What Is Goin’ On?

The Jekyll Island development controversy gains new clarity in this interview with four of the primary participants. (1) Sen. Jeff Chapman (R-3) plans to introduce a resolution which would effectively prevent new development on the beach. (2) David Egan, Founder of the Initiative to Protect Jekyll Island, wants the Jekyll Island Authority to listen to what the people want. (3) Jim Langford is the Project Manager of Linger Longer, the Revitalization Partner selected by the JIA in a bid process that is currently in litigation. (4) Eric Garvy is the Senior Director of Marketing and Business Development for the Jekyll Island Authority and firmly defends its actions and decisions.

Because all 5 of us were on the phone at the same time, I scheduled this interview for an hour. While this may be long, it is well worth the effort. My previous interviews with Chapman, Egan, Langford, and Garvey provide a lot of background, but it took this interview for me to truly appreciate the real bottom line in this controversy: Will Jekyll Island be preserved or developed?

A little history. Jekyll was purchased by the State in the late 40s. The State still owns all the land and simply leases it to homeowners, motel and business owners to generate the income necessary to maintain the roads and other infrastructure, as well as other projects such as restoration of the historic district and the Georgia Sea Turtle Center.

In 2007 the legislature declared Jekyll to be Georgia’s Jewel, but it is on the verge of being a multimillion dollar jewel in the hat of developers if the current 63-acre development project proposed by Linger Longer and selected by the JIA goes forward.

The law that created the JIA contained a specific directive for the income generated on Jekyll Island:

All income and revenues arising out of the operation of Jekyll Island State Park, and all gifts, grants, appropriations, or bond or loan proceeds made specifically for Jekyll Island State Park, shall be used by the authority for the sole purpose of beautifying, improving, developing, enlarging, maintaining, administering, managing, and promoting Jekyll Island State Park at the lowest rates reasonable and possible for the benefit of the people of the State of Georgia.

While it is the responsibility of the JIA to manage Jekyll in a manner that generates sufficient income, it seems obvious, at least to me, that in 1950 the legislature envisioned something other than a fully developed resort type recreation area. This interview explores in depth several issues which arise from the manner in which the JIA seeks to fulfill its responsibility to Jekyll and to the people of Georgia.

This is clearly not a dispute about revitalization of the existing motels and convention facility. Everyone agrees this is necessary, and in fact, several facilities either have been or are in the process of major renovation or complete rebuilding. When all are back online the increased capacity and higher room rates will result in more annual income for the JIA.

The controversy focuses on two basic issues: (1) Is the propsed 63 acres of new development necessary to meet the reasonable income needs of the JIA? (2) Should any development be allowed on the prime stretch of beach (approximately 9000 ft.) that is, without question, unique, both in the quality of the beach and length.

IS THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT NECESSARY? The answer depends on your choice of goals. Langford of Linger Longer contends it will generate $100 million in income for the JIA over 10 or more years. It is hard to argue against such a project if your goal is to make as much money as possible. Not only that, but this project is just the first that the JIA is contemplating. Presumably, the JIA wants even more in income. The question is why? The answer to that question is not written in some brochure or noted on the JIA website. The motives of the JIA can only be judged in the context of the its actions and conduct regarding the development and promotion of the project.

While I am sure Linger Longer and the JIA will disagree, that judgment is not flattering to an entity like the JIA which is charged with a public trust. Rather, the JIA has made a mockery of the idea that it acts as a Trustee for the people of this State. It undertook this project without any apparent attempt to determine its actual income needs. The JIA cannot answer this question: Will the existing faciliities, once they are renovated, generate enough income to meet the operational needs of Jekyll? Even with the old motels, Jekyll operated in the black every year but one, and that was when the renovations may well have affected the number of rooms available.

Another breach of the public trust by the JIA is its apparent total lack of concern, bordering on scorn, for public opinion and input. It dreamed up this project, it issued a request for developers to submit proposals, and it gave its approval to Linger Longer without ever undertaking to find out first what the residents of Jekyll or what the people of the State of Georgia wanted. Like most bureaucratic entities, the JIA assumes it knows best in all things and the people that actually live on or visit Jekyll know nothing.

In this interview, Langford and Garvey suggest that the JIA and Linger Longer are willing to scrap this project if the people don’t want it or if someone has a better idea. The actions of the JIA in this entire process raise serious doubts as to whether or not this is anything other than mere lip service. It is rare to see a state agency or authority decide on a course of action and voluntarily yield to public pressure to change direction. While it can happen, it is not easy for the public to force the change without the assistance of a big stick. That big stick just might be the pending litigation or, in this election year, it might be public outcry.

One other point. The JIA clearly seems determined to develop Jekyll Island to the fullest extent possible. Why? That goal is not in the legislative directive which created the JIA. Since 1950 the JIA has never promoted development, first and foremost, above all other considerations. Why the change? Why now? It could be that the recent appointments by Governor Perdue to the JIA have a new idea for what should be done to Jekyll. But the real answer is money, plain and simple. If you ever have a question about why government does something, follow the money. If Linger Longer’s proposed project goes through, it will make tens of millions of dollars. The JIA’s plans for further development will put hundreds of millions of dollars of pure profit into the hands of Linger Longer or some other developer.

Why development? Because we can is the JIA’s position. Why not! Earn millions, spend milliions, put millions into the hands of people like Mercer Reynolds, the owner of Linger Longer, who gives big, big money to governors and presidents.

IS IT NECESSARY TO BUILD ON A BEACH THAT HAS BEEN UNOBSTRUCTED FOR MILLIONS OF YEARS? The JIA’s position on this simple issue reveals the simple truth: The JIA isn’t interested in earning enough income to provide accommodations at the lowest rates reasonable and possible for the benefit of the people of the State of Georgia. It’s interest is to suck just as much money out of Jekyll as it can, the beach be damned. That’s it, spread the love, baby!

Without a doubt, whatever project JIA and Linger Longer propose to build could be built somewhere else on Jekyll. So why not satisfy the people and just move the project to another location and leave the unobstructed beach unobstructed? The answer, money! As Langford said at the beginning of the interview, the present goal of the project is to create an “economic engine.” As Sen. Chapman points out, there is nothing to suggest that the legislature or the people of Georgia bought Jekyll Island for the purpose of creating an economic engine. That was not and is not Georgia’s intent for Jekyll. The problem is the JIA has forgotten or ignored that it holds Jekyll in trust for the rest of us. The JIA thinks it owns the place.

There are only two ways to deal with a state agency which has become arrogant, that won’t listen to anyone, that is intoxicated with its own power. One option involves violence, is clearly illegal, and therefore not one that I can recommend. The other option is legislative action which is exactly what Sen. Chapman proposes to do. His proposal would prohibit development on the beach so that the view we all grew up with would be there for our grandchildren. It would also insure that whatever leadership failures future members of the JIA exhibit, it won’t threaten the beach and the view.

Now, the question is whether or not that Republican majority in the legislature will exhibit some leadership on this issue. And that is a big question!