||| FROM BILL APPEL |||
The recent draft of Destination Management Plan (“Draft Plan”) proposes a charge on all (nongovernmental?) vehicles that travel within the county. While this charge would appear to be in response to short-term visitors to this county, it actually responds to much more. It has to; we’re all visitors, and all must contribute to reparations to the environment. The length of visit is irrelevant. Those who claim the moral high ground as “native” or “here longer” will themselves not live here forever.
The central issue is how we are going to meet the conflicting needs to reduce greenhouse gasses while increasing demand for electric power from resilient sources. Our segue from fossil fuels to electrical energy will reduce resilience because our demand for electrical energy is increasing while our already insufficient local renewable power capacity is not.
Our use of private vehicles as our primary means of transportation widens this gap. Renewables, the most desirable source of locally generated power, are tidal, diurnal, seasonal and/or weather-dependent, all together, are by a large margin insufficient.
We have these choices: (1) a small nuclear-powered generator (don’t hold your breath; financial feasibility is still in doubt), (2) time-of-use electric rate structure designed to flatten demand peaks, or more draconian utility measures, (3) Continue the segue from fossil fuels to electric energy while maintaining our current lifestyle and see what happens, or (4) begin a shift of living habits starting with developing electric public transportation. The Draft Plan proposes the fourth alternative which I support.
It is axiomatic that the cost of prevention is less than the cost of remediation. A county vehicle fee is our first step in a planet-wide project whose next state of dynamic equilibrium no one alive today will see.
**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.**
Thanks Bill. The only real question is how hard the landing will be for our children and grandchildren. Intergenerational genocide is the term, pronounced with the same energetic shudder as Voldemort. Where’s Harry (and the equally powerful Hermionie) when we need them? Greta’s, sadly, missing her wand.
Surely we shouldn’t have to rely on fantasies to distract us from our own contribution to the problem.
Yes, I support a vehicle tax and yes I’d support some means of leveling the economic playing field impact of the tax. It’s worth a shot. Right now there are not only no brakes on the car, the foot is stuck hard on the accelerator. Teen agers do that and…have you ever seen the documentary “Murderball”?
“We have these choices: (1), (2) (3) or (4)?”
As one of the framers of the Sustainable Destination Marketing Plan (SDMP) Bill, I can see how such a limited framing of the issue would fall in your favor.
How about option number (5), “We begin a shift of living habits starting with developing electric public transportation, while at the same time we place limits on the numbers of tourists coming to our shores?” What’s axiomatic is that the best plan for holding our tourism related carbon footprint to a minimum, while at the same time reducing the growing needs for, and the costs related to infrastructure needs based on over a million “visitors” per year, is one that’s not in the plan, and is one that could effectively be accomplished by shifting our habits and limiting the visitors bureau’s tourism promotional capabilities, and placing limits on the numbers of tourists that arrive on an annual basis.
In reading third party consultant (Doug Whitaker’s Confluence Research and Consulting Framework for Capacities) it becomes clear that the the formula-based capacities being considered are based on the assumption of the number of vehicles, and boats allowed at study sites, “vehicles are equivalent to groups.” They do not account for visitation by alternative transport (e.g., bikes, walking, or busses). The current push for EV-shuttles and alternative parking areas, (on Orcas, our fire station and High school), is in line with this strategy as it’s merely a continuation of packing in as many tourists as we can while covering up the numbers. It’s obvious that this part of the current draft SDMP is more of an effort to free up parking spaces during peak season than it is to reduce the overall number of tourists.
Though research surveys that were performed seemingly cover every angle, they also leave open multiple interpretations of the desires of those of us “who claim the moral higher ground,” an assertion given simply because we love the place where we live, and do not want to see it destroyed.
For example, the surveys concluded that,
Manager traffic flow during ferry rushes: 93% visitors; 74% residents; 77% businesses
• Increase village parking: 84% visitors; 62% residents; 79% businesses
• Bus subsidies to reduce traffic: 81% visitors; 66% residents; 79% businesses
• Promote “leave cars behind”: 80% visitors; 79% residents; 74% businesses
While at the same time,
“Most residents and businesses are interested in slowing growth of visitation to maintain quality of life and tourism experiences,” and “Differences among islands were generally small, with 92 to 96% of residents saying summer visitation is at or overcapacity.”
It’s a bit convoluted isn’t it? Balance? This plan does not attain “balance.” Balance was what we had 30 years ago when the number of tourists were more in balance with the number of full-time residents.
Just because we re-direct our tourism promotion for the “leave no trace, fewer vehicle crowd” and begin seeing the resultant ever-increasing number of walk-ons and bicyclists, we forget that they had to arrive from somewhere before they parked their vehicles at the Anacortes landing. I’m all for reducing our carbon footprint, which most of us did in moving here in the first place, and many of us do by driving as little as needed, but I’m hesitant to “jump on the band wagon” and support such a plan when it obviously promotes a hidden agenda.
One of the suggestions that has been made and subsequently ignored, is for an E.I.S. sort of checklist that’s designed to measure the all-around impacts of too many people in one place at one time (including environmental costs, resource usuage, and quality of life issues). The current draft of the SDMP does not propose to do this either now, or into the future. Indeed, it states in regards to future studies on capacity, that “The (baseline) metric should probably focus on vehicles rather than people. These are easier to count and are more directly related to impact concerns (e.g., traffic congestion and parking). ”
To state that “those who claim the moral high ground as “native” or “here longer” will themselves not live here forever,” sidetracks the debate, and detracts from the reality that most of us moved here to get away from that which you’re promoting in the first place, and by doing so we’ve already made a conscious choice to make a shift in our living habits.
You can fool some of the people some of the time, but you cannot fool all of the people all of the time. The more things change, the more they stay the same.
I say, we put a moratorium on the implementation of the SDMP until further studies are complete, and that we change the baseline metrics within these studies to reflect numbers of people, and the impacts that these numbers have on our shared resources and on our communities, not just vehicles.
First, in response to Michael Johnson: I have had absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with the Draft Plan up to the point of making the comment above.
Second, the focus on tourism is a red herring, and seeks to place those human being who claim (inaccurately) not to be visitors here in a special category with special rights, straight-arming visitors of shorter visiting terms than their own. We do not live in a private park. The excuse given to justify a questionably legal visitor restriction, “more study” is not responsive to the problem. It is merely an attempt to say, in effect, “Because we live here, we get first claim to all resources, air, water, roads, parks and parking, and we’ll stop or curtail visitors until we decide there is enough left over for shorter term visitors while we make a few changes in our own behavior.”
This is backward. The more realistic phrase would be, “Because we live here, we are host to each other and all who visit. We will alter our behavior for our own long term benefit and share the experience of our success with shorter term visitors whose economic support is essential to our standard of living.”
We should, however, not stop gaining information about our actions and their consequences to determine what measures and behavioral changes would be most effective. Considering the need to allocate resources, including our own time and energies, this is money well spent.
May I remind all on moral high ground about us poor people who still use gas fired cars and can only afford ‘island beaters’ (an old reliable toyota tercel, which I am proud to own, thanks to the generosity of Bill Wulff 17 years ago) – that we ALREADY pay a steep vehicle tax, thanks to Tim Eyman, embezzler – who gave us 696 – supposed $30 dollar tabs. I’ve been paying over $70 for mine since he made the weight ordinance – since my old car has a steel body. This year I paid almost $80. I vote we get rid of that ordinance however we can and reinstate graduated tabs fees according to income and value of car. ‘
I don’t think the poor and working poor should be asked to pay more when income-wise, we ALREADY pay a much higher percentage of any income we have than the guy with 3 houses or a huge trust fund and fancy sports cars. This is why any ‘flat’ fee or tax is a lie.
What would be fair? I’d LOVE to hear some answers that actually make sense!
Meanwhile, the hype about all-electrification misses the mark too. who can afford it? What will the sources of that power be? We already know what hydro does to salmon and whale populations. Nuclear and the hype about ‘clean’ nuclear? There is NO clean energy. We need to stop saying there is and look at actual consumption. Such as aviation, world travel, etc. Adding more vehicle tax fees is not the answer. Make them graduated by income? Then sit back and listen to all the screaming and yelling “UNFAIR!”
Michael Johnson made a bunch of very good points, well backed by that survey and study which he cites, and which we should be using as our guideline and where even tourists agree with local assessments of the problem and their percentage numbers surpass the residents.’
Tourism itself is not the problem. Pimping the fantasy is. We are not some product to be prostituted out. We are a community of people in an archipelago of sacred lands and waters to all who were here before us, and who should not only have a seat at the table, but should be at the head of it – teaching us all how to live in harmony with all Life around us that makes our being here possible.
First of all, THANK YOU to everyone that cares enough to join in the conversation. Secondly, THANK YOU to everyone that offers concrete, achievable ideas for consideration. And a special thanks to everyone that does so without ad hominem attacks; we really are all on the same side you know!
Can we all agree that no plan is perfect? And that we have to start where we are, not where we wish we were?
I think the only sane approach to any problem is to gather what facts are available, devise a plan to help and then implement that plan. THEN adjust as necessary; which may entail throwing out the plan and creating a new one! What is NOT needed is another damned study that will be read by few and followed by none. If we want results then we must have ACTION, not just words.
Therefore, I propose two simple plans:
1.) Charge a per vehicle user-fee for every vehicle coming to SJC.
2.) Defund the Visitor’s Bureau.
There are undoubtedly details to be figured out with these notions to make them as fair as possible and to sort out logistic and legal ramifications, but can we agree on the basic ideas? I’m not suggesting that there is any one answer to the challenges facing San Juan County. But unless we stop the whining and commissioning of every more studies and start actually DOING something, nothing is going to change.
Bill, you stated– “First, in response to Michael Johnson: I have had absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with the Draft Plan up to the point of making the comment above.”
You’ve been representing the SJIVB in online meetings, and here in the Orcasonian that promote the Sustainable Destination Marketing Plan (some of which I’ve also been in attendance) since day 1 in your role as sitting attorney on their board, (while at the same time you were sitting on several other SJC advisory bodies), and you continue to be a mouthpiece and performing damage control for them, like you’re doing now, ever since you resigned.
You state, “Second, the focus on tourism is a red herring, and seeks to place those human being who claim (inaccurately) not to be visitors here in a special category with special rights, straight-arming visitors of shorter visiting terms than their own.”
Over-tourism as stated from my side of the bench is not a red-herring, the signs are everywhere. It’s here now, and will continue to get worse unless the county changes their focus away from promoting for more. If you’re not seeing this, you’re not looking. If there’s any red-herring it’s in your continued attempt to mis-frame the issue, and in a draft management plan that infers “less” while at the same time its action plans are obviously calling for “more.”
If the version of “visitor” is, as you claim, “all of us” then perhaps you could convince the county, via the Visitors Bureau, to redo their current definitions of residents, visitors, and unique visitors, and properly state that the numbers of “tourists” that we have coming to the San Juans has now grown to somewhere around 2,000,000 annually.
You can continue to mis-frame the issue and hit below the belt by the shallow assertion that those of us that differ with the status quo approach and speak out in public (that those who disagree with you), are merely, “those human being who claim (inaccurately) not to be visitors here in a special category with special rights, straight-arming visitors of shorter visiting terms than their own”), but nothing could be further from the truth. There’s nothing self-righteous for residents like myself to study the issues, and speak up and engage with others in an effort to change the direction the county’s going. It’s part of the basic framework of our constitution, and we have every right to do so.
First you mis-frame both my words and my intentions, (and by default the many that agree with me), when you state, “It is merely an attempt to say, in effect, Because we live here, we get first claim to all resources, air, water, roads, parks and parking, and we’ll stop or curtail visitors until we decide there is enough left over for shorter term visitors while we make a few changes in our own behavior.”
And then you have the gall to continue by correcting your own misrepresentation of what I said in the first place, by stating, “This is backward. The more realistic phrase would be, “Because we live here, we are host to each other and all who visit. We will alter our behavior for our own long term benefit and share the experience of our success with shorter term visitors whose economic support is essential to our standard of living.”
And what success might you be speaking of, what is our success Bill? Is over-tourism your idea of success? It seems obvious when I look around, that we’re successfully ruining the place we love, we’re loving it to death. Altering our behavior for our own long term benefit WOULD include engaging in strategies that are designed to prevent over-tourism, and over-growth.
The more realistic phrase would be, “Because we live here, we are host to each other and all who visit. We will alter our behavior for our own long term benefit by crafting tourism and growth policies that are in line with preserving our environment, our rural character, and our quality of life realizing that these are the essential reasons why the shorter term visitors whose economic support is essential to our standards of living come to the islands in the first place.”
First you say, “The excuse given to justify a questionably legal visitor restriction, “more study” is not responsive to the problem.” And then you state, “”We should, however, not stop gaining information about our actions and their consequences to determine what measures and behavioral changes would be most effective. Considering the need to allocate resources, including our own time and energies, this is money well spent.”
Which is it Bill?
And though the third-party consultant Doug Whittaker of Confluence Research and Consulting is determined to shift the main focus of his future research on parking and traffic congestion, (this being an example of SJC’s new “tourism management by design not default”), he states that there IS a need for further studies, and that there IS a place for limits,
Ref. San Juan Islands Sustainable Tourism Management Plan – A Framework for Capacities (12/2002), P-12, All-island Capacities “Limiting visitation (e.g., ferry limits; hard ceilings on overnight accommodations) is probably premature without real-time visitation gaging that residents, businesses, and visitors can calibrate with actual conditions.”
You are correct in your assertion that “We do not live in a private park.” And though you are the only reference to this analogy that I’ve ever heard, it’s worth noting that this is what Confluence Research and Consulting specializes in, they study over-tourism in parks and recreational areas, and then they develop guidelines for visitation, guidelines that more often than not include limits on tourists.
The other third-party consultant the county is using for their newfound “tourism management by design, not default,” is Pandion Consulting and Facilitation, a full blown travel industry design and consultation company. They promote tourism on a world-wide scale under the guise of “Certified Green” and “Certified Sustainable.”
And before you ask, “Isn’t that the kind of visitors you’d like for us to promote?” The answer would be, “No. Like many, I’d like to put a stop to all future tourism promotions. We have enough.
“It doesn’t matter that we have almost 2,000,000 environmentally responsible, socially educated, and culturally aware visitors coming to our shores annually. It only matters that we have almost 2,000,000 visitors coming to our shores annually.”
At the risk of being labeled “a whiner,” to add to the many other suggestions that have been offered, (and ignored), I would add the following excerpts from two letters from Bill Appel to me in times past, and in doing so would suggest that we substitute language that’s more exclusively meant for tourism, and tourism related growth. Both of the recommendations below are not far from the idea of of having a tool similar to an Environmental Impact Statement (a commonly used tool for analyzing environmental the impacts from commercial logging practices, or building permits), but further the intent of such a tool with a scoring system that not only includes an environmental assessment, but one also including elements relative to our quality of life, and most importantly, one recognizing the long-term effects of tourism, and tourism related growth on our communities.
1) In a 5/2022 proposal to the Port of Friday Harbor,
For purposes of future Port development,
“I would propose that the Port Commission adopt a scoring system that recognizes and respects the criteria set forth in the EDE The Port is the only
governmental entity authorized to risk capital assets surplus land sales, favorable leases.”
infrastructure support) specifically benefitting private entities.
“Scoring could be applied to issues such as: Would the quality of local jobs generated be higher with different development? Would the new jobs exacerbate the historic and intractable shortage of low and moderate cost housing? Would additional high-end housing or tourist facilities add to the county’s (and the Port’s) economic balance and resilience? What would the traffic and logistical consequences be; 1.e.. who pays in money or quality or social experience?”
and,
2) Sept. 2019 in response to the new vacation rental working group I was a member of,
“I think your group should do a SWOT analysis: Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities and Threats.
To correct an assertion by Michael Johnson, I served as an ex-officio member on the board of the Visitors Bureau as an appointee of the San Juan EDC. I learned a lot. Taking a course in French does not make one a French citizen, but does open a window into the culture. The implication that I have a bias because of having so served is unfounded. Moreover, I have not served on the Visitors bureau board for about two years and, I repeat, I have had nothing to do with input into or generation of the Draft Plan.
The quotes from my emails deal with the entire county economy and were not limited to tourism. The Draft Plan’s Item 4 on Page 51 purports to speak to “a more balanced economy.” I believe this to be an overstatement. As a 6 year board member of the EDC, my concern was then and is now the entire county economy, as to which port districts are key players, not for just transportation, but for light industry and offices supporting jobs that pay more and promise better futures than work in the tourist industry. And I adhere to that today. There is a lot to do on this.
Those who want to pause things have relatively stable financial situations and are in the second halves of their likely life spans. What I believe they overlook is the futures of those who are young and trying to find their way in the world. This was the focus in my communications to Michael Johnson and remains my focal concern today. Tourism is not going to go away, but balancing our economy is critical to a community that lives in both hope and harmony. This will not happen by reduction of tourism for which there are no feasible legal tools but by developing alternative enterprises that give our citizens a choice of positive futures.
From the article, by Bill Appel: “Our segue from fossil fuels to electrical energy will reduce resilience because our demand for electrical energy is increasing while our already insufficient local renewable power capacity is not.”
This is misleading. We already get about 90% of our electricity from renewables. As a county, we are far higher than the US average. It doesn’t really matter that the sources are almost entirely on the mainland; what matters is that those electrons are generated by renewable sources. We have neither the need nor the means to have a local renewable power grid. Washington is a national leader in renewable generation and decarbonization efforts, and fossil fuels need to be phased out ASAP.