Tag Archive for 'jeff-chapman'

Jekyll Island Showdown: Chapman, Egan, Langford, Garvey

Published
by
Wilson
on January 25, 2008
in Podcast
. 11 Comments

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!

 
 Jekyll Island and Development [59:18m]: Play Now | Play in Popup | Download (420)

Sen. Jeff Chapman’s Report to the Oversight Committee: Jekyll Island!

Published
by
Wilson
on November 7, 2007
in Podcast
. 0 Comments

Sen. Jeff Chapman (R-3) isn’t one of the legislators designated as a member of the Jekyll Island Authority Advisory Board, but as he points out, this State owned island is in his district, his constituents have a great interest in what happens there and he is concerned about some of the recent actions of the Authority.

There are two aspects of the current controversy surrounding the Jekyll Island Authority (JIA). In September 2007 the JIA selected Linger Longer as its Revitalization Partner to design and develop a new 45 acre (or is it 63) tract with hotels, motels and all the things that go with them. The only problem, as discussed in my interview with Wade Shealy, in selecting Linger Longer the JIA engaged in some sleazy tricks that appear to have been intended to benefit a particular Republican contributor and which also appear to have violated the law. In the very least, the JIA tarnished its status and justified criticism that it was acting unfairly and arbitrarily.

Sen. Chapman left the issues surrounding the bidding process to be resolved between the JIA and the Jekyll Island Revitalization Group, whether in or outside of court.

His concern is a little more fundamental. Regardless of who was selected as the Revitalization Patner, Senator Chapman is concerned about the nature of the development being contemplated by the JIA. To understand his concerns you can listen to the interview or you can read his letter of November 5, 2007 to the Oversight Committee of the Legislature.

When you talk about Jekyll Island there is one distinguishing factor which you have to keep in mind: the State of Georgia owns it. We, the people, own it. It is for us, for all of us, for the rich, for the poor, for the old couple that wants to drive to the beach and sit in the sand for a few hours, and for the couple with 5 kids that can’t afford a trip this year, but can entertain the kids at the Jekyll beach where the sand is wet, the water salty and the waves mesmerizing.

The JIA seems to be focused on turning Jekyll Island into a money making venture which simply means nothing cheap, nothing affordable (or very little), nothing inviting to the good old, average Georgian.

And then there is that view of the ocean. Just as soon as you get to the end of the entrance road, you turn to the left and there it is. The ocean, the waves, that sound! And, it goes on and on and on. When I was a kid it was 3 zillion miles from that first view of the ocean to the hotel! It is public and it is big and it is accessible. In contrast, go ride around St. Simons and count the number of times you can see the beach. You can hardly find the beach unless you are at a hotel.

Senator Chapman points out in his letter that several actions of the JIA appear to be

inconsistent with the park’s statutory purpose as a public facility set aside for the benefit of “the plain people” of Georgia.

And what is it that the JIA has done?

1. The possible violation of a constitutional prohibition against granting gratuities, including the forgiveness of a public debt as a result of the JIA “…granting a rent abatement estimated to be in excess of $10,000,000 to Trammell Crow and Partners…”

A similar possible violation of the gratuities prohibition by the JIA’s acceptance of “Linger Longer’s proposal for a combination of general obligation and revenue bonds totaling $84,500,000 to cover infrastructure costs associated with the proposed town center.”

2. An expressed intent by the JIA to make sure that ocean view rooms are not affordable by the average Georgian by allowing developers to charge what the market will bear and letting the “not so rich” go elsewhere if they can’t pay the bill. Senator Chapman notes:

This kind of thinking is reflected in policy shown by the Board’s approval of the replacement of the affordable Buccaneer Resort by Trammell Crow and partners, where room rates averaged $89 per night during the years 2002-2006, with a 540-room upscale hotel, where room rates will average double that amount in the off-season and $250 per night during the summer months. Add to these 540 rooms the 400 high-end rooms proposed by Linger Longer for its Jekyll town center, along with the 157 existing rooms at the upscale Jekyll Island Club Hotel, and the park will have well over half of its lodgings priced beyond the means of most Georgians.

3. “The Board is currently considering a proposal by Linger Longer Communities which calls for a beachside Jekyll town center that would result in the elimination of the state park’s most popular oceanfront public parking lots.”

4. “The Board has failed to take into account the environmental impact of a beachside community of the scale proposed by Linger Longer.”

5. “The proposed Jekyll town center includes 14 acres, currently designated as a “nature preserve,” that lie within the park’s 65% protected zone. Acceptance of all or any part of this segment of the proposal would require a redrawing of the existing 65/35 map and would constitute an amendment of the park’s Master Plan. Accordingly, the Authority would have to comply with sections 12-3-243.1 of the GA Code (see Attachment B) beginning with the submission of “a complete copy of the proposed amendment to the Speaker of the House, President of the Senate, members of the Jekyll Island State Park Authority Oversight Committee, and Office of Legislative Counsel at least 60 days prior to the date of the meeting at which the proposed amendment will be considered.”

Senator Chapman suggests several recommendations for the Oversight Committee’s consideration:

1. Seek an Official Opinion of the Attorney General on the question of the power of the Jekyll Island Authority to grant rent abatements or other subsidies to persons and corporations leasing property in the State Park from the Authority. Included among such subsidies the Attorney General should be asked about: a) the Constitutionality of a sale of bonds by the Jekyll Island Authority at the prescription of a party to whom the Authority is leasing property, when the proceeds of the sale of such bonds is to be used for the improvement of that leased property, and b) the legality of granting a rent abatement to a party for hotel redevelopment on nine acres of prime oceanfront property in light of OCGA 12-3-271, which calls for the Jekyll Island Authority to develop the park “at the lowest rates reasonable and possible for the benefit of the people of the State of Georgia.”
2. Seek an Official Opinion of the Attorney General in regard to that portion of the GA Code OCGA 121-3-235(14), calling for Jekyll Island State Park to be available to and affordable for people of average income, specifically in light of the Authority’s failure to exercise its power in behalf of the interests of Georgians “of average income” in its pursuit of the redevelopment of the hotel and other lodging facilities at Jekyll Island State Park.
3. Seek an Official Opinion of the Attorney General in regard to the applicability of the Environmental Policy Act, OCGA 12-16-1 et. seq., to the actions of the Jekyll Island Authority, specifically its duty to prepare an “environmental effects report” pursuant to that statute’s requirements.
4. Notify the Board of the Jekyll Island Authority of its duty to conform to the provisions of OCGA 12-3-243.1, in which notice of changes to the Master Plan for Jekyll Island must be submitted to the Overview Committee.

While the JIA apparently has some autonomy in ruling Jekyll Island, I certainly hope that the Oversight Committee flexes its muscles and imposes the will of the people of Georgia. The Governor appoints the members of the JIA, they aren’t elected. But those elected officials that can fix this, ought to and if they don’t that is what elections are for. If you think the JIA is on the wrong road, you can notify the members of the Authority Board, or Governor Perdue, or Sen. Tommie Williams (R-19) who is a Senate member of the Oversight Committee or Senator Chapman.

Let’s hope that Jekyll’s great view of the ocean is preserved for our kids and grandchildren!

 
 Sen. Jeff Chapman (R-3), Jekyll Island Report [29:15m]: Play Now | Play in Popup | Download (215)