||| FROM MICHAEL ‘MJ’ JOHNSON |||
Over the decades the overwhelming concern and the refrain from the people that live here regarding the numbers of tourists that visit our shores (including the number of, size of, and the duration of annual events), the amount of money being spent on tourism marketing and promotion, the amount of tourism related development that continues to take place, (second homes, vacation rentals, lodging, and tourism infrastructure needs), and the tactics being used to manage tourism (Freedom camping, Seasonality, and dispersion) in the San Juans has not changed. While recognizing the importance that tourism plays in our economy, San Juan County residents also recognize the need to stop kicking the can down the road, and start effectively regulating tourism in a sustainable manner.
The county, using funds from our lodging tax proceeds, has embarked upon a series of studies that are being conducted by third-party consultants in order to determine critical baseline data that is needed in helping to determine what are sustainable limits in regards to tourism and our environment, our ecological systems, our shared natural resources, our critical emergency response services, and our collective island community’s overall well-being. I feel this is money well spent, and I encourage both the county to continue in this endeavor, and for the people to keep a watchful eye on both how this is being done, and also the resultant information stemming from these studies.
San Juan County is currently at a serious juncture. Due to overwhelming public concern the draft Destination Management Plan (DMP) has been shelved for the time being and our elected officials have been given a number of recommendations by staff regarding the future of San Juan County’s Destination Marketing and Management Organization (DMMO) and its Visitors Bureau. The council is now putting together an advisory team consisting of stakeholders that will help guide them in making decisions that are critical to the future of tourism in the San Juans.
“The term Destination Mgmt plan commodifies our home as just being an attraction for the entertainment of tourists and implies that the islands themselves can and should be managed for tourists. I suppose none of this would matter if the plan was acceptable and publicly supported.”
Our refrain has not changed– It is hoped that San Juan County will embark upon a new era of tourism management by downsizing the Visitors Bureau and incorporating it within the county itself, by putting a sustainable limit on the numbers of tourists coming to the San Juans annually, by limiting the amount of money that is currently being spent on tourism marketing and promotion, by limiting the amount of money being spent on tourism related development, and by listening to our concerns regarding the tactics that are being employed in regards to tourism management.
This is an opportunity to be heard:
A Waldron Island resident, South Burn (1924-1994), undertook a detailed study of tourism not only in the county but also as experienced in other rural communities. Completed in 1983, his study was heavily documented and included many quotes from experts and well-known writers. Burn concluded that tourism in the San Juans was a strong local business not in need of any further publicity or promotion. Planning is needed, he said, because tourism “is an extremely corrosive [force] … acting to destroy our one priceless, non-renewable source — our beautiful, natural environs,” and “the economic benefits of tourism go only to those in the tourist industry (Burn, 41). The Journal of the San Juan Islands took up the conversation and that August published a special section on the pluses and minuses of tourism and the difficulty of finding any hard data on its local impact. More information was needed.
A San Juan County tourism planning committee was formed to investigate the current status and report to the county commissioners; among the report’s findings in 1985 was that San Juan County was almost three times more dependent on tourism revenue than the second-ranked county in the state. Two of the summary statements in the conclusion were that “the primary tourist resource of San Juan County is its beautiful natural environment, and … that environment is fragile and must be protected to the benefit of all including tourists and the tourist industry,” and that “business entities have the right to profit from the tourist industry, but they do not have the right to do so at the expense of the natural or social environment or the deterioration of the quality of life of the community” (Tourism in San Juan …, 12.2, 12.3). A community survey taken in 1990 found that residents were quite negative in their views about tourism and generally opposed further promotion and advertising.
Part I- https://www.historylink.
Part II- https://www.historylink.
**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.**
Michael,
Thank you for this thoughtful and important article.
You said “The council is now putting together an advisory team consisting of stakeholders that will help guide them in making decisions that are critical to the future of tourism in the San Juans.”
Can you suggest where community members can learn about this putting together of an advisory team?
When did this process begin? Where and when was it advertised to potential “stakeholders?”
What’s the process, and what are the criteria for deciding who the “stakeholders” should be? Is there a general application process, or are council members just asking people they know?
Whose interests are being represented?
I’m asking these questions because I find that regarding the tourism issue, “stakeholders” often refers to people and organizations who stand to gain or lose money. Those organizations include the county government itself, whose budget is largely composed of income deriving from tourism and construction. The people consulted are often those whose income derives from, or increases, with more tourism.
But is there a single resident in the county, human or wild non-human, who is not impacted by the level of tourism we already have, much less the ever-increasing amount? In other words, is there anyone who is NOT a stakeholder?
It seems that many county decisions are made based on what’s good for the “business community,” or what’s good for people with (or seeking) full time jobs working for others, and people with small or school-aged children.
The group that’s usually ignored, it seems to me, is the group of islanders who moved here seeking a life different from the mainstream culture. They may be subsistence farmers and gardeners, who live in old houses or shared housing or other structures, who do multiple jobs–often temporary and without benefits–as needed, because they want freedom, who trade services and goods, who aren’t raising children, whose income would officially qualify as well below the “poverty line,” but who don’t qualify for OPAL rental or home purchase due to not having regular jobs (and perhaps don’t want to live in a housing development anyway.)
It seems to me there’s a bias against input from community members who aren’t contributing more than property tax–if that–to county coffers or campaign funds, or providing paid jobs, as if it’s not enough to be a friend and neighbor and lover of the wild nature of the islands.
Good questions, comments, and observations Alexandra. Though I volunteered for, and have requested more information from one of the council members regarding the stakeholder team that’s being put together to offer guidance to the county council on the future of tourism in SJC, I’ve yet to hear back from her.
You asked, “Can you suggest where community members can learn about this putting together of an advisory team?”
The idea first came from county staff (the Environmental Stewardship Dept.), and was first previewed in the preliminary draft SJI Destination Management Plan. It was brought up again by SJC Parks and Fair Director, Brandon Andrews, (in his current role serving as Interim County Assistant Manager) during the July 11 county council meeting that was held on Lopez . Yes, as you can see from the below, the stakeholder group’s membership will consist primarily of those who profit from tourism.
From the update of the Destination Management Plan that was posted on 7/19/24 on the Engage San Juan platform titled “County Releases Public Comment Analysis Report for the Draft Destination Management Plan.” It quotes directly from the Public Comment Analysis Report, and offers the following–
“Takeaways ”
“In a presentation to the County Council on July 8, County staff noted the rich learning opportunity afforded by the project’s process and brought forward key takeaways including:”
“Conduct further analysis and focused engagement – A clearly defined impact assessment and situational analysis is also recommended to be part of any future Plan, to better showcase the balance of strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and constraints that must be considered in this tourism management planning process. It is recommended a Sustainable Tourism Leadership Team of stakeholders from the County, Town, local businesses, environmental and social interest, LTAC, ” Terrestrial Manager Group, and the Visitors Bureau/Chambers be convened to strategically guide any future planning as well as oversee implementation.”
https://engage.sanjuancountywa.gov/destination-management-plan?utm_source=ehq_newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=ehq-County-Releases-Public-Comment-Analysis-Report-for-the-Draft-Destination-Management-Plan&utm_campaign=website&utm_medium=email&utm_source=ehq
In contrast to this, if SJC was serious about creating a “clearly defined impact assessment and situational analysis” in regards to tourism and its impacts to our communities it would create a checklist that analyzes all of the long term negative impacts that all development, including tourism and tourism related development, will have on our island communities. Though we can clearly see where such policies have gotten us, (and it’s not difficult to project where they are taking us), what’s missing from the tool box is that which will allow SJC to gauge the impacts that tourism will have on our environment, our ecology, our shared and limited natural resources, our critical response resources, and on our quality of life into the future.
You asked, “is there anyone who is NOT a stakeholder?”
We are all stakeholders. Both those that have chosen to make money off of what the system has become, as well as those who moved here during simpler times in order to get away from it.
You stated, “The group that’s usually ignored, it seems to me, is the group of islanders who moved here seeking a life different from the mainstream culture.”
In a fair world one would think that such an advisory team would also consist of regular citizens that are being negatively impacted by tourism. The reality is, however, that those being the least responsible for the problems of the day are the ones that have the least representation, and are also the ones who are the most negatively impacted by them. Though it is anything but, this is what they call “balance.”
* the Terrestrial Managers Work Group, chaired by Land Bank director Lincoln Bormann is a network of 17 agencies that manage public lands in the islands including the National Historical Park, the San Juan Islands National Monument, the San Juan Preservation Trust, the State Parks, the dept. of Parks and Recreation, the Department of Natural Resources, the BLM, the County Parks, the Land Bank, San Juan Island Natl. Wildlife Reserve, the San Juan Preservation Trust, the Conservation District, San Juan County Dept. of Environmental Stewardship.