The JIA’s Density Study: Fact, Fiction and Jekyll’s Future
At the February 9, 2009 JIA Board meeting, the Bleakly Advisory Group (BAG) presented a report entitled “A Comparison of Jekyll Island to Comparable Southeastern U.S. Coastal Destination,” the purpose of which is to provide insights into the potential impact of future development on Jekyll Island [click here for the entire report].
In the report, BAG claimed that the forecasted increase in Jekyll’s lodging rooms, condos, time-shares and year-round residences from its current figure of 1,624 to 4,103 units by the year 2023 would still make Jekyll “significantly less developed” with respect to resident and seasonal population, housing density and traffic volumes than other ‘comparable’ coastal vacation destinations.
The JIA has endorsed BAG’s findings, yet the report is seriously flawed:
- The report’s vision of a “low density scenario” for the Jekyll Island of 2023 is based on a gross exaggeration of Jekyll’s land area. By using an acreage figure provided by a U.S. Census Bureau Report that includes over 5,000 acres of marshland on Jekyll’s west side and along the 6-mile Jekyll Causeway [click here for a video of the area in question], BAG was able to claim that the built-up Jekyll Island of the future would have less population and far fewer housing and lodging units per acre than would actually be the case. The actual upland (dry land) boundaries of the 9 islands BAG compared to Jekyll can easily be determined by consulting the website of the NOAA Office of Coast Survey, but BAG, for reasons we can only guess at, chose to use Census Bureau “block zones” that include marsh and off-island acreage to different degrees for each of the ten island’s studied, making an accurate comparison impossible.
Development on Jekyll, unlike the 9 coastal resorts BAG used as comparables, cannot, according to Georgia law, exceed 35 percent of the land area of the island which lies above mean high tide, a fact that the BAG report fails to consider. A realistic assessment of the impact of the proposed build-out would have to calculate population and the number of housing and lodging units per acre for the developable part of Jekyll Island, which is just 1,455 acres. When calculated this way, the built-up Jekyll Island proposed by BAG would be as, or even more, densely developed than BAG’s nine coastal comparables.
- Most of the sites BAG selected as comparables are already highly developed. BAG’s contention that the built-up Jekyll of the future will be less densely developed than these other sites, therefore, does nothing to ease public concern over the scope and impact of the development that BAG forecasts for Jekyll.
- BAG’s claim that each of the comparables includes undevelopable land or is impacted by areas nearby that are undevelopable is problematic. For example:
-BAG claims that Tybee Island “contains” Fort Pulaski National Monument, but this National Park entity is on another island entirely. -BAG contends that Fripp Island is located “adjacent” to Huntington Island State Park, but this park is on an entirely different island, and Fripp Island is clearly not a part of the ACE Basin National Wildlife Refuge, as BAG also claims. -Pawley’s Island is claimed by BAG to be “next to” Huntington Beach State Park, but it is actually on an entirely separate island, and there are two whole communities (Litchfield Beach and North Litchfield Beach) between Huntington Beach and Pawley’s Island. -BAG claims that Ocean Isle Beach includes protected land in the form of a “58 acre public park that is under development,” yet there is neither evidence of nor room for such a park on this densely developed island. The central part of the island is a heavily developed area built on reclaimed salt marsh, with multi-story structures packed onto the marshfill like sardines in a tin can. The remainder of Ocean Isle Beach (OIB) is covered with real-estate development of one type or another. Using the correct upland acreage for OIB (which is about 1/3 of what BAG used), the lodging units per acre for OIB come to 2.03. Using correct acreage for the 35 percent of Jekyll’s developable upland, lodging units per acre for the built-up Jekyll would come to 2.84, nearly 50 percent more than jam-packed OIB!The BAG density study leaves unanswered a number of vital questions, including:
•What impact will the projected 4,103 rental and residential units and peak season population of 15,000 have upon the character of Jekyll Island?
What impact will the projected 4,103 rental and residential units and peak season population of 15,000 have upon the character of Jekyll Island? •How will the forecasted development affect Jekyll’s environment and wildlife as well as the quality of the visitor experience?
How will the forecasted development affect Jekyll’s environment and wildlife as well as the quality of the visitor experience? •Why has the JIA endorsed a study as badly flawed as BAG’s?
Why has the JIA endorsed a study as badly flawed as BAG’s?•Why did the JIA fail to give any consideration to what the preferred scenario for a rejuvenated Jekyll might be for the park’s visitors?
Why did the JIA fail to give any consideration to what the preferred scenario for a rejuvenated Jekyll might be for the park’s visitors? •What options exist for boosting visitation and the JIA’s revenue other than the expansive development option favored by BAG?
What options exist for boosting visitation and the JIA’s revenue other than the expansive development option favored by BAG? 
Area outlined in red is marshland which is west of Jekyll Island and Jekyll River. The US Census Bureau includes this marsh area and the Jekyll Island Causeway to Route 17 as the Census Bureau "block zone" for Jekyll Island. In using the US Census Bureau data to determine acreage, the Bleakly Advisory Group counted these 5,000 acres of marshland as part of Jekyll Island when projecting density of Jekyll Island when the island has been "built out."
Ocean Isle Beach, North Carolina
