Jekyll Island State Park’s Revitalization

The decline in visitation to Jekyll Island State Park in recent years indicates that the park requires renovation, but the question is, how much and what kind of redevelopment does the park need.

Based upon survey input and a wealth of communications with Jekyll Island State Park’s visitors, the IPJI has concluded that the decline in visitation to the park and the stagnation of the JIA’s revenue are primarily the result of the deterioration of the park’s aging hotels and are not linked to any general dissatisfaction with the park has to offer.

Whereas the JIA has suggested that development projects such as Linger Longer’s proposed town center are necessary to enable the park to compete with other coastal resort destinations and to draw more visitors to the park, the IPJI feels that the park’s appeal could be greatly enhanced if the oceanfront hotels in disrepair were redeveloped. Given the likelihood that hotel renovation and redevelopment may be sufficient to reverse the decline in visitation the park has experienced, this initiative should be taken and completed before any grand plans, such as those of Linger Longer, are formulated for the redevelopment or further development of the park.

Whereas the JIA contends that it must seek redevelopment to produce the revenue needed to deal with a backlog of projects—such as the restoration of the Historic District, the replacement of the convention center, golf course renovation, and beach renourishment—the IPJI believes that these project needs should be further defined and that the funding of necessary projects can be approached outside of the ‘development box’, including by way of the kind of public financing Linger Longer Communities has suggested for the proposed town center’s infrastructure needs.

The IPJI also feels that the JIA needs to establish a clearly defined revenue target for itself and to justify this figure statistically before moving ahead with the park’s revitalization. Without a clear indication of how much revenue the Authority needs and why it needs it, we run the risk of having unnecessary development, meaning development for development’s sake rather for the good of Jekyll Island State Park and its visitors.

Development Priorities

The IPJI supports:

The redevelopment of Jekyll Island State Park’s existing oceanfront hotel properties, including a full range of accommodation types and price-ranges, with affordable lodgings constituting the norm by far.

The refurbishment or, if deemed necessary, the reconstruction of Jekyll’s Convention Center, including the addition of an adjacent, hotel, with affordability being a key planning consideration.

The maintenance of a “condominium-free” environment along the park’s beach, with the exception of current hotel properties

The improvement and expansion of the park’s highly popular campground

The enhancement of family dining options within the park

The further development of ecotourist opportunities on the island, including the creation of a series of “ecostations” along Jekyll’s pathways and the development of a network of nature trails within the island’s interior.

The evaluation of the projected impacts of sea level rise, shoreline erosion, and dune migration before approving any new development project on Jekyll Island.

Linger Longer Communities Proposed Town Center

The IPJI believes that Linger Longer’s proposed town center is conceptually flawed, meaning that the whole idea of building hundreds of condos and time-shares and three new hotels along Jekyll’s main beach is unsound. Having surveyed more than 6,000 people on the Jekyll redevelopment question, we know that there is widespread opposition (over 95%) to this kind of real estate development project, with its 1,100+ units. Jekyll’s visitors, our surveys show, love the park for its natural qualities and lack of development; they don’t visit Jekyll for what man has built but rather for what nature has provided.

There are problems with the details of LLC’s proposal as well. As the proposal currently reads, parking for day visitors would be significantly reduced. Four large ocean side parking lots widely used by day trippers and RVs would be eliminated. Curbside parking would be available within the village, and there would be a parking lot opposite the mid-market hotel, but there would be no beachside parking lots for day visitors, and the largest public parking (the one near the proposed convention center) would be nearly a quarter of a mile from the beach. LLC does propose using permeable materials for the town center’s streets and parking areas, but we feel that Jekyll would be better served by resurfacing existing parking areas with these same eco-friendly materials than by eliminating beachside parking altogether.

LLC is asking for $84,500,000 of general obligation and state revenue bonds to cover the cost of infrastructure improvements that would come with its project. The IPJI questions whether the state or the JIA should be saddled with such a financial burden, and asks what the park would be gaining in return for this $84,500,000 subsidy of private development, which is taking place on state-owned land.

Affordable hotel accommodations are the exception rather than the norm in LLC's proposal. When LLC’s high-end 400-room hotel is added to the 540-room upscale hotel/condo complex to be built by Trammell Crow, over half of the park’s hotel rooms will be priced beyond the pocketbooks of most Georgians. Affordability not only takes a beating since high-end hotel rooms would be the norm within the town center but also because LLC’s condos would sell for an average price of $510,000.

Long-Range Picture

The Board’s revitalization plan, of course, does not just concern the redevelopment of Jekyll’s oceanfront hotel properties and the creation of a beachside Jekyll village, it opens the door for the development of the 108 untouched acres within the island’s 35% “development zone” as well as for the privatization of Jekyll’s revenue-generating faculties, including its golf courses, campground, water park, and historic district.

In addressing long-range partnership opportunities, LLC speaks of its desire to manage the park’s recreational and commercial facilities. Our concern here is that privatization of the park’s revenue-generating facilities may work to the disadvantage of mainstream citizens. In essence, weighting profits—as is often the case with privatization—and placing excessive emphasis on the revenue-generating capacity of the park and its facilities would fundamentally contradict the park’s founding objective of affordability to people of average income, in the IPJI’s opinion.