So What's It Gonna Be?

Eric Garvey said... 

I'm glad you took the time to respond to the previous comments, and compliment you on your reason. Jekyll Island has become a very emotional issue for some, and their emotion has caused some to use distortion and insults. I'm glad you are not intimidated by that.

I am with the Jekyll Island Authority, and though I won't attempt to answer all your questions with this comment, I would like to make an interesting point for you to consider.

Some use the term "state park" to describe Jekyll Island, and have back up in that the term is actually in official name of the Authority. But it is clear that Jekyll Island is not a state park in the common or traditional sense. It diverted from that the moment private homes were allowed to be built. That diversion continued with the addition of more hotels and shopping centers to accommodate private businesses. This occurred in the 1960s primarily, and the information from that time period clearly indicates the desire for Jekyll Island to compete with Florida destinations for tourists. One can assume the public supported this effort as it happened fairly quickly and with fanfare.

Presumably to support this direction, Jekyll Island was not made part of the state park system and instead was put under the management of the Jekyll Island - State Park Authority.

Interestingly, some people who try to promote this idea that Jekyll Island is a state park and therefore should not be further developed actually own homes on the island. If there is any issue that is clearly inconsistent with the definition of a state park it is the ability to own a private residence in the "park." If one wants to begn to reverse the initiatives of the 1960s that attempted to turn Jekyll Island into a resort, then you should start with discussiong the removal of private residences. Or perhaps selling the private residences.

Of course, no one wants to go in that direction. And the fact is that most people share your reasonable perspective - that Jekyll Island can be managed properly as a unique destination, balancing progressive and limited development that fully leverages the wonderful natural resources and cultural resources, allowing more people to discover and enjoy. Plenty more discussion is needed, and lots of issues remain to be resolved. And they will be, especially by reasonable people providing intelligent insight - not ranting and raving... Thanks for your concern for Jekyll Island.

February 2, 2008 11:07 AM


Jekyll Boy said... 

Eric

Thank you for your insightful response. You touch upon an extremely sensitive issue that has not gotten much play in the overall discussion--specifically, the issue of the homeowner/residents. 

This provides a nice segue into an idea that to date has not (at least publicly) been given serious consideration. This will probably generate some serious heat, but damn the torpedos. 

If we really care about preserving Jekyll Island's ecosystems and the environment, let's look at removing anything that doesn't belong there naturally. 

Think about that for a moment. No private homes. No hotels and restaurants. No Convention Center. No Shopping Center. No golf courses or tennis. No airport. No marinas. No Historic District. No roads. No nothin'.

Historians will step up and say 'you can't do that, those historic homes and structures are part of our heritage.' Many people might agree. So let's just remove anything that was built after 1947 when the state purchased the island. 

Residents will say, 'you can't do that, this is my home. I've supported this island for years through my volunteer work, etc.' Many people might agree. Jekyll Island's residents have given a lot to make it what it is today. 

Visitors will say, 'you can't do that. We need roads to get around. We need restrooms. We like the bike paths and the nature center.' Many people might agree. After all, what good is having a place like Jekyll Island if you can't enjoy it?

So, at the end of the day where does that leave you? Improve the facilities you've got? The state has been doing so for the past few years -- check out the facilities at St. Andrews and Clam Creek. They are a VAST improvement over what they replaced. 

Knock down all the modern (and I use that term loosely) hotels and leave pristine beaches? Where will the visitors stay? Ditto for the stores. Where will people buy beer and fishing gear? Same for the restaurants and marinas. 

What about the private homes? They are by no means accessible to "common" or "average" Georgians. Maybe the state (we) should buy them back and knock them all down. It cost the state $675,000 to purchase the island in the 1940s. Can you imagine how much it will cost us to buy out nearly 1,000 residents?

It doesn't take much to see that this is NOT a simple issue. It is not going to be resolved through name-calling, political posturing or the like. The decisions are not going to be easy, and some -- perhaps a lot -- of people aren't going to like them. 

So, what's it gonna be?

-- Jekyll Boy

February 2, 2008 2:23 PM