JIA ASSAULT ON THE TRUTH
“Out of step with public opinion” is a phrase that has acquired new meaning in light of JIA Board Chairman Ben Porter’s March 28th letter to Georgia’s legislators arguing that:
•
The IPJI—a critic of the Authority’s pet project, Linger Longer’s beachfront town center—is just a small group of “misguided” Jekyll residents out to protect their own turf to the detriment of “hundreds of thousands of Georgians.”
The IPJI—a critic of the Authority’s pet project, Linger Longer’s beachfront town center—is just a small group of “misguided” Jekyll residents out to protect their own turf to the detriment of “hundreds of thousands of Georgians.”•The critics of the Jekyll town center prefer to “save asphalt parking lots along the beach” rather than allow Georgians and others the pleasure of staying in the proposed oceanside Jekyll Village.
The critics of the Jekyll town center prefer to “save asphalt parking lots along the beach” rather than allow Georgians and others the pleasure of staying in the proposed oceanside Jekyll Village. •The opponents of the town center project are enemies of Jekyll revitalization.
The opponents of the town center project are enemies of Jekyll revitalization. •Revitalization requires a Jekyll oceanfront town center
Revitalization requires a Jekyll oceanfront town center •The JIA has no intention of building condos along Jekyll’s beachfront
The JIA has no intention of building condos along Jekyll’s beachfrontMr. Porter’s assault on the truth (the full text can be found at the end of this email message) is not just an attempt to discredit the IPJI but to encourage legislators to distance themselves from SB 367, a committee substitute bill which aims to stop the commercialization of a half-mile segment of Jekyll’s main public beach, keeping it unobstructed and wide-open to the general public.
Georgia Code Section 45-10-3 (Code of ethics for members of boards, commissions, and authorities), subsection 8, states, each member of all boards, commissions, and authorities created by general statute shall “never engage in other conduct which is unbecoming to a member or which constitutes a breach of public trust. If formal charges are filed with the Governor relative to a violation of Code Section 45-10-3 by an authority member, the Governor is required to hold a hearing to consider such charges.
ARE YOU OFFENDED?
If Chairman Porter’s portrayal of the IPJI and your views upsets you,
•CALL your own state representative and senator and blow the whistle on Mr. Porter’s distortions. Contact information for Georgia’s legislators can be found on the IPJI’s website - www.savejekyllisland.org
CALL your own state representative and senator and blow the whistle on Mr. Porter’s distortions. Contact information for Georgia’s legislators can be found on the IPJI’s website - www.savejekyllisland.org•CALL Governor Perdue (404-656-1776) to inform him that one of his appointees has misrepresented you and your position about Jekyll’s revitalization.
CALL Governor Perdue (404-656-1776) to inform him that one of his appointees has misrepresented you and your position about Jekyll’s revitalization. Opponents of Jekyll Revitalization Misguided
Ben Porter, Chairman, Jekyll Island Authority
Jekyll resident David Egan is right about one thing in his March 26 letter to the editor entitled “House Should OK bill preserving Jekyll,” the Georgia General Assembly holds the key to the future of Jekyll Island. Either Jekyll Island will continue its downward spiral or investment will be made in infrastructure and accommodations that will bring Georgians back to this precious resource.
Decades ago state leaders had the foresight to pass a law mandating that 65% of this barrier island remain in its natural state and never be developed. Just last year, more restrictions were put in place to limit any redevelopment on the south end of the Island. The public ignored the fact that this additional protection benefitted a Jekyll resident who funds the Jekyll Citizen’s Association lobbying efforts at the Capitol. This year, this same select group of individuals, most of whom live full-time on the Island they like to call a “state park” (no other state park has residences), have decided that even more restrictions should be put in place. They believe that vacationers should not be able to stay in accommodations along the shoreline, which is, of course, where most people would naturally like to stay. This group of individuals has started a campaign to “save” what essentially is a large asphalt parking lot along the beach. What they really want to do is stop the beach village project.
To the dismay of the Coastal Resources Division of the Georgia Department of Natural Resources, the environmental lobby hijacked a bill last week that reauthorizes the Georgia Coastal Management Act, which brings in millions of dollars in federal grants that are critical to protecting vital areas of the coast. An amendment was tacked on that would limit development in the area of this parking lot to nothing but picnic tables and bathrooms. If this misguided amendment were to become law, the Jekyll Island Authority could not even construct the proposed Environmental Discovery Center or Oceanside playground on this property, much less improved bike paths, beach concession areas, improved landscape or even plant trees.
Enough is enough. The vast majority of Georgians wants to see responsible redevelopment of Jekyll Island and do not share the views of the minority who want to close the gate behind them so that they may enjoy their own utopia. The Jekyll Island Authority has no intention of blocking access to the beach, no intention lining the beach with condos and no intention of letting Jekyll fall further into disrepair. This Authority intends to facilitate the most environmentally-friendly development on the eastern seaboard for the 35% of the Island that may be improved. Georgians of all incomes will have a variety of choices in accommodations. The Georgia General Assembly should not allow a small group of residents and some in the environmental lobby to affect policy to the detriment of hundreds of thousands of Georgians who want to see Jekyll Island returned to its heyday.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FUNDAMENTAL QUESTIONS STILL UNANSWERED
Amidst Chairman Porter’s Jekyll ‘spin,’ and with influential lawmakers singing the JIA’s song, we’re left with some pressing and unanswered questions:
•Why can’t the JIA sell the town center proposal on its own merits rather than resort to factual distortions?
Why can’t the JIA sell the town center proposal on its own merits rather than resort to factual distortions? •Why are the thousands of citizens who are trying to preserve Jekyll’s wide-open beach as a public amenity being billed as a few, cranky Jekyll Island residents?
Why are the thousands of citizens who are trying to preserve Jekyll’s wide-open beach as a public amenity being billed as a few, cranky Jekyll Island residents? •Why is the judgment of Jekyll’s visitors who are saying “no” to a seaside development project that hogs the public beach being discounted in favor of those of a private contractor who stands to profit immensely from selling high-priced condos on publicly-owned, oceanfront land?
Why is the judgment of Jekyll’s visitors who are saying “no” to a seaside development project that hogs the public beach being discounted in favor of those of a private contractor who stands to profit immensely from selling high-priced condos on publicly-owned, oceanfront land? •Where is the evidence that island visitors want and Jekyll’s revitalization requires a beachside town center?
Where is the evidence that island visitors want and Jekyll’s revitalization requires a beachside town center? •Why is the leadership of the majority party so keen on a beachfront development project opposed by so many people and so intent on blocking SB 367 from reaching the House floor for a vote?
Why is the leadership of the majority party so keen on a beachfront development project opposed by so many people and so intent on blocking SB 367 from reaching the House floor for a vote? 