Privatization of Jekyll Island: A 'fair' solution?

benjycompson said:

I agree it is not a simple issue, but there is a simple solution that IMO is practical, and moral.

Jekyll Island does not belong to the people. JI belongs to the State. the state bought it in '47. The State should sell JI, by open auction, fee simple, back into the private free market from which it was taken. 

Conservation groups, that belive, as you seem to believe, that the ideal JI should be pristine, would be allowed to bid, just as anyone else, on all or parts of the island. The amount of support for this kind of conservation would be reflected in the amount of money raised toward the effort. This would give an instant guage of the demand for every conceiveable type of land use imagineable, and would equitably allocate the Island to each group.

This is the only "fair" solution, and would be far superior IMO, to the Communistic arrangement now in place.

Very interesting idea. Can you imagine the money that would be generated by the State of Georgia if it was to sell Jekyll Island? Can you imagine the lawsuits that would take place? The fights in the legislature? What would a privately owned (a la St. Simons Island or Sea Island) Jekyll Island look like? 

How about this idea -- Keep the 65 percent that is supposed to be preserved (pristine), but sell the remaining 35 percent to private owners. Someone would have to figure out which parts could be sold, and which would remain undeveloped. Perhaps the parts that are already developed could be sold, and the undeveloped parts remain under state ownership as a nature preserve. It would likely involve many lawsuits and much consternation, but may in fact be a sensible idea.

I am intrigued by your opening statement: "Jekyll Island does not belong to the people. JI belongs to the State." Taken literally, one might interpret that to mean that the state -- or its agents (Jekyll Island Authority) -- should be free to do whatever it pleases with the island. Further, that the people really have no say in what happens to Jekyll Island. 

Hmmmmmmm....... Can't wait to see what kind of response that generates. Stay tuned.

JB

Nobody's right if everybody's wrong

benjycompson said...

Interesting that many of the folks that are so vocally against the use of eminent domain in the jail issue are all for the State ownership of Jekyll, which was taken by eminent domain in 1947.

Guess it depends on WHO benefits huh?


I'm not sure that is entirely true, on several counts. From what I've read and heard from the Defend Downtown Brunswick people, their beefs revolve around a variety of issues, not the least of which is their perception that the County Commission has not been entirely forthright in its handling of the matter. 

Some people don't want to see a multi-block long correctional facility in the middle of downtown. Some people don't think you need to spend $25 million or more for a correctional facility when it can be done for less. If you asked them, I rather doubt that they would see the connection between taking up land for the land and taking an island for recreational use. 

I don't disagree with your statement about beneficiaries ... in these (and many other) matters, you truly have to "follow the money."  I'm just not sure you can easily combine one issue with another.

JB

The Whole World's Watching...

Okay, so it likely won't be a repeat of the 1968 Chicago Democratic Convention. Nonetheless, tonight's planned demonstration, by foes of the Glynn County Commission's plans to exand the jail in downtown Brunswick, should draw a good turnout. 

The event, which is being organized by Defend Downtown Brunswick, will take place at 5:30 pm on G Street at the old Glynn County Courthouse. An email from the group states that they "have the attention of regional media" and that they have made contact with local state legislators who, they claim, "are showing a renewed interest." The email further advises that "if the Glynn County Board of Commissioners does not concede to a change in the location of the jail expansion after this week, we will have a new strategy that we will announce to you next week."

I attended a recent meeting in which Defend Downtown Brunswick leaders raised a lot of pertinent questions. Among them, why did the County Commission reverse course after hiring (at great expense to the taxpayers) a consultant that recommended against expanding the downtown jail? Why did the Commission wait until Feb. 7, 2008 to pass a formal resolution in support of the jail, months after the decision was made and announced? Why was there no public discussion of the matter prior to the decision being made? Does the County Commission really know -- based on actual construction bids, etc -- how much the expansion is going to cost? 

These are but a very few of the questions that have been asked, and for which no good answers have been given. 

This harkens back to the Commission's decision to build a teen center on public park land on St. Simons Island a couple of years ago. It was a bad decision, made without public input. In response to what appeared to be a testosterone-fueled refusal by the Commissioners to reconsider, the citizens had to threaten legal action to force a change. The current challenge appears to be more of the same. One would think they would have learned the last time.  

Note that I have not said whether I am for or against expanding the jail in its current location. The Defend Downtown Brunswick folks have made a very compelling argument that deserves serious consideration. They also deserve support in their efforts. The whole world won't be watching and could probably care less. But it is important. 

Stay tuned.

JB

Waiting for something new ...

On Feb. 14, Lojo wrote:

JB - 

Thanks for keeping up with the Jekyll Island "rediscovery" happenings. 

I have been calling and writing my Senators (and yours) to encourage them to support Senator Chapman's legislative attempts to protect Jekyll Island. Thus far, I have only heard back from Senator Eric Johnson. While I do appreciate his effort and the consideration of his response, I disagree with his position on Jekyll's redevelopment. 

Senator Johnson says "The three bills sponsored by Senator Chapman, SB 426, 427, and 428, would prevent the conservative redevelopment and beautification of Jekyll. Instead, they would only allow the island to continue to deteriorate without bringing in the environmentally-sensitive redevelopment needed to keep the island beautiful." 

To the contrary - Senator Chapman's bills do not prevent the conservative redevelopement and beautification of Jekyll. I've read all three of Senator Chapman's bills - one of Chapman's bills basically prevents new development on the beach front of the island and one bans new permanent residences (condos and houses). It doesn't stop complete "environmentally sensitive" redevelopment of existing properties nor does it stop new development proposals on the west side of Beachview Drive, as long as it doesn't encroach on protected land. The other bill attempts to clarify the definitions and the wording used in the original legislative mandate creating the JIA and its authority - the part about keeping Jekyll affordable and available for the common people of Georgia really ticks the JIA and LL off!

These 3 bills combined serve to protect Jekyll during our lifetime and beyond.

I don't know if Senator Johnson is simply misinformed or if he is actually part of the problematic and corrupt political system facing Georgians. I am hoping that he is a victim of misinformation and that he will listen to the citizens of the State on this matter.

I have written back to Senator Johnson and expressed my sincere belief that an oceanfront town center would seriously detract from - and fatally flaw the #1 draw to Jekyll Island, the pristine, unspoiled, and nearly undeveloped public beach. It's been a couple of days and I haven't yet heard back from Senator Johnson. Maybe he's taking my respectfully submitted request for consideration and maybe he's looking into the Jekyll issue...


Thanks, Lojo! It's been awhile since I've written even though there has been a steady stream of news and comment in the local paper and Google News. I haven't lost interest, but I haven't seen anything new that hasn't already been said. I'm awaiting the "new plans" that Jim Langford keeps referring to in the various letters to the editor, etc that I've been reading. I'm really wondering how "new" they'll be, and whether they truly have heard -- and considered -- what I think have been reasonable questions and conerns. We'll just have to wait and see, I guess. 

Stay tuned.


JB

Another challenge...

There is an article on the front page of today's Brunswick News, concerning proposed legislation by Sen. Jeff Chapman that would "effectively derail the $344 million revitalization planned for Georgia's only oceanfront state park, the chair of the Jekyll Island Authority warned Wednesday."

According to the B News, Chapman's draft legislation would 

-- "Prevent additional full-time residences from being built on the state-owned island." (What about part-time residences, for example, condos that are rented when the owners are not using them?)

-- "Create restrictions that would prevent construction of the proposed Beach Village near the waterfront." (Does it preclude development away from the waterfront?)

-- "More strictly define some legal terminology used in defining the redevelopment project, including 'average income.' It would be defined as the state-wide average wagers for workers of all industries."

The article suggests that Chapman's proposal would "seek to handcuff hotel operators in setting room rates through hot it defines certain terms. For example, 'lowest rates reasonable and possible' would mean the average daily rate charged by Jekyll Island hotels could not exceed the average daily rate charged for rooms of the same occupancy at other specified state parks, including Unicoi in Helen."

According to the article, rates for a double occupancy room at the Lodge in Unicoi range from $85 to $100 per night. "Chapman did not include in the measure parks like Stone Mountain, near Atlanta, where overnight rates range from $149 to $449."

I appreciate Sen. Chapman's efforts, and he deserves our support. I've got to wonder, though, whether his proposal mentions specific state parks, as suggested by the B News. If so, why? 

If you want to know more, visit Sen. Chapman's web site: www.jeffchapman.us

-- JB

The people spoke...But was anyone listening?

Lojo wrote: Check out the JIA's 2006 Annual Report. I will include a link to the document at the end of this post. But for your convenience, I have cut and pasted portions of this report. "...From April through June, guests to the island were asked to take a 28 question survey to establish a current guest profile and to gauge public sentiment towards the potential redevelopment. The survey information and survey analysis report were made part of the public Request For Information and compiled and used for a final recommendation for Governor Perdue. Among the interesting profile data obtained, guests overwhelmingly come to Jekyll Island to enjoy beach activities... When asked if they would recommend Jekyll Island to family and friends, over 95% answered in the affirmative. Survey also shows a very positive sentiment towards the condition and care of the island’s natural and cultural resources. 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." The JIA asked visitors to Jekyll what they liked about Jekyll and what they felt was important to them about the island. Only 2.7% of the Jekyll visitors indicated that they felt that the island was "unmanaged and in need of attention". Only 5.2% of those answering the JIA's survey felt that "strict limitations should be eased to allow more developement of new hotels and condos". "...From the RFI process, one thing became abundantly clear - most people who know of Jekyll Island love Jekyll Island and care deeply that it not be overdeveloped." All of this comes straight from the JIA's 2006 Annual Report! I am totally confused. WHY IS THE JIA WORKING SO HARD TO GO AGAINST THE STATED WILL OF THE PUBLIC? Why did they even bother to ask?

A more constructive approach to the Jekyll Island issue

This morning's AJC includes an editorial by Atlanta businessman Art Hurt. In it, he suggests several ideas concerning the conduct of the Jekyll Island discussion. 

In his opening comments, Hurt writes, "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?'" 

"With regard to the master plan for redevelopment, JIA has willfully and systematically excluded the public from any participation in the planning process," Hurt continues. "They have neither sought, nor allowed, any input from the public, and they have ignored pleas from the public for information and for opportunities to submit ideas for consideration for Jekyll's future. They have sought council only with the real estate developers. The public has reacted to being ignored and dismissed. Thus, JIA has created this ugly squabble.

"A logical way to begin such an endeavor would be with widely distributed questionnaires, town hall meetings, hearings, requests for letters of suggested plan components, and the appointment of a citizen committee to collect and compile the wishes of the public into a coherent contribution to the master plan. Then this should go to the developers, architects and engineers in the form of a guideline as to what should be accomplished."

If we want a more reasoned approach to Jekyll Island, Hurt concludes, we must contact the Governor and our state representatives. 

If you don't know how, here's a good place to start: http://www.legis.state.ga.us/ 

This is the official website for the Georgia General Assembly, and includes the names -- and contact information -- for all state senators and representatives.

-- Jekyll boy

An interesting discussion

Lojo recommended that I listen to a radio talk show interview that was hosted by attorney Wilson R. Smith on WLYU-FM, in Lyons GA. It features representatives of some of the major stakeholders in the discussion: Eric Garvey of the Jekyll Island Authority, David Eagan of the Initiative to Protect Jekyll Island, Sen. Jeff Chapman and Jim Langford from Linger Longer. 

It is an hour long, and covers a lot of ground. It is good stuff and well worth the time. You can get to it by clicking on the title above. Enjoy!

-- Jekyll Boy

It's not all Jekyll Island....

Jekyll Island isn't the only place being threatened. Downtown Brunswick is also caught amidst a controversy over expansion of the Glynn County Jail. The controversy pits the Glynn County Commission against Defend Downtown Brunswick, LLC, a group of concerned local citizens, many of whom have a stake in Brunswick and its future. 

DDB is taking its message on the road, and will conduct a town hall informational meeting Tuesday Feb. 5 at 5:30 pm at the Demere Road firehouse on St. Simons Island.

This admittedly is a much more local issue than the Jekyll Island discussion. It is, however, no less important to ALL residents of Glynn County, not just those who live in Brunswick. If you can spare the time, I hope you will come out and hear what they have to say.

-- JB



Please forward message to friends!
Defend Downtown Brunswick, LLC is holding a crucial informational meeting at 5:30 on Tuesday, February 5th at the new Fire Station on Airport Rd. at Demere Rd. on SSI. The Glynn County Commissioners' plans to expand the maximum security prison currently on Newcastle St. will consume initially another 1-2 blocks min. along our downtown waterfront taking down homes and businesses in its path and create a huge brick monolith at the gateway to the Historic District. While there is an alternative 14-acre county owned site recommended by consultants, our County Commissioners seem cavalier about exercising Eminent Domain to acquire all the property needed along Newcastle St. As a business decision, this expansion will devalue surrounding properties, thwart revitalization and restoration efforts, eliminate the opportunity for more appropriate development and lower the city's tax revenue basis. 

The County Commissioners had claimed the decision to expand in the current location was voted on in public session several months ago and that it was already "a done deal". However, it has been revealed that our County Commissioners had been discussing, planning and voting on this issue in closed Executive Session which is in direct violation of the Sunshine Law. There was NO opportunity given for public opinion! 

Please come hear the FACTS, be informed, be vocal: Tuesday, Feb. 5th at 5:30 at Airport Rd. Fire Station on SSI.

Then on Thursday, February 7th at 5:30 come gather with other supporters in front of the County Courthouse at Union St. and G Street to protest the Commissioners' actions. There were over 150 who showed up last month wearing red to protest. It got the attention of our Commissioners. By their own admission now the County Commissioners will be voting to adopt the resolution to build the expansion between I and J Street along the waterfront. They will vote on exercising the use of Eminent Domain to do so as well. It is VITAL to give our County Commissioners a visual showing of opposition. Commissioner Cap Fendig has stepped out in opposition of using government power to condemn private property when there is a viable alternative. The other Commissioners MUST know the people are against this measure. Nearly every other county in Ga. has successfully moved their detention/judicial centers out of their downtown areas. Glynn county should be smart enough to do the same!

Please come protest (permits have been acquired) and attend the County Commissioner's meeting Thursday, Feb. 7th at 5:30 WEAR RED at the County Courthouse at Union St. and G St. Bring your "MOVE THE JAIL" sign or there will be some available for a $5 donation.

Visit www.DefendDowntownBrunswick.com 
258-1588

More good stuff...

Posted February 2, 2008 9:39 PM

Lojo: You did ruffle my feathers with your initial post. No surprise there. In the future, I will try to keep my emotions in check so that we can continue to discuss this very important matter intelligently. I am happy to hear that you care about Jekyll. I really am. I read your response to my hot headed retort, and you seem less like an asshole than you seemed before. You seem to be likeable and intelligent. I am embarrased that I lowered myself to such rhetoric. I think that you and I would probably get along splendidly on other matters. Jekyll Island and the serious threat that it is facing is very important to me, and my blood runs hot on this subject. Please accept my sincere apologies for the previous personal attacks. 

JB: Thanks, Lojo. I know the feeling and I was probably a lot more strident in my first post than necessary. I try to be likeable but will not make any claims towards being intelligent ;-)

Lojo: I am not against changes on Jekyll Island. I am not against improvements. I am not against all commercial development on Jekyll Island. I just don't see the need for additional beachside condos and hotels - especially where they are currently planned to be built. I would rather NOT have hotel(s) and condos THERE. My argument is this - that strip of beach - that only 8% of Jekyll's coast - that only 4000+ feet of sand - - that area should not be further developed. That area is one of the biggest reasons that people come to Jekyll. If visitors want to stay on the beach, they do have those options on Jekyll, and very soon they will have even more beachfront options. OR they could go to St. Simmons, or Hilton Head, or Sea Island. But the people that continue to return to Jekyll are the people that love the island for what it is - a get away from all of the other seaside hubub. That is the draw of Jekyll.

JB: I agree with you. A big part of the beauty of Jekyll Island is to be found in what it's not. Specifically, it's not Ocean City, MD. It's not the Wildwoods. It's not Virginia Beach, Nag's Head, Myrtle Beach, Daytona or most of the other beach destinations I've visited. It is special. It is a (mostly) undiscovered treasure. It is Jekyll Island. We need always to be vigilant of that fact lest we risk ruining that which makes it special. 

Lojo: By the way, the JIA and LLC love to point out what a tiny and insignificant tract of property that this is. SO why don't they just find another 8% of the beach to try to build on? I think it's because they know that this 4000+ feet is the most valuable, and that they stand to make a lot more money on that stretch of land. That is the only part of Jekyll's coast that is accessible at all times and at all tides of the day. 

JB: Another good point. To that, I will add an additional question. Specifically, why do the new facilities have to be ON THE BEACH? If I were investing bucketloads of money to build a place, I think I would want to try to minimize my risk / exposure as much as possible. Jekyll Island is a small place and you are never far from anywhere on foot, by bike or some sort of shuttle. Build them further back, on the other side of Beachview Drive, or further south where the sites are behind the dunes and more protected. From my perspective, there needs to be some more thinking out of the box on this one. 

Lojo: That beach should not be littered with hotels and it should not be littered with luxury condos. They are luxury, by the way. LLC seems to find condos "starting in the $400,000's" to be affordable. I am one of the "common people" of Georgia, and that is not affordable to us. I think you are one of us too. Nobody promised me affordable beachside accomodations, so I am not really mad about the price of the units. It is the location of the units that bothers me. 

JB: It's all relative. To me, $400,000 is not "affordable." Compared to other beachside destinations (see the previous list or check out St. Simons Island), that probably IS a good price. But they don't need to be there.

Lojo: Let me be very honest about my opion on Jekyll: I would prefer for there to be NO additional condos and no more than one additional hotel (not counting the multiple hotels that are currently under rennovation/construction). But if they must be built on Jekyll, I just don't want them to be built on that beautiful beach. I don't want to ruin that beautiful view. 

JB: Agreed. It all goes back to the basics, asking questions and being creative and open-minded ON ALL SIDES of the discussion. As Mick said, "You can't always get what you want." Question is, what do we really need?

Lojo: As far as the JIA operating independently, yes - Jekyll Island is supposed to be a self-sustaining entity. I am pretty sure that JI operated in the black all except for one year. Some improvements on Jekyll are needed. Some of the proposed improvements are just wanted (and totally unecessary) - but all of those aren't bad ideas. But the ones that are bad, are really really bad. I have a question about the self-sustaing part of the "mandate", though. Why did Governor Perdue include some $25million in GA's budget proposal for a supposed self-sustaning entity? Aside from that question - the island is supposed to produce sufficient funds to sustain itself - it was not set up to become an economic engine - especially for private enterprises. 

JB: The Jekyll Island Authority has done some wonderful things in the past ten years, especially in the Historic District and with the "recreational" facilities -- bike paths, restrooms at Clam Creek and St. Andrews, in particular. From my perch it seems they are asked to do a lot with very little. I cannot fathom a guess why Sonny added the funds. Political expediency? An altruistic desire to improve Georgia's Jewel? Given that the government is involved and a cynical belief that nothing is free, I'm inclined to think the former rather than the latter.

Lojo: I want you to hear something. I want you to hear this interview. It has Eric Garvey, Jim Langford, David Eagan, and Senator Jeff Chapman all sitting down on a conference call discussing Jekyll, the JIA, and LLC's proposal. I found it enlightening. Please let me know what you think after you listen. 

http://www.whatisgoinon.com/podcast/2008/01/25/jekyll-island-showdown-chapman-egan-langford-garvey/#comment-312

JB: I would very much like to hear it. I'm sure it is indeed enlightening. Unfortunately, I am not able to connect to the site for some reason. I will keep trying. In the meantime, let's keep it going. 

Thanks for writing!

-- Jekyll Boy

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

Lotsa Unanswered Questions

"Indian" wrote:

Jekyll Boy You just don't get it! The real issue is not about cost. The main and mainly ignored issue is the proposed overdevelopment on a fragile barrier that decidedly cannot support a tripling of population.

JB: I do get it, and I agree with you. The environmental issues are not being addressed to the same degree as other topics. And that's just ONE issue. I think there are a number of really basic issues/questions that need to be addressed. Among them,

-- Jekyll Island is defined as a "state park." What does that mean?

-- As a state park, what kind of amenities / facilities should be provided for visitors?

-- Is Jekyll Island just for Georgians? Coastal Georgians? People from Atlanta? Rich people? Poor people? White people? Black people?

-- It has been stated that Jekyll Island exists for the benefit and use of 'common' Georgians. What does that mean?

-- If we are indeed concerned about preserving Jekyll Island's environment, how far are we willing to go in that endeavor?

Yes, I am aware of the Master Plan which attempts to answer some of these questions. But most people are NOT aware of that plan, and are focusing on a small portion of the issues.

INDIAN: Yes the common developers stance that the island's amenities need replacement is true. But replacement does not mean development to such levels as proposed. That style of builders overreaching will seriously diminish or possibly destroy the native natural habitat and reduce this place to the level of so many of the coastal "Developed" beach fronts and barrier islands.

JB: Do you really believe that these people are that insensitive? Is it possible that they may realize that Jekyll Island's unspoiled beaches, etc are what make it truly special, and that by destroying that they are diminishing the value of their efforts? (Before someone jumps in and accuses me of being on "their side," I am not. But slow down. Think seriously and objectively.)

INDIAN: Jekyll Island has one of the most biomes on the Atlantic coast and should be maintained. The only real benefit to the proposed extensive constructions will be to the corporate developers. Georgia citizens will pay the tax burden necessary to finance the necessary increase in infrastructure and services. It is time to put an end to the rampant mind set that believes in "ANYTHING DOE A BUCK and TOO MUCH IS NEVER ENOUGH. It is unfortunate that many of our elected government representatives have been captured by these ideals.

JB: I agree that Jekyll Island's environment MUST be maintained. I do not agree, however, that 'corporate developers' will be the only beneficiaries. It boils down to what we want Jekyll Island to be. It potentially impacts the jobs and livelihoods of those who work on Jekyll Island. It potentially impacts Jekyll Island visitors, some of whom might actually WANT modern facilities, etc. Are those impacts positive or negative? Guess it depends on your point of view. AGAIN, what do we want Jekyll Island to be?

INDIAN: The local merchants would be wise to remember how little income was actually derived by the recent presence of the G-8 conference. It is reasonable to assume that many of the present retail establishments will be supplanted by strong national retail franchises. "The Wal-Mart effect"

JB: I'm not sure what the G8 has to do with this discussion. I do know it was not the financial windfall for the state that was suggested. Did it raise Georgia's stature on the radar of people looking for places to visit? Probably not; effective marketing requires much more than a single event. Regarding the 'Wal-Mart Effect,' I've seen comments that suggest Wal-Mart, Target, Old Navy and other national chains are going to take over on Jekyll Island and kick the mom-and-pop business out. I seriously doubt that. We just got a Target in Brunswick, and it struggles.

INDIAN: From the developers, planners, JIA and government offices there is also a decided failure to answer the question of how the available aquifer allocation can support the population increase. The present and past usage has been in the upper 90% of allowed daily water drawdown.

JB: I would guess the reason is because they do not know. Seems to me that is a CRUCIAL PART of the puzzle. The availability of fresh water is a serious issue, even here on the coast where we are surrounded by it. Look at metro Atlanta's water troubles. Failure to deal with this is more than folly, it should be considered criminal.

INDIAN: The above items need rational attention devoid of the profit motive. We will likely never be able to reclaim the natural heritage for which we are about to abandon our stewardship duty.

JB: Never say never. You can always get rid of stuff, and Mother Nature will reclaim the land. It's a lot harder to undo damage to the aquafier, etc. but even it will heal over time. Unfortunately, you and I might not be around to see that day. Thank you for helping to carry on the dialogue in an objective way. Stay tuned.

-- Jekyll Boy

Yes, I Care

As expected, I ruffled some feathers with my comments. Good. That's what we're here for. But don't get personal about it. 


"Lojo" wrote:
u seem to be mad that someone actually enjoyed the beach "virtually free"! you even go so far as to say that because they didn't spend a lot of money on jekyll that "this one's kind of a non-starter". maybe you aren't an asshole - but you sure sound like one with that attitude.

My response: First, I'm sorry you feel it necessary to stoop to name-calling. I'm not mad that someone enjoyed the beach for little or no cost. More power to them; they are blessed in their ability to do so. It does point to some serious issues that are not being addressed by the state, however. More on that later.

Lojo: "If you want a room on the beach - and if your mommy will pay for it -I suggest you go to any one of the many other beaches in the nation that feature beachside accomodations. This is a state park, and there is no need to try to turn this park into an economic engine."

My response: Ah, more personal jabs. I don't make $150,000 a year -- not even close. I am blessed to have a very generous mother-in-law who occasionally invites her family to join her in her travels. It has allowed us to see and do many things we might not otherwise. Not that I should have to explain that ... You're right about it being a state park. My understanding -- AND I ADMIT THAT I AM NOT AN EXPERT -- is that the Jekyll Island Authority, which operates Jekyll Island is expected to be self-supporting financially. Thus, they are mandated to some degree to be an "economic engine."

Lojo: Part of the mandate is that Jekyll be preserved for the "common people of Georgia". But why would you care about them? Let's keep the poor people away from your desired luxury accomodations. We don't want anyone making less than $150,000 obstructing your view of the Ritz Carlton.

My response: First, who are the 'common people' of Georgia? Second, I don't recall saying that I desire 'luxury' accommodations. I've never stayed at a Ritz-Carlton, nor do I have any burning desire to do so. I'd rather hang out with real people who aren't out to impress everyone with their wealth, titles, etc. I do care about Jekyll Island and what happens to it, a hell of a lot in fact. But if there is to be a serious dialogue about this we need to objectively examine ALL the issues without resorting to personal attacks.

-- Jekyll Boy

Financial interests?

As I expected my own 'rant' about Jekyll Island and the ongoing discussion generated some thoughtful responses. Here are my responses.

"Joan" wrote: 

Jekyll Boy, is your other nom de plume Jim Langford? Or Ben Porter? Or someone else with a financial stake in the LL resort? Fess Up

My response: No. I have no financial stake in Linger Longer or any other companies that do business on Jekyll Island.

Jekyll Island

Part of what led to the idea for this blog is the ongoing discussion about Jekyll Island, GA and its future. This is far too long and complicated an issue to discuss in a limited time. However, I saw something in this morning's Tifton (GA) Gazette that got me thinking. In the "Rant and Rave" column was the following comment:

“At present, you do not have to be ‘rich’ financially to enjoy Jekyll Island. My family is far from wealthy; however, we have spent many virtually free weekends at Jekyll Island, enjoying the sun, sand and surf on a beautiful public beach, Little money was spent, but the adventure offered a world of emotional and family wealth to a family that would otherwise never spent any time on a beach. The deal is the island is Georgia history, and some things don't need to be developed. It is your personal choice to enjoy or not, and it is a freedom that should not be taken away.” 

First, in all the proposals that I have seen for Jekyll Island, I have not seen anything to suggest that people will no longer be able to enjoy the island for little or no cost. Yes, there will probably be new hotels, shops, etc. Yes, it will probably cost more to stay in these new hotels than it does to stay in the present facilities. This person's comment, however, leads me to think he or she does not stay in hotel of spend a lot of money in Jekyll Island's shops and restaurants. In short, this one's kind of a non-starter.

Secondly, where did people get the idea that they are entitled to an "affordable" rate for Jekyll Island's hotels? Do they think, because it is a "state park" that they are entitled to a room near the beach (ON the beach would be even better) for less than $100 a night (which, by the way, would be a stretch for a lot of people, "average" or not). My family visited two national parks last summer: Yellowstone and Grand Tetons. We stayed in the Old Faithful Inn, and the Jackson Lodge. These were by no means inexpensive accommodations. Frankly, I couldn't have afforded to stay in them but we were there on someone else's tab (Thanks, mom).

The point is this: Just because they are in NATIONAL PARKS, owned by YOU and ME, I did NOT feel that it was my "right" to stay there at a reduced rate. Likewise, Georgia residents -- the owners of Jekyll Island -- should not expect to stay there for an unrealistic ("affordable") rate.

Certainly this will probably offend some people, and frankly I look forward to the dialogue. Stay tuned.

-- Jekyll Boy

Welcome!

Georgia Coast Scramble was influenced, in part, by a concoction produced by my mother-in-law every holiday season. Comprising a mix of Cheerios, three or four flavors of Chex, pretzel sticks and mixed nuts, most people know it as 'Chex Mix.' Scramble suits me more, and is probably far less likely to be subject to some weird copyright violation. The Georgia Coast part is due to the fact that this is where I make my home. 

I have no specific mission or topics in mind; rather, I will post things that amuse me, annoy me or simply make me think. In other words, a scramble. If you find something here that tickles your fancy or riles you up, great. Constructive dialogue is welcome. Name-calling, personal attacks and the like are not. 

So, welcome aboard!

Jekyll Boy