||| FROM MICHAEL ‘MJ’ JOHNSON |||
While the San Juan Islands Visitors Bureau continues to weaponize their mailing list by having just sent out their third round of action alerts to the County Council (see below), urging their membership to sign and send in their robo-letters of support, I’ve been reading the comments that were submitted during the public comment period for the draft Destination Marketing Plan, (DMP).
From the San Juan Islands Visitors Bureau
Dear Valued Members,
The County Council discussion regarding our contract has been postponed to August 6, so there’s still time to email a letter of support! Thank you to those of you who have emailed letters!
We strongly encourage all of our 225 members to copy, personalize, and send the letter below to the three Councilmembers before Friday, August 2, as they consider several potential options regarding how, or whether, they’ll renew the Visitors Bureau contract for 2025 and beyond.
Please let us know if you have any questions or if you will be submitting a letter so we can keep a count. Thanks!
Dear Councilmembers,
My business/non-profit, INSERT NAME HERE, is proud to be a member of the San Juan Islands Visitors Bureau. Their year-round destination marketing and stewardship messaging is essential to sustaining my business/non-profit. Especially now, with the negative ferry news since last summer that has generated a fear of getting stranded among Washington travelers, which account for approximately 73% of the annual visitors to the San Juan Islands. Almost daily I am reassuring guests that they will be able to arrive and depart via the ferries.
Add a personal message here for greater impact!
During the recent County Council Public Comment Analysis & Debrief Report hearing county staff referred to the majority of public comments that were submitted as being “off target.” That is, instead of commenting directly to elements that were contained within the DMP, that the majority of the comments submitted were calling for the Destination Management Plan to be “thrown out,” or for the Visitors Bureau’s contract “to not be renewed,” or they were in reference to what had been coined the “hot button topics,” with the main one being opposition to the idea of a citizen and visitor tax.
In reviewing all of the 900+ comments resulting from the DMP public comment period I can see that it is true… the majority of negative comments that were submitted were in response to the actions of, and the existence of the Visitors Bureau itself. Though these comments may be considered “off target” by some, it becomes obvious that many of these comments have a common thread worth noting, and that these comments are not out of line with the opinions of the majority of respondents from past public surveys that have been conducted in SJC, (see 1990 San Juan Islands Community Opinion Survey at bottom of page).
The common phrasing stemming from many of these disgruntled citizens echoe a refrain of less, not more. Less tourism promotion and marketing, and less money spent on tourism infrastructure… in short, fewer tourists. The common denominator of the majority of respondents indicate that SJC residents continue to maintain their desire for a healthier, more affordable housing market (including year-round rentals), a healthy environment and ecosystem, less stress on our natural resources, and quality of life.
Tourism is the only or one of the few industries that is fundamentally parasitic. It effectively rents out the local public domain to a population far larger and less concerned than the local population.
It creates a conflict between the local government, and the locals governed. The government sees tax income which is largely spent on attracting more tourism, while locals suffer a degradation of the public domain and public order which are the government’s first and most fundamental obligations to protect.
Because of this conflict, this becomes an area that local governments are unable to effectively govern.And, as one commenter so succinctly put it, “I acknowledge that our islands are currently overdependent on the tourism beast that continues to erode the quality of life and environment we all treasure. Rather than continuing to market and build new infrastructure for tourists we should look honestly at the economic and environmental costs of tourism and how to limit those costs.” I couldn’t agree more.
This is an opportunity for your voices to be heard–
1990 SAN JUAN ISLANDS COMMUNITY OPINION SURVEY
Prepared for: The Friends of the San Juans and The San Juan Islands Economic Development Council
Excerpts from the Executive summary–
The physical environment (the air, water and land around us) and the socio/cultural environment (the pace of life, friendliness of the community and freedom from crime and violence) were of greatest importance to most respondents. When asked “for what reason or reasons, if any, would you ever consider moving away from San Juan County,” 41% of all respondents cited because the friendly, relaxed rural atmosphere is disappearing. Protection of the natural environment ranked the highest priority when respondents were asked to prioritize their goals for the future of the islands.
Respondents were satisfied with most aspects of their life in the San Juans, but 59% indicated that they expect the islands will become less desirable to them as a place to live in the next few years.
Surveys Respondents were concerned about growth and wanted population growth to slow or stop. Fifty-three percent indicated they would like county population to stay the same or decrease, while 36% were supportive of growth, but at a slower rate. Seventy-two percent of those responding disagreed with the statement “San Juan County government should allow growth to take its natural course, not try to manage or control growth and development any further.
The majority of respondents wanted restrictions on growth and development. Seventy-seven percent of the respondents agreed with the statement “There should be limits on the amount of growth in the county,” and 55% agreed that “San Juan County government should enact stricter land use laws to regulate new development.” Only 13% of those responding agreed that county government has done a good job of managing growth.
Preservation of open space was a top priority goal for most respondents and most respondents (69%) were willing to pay additional taxes to preserve open space.
Most respondents were negative about the tourism industry. Fifty-six percent said that, for them, the disadvantages of tourism outweighed the benefits, compared to 15% who said the benefits outweighed the disadvantages. When asked “how do you feel about advertising and promotion of the San Juans as a tourist destination,” 65% checked opposed or strongly opposed. Respondents indicated it should not be county government’s responsibility to promote tourism.
After environmental issues, the most important issues or concerns varied with the respondent. Retirees were very much concerned with health care and taxes. Workers were concerned with the cost of living, job opportunities, and wages. Respondents with children in the household were concerned with the cost of living and with housing. Forty-four percent of all respondents with children in the household and 43% of all workers indicated they would consider moving away from the county because it is too expensive to live here.
Nearly half of the respondents (51%) indicated that they were bothered by airplane noise. Lopez respondents were bothered the most, most frequently citing planes from Whidbey Naval Air Stationas the cause. Orcas Islanders also cited Whidbey most frequently, while respondents from San Juan most frequently cited a nearby airport as the source.
In the written comments to the survey, concern about growth and its effect on the lifestyle and environment of the islands was the most frequently mentioned issue.
I don’t have an opinion on more vs. less tourism yet, but I think your statement that tourism “is the only or one of the few industries that is fundamentally parasitic” is fundamentally wrong. While we can argue what tourism takes or doesn’t take out of the community, the industry does provide hundreds of jobs. Employees’ that live on island spend their paychecks at local business, which supports more jobs and families. These businesses and their employees also pay local taxes, which fund, among other things, our schools and county road improvement projects. And they have generously given to the Orcas Island Community Foundation, the Orcas Senior Center, the Orcas Food Bank, and many other charities that provide vital support to islanders.
I could go on about the money the money tourism brings into the community and what it does, but you get the idea.
I agree tourism does have negative effects here that must be addressed, but you can’t minimize its benefits
In other words… you only know about the money part of tourism. Here’s a good reference for you if you’re interested in learning more about the pros and cons of tourism in small, seasonal resort communities Robert– G-O-O-G-L-E.
As I said, I’m aware of the negative aspects of tourism. I just wanted to point out the benefits you didn’t mention.
You might want to read Part 1, as I do point that out. It is a given that tourism creates $$$… everybody knows this.