||| FROM BRIAN WIESE |||
The County’s Department of Environmental Stewardship, in coordination with the San Juan Visitors Bureau and with funding from the Lodging Tax, has issued its Draft Destination Management Plan, proposing its solutions to managing the effects of seasonal tourism, and the plan is open for public comment until the end of this month.
Let me begin by saying that I’m not opposed to tourists. We all enjoy travel and most of us probably arrived here the first time as “visitors” and certainly tourism plays an inevitable role in our island’s economy. What I am concerned about is the downstream effect of an excessive level of tourism on our island resources, services and ultimately, on our capacity for growth.
I’m not alone in that concern. Many on the “receiving end” are now asking “How much is too much?” The 2017 San Juan Islands Visitor Management Assessment (Confluence Research and Consulting) concluded that, “94% of residents and 79% of businesses indicated that the islands are at or over capacity.” Visitors to the islands, are currently estimated at more than 655,000 per year over the past five years. This also translates into an average of 3,584,866 visitor days, or 9,821 per day year-round, and between 19,000 and 25,000 per day during July and August, more than doubling the County’s resident population of 17,788.
The plan’s intentions sound laudable:
- “The San Juan Islands must proactively and decisively manage use before it substantially detracts from the quality of life for residents and the quality of experience for visitors.” (p.10)
- “Perpetual growth is not an option for San Juan County; thoughtful consideration must be given to limitations of supply, such as accommodation and transportation, in relation to demand.” (ibid.).
But the plan never offers any such consideration. There is no supply-side baseline analysis of resources that may be impacted by over-use–water supply, power, housing, roadway and parking capacity, natural area destinations, emergency and other services–and no analysis of potential limits to those resources. There is also no consideration of the possibilities of limiting resources that directly serve demand: transportation–principally ferries (which may be self-limiting at this point) and accommodations. Although the current island-by-island cap on vacation rentals is acknowledged, and is an undeniable benefit, at least to Orcas, there is no recognition that, in the absence of consistent county regulations, that cap could be changed by a legal challenge or political reversal at any time. There is no attempt to imagine constraints to the demand-side–tourism itself. Above all, while there is some glib discussion of the economic benefits of tourism, there is no attempt to assess or balance its economic costs, in provision of services, to residents.
Instead, the plan proceeds to “balance” tourist demand with available tourist-attracting resources. The proposed strategies are:
- Dispersion–spreading out popular use spots into less known and less visited areas:
“This Plan reinforces existing solutions, and offers some new ones, to manage accommodations more effectively, including the support of lower-cost camping options, worker housing, and emergency use of existing parking areas and restroom infrastructure by those seeking opportunities to reside in their live-in vehicles safely and comfortably.” (p. 44) Really?!! The plan proposes to tolerate, if not encourage, “stealth camping” and solve our housing shortage by encouraging people to live in their cars? How about opening up Land Bank preserves and neighborhood dirt-road pull-outs? - Seasonality–“Develop a promotion strategy that focuses on shoulder and off-season…)(p. 62, D6) (The “off-season” surely has its own limitations, and does nothing to lessen prime-time summer visitation).
“Throughout the community surveys, public meetings, and outreach, it was frequently acknowledged that trying to fully build our way out of the capacity challenges in the islands is not a viable or sustainable option.” (p. 52) Yet building our way out of capacity challenges is exactly what the plan emphasizes. It proposes 29 “destination improvement” infrastructure projects: “Stay” and “Play “–bike paths, camp sites, yurt accommodations, and “… new vacation rentals permit criteria to encourage sustainable, lower impact rentals”–totaling $10.7 million (+/-30%) (p. 57). And how is this to be funded? “Pay” The plan proposes a requirement for annual car parking stickers and bike stickers for visitors and residents alike (p. 84). Proposed program cost: $10,000; proposed revenue…??, but doubtful it will amount to $10 million).
But here’s the good news: The plan provides such a welter of diverse recommendations–and so little focus–that it’s almost guaranteed to gather dust in the archives–especially given its improbably high costs. On the other hand, its “Care/Learn” recommendations are much cheaper. Their continued emphasis “visitor education” really translates into “green destination marketing: “Expand marketing, outreach, and educational opportunities…” (p. 63, D11), and This Plan offers a diversity of options to assist with better management and funding for visitation related activities that will help leverage the tourism promotion funding provided by the Lodging Tax.” (p.45). This is the real thrust of this plan. It is not a destination management plan, it is a destination marketing plan in green clothing.
Finally, to repeat my opening statement, I am not against tourism. Tourism is the wave that laps at our shorelines. What I am concerned about is the rising tide: the downstream effects of unregulated tourism on our islands’ growth and resources–natural, social and economic. The Destination Management Plan offers no direction on the first step of moderating tourism. The next–and far more important step–is the next iteration of the County’s Comprehensive Plan, due two years from now, and the selection of its next Planning Director.
For more on the Destination Management Plan, please see the excellent Sept. 11 Orcasonian Op Ed by Matthew Gilbert , with many perceptive local comments; and please comment to the County Department of Environmental Stewardship by the Oct. 31 deadline, at https://engage.sanjuancountywa.gov/destination-management-plan/survey_tools/sdmp-comments and http://tourism@sanjuanco.com, and to your County Councilmembers.
**If you are reading theOrcasonian for free, thank your fellow islanders. If you would like to support theOrcasonian CLICK HERE to set your modestly-priced, voluntary subscription. Otherwise, no worries; we’re happy to share with you.**
Thank you Brian for the reminder! I urge everyone to download and read the Destination Management Plan:
https://engage.sanjuancountywa.gov/destination-management-plan
(the actual link to the file is on the sidebar to the right of the page)
And then let them know what you think!
I’m about halfway through reading it and (so far) I am impressed with the data collected. For example, the estimated number of visitors to SJC (2022) was 880,000.
Inspired by that number, here’s an actual PLAN: San Juan County will charge each of those visitors (everyone that isn’t a legal resident or county taxpayer) exactly $10 per visit as an access-to-services fee. This type of fee has traditionally been charged by municipalities to developers and is often tens or even hundreds of thousands of dollars per housing unit. Why not extend the concept to visitors? My plan would raise $8.8 million for mitigation of visitor impacts. Set aside half for an affordable housing fund and require that ALL of the money goes to solutions that actually help people, not more “studies” or “consultations” that accomplish nothing except CYA for politicians and bureaucrats!
For less than the price of two lattes, each of those visitors will be helping to defray a bit of the impact their presence causes. Thank them for doing the right thing and give them each a sticker that says, “I”m part of the solution.”
The State Parks charge for a parking permit to use our PUBLIC spaces; there is no good reason we can’t do the same for all visitors to the county.
“They” said we couldn’t have a jet ski ban. “They” said we couldn’t have an owner-builder section in the building code. “They” said we couldn’t prevent the growing of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) in SJC. And yet we did all those things and more, simply by deciding we would. Are we self-governing or not? Is this our county or not?
Read the Destination Management Plan and let them know what YOU think!
The draft Sustainable Destination Management Plan (SDMP), as is, does indeed represent a lot of time, effort, and money on behalf of the county, and also provides a lot of new baseline information. It’s a very complicated document, with the accompanying appendices being equally complicated. But, with that being said, the county officials that I’ve spoken with in regards to this have been very open and forthcoming with answers to my questions, and have provided clarification and more information when I’ve asked for it. Also worth noting is that within the document the author’s admit that it’s still lacking in numbers that are critical to the overall equation, and further state that they’re continuing to do more research that will, in time, prevail in more much-needed information that will give us a more complete picture.
That being said, my analysis of the draft SDMP and its accompanying appendices as well as a review of the past surveys and research studies that were performed by the county’s third-party consultants all leading to the draft document as presented to us today, leaves me thinking that the document is greatly lacking in scope, and it’s wording is very misleading. The document offers what’s being touted as a new direction in managing the future of tourism in the San Juans by being marketed as an Eco-Tourism Niche Distinction and Green Certification Programming, a policy that will manage future tourism by “design and not by default,” one that’s based on the concept of “optimal capacity,” (which analyzes “ferries and accommodations having excess capacity,” and one that’s structured around balance between “economy, people, and place.”
In retrospect, it can be said that there’s nothing about the vast numbers of tourists that come to the San Juans on an annual basis that has happened by default. To infer this minimizes the fact that SJC, via the visitors bureau, has been intentionally over-promoting the islands for almost three decades. The author’s claim that the SDMP is a tool that will effectively lessen the symptoms related to over-tourism, while doing nothing to actually lessen the overall numbers of tourists deflects from the real problems associated with too many. Any long-term environmentally sustainable tourism plan would be one that imposes limits that are designed to protect our resources, while not forgetting that our main resources in the San Juans are our shared natural environment, our rural character and our sense of community.
European Union, 2018
Research for TRAN Committee –
Overtourism: impact and possible policy responses
Key Findings–
“Overtourism is ultimately a result of tourism strategies focused on volume growth, as currently pursued throughout the world, and it mostly reflects residents’ perspectives on tourism.
“Destinations pursue various strategies to address the negative impacts of overtourism, but the underlying reason for overtourism, volume growth, is rarely discussed. ”
The authors, while admitting that we’ve already reached a point of over-capacity during the peak season, don’t go quite as far as admitting their past role in this, and instead offer us a new management plan that offers the following–
It’s a plan that’s designed to mitigate the symptoms of over-tourism by using the science of dispersion–
a) by promoting for more tourism during our shoulder and off-season, “Focus seasonal destination marketing to the time period of October through May,” “For the Islands to attract visitors more in the off-season, investments and marketing of more flexible indoor/outdoor activities and venues should be a focus going forward,” “Connect visitors with unique island offerings such as local food purveyors, farms and farm stays, artists, craftspeople, special events and other experiences,”
b) by promoting those areas of our islands that are currently less known to the public (our favorite hideaways),
c) by projected massive spending increases for projected future tourist-related infrastructure needs both on land and sea, “The Implementation Plan presented in Chapter 6 (of the Ross Plan) proposes just over $51 million in capital projects over the next six years. More than $25 million of these projects are land acquisition projects led by the Land Bank; the remainder includes development and renovation projects led by San Juan County Parks, Environmental Stewardship, and Public Works.
d) by allowing “stealth camping,” and tourist parking in alternative areas during peak season– the school, and the fire station being the two places indicated,
e) by promoting for a more sustainable future with fewer cars, and providing more island mobility in the way of shuttle buses, and cyclists, the mentality, “(ref. a car free future, ref. crowding isn’t cars).”
I can see little difference in our past tourism management policies and the county’s current plan to manage tourism by design and not by default. Any plan by design that intentionally creates the infrastructure for, and promotes for more tourism while at the same time attempting to mitigate the symptoms associated with it by dispersing them to seasons and locations that have yet to become over-touristed does not echo the spirit of the vision statement. Managing tourism by the concept of balancing economy, people and place is really only a continuation of managing by economy.
Ken, you stated, “For example, the estimated number of visitors to SJC (2022) was 880,000.” The term “Visitors” as used for calculating purposes can be confusing (see below). Though the 2018-2022 ferry ridership chart does refer to the “Est. of Visitor Passengers” in 2022 as 880,162, this does not represent the number of tourists for that year. Tourists are represented by the term “Datafy Unique Visitors <14 days."
P-27 DMP– "Visitors are defined in this document as anyone who is not a full-time resident of the Islands. Most of the year-round visitors to the Islands are daily service or seasonal workers, family and friends of residents, and part-time residents with secondary homes. There is also a summer surge of leisure travelers visiting the Islands on day trips to multi-day excursions, including boaters that often have visited these waters for years. Many of these visitors know and respect the Islands and their values, with data identifying over 63 percent as regular and repeat visitors (Datafy, 2023)."
And even though this paragraph above infers that the "number of annual boaters" are included within this figure… they are not. Also worth noting is that "Repeat Visitors" are only counted once per year.
P-32 DMP
"Recreational boaters from the mainland and elsewhere are also considered visitors. "
"In 2022, Washington’s active boating fleet comprised 237,493 vessels and SJC is considered a net importer of boaters, receiving more boats registered in other counties than SJC registered boats going elsewhere (Washington Sea Grant, 2023). Recreational boats commonly visit the outer Islands and utilize harbor resources on the main Islands but are very difficult to quantify in terms of both number of boats and visitors on these vessels. This information represents a large data gap in visitation that the County is working to address with boat counts and survey data through the marine program."
P-36 DMP
"The number of boats relative to the available facilities suggest the Islands are overcapacity in this (resident and visitor boating) sector. The County’s marine program is evaluating the impact of anchoring and levels of boater use to identify opportunities to reduce resource impact and improve boater experience."
It should also be noted that this accounting at this time only includes SJI, Orcas, and Lopez. The term "Unique Visitors" also does not include residents’ seasonally visiting friends and family, second homeowners and their friends and family, hired contractors, and service workers/deliveries, boaters, cyclists, stealth campers, illegal vacation rentals, walk-on ferry users, or airplane flights.
Ken, you stated, "…here’s an actual PLAN: San Juan County will charge each of those visitors (everyone that isn’t a legal resident or county taxpayer) exactly $10 per visit as an access-to-services fee."
Many of us differ 180 from this viewpoint. We do not see the problems caused by overtourism as being problems related to $$$. In fact, this is the very reasoning that's responsible for many of the problems that we're having now.
The debate is not over who’s going to fund our path to overtourism, it’s one that’s more related to the inherent costs thereof, (those not always measured in terms of dollars).
And what are some of the costs to our communities that are relative to overtourism? We see them all around us, everyday.
Beyond being a business model that is unsustainable in the long run,
it means the difference in slow-growth as opposed to fast growth (think build-out),
it’s threatening to our environment, (including our quality of air, and our marine ecosystem),
it negatively affects the affordability of housing, (SJC has the highest median house prices and the lowest Housing Affordability Index in the state),
it negatively affects the availability & affordability of rental housing, and creates the resultant fallout from that, (i.e., businesses w/o workers because of housing, many people forced to leave the islands, etc.),
it creates a never-ending cycle of the need for increased spending on new tourism related infrastructure, and the maintenance of existing infrastructure,
it creates income insecurity, (low-paying jobs = less spendable income resulting in an above average number of people that are forced to use the food bank, food stamps, and the Community Resource Center’s food access programs like Meals on wheels, Women, Infants and Children (WIC) nutrition Programs, the Senior Farmers Market Nutrition Program (FMNP), it increases homelessness, people living in substandard conditions, and inadequate health care,
it promotes rising income inequality (40% of the full-time households in SJC have income considered either low, very low or extremely low according to HUD’s guidelines),
it degrades our natural environment,
it strains our shared resources (water, elec., sewage, garbage, medical resources),
it promotes gentrification in our communities,
increased noise,
increased litter,
increased crowding,
insufficient parking,
problems getting a ferry reservation,
long lines,
loss of rural character,
loss of our sense of community.
As you know there’s now a word for the latter two indices. It’s called “solastalgia,” one that describes a generally shared feeling that our sense of place is being violated.
“Over-tourism that pays for itself, is still over-tourism.”
What I’m finding missing from the Destination Management Plan are any actual PLANS. There are lots of “mission statement” phrases, in fact it is full to the gunnels with them; most of them sound good as “statements of intent” but there are no actual plans proposed. A plan requires clear, specific goals and a time table. The Destination Management Plan seems to be much more of a statement and wish-list than a plan for achieving anything.
My practical proposal of a user-fee for visitors is not intended to solve the whole conundrum of tourism. It is simply one idea for raising money for mitigating visitor impacts.
I do agree with Michael that there needs to be some kind of a limit to the number of visitors on the island at any one time. Perhaps the Destination Management (Study) will be helpful to determine a target number for each island? Developing a plan will take actual leadership, which is obviously sorely lacking at the county level. A real leader looks at the available data, makes a reasonable plan and then implements that plan. If it doesn’t work, then they admit that and adjust the plan as necessary or throw it out and try something else. Wasting money on CYA studies and consultations is NOT how effective leadership operates.
I would like to point out that Michael’s statement, ” We do not see the problems caused by overtourism as being problems related to $$$.” demonstrates why he has nothing viable to offer as an alternative to the status quo. OF COURSE overtourism is a problem related to money! How could it possibly not be?
My wife and I are working middle class islanders trying to afford to slow down in our golden years (forget about retiring!) and to keep our home in an increasingly expensive place by offering vacation rentals. I make literally 3 times more by vacation renting a modest house near Rosario than I could renting it via a year-round lease. AND I avoid getting stuck with tenants that won’t move out, won’t pay the rent and don’t take care of the property! Vacation rental properties stay in MUCH better condition than long term rentals. OF COURSE it’s about the money!
Some islanders might think they want to live in a “socialist worker’s paradise” where it’s not “all about the money” but I suspect if they actually visited one, they’d find that there are a whole other set of problems in that system! Like it or not, San Juan County is still part of the USA and capitalism, entrepreneurship and self reliance is how it’s currently being done here. I am not defending the moral aspects of this economic system but no one can deny that this is what we have to work with right now. Realpolitik is not pretty but if you want to make ANY changes for the better, you have to start where you are, not where you wish you were.
The problem for all of us is the lack of legal tools to fine-tune a community which is in fact itself ever changing. For anyone here long enough, I need give no examples. Suffice it to say that even self-declared “natives” go through life changes and find themselves tolerating conditions they wouldn’t when younger.
The “limit this” and “limit that” solutions are inevitably of the meat axe variety for which neither statutory nor constitutional county-wide authority exists irrespective of the intense feelings and considerable intelligence focused on this issue.
Living here does not give one the exclusive right to make noise, scatter trash and add to clusters or crowds which we as a community do. Nor does it give those living here the exclusive right to consume in the many ways that humans do, the natural resources of these islands. They are not “ours,” though that sense creeps into the undertone many complaining about the desecration of nature.
But we could, if we chose, be examples of good citizenship among people and nature, and by example, teach rather than merely preach.
Ken, you stated, “I would like to point out that Michael’s statement, ” We do not see the problems caused by overtourism as being problems related to $$$.” demonstrates why he has nothing viable to offer as an alternative to the status quo. OF COURSE overtourism is a problem related to money! How could it possibly not be?”
Errr, “limits” IS an example of something viable that I’ve brought to the table.”
My point about $$$, (you may be the only one out there that this goes over their head), is that there are some amongst us that choose lifestyles that put $$$ ahead of community… a sad reality, but still, reality.
Bill, you stated, “The problem for all of us is the lack of legal tools to fine-tune a community which is in fact itself ever changing.”
The debate always seems to lack context, and this statement reflects just that. What’s also missing from your statement is, “and a lack of political will.”
You state, “The “limit this” and “limit that” solutions are inevitably of the meat axe variety for which neither statutory nor constitutional county-wide authority exists irrespective of the intense feelings and considerable intelligence focused on this issue.”
Many communities have engaged limits… this is neither a “meat-axe” approach, nor is it a new phenomena on the political stage.
You state, “But we could, if we chose, be examples of good citizenship among people and nature, and by example, teach rather than merely preach.”
You’ve had your hand in playing the back door and shaping politics in San Juan County for many years. “Steering the ship” as you’ve often referred to it.
Yes, I guess we can all just love each other, and help each other, and do the best we can and let you experts continue to take care of our problems… and how’s that working out for us? I walk my talk, (much to your chagrin) as you well know, and lest you forget. The people deserve better.
Bill–You make some good points about a car tax, although I think they’re not relevant in the context of the Destination Management Plan. That is, if the number of “visitors”, say 655,000, exceeds our County population by 36 times, local resident impact is relatively small; and your proposal does nothing to mitigate the tourist impact. Further, taxes on bicycles, as proposed in the plan, and boats? Does that include sailboats, canoes and kayaks?
That aside, should ALL vehicles be taxed equally, whether they’re gas-powered of electric?
The notion of imposing a tax on gasoline vehicles is a fair one if it provides incentives for electric vehicle ownership or, as you suggest, an electric-powered transportation system; but don’t we already have a gas tax, in fact, one of the highest in the country? And what about, for example, local suppliers and contractors (think pickup trucks) who don’t yet have electric options?
As a (still) gas-powered driver, I’d gladly pay a small fee if the proceeds were directed to an electric transportation system (Don’t just think buses–this could be a public / private fleet of Uber-like vehicles). But, I’d only pay it in proportion to my impact as a resident, as compared to those 655,000 visitors.
Thanks to all who are contributing here.
I’ve been hard at work all week on comments for the SDMP, mostly related to its need to include a LOT more data relative to visitation impacts. I may write another comment here about that later. One of the areas I’ve been thinking about is the question, how representative of the county population are the “stakeholders” whose opinions and knowledge have been included in the views that guide this document?
This morning I woke up with a thought:
The source of the county’s claim that our local economy relies on tourism and building construction is that these are the largest contributors to the county coffers, which are in turn based on what the county collects via business (B&O), sales, property, and lodging taxes.
But, it occurred to me, what about all the people here whose income does not derive from tourism or construction, and does not result in business, sales, or lodging taxes–and therefore is invisible to the county auditor?
When the majority of my paltry income came from being a landlord of a long term rental unit in Eastsound, that income was not subject to taxes that went to the county. The amount I earned in my doctor practice, and the portion that was tax exempt, resulted in a total that was below the B&O taxable threshold. What if there are lots of people in the county who, like me, cob together an income from multiple small sources that never are subject to county taxes?
As far as I know, none of the many people who work as caregivers, house sitters, pet sitters, house cleaners, lawn mowers, landscapers and gardeners, artists, sellers at the farmers market, who are not registered as, or employed by anyone with a Washington State business license, are subject to county taxes on their income.
I’m pretty sure none of the income of the people who work remotely for businesses based elsewhere winds up contributing to county taxes unless they own property here or buy taxable products here, so all those workers are invisible to the county auditor.
Certainly those who live on social security, whose income derives from pensions, personal investments, etc, contribute only sales and property tax to the county.
I don’t know if public libraries, schools, parks, OPALCO, water and sewer organizations, federal employers like the post office, all of whom are employers, contribute to the county tax coffers.
I’d like to call the auditor, but it’s Saturday. Maybe someone reading this can fact check it without getting defensive or feeling threatened. I’m just asking a question that I think needs to be answered.
Because if it’s true that a huge (unknown to me) number of islanders who are certainly part of the islands economy are not counted at all, could it be that the assumption of depending on tourism and construction that everyone has believed for decades, that becomes this self-sustaining cycle of supporting tourism and construction because “we must, or our local economy would collapse,” is actually not true, or highly distorted? To what extent does this view primarily serve those who profit from tourism and construction, at the expense of the rest of us?
I’ve been wondering about all the people who feel assaulted by tourism and development, who believe county council will always vote for things that support business and tourism, and leave the majority of islanders feeling they are without representation.
Is the real issue that county GOVERNMENT, and not “the local economy,” depends on those tax dollars to the extent that it wouldn’t be able to provide the basic services that the majority of islanders expect and want, or is it more true that what the county government spends BECAUSE of the boom in development, BECAUSE of the amount of traffic and people and demands by visitors and businesses that depend on visitors, depends on those tax dollars?
I’m guessing it’s somewhere in the middle, but I think it’s important for county council to be truly curious, find the way to gather and provide accurate data to the public, so we can make better-informed decisions about what we all really want to do about all this visitation, when it’s making so many people mad, and when it’s so obvious that it’s destroying habitat, degrading our ecosystems, and harming or killing countless wild living beings who are (or were, before they were killed) certainly county residents and visitors at least as deserving as humans to be here.
I agree with Alexandra’s comment on the omission concerning those portions of our economy outside the realm of destination visitors, They are large though ancillary aspects, including real estate and construction not dealt with because they aren’t, strictly speaking, tourism.
I don’t think that this Plan will have its arms around the reality of the situation without examination of the entire county economy.
While I do not support “limiting tourism,” I do hope that this whole thoughtful string of comments, in whole or in pieces, is timely submitted to the county.