxious to see the revised plans for the redevelopment of Jekyll. When will they be available? It is such a relief to know that the JIA has “no intention of lining the beach with condos”.
BUT you know that the controversy has nothing to do with the parking lot, and when you lead people to believe that then it really discredits your potentially noble cause of making Jekyll the best that it can be.
I would love to see an Environmental Discovery Center, an Oceanside playground on this property, improved bike paths, and concession areas. However, I don’t think that trees and improved landscaping are necessary - I mean, really - how can you improve on the beauty of that ocean view?
March 28th, 2008 at 3:28 pm
March 28th, 2008 at 7:09 pm
March 28th, 2008 at 8:50 pm
Again, I ask, where are you getting your numbers? City of Brunswick, Glynn Co Commission, Chamber of Commerence ARE NOT most Georgians! Most Georgians oppose Linger Longer’s plans. I have attended Linger Longer’s presentation that was held on Jekyll, less than 12 people out of the approx 500 that were there thought that LL’s plan was good for Jekyll Island and the average Georgian. I was the one who asked the question!
Again I ask Mr. Porter, where are you getting your numbers? COuld it be from the survey that JIA passed out in Beachscape mag at the Island’s entrance several yrs. ago? Never did see the results published. Could it be that JIA’s results are the same as the results that the Initiative to Protect Jekyll Island’s survey?
March 28th, 2008 at 9:59 pm
March 29th, 2008 at 9:11 am
Your magic is to remove all of what makes this place unique and to put in place buildings on the sensitive dune area, take out the natural growth and make the place look like a Caribbean island.
Look I understand that you are doing your job. Could you just go do it some place else.
What you want is to make a profit off this island that IS PUBLIC land. If you are so sure of your plan, how about putting to the people in a vote. Let us evaluate both positions and let all of the people of Georgia vote on it. That island does not belong to the people of Brunswick, the legislators in Atlanta, or those who have homes on Jekyll. It belongs to all the people of Georgia, and all of us should vote on it’s future. Of course, if you don’t think you can make your case to the people of Georgia, then it would be your best bet to just convince those in Atlanta.
March 29th, 2008 at 9:49 am
Let me correct and respond to some of your statments:
1. The dune system is protected under Georgia law, and these protections are embraced by the Jekyll Island Authority and our partners. None of our plans call for construction that will harm the dune system.
2. Much of the conservation components of the beach village concept plan work towards restoring dune areas and wetlands that were disturbed when the original roads and parking lots were built in the 1950’s.
3. The Jekyll Island Authority has design guidelines that dictate architectural style which are in keeping with the eclectic mix of architecture found in the Jekyll Island Historic District. Much of this is classic cottage style with shingle roofs and clapboard siding. There is a mix of Italian Rennaissance and Queen Anne influences, and even a mix of tabby stucco, which overall gives it a characteristic that is unique to Jekyll. All new construction must comply with our Design Guidelines.
4. The Jekyll Island Authority must generate revenue to care for the island, including the 250-acre Historic District and the dozens of historic structures. Even though these are public assets, the trend in state government is to rely on private or philanthropic sources for funding. Jekyll Island receives no regular funding from the state budget.
5. In order to attract private capital and investment, reasonable profits must be made possible. In today’s world, projects compete with the stock market for Return on Investment. So, yes, profit is an important element of getting private investment to the island. Private investment is needed to redevelop the aging shopping center, hotels and any other commercial structures. In a free and open market, it is profitable companies that typically provide higher quality service. On Jekyll, we have had hotels that went bankrupt and we suffered the negative impact of poor service and lack of re-investment.
6. The island does belong to the people of Brunswick, the legislators in Atlanta (and from across the state), the residents of the island. You are right, it belongs to ALL citizens of Georgia.
7. Since the Jekyll Island Authority is an entity of state government, citizens can make their desires known to their elected representatives, including the Governor. As with most issues, the General Assembly serves to carry out the wishes of the citizens. Not much would get done if every decision was put to a statewide referendum. The Governor and the Legislative leadership including the Jekyll Oversight Committee have expressed support for what we are doing. If it were practical, I would be happy to present our final plans to all the people of Georgia. We are very comfortable that we are doing what meets the desires of the majority of Georgia citizens. We understand however that we will not make everyone happy.