magnolia
Registered: 01/18/09
Posts: 9
|
|
|
Reply with quote | #1 |
I know new development will bring new jobs which in turn will energize the economy, blah, blah, blah. I think what upsets those of us who are not against revitalization (but are for a responsible revitalization) is that Jekyll IS already unique, we have local character and charm that does not exist any where else.
We are too close to appreciate the DooWhop architecture of the 60's. Jekyll has a significant collection of these very unique sturctures. Is this a "duh" or what? Maybe emulate the DooWhop style instead of the generic "beachy" look of some of the newer construction. As these structures clear 50 years they are elligible for inclusion in the national regester of historic structures. This is another soap box I'm afraid.
My point Jekyll is already the place they think they are trying to create. Some responsible development would be welcomed by all...but I think people are feeling railroaded and condescended to...tactics used to shut up the opposition. There are legitimate concerns about the future of a unique life style. You can walk for miles and see dolphins play in the water, If you're lucky you can find a sand dollar that is already bleached by the sun, or see a baby turtle scurrying to the water. That deserves resepect and an understanding of the fragile nature of the island and the impact of the kind of visitation numbers. Is there a study of an island with a similar increase in population as projected for Jekyll?
And please let's get on the front end of this with protective convanants to hold the developers to a higher standard.
|
| |
benjycompson
Registered: 02/08/08
Posts: 40
|
|
|
Reply with quote | #2 |
Magnolia, See my reply to your first post. This is a perfect example of what you referred to as "priorites". Our priorities differ. You may prefer fifties architecture. Personally, I prefer "daub and wattle"  . You may prefer manatee watching. I may prefer manatee barbeque. None of this really matters to the State. The State has its own set of political priorities. The question is-- who has the right to their priorities, and the ownership of Jekyll Island? |
| |
magnolia
Registered: 01/18/09
Posts: 9
| |
magnolia
Registered: 01/18/09
Posts: 9
|
|
|
Reply with quote | #4 |
The state of Georgia owns Jekyll Island. Google Melvin Thompson and look at what he said when the state acquired Jekyll. The question is not who owns Jekyll but what
what kind of steward is the state going to be?
By the way the manatee bar-b-q was delicious.
|
| |
benjycompson
Registered: 02/08/08
Posts: 40
|
|
|
Reply with quote | #5 |
Magnolia, My opinion is that there is no question what kind of steward the state will be. I am one of those persons who
believe that, on the whole, that common ownership of a resource such as Jekyll Island will tend to enrich those in charge of managing it, at the expense of those who are being forced to pay for it.
|
| |
magnolia
Registered: 01/18/09
Posts: 9
|
|
|
Reply with quote | #6 |
The beauty of Jekyll is that noone is forced to pay for it. Those who choose to come to Jekyll pay for it. By state law, Jekyll is responsible for generating its own revenue, hence the "parking" fee. It is one of the ways Jekyll pays for itself. But that is also why Jekyll needs protective covenants. Jekyll need not be any tourist destination but the destination it already is; about as pristine as one can get along the east coast that is easily accessible.
|
| |
benjycompson
Registered: 02/08/08
Posts: 40
|
|
|
Reply with quote | #7 |
Magnolia,
Are you really saying that Jekyll Island was purchased with voluntary donations? Are you saying that the JI causeway and new bridge, the convention center, the park improvements The piers and trails, the parking lots, and the portions of the salaries of all the legislators, State executives, and bureaucrats that represent the time spent on JI administration have been paid for by parking fees?
The only way that Jekyll can be self supporting is for Jekyll to indeed be self supporting. Any State involvement whatsoever represents a cost to the taxpayers because the taxpayers pay for the government.
Jekyll Island should be sold back into the private sector, to the highest bidder. A good starting place would be the portion of the Island that is already developed.
|
| |
magnolia
Registered: 01/18/09
Posts: 9
|
|
|
Reply with quote | #8 |
Yes, I believe once upon a time politicians and people held to something higher than the $ as valuable. I believe that the former legislators for whatever selfish reasons saw Jekyll as something special; not just as Jekyll, but as an unspoiled barrier island. Obviously some northern industrialists did, as did those who experienced Sapelo and Cumberland. And they cared about the future generations of humans.
People like you are so short sighted and selfish. Kill the golden goose. I have said for 25 years, I always hoped it would happen outside of my lifetime, and I am still young. But the "me" generation is here in a new guise, where's mine? And that attitude will sell the "goose" to the highest bidder. To find there is nothing inside but the hopes and dreams of people.
You are an ass. Money is not what Jekyll needs, it needs protection from people like you. You have no stake in Jekyll. It always amazes me how many Jekyll lovers never go to the beach, never have been on the river, or hate animals and trees
Maybe it is a marketing problem, maybe this is not for you.
|
| |
benjycompson
Registered: 02/08/08
Posts: 40
|
|
|
Reply with quote | #9 |
Magnolia,
Why do you believe that I do not care for Jekyll, or nature? What makes you think I have never been on a river and hate animals and trees? Why do you believe that I see Jekyll as nothing more than prime piece of real estate, that is just ripe for condos and cotton candy? Why does the sale of Jekyll have to mean that the "golden egg" will be killed? How do you know that I have no stake in Jekyll?
I can tell you that I do care for Jekyll, I do have a stake in it, I do love nature, and I do appreciate the special nature of the place. The point I am trying to make to you is that folks like us that do care for Jekyll are precisely the folks that would make the best stewards of the Island. Why not sell it to us then? Why not sell it to those individuals and organizations that care about the place as a special eco-jewel that should be caressed and nurtured and appreciated? Don't folks that own something tend to take better care of it than folks who do not own it? Why not allow those that care enough about the place to put down their own money, instead of money that has been forcefully taken from others? Why not start with the organizers of this website, let them raise the capital through their network of contributors, and lobby the State for some real results instead of granting all the power over Jekyll Island's fate to a bunch of politicians and bureaucrats, and then complaining about the results.
Why not? I am trying to understand your logic here.
|
| |
magnolia
Registered: 01/18/09
Posts: 9
|
|
|
Reply with quote | #10 |
I think you hate the beach, river, trees and animals because of the things you have said.
And private ownership doesn't work that way, once you add in the human factor. You may care, but what about your children? And the next buyer just ups the price, or forecloses and dumps it. Private ownership excludes the "average Georgian". The whole point of state ownership was to keep Jekyll from being privately owned and exclusive. Remember many of the barrier islands were privately owned when the state bought Jekyll.
I am dismayed by the newspaper articles that denegrate the opinion of those who want a slower approach to development. I am not naive. Many of those who are for development have a $ stake in the process. Jekyll should not be a place to remake St. Simons, and make amends for all the mistakes made there. How many lament the development that took place there, virtually unbridled. Jekyll is state owned supposedly to protect it. What I would like to see is protective covenants placed on development before the development is given approval, not after. Can at least we agree that covenants would help achieve responsible stewardship no matter who controls the $.
|
| |
benjycompson
Registered: 02/08/08
Posts: 40
|
|
|
Reply with quote | #11 |
Well, There certainly is nothing wrong with covenants, IMO, as long as the use of the word is in a voluntary context. I live in a covenanted subdivision, and covenants may have their problems, but they are a great way for like minded folks to bond together and have some control over their immediate surroundings. So we sort of agree on that. But the key word here is "voluntary". There is nothing voluntary about State control.
<<d private ownership doesn't work that way, once you add in the human factor. You may care, but what about your children<<
Magnolia, the concern for the welfare of one's children is one of the most primary human instincts. Does it not follow then, that a valuable inheritance is a primary motive? And isn't "value" about the most democratic indicator of worth that exisits? In other words a parent would naturally want to bequeath something of the highest possible value to her siblings-- and "value" is a subjective word-- it doesn't have to necessarily mean $. Something can be "valuable" without having a dollar value on it. I think we agree here also. This can only be accomplished through private ownership.
When the colony of Georgia was first founded, the charterers did not allow the settlers to sell the property that they were granted to live on. They could bequeath it, but to a male heir only ( I think this was called "Tail Male" a holdover from the feudal system). They quickly figured out that this form of State control was detrimental to the long term interests of the colony, and abandoned it in favor of a free (er) market.
You say the whole point of state ownership is to keep Jekyll from being exclusive. Is it not exclusive now? The "average Georgian" is excluded from doing the things that Trammel Crowe, Linger Longer, and other politically connected interests are doing with impunity.
I get pretty tired of people speaking of St Simons as if it was some kind of terrible place. I live on St Simons. I love St Simons, I prefer it over Jekyll a thousand to one. Thousands of other people think the same way. Thousands more would love to be able to live here as well. Our preferences are not your preferences. State ownership of a resource such as Jekyll seeks to force ALL citizens to share in your preferences. So you are advocating the use of force by the State to further your own agenda. I find it morally offensive as well as inept.
|
| |
magnolia
Registered: 01/18/09
Posts: 9
|
|
|
Reply with quote | #12 |
You have chosen to try and twist the desire to protect a barrier island from unbridled development into something evil and selfish and not hear the goal of stewardship of the island as an endangered natural resource. I do not accept your position just as you do not accept mine. And just as Faulkner lamented the loss of his natural environment, the Mississippi forest, Georgians will someday lament the loss of our coastal islands to development. Your post speaks for itself. To quote a "Southernism", "You're showing yourself".
|
| |
benjycompson
Registered: 02/08/08
Posts: 40
|
|
|
Reply with quote | #13 |
Magnolia,
You presume to know what is the most "responsible" style of architecture for Jekyll, and you are perfectly OK with the idea of forcing other people to pay for your ideals. When someone calls you on it, you call them an "ass" and send them insulting private e-mails, and then call them "evil" and "selfish".
I do not think that YOU are evil or selfish however. I just think I am not doing a very good job of explaining myself. I will try and work on it. But, in this thread, without an open minded and honest dialogue, I can participate no further.
|
| |
