I’m intrigued by your reference to the need for “a clear plan, a clear set of tools and vision to define an alternative that can be both environmentally and economically sustainable for the island,” and I thank you for your offer to provide more information on the tools you refer to and the examples you cite.
As you may know, our organization, IPJI, has been a long-time supporter of the idea that conservation groups should play a major role in crafting designs and plans for Jekyll’s future so as to ensure that necessary park improvements—including hotel redevelopment and a convention center upgrade—take place without infringing upon Jekyll’s environmentally sensitive areas and wildlife habitats. The trick, however, has been getting the JIA to agree to give conservation and environmental groups a leading role in the Jekyll revitalization process rather than just allow public comment on designs and plans already crafted. As IPJI’s most recent newsletter points out, JIA board adoption of a Jekyll Island Conservation Plan has been bogged down for over a year, largely because the initial version of the plan drew fire from environmental groups for its lack of substance. We’ve repeatedly asked the board to come to terms with the conservation plan, and we’ve repeatedly been told that the Plan is not a high priority item for the board at this point in time.
You may not know that the JIA has recently adopted building and design guidelines which allow for building height to reach 64 feet and has smiled on a density level that seems inconsistent with the state park’s character. When I hear JIA board members talk about a daily summer population of 15,000+ on this tiny island, I begin to wonder if the board has any understanding of what the end result of the forecasted “build out” might be, other than the amount of revenue that might be generated by the development projects being suggested.
Next month’s JIA board meeting may witness the resurrection of the shelved Conservation Plan. If that happens, there may be an opportunity for public review, which would give us a chance to provide input along the lines you have suggested. If there is to be public involvement of this type, I would like to draw upon you as a source of information and examples.
