||| FROM MICHAEL JOHNSON |||
“There is no power for change greater than a community discovering what it cares about.” -Margaret Wheatley
The unanswered questions repeatedly asked over the years by concerned citizens regarding how much tourism and how much growth can our environment, our natural resources, and our social well-being stand are vital to our quality of life, and to the long-term viability of each of our island communities. Without answers to these critical questions our elected officials are unable to put proper guardrails in place in order to protect our island communities from overgrowth and overtourism. It is, therefore, imperative for us to study these neglected areas in an effort to come up with the relevant base-line criteria needed in order to help our elected leaders make wise decisions in properly navigating our future. Without answers to these critical areas of concern our tourism and growth policies will continue to be dysfunctional.
“You can ignore reality, but you can’t ignore the consequences of ignoring reality.” -Ayn Rand
These are questions that have been continually ignored by many of our past elected officials. Aye, until now, administration after administration has denied that problems even exist, or that they’re big enough to warrant thinking outside the box and doing something about. So, how’s this going for us? The obvious answer is that kicking the can down the road by multiple administrations over time has resulted in an insensible rise in income inequality, a collapsed housing market, stress on our infrastructure, mistrust of our elected officials, and extreme divisiveness within our communities. Continually mis-framing the issue(s) at hand over the years has culminated in the chaotic spectacle now enveloping our communities regarding the future of tourism and growth in SJC. Indeed, in reading the local news recently one gets the idea that the intellectual content of the debate over “how much” has now morphed into a debate over “how fast.”
“When you mix science and politics, you get politics.” -Unknown
The content of this debate is not conditioned by clear definitions of sustainability, or of our carrying capacity, nor are there any baseline measurements of the over-all state of our environment, our natural resources, or our social health and well being… all of which are critical components to our quality of life. The debate surrounding the issue(s) at hand are simply not conditioned by unbiased, clear-cut definitions based on science, out-lining a desired end state into our future. Considering where SJC’s current land-use policies and tourism management plan is taking us, such baseline criteria has never been more important… it is absolutely crucial to our elected officials decision making at this point in time.
“Every major crisis we face today can be traced to corporate goals of maximizing profits regardless of the social and environmental costs.” -John Perkins
It’s difficult to believe that our thinking has devolved to the point where we are now on the precipice of making policy changes based on the argument that, “We’re not growing fast enough.” It’s absolutely absurd to think, and where is it written, that county policy should be based on the fact that there’s simply a lot of permits waiting in the que? Where’s the logic in this? Our current policy approach, during a time of record-breaking permit approvals no less, is already on a non-stop spiral towards over-growth and over-tourism. Are we now to think, that after all the hard work that’s been done by so many regarding vacation rental limits, that these limits may eventually be stricken simply because, “there’s a lot of permits in the que?” This is not responsible government… this is quick-fix, short-term, utter madness. Did I mention “dysfunctional?”
“There’s something truly wrong with a debate that’s centered around, not, “how far can we go considering the science,” but rather, “how fast can we get there at all costs.” -Michael Johnson
For further information go to “doebay.net/bigpicture.pdf”
To contact your elected leaders go to–
Cindy Wolf—cindyw@sanjuanco.com or 360-370-7477
Christine Minney— christinem@sanjuanco.
Jane Fuller— janef@sanjuanco.com or 360-378-2898
Several decades ago, when I taught college, I asked my students to write an essay based on the refrain from Joni Mitchell’s “Big Yellow Taxi”, to wit: “Don’t it always seem to go, you don’t know what you got til it’s gone. They paved paradise and put up a parking lot.”
I’ve lived here for ~50 years, during which time the population of the county has grown over FIVE times, from less than 4000 to 20,000 today. The recently passed comp plan planned for a maximum population growth of 3000 people (from 16k to 19k) BY THE YEAR 2036. We have already exceeded the planned for growth for the next 13 years.
How many locals know that the buildout population baked in to the comp plan BUT NEVER DISCUSSED AND BURIED IN THE APPENDIX is over 130,000? That the county council has consistently REFUSED to even run its own numbers to validate this? Don’t believe me? pull up https://data2017-01-09t190539232z-sjcgis.opendata.arcgis.com/datasets/SJCGIS::totalndli/explore. which is the newest version of the original “tax parcel” database which is no longer available, making the citizen’s job of number crunching that much more difficult. LMK if you’d like a copy of an earlier database that shows all 17000 plus SJC tax parcels. Seems DCD is really trying to make an effort—to actually parse out what the true growth potential baked into the density map—all but impossible. When County Council had to vote on whether to make the actual buildout numbers public, Council person Wolf said (you can look it up on line) “I can’t vote for this, because if we knew what the buildout population was, WE WOULD HAVE TO DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT.”
For those of you wondering if any of this is true, check out “doebay.net/appeal” to see what some of your local residents did 20plus years ago to shed light on this issue.
Do you care about:
your taxes increasing and services declining? Ferry challenges? Water depletion? The Comp Plan’s Vision Statement (supposed to be fulfilled by the comp plan but is in fact entirely ignored?) No place to park, no housing for workers, seasonal or not? You know the issues. The question only is: will YOU take the time to learn and act? Basically no one has so far and you can smell, see, feel, hear and taste the consequences.
It’s your home. Please remember that if you don’t weigh in, you’ll continue to lose what drew you here in the first place. I’m not whining. I’m not begging. You could shoot the messenger but the message is right there staring you in the face every time you, say, get up at precisely 7am to attempt to get a ferry reservation and fail.
Don’t it always seem to go…
It doesn’t have to be that way, but it won’t change without your engagement. Start by learning the truth. Start with “doebay.net/bigpicture.pdf”
It would be hard to find a more articulate statement of the problem.
There are a number of forces at work, and we have no legal way to deal with all of them.
1. We cannot erect a drawbridge, though the ferry system provides a de facto barrier. The county has no legal power to limit the number of arrivals. Therefore, tourism per se cannot be regulated any more than the number of customers of any other business.
2. The county cannot survive financially without extensive tourism. Do we want a hospital or not? Can the resident population of every island support a drugstore with a licensed druggist? The resident population is subject to the same vagaries of behavior as elsewhere, and requires substantial domestic support. Tourism helps pay for it.
3. Everyone looks for a “bright line” limit to the county carrying capacity. There isn’t one. Capacity calculations don’t consider evasions such as desalination that some can afford, and that even water companies could afford, serving, of course, those who could pay very high water rates into which would be built the cost of very high power consumption which in turn could, because of possibly exceeding the BPA safe harbor rate for up to a fixed amount, mean that electric bills would soar too- unless fossil fuels were used and I’ll leave that issue alone here. This would not discourage those with the means to pay, but would empty the county of those who could not, a process which for real estate cost reasons, is already underway. The reality concerning a limitation is that what can be sustained, with enough money, is likely far above what numbers people are looking at now. There is no bright line.
4. Newcomers arrive and love what they see. They do not see the deterioration that old timers have seen, and feel grief or anger. The real problem with tourism is that it’s the only major economic activity that benefits private business people at the expense of the public good: peace and quiet, intact nature with our companion plants and creatures, in effect, eroding the local ethos and nature that belongs to everyone. Having sat on the board of the San Juan Islands Visitors Bureau in the past, I can say that its members are aware of this problem. The board encourages its member organizations to lessen these costs on the human and natural community, but the problem will not go away to everyone’s satisfaction as it is a characteristic of the business itself.
We are not alone in this experience. This is a very difficult problem and no one has solved it.
.
Good comments, nice to see Joe Symons commenting in particular as he figured all this out a long time ago. And yet the pro-growth lobby marches on.
It occurs to me that ballot initiatives might be the most effective way to address some of these items. Going through the regular channels takes too long and allows stakeholders with vested interests to run interference and water down any meaningful action.
Let’s get an item on the ballot and let people vote directly. Where to even begin? How about a moratorium on new tourist accommodation. No new hotels, no expansion of existing resorts, and certainly no approvals of new vacation rental permits. Who wants these things? Only the minority of people who actually profit from them. It’s a powerful and wealthy bloc, but I’m skeptical that they have the numbers.
Bill,
1.
When you state, “We cannot erect a drawbridge,” you misrepresent the issue.
When you state, “The county has no legal power to limit the number of arrivals,” you misrepresent the issue.
There’s nobody on the planet that doesn’t realize how valuable tourism is to our economy. Nobody’s saying “shut down the tourist industry.” Local people want priority loading for locals… makes sense to me.
When you state, “Therefore, tourism per se cannot be regulated any more than the number of customers of any other business,” you are correct. This is true under existing policies. They do have it all sewed up, don’t they? And how’s that working for us?
We’re in crisis mode… continuing to look at our problems in the same way we have in the past IS the problem. At the risk of sounding like a politician running for office, “It’s time for a change.” That is, it’s time we stop operating out of antiquated system that no longer serves the best interests of the people, one that’s been lobbied into place by the tourism and real-estate industries.
As we transition from the, “It could never happen here,” phase to the, “So what, there’s nothing you can do about it” part of the debate, I say, we live on an island… there is only so much space we can occupy. Living in a place that’s so different from the mainland, while being governed by the same laws that regulate the mainland… “is not good for children and other living things.” The people deserve better than the future we are heading towards.
Local scientist Janet Alderton states it clearly, when she says, “Doing more of what got us here in the first place will not help to provide the housing our communities need to support the services and amenities that we all demand.”
I believe Chomsky frames the problem clearly in his, Three Major Threats to Life on Earth That We Must Address in 2021 Nuclear Annihilation / Climate Catastrophe / Neoliberal Destruction of the Social Contract, when he unequivocally states, “Countries in North America and Europe have eviscerated their public function as the state has been turned over to the profiteers and civil society has been commodified by private foundations. This means that the avenues for social transformation in these parts of the world have been grotesquely hampered. Terrible social inequality is the result of the relative political weakness of the working class.”
We’re still looking for leaders that are willing to break the mold, and organize the people on a different path.
People are often surprised to be reminded that a county regulation cannot be imposed by popular vote. That power is restricted to the County Council or failing that, the Legislature. We learned this not long ago when an effort in support of an otherwise compliant initiative to increase orca protection ended upon its submission to the County Auditor.
Bill,
2.
When you state, “The county cannot survive financially without extensive tourism. Do we want a hospital or not? Can the resident population of every island support a drugstore with a licensed druggist?”
Though true, each of these statements is, IMO, slightly off base, and left as is represent a false dichotomy. Nobody’s saying “pull the plug.”
I say that our resident population with a limit on tourism infrastructure (larger airports, larger roads, vacation rentals, hotels, BnBs, more parks, trails, bicycle paths, etc., etc., etc.), will need substantially less domestic support, and tourism can still help pay for it.
Bill,
3.
When you claim there isn’t a “bright line limit, to the county carrying capacity” you are correct. But that doesn’t mean it isn’t possible… it just means that it hasn’t been done. The lack of information is not fact… it’s just a lack of information. Without quantifying our resources we don’t have the numbers, we don’t have the ability by which we can calculate the future supply of that which we know is not unlimited.
SJC’s leadership has yet to enlist professionals that do these types of studies that might quantify our resources. If we had done these kind of studies years ago, we wouldn’t be having a debate about capacity/limits today, and we wouldn’t have to worry about the need for desalinization plants to supplement our water resource.
If we had something like an “environmental impact statement” that was performed by an outside expert in the field, one documenting what, considering our current growth and tourism trends, will happen to the woods, to the water supply, to the ferries in July and August, to the people of modest income, to the seclusion of small anchorages – no need to go on… we would have a valuable tool that’s currently missing from our toolbox.
Everything you state in your comments, very high water rates, high electricity rates, etc., all leading towards emptying the county of those who cannot afford to pay for them… is happening now. Without a paradigm shift this will continue.
You state, “The reality concerning a limitation is that what can be sustained, with enough money, is likely far above what numbers people are looking at now.”
I say, the reality is that if we continue the path we are currently on that, “what can be sustained, with enough money, is likely far above what numbers people are looking at now.”
Bill,
4.
Yes, tourism represents a lot of things… it’s as American as apple pie. In SJC it represents capitalism for the rich, and socialism for the poor. Did I mention it was as American as apple pie? But, as Americans we also have the right to make changes.
I have to laugh and cry at the same time while browsing the “San Juan relocation Guide” that’s put out annually by the Chamber, the Visitors bureau, and the newspapers as I watch them continually over-promoting nostalgia, “Ahhh, come to the island’s and enjoy our (once) slow-paced lifestyle, our (once) unspoiled beaches, our (once) uncluttered villages and hamlets, our (once) unlittered streets and sidewalks. A place where the sun peaks thru three hundred and twenty four days a year. Take a step back in time, think of your childhood, and see what your communities used to look like many, many years ago. Imagine… you, your family, and all of your friends could be living here too.” They’ll still be selling this 20 years from now.
You state, “We are not alone in this experience. This is a very difficult problem and no one has solved it.”
I believe that you are only partially correct in this assessment… it is an incredibly difficult problem. And it’s one that’s fueled by greed, and clouted by misrepresentation. It’s one that will take all the needed tools in the box, and the political will to resolve.
You are only partially correct in your assessment that these are problems that “no one has solved… .” There are many communities around the world who have taken this more seriously that we have, and are well on their way to solving their problems that are relative to overgrowth and overtourism. From Orcas all we need to do is look as far as Fri. Har. to see legislation “prohibiting vacation rentals in the downtown core.” We only have to look as far as other cities and towns close by us on the mainland that have enacted stringent measures towards limiting growth and tourism. Hawaii’s on the fore-front of this, San Fransisco, Austin Texas, even NYC for Christ’s sake. There are many, many examples to look at. I myself have sent a number of articles relative to the success of other communities that have acted outside the status quo in dealing with these issues to the county council, and I know others who have done the same.
A continued “moderate approach” to the issues at hand during when we’re in what is undoubtedly crisis mode, will only result in more compromises that have been lobbied into place by a few of the stakeholders in the game… this is only kicking the can down the road. No, we’re not lacking examples, or good ideas about how to go about solving the problems at hand… I don’t even believe that under our current leadership (with the exception of the Fri. Har. councilwoman), that we’re lacking the political will to do so. We’re lacking the proper tools in the toolbox.
“Chaos, mayhem, and destruction, our job is finished here” SJC Visitors Bureau
The problem is not that SJC has a visitor’s bureau that recognizes the destruction they’re causing our island communities. The problem is that we have a visitors bureau.
But wait, there’s hope. The visitors bureau contract is up soon–
Cindy Wolf—cindyw@sanjuanco.com or 360-370-7477
Christine Minney— christinem@sanjuanco.com or 360-370-7478
Jane Fuller— janef@sanjuanco.com or 360-378-2898
“Do we want a hospital (on Orcas Island) or not? Can the resident population of every island support a drugstore with a licensed druggist?” Bill Appel, the answer to your two questions is “YES”. A hospital on Orcas would make life so much easier for all residents and visitors. My question: Is there an effort to establish a hospital on Orcas Island?
In 1973 I was taking a graduate level math class in Optimization Theory. Years later, a paper written by two
Professors in the Economics School seems relevant today. Tourism in San Juan County fits the definition
of a “Wicked Problem”
A “Wicked Problem”
In 1973, design theorists Horst Rittel and Melvin Webber (UC Berkeley) introduced the term “wicked problem” in order to draw attention to the complexities and challenges of addressing planning and social policy problems. Unlike the “tame” problems of mathematics and chess, the wicked problems of planning lack clarity in both their aims and solutions. In addition to these challenges of articulation and internal logic, they are subject to real-world constraints that prevent multiple and risk-free attempts at solving. As described by Rittel and Webber, wicked problems have 10 important characteristics:
1) They do not have a definitive formulation.
2) They do not have a “stopping rule.” In other words, these problems lack an inherent logic that signals when they are solved.
3) Their solutions are not true or false, only good or bad
4) There is no way to test the solution to a wicked problem.
5) They cannot be studied through trial and error. Their solutions are irreversible so, as Rittel and Webber put it, “every trial counts.”
6) There is no end to the number of solutions or approaches to a wicked problem.
7) All wicked problems are unique.
8) Wicked problems can always be described as the symptom of other problems.
9) The way a wicked problem is described determines its possible solutions.
10) Planners, that is those who present solutions to these problems, have no right to be wrong. Unlike mathematicians, “planners are liable for the consequences of the solutions they generate; the effects can matter a great deal to the people who are touched by those actions.”
I fully agree that the situation is emergent, and that a constructive paradigm shift is certainly needed, but this is no easy matter.
The point I was making is that notwithstanding what we are imposing on the planet, our fellow creatures, and each other, there is no available mechanism in the law to regulate what many feel needs to be regulated, at the county level. The recent tourism work is an effort, a good one, I think, for parties to arrive at a consensus, which is the best process possible.
The drawbridge metaphor was not intended to suggest stopping tourism, only that the numbers of people involved are not subject to county regulation.
Communities are ultimately responsible for themselves. There is no way back, but the way forward is up to the community. The solution, if there is to be one, will take a large effort by the community, for the community, and of the community. This takes leadership and a tremendous amount of effort.
Interesting… thanks Vince, thanks Bill. Perhaps we should all just roll over and play dead.
I’ve been here long enough to have witnessed the massive changes, and you certainly have too Bill. I’ve witnessed the erosion that has been taking place in our island communities decade after decade. As we both know things have changed significantly just in the past 5 years or so… even more so than at any other time in my 30 years here. Current market trends are not looking good unless your a real-estate agent, or an investor. Continuing to let the market decide our fate is a losing strategy for our sense of community. It doesn’t take a mathematician to see these changes that have, and are occurring… just someone who’s been around long enough and who ‘s been observant enough to note it. If you’re not seeing it you’re not looking.
I was talking to a young girl working as a cashier at the Market the other day… she elated to me sadly that her and her multi-generational Orcas partner have decided to move– for two reasons,
1) They cannot find decent jobs, (she has “2”)
2) They can’t afford to stay
Sound familiar? Of course it does. This is not some rare occurrence. No, this is the end result of policy failure on behalf of past administrations in SJC. This is a story that’s been repeated often in the past decade or so, and it’s one that we’re going to continue to hear more of… until we take measures to stop it. Yes, it’s mind-boggling complicated, and yes, there’s a lot of factors at play, but that doesn’t mean it’s not doable.
When we’re talking about the symptoms of overtourism that are prevalent in our communities today, the talk always goes to the common threats– the ferries, the crowding, the bicycles, the rising infrastructure costs, our housing market collapse, rising income inequality, etc., etc., etc. But, at the forefront of the issue for me are the concerns I have that are related to our loss of “sense of place.” Yes, this is a part of the “Wicked Problem” syndrome, something that cannot be quantified, but does that mean we ignore it? This is hallow to myself, and many others… where I am is a part of who I am. This is the single-most important aspect of this debate to me. It’s one thing to “have to move” because you can no longer afford to stay here, (it’s heart-wrenching). It’s another to move because “you no longer want to live here,” (when the the dream is gone). Community failure is a massive policy failure on behalf of county, and state government. We deserve better.
“Once it’s gone it’s gone forever.” There is no getting it back… under our current land-use policies we’re losing it quickly.
MUSICAL INTERLUDE:
“Take paradise, put up a parking lot…”
“Call some place paradise, you can kiss it goodbye.”
Yes, we CAN do something about managing both tourism and population growth. Bill Appel is correct that there is no objectively defined “bright line” to carrying capacity because there are always technological work-arounds, all with their attendant and unintended consequences. But limits to development, growth and resource use and positive quality of life standards CAN be defined by a consensus of local citizens.
David Bowerman rightly points out that the most direct way to address these issues is through a local ballot initiative, directly expressing the will of the voters; and initiatives CAN make binding policy. But the issue isn’t just limiting tourism, resorts, hotels and vacation rentals. The issue IS putting the brakes on growth and development–not no growth, but slow and managed growth toward a defined target with measurable objectives. And, yes, we CAN do that. Here’s how:
• Define the baseline environmental and quality of life standards by both objective and subjective (consensus) criteria.
• Put them in a ballot initiative (November 2024)
• Ensure that the successful candidates for the two Council seats, open in 2024, are committed to endorsing and upholding the standards of that initiative
• Ensure that the next Comprehensive Plan (due in two years) incorporates those standards.
• Encourage that the selection of the next DCD Director, who will be responsible for guiding implementing that plan, is fully transparent and open to the public, and that the selected candidate has a demonstrated background in successful tourism and growth management.
I invite those who think that an objective limit can be imposed on what is felt to be negative, intrusive and/or harmful to societal ethos and the environment, to draft with standards sufficiently clear to a bureaucrat to work with. and then to draft what they think would be a lawful means to make those standards stick.
Go ahead. Be God. Make it workable, not a mob scene, not an “everybody vote on everything.” Governing is a full time job. Places don’t run themselves, so someone has to determine, preferably with clear standards, what someone else will be allowed to do, no matter how small the size of the consensus community. If you work backward from that concept, you find yourself building a government. Let us all know how you come out. This is not an argumentative dare; my invitation is serious. While personally I think that anti-gravity is a more likely invention, the dream of a civilized Eden is in us all.
I think you will find that the smaller the community, the more the standard leaves objectivity and moves toward popularity of the actor (neighbors get along, or they don’t), while the larger the community, the less possible is any attribute of consensus, and so some concept of majority is needed.
I urge those who think squaring the circle by consensus even in small communities in the long term is possible, to read “Utopias on Puget Sound 1885-1915.” It is instructive about human nature. Mankind is under a perpetual illusion that we’re smarter than we used to be. In reality, we must accept the reality of what we are and work with it. If we can do this, I believe there is hope.
Utopias? Go ahead. Be God? Are you serious Bill?
I think of the conversation that we’re having at the moment to be an exercise in democracy. The book you suggest looks interesting (thanks, I’ll get it)… it does, however, appear to be one that’s written based on what was considered to be “radical” attempts to create subcultures. Speaking for myself, what I want for our island communities does not seem radical, or utopian, or God like at all. One could say, however, that the transition that the county is going thru at this very moment in time could be considered radical.
You seem to be unable to grasp the fact that the people have been screaming for change (for years), before it’s too late. Had past administrations taken the people’s pleas seriously and engaged in serious conversations with county residents on the subject… we might not be having this conversation today. In fact, had the county even looked at some of their own studies and surveys regarding tourism in the San Juans over the years, and paid attention to the fact that the majority of residents of this county do not want increased tourism… we wouldn’t be having this conversation today. We have a new council, two of the three seem open to dialogue… perhaps there’s hope. I for one, would rather see the current administration attempt to make changes that echo the sentiment of the residents instead of the citizens having to band together and start putting money and effort into changes from the bottom up. We see and hear lot about how the surveys showed that local residents want more bike lanes, trails, and beach access… but nothing about the fact that they also indicvated that they didn’t want an increase in the current number of annual tourists, and they didn’t want the continued promotion thereof. This is one of the ways that SJC pushes that which they want the people to see, while diminishing that which they don’t want people to see, (look over here, don’t look over there). Seriously, we’re not that stupid.
I just reviewed the preview the county is offering regarding the proposal for what’s been deemed the “tourist tax,” that is the vehicle/boat/bicycle pass, and I was shell-shocked to see (as I had heard), that this is a tax that will be levied upon residents as well. No, I’m not shell-shocked… I’m outraged. For a person (like myself) who wants to limit tourism, to be required to pay a fee into the future to help off-set the damage caused by overtourism to our infrastructure… is an insult.
It’s outrageous. Overtourism that pays for itself is still overtourism… no thank you. We deserve better.
Every community is a subculture. Its integrity suffers when a larger culture washes over it. They are defined by different express or implicit levels of behavior.
Bob (south) Burn of Waldron wrote a book about the impact of tourism both here and elsewhere. That was in 1981. I returned my copy to his daughter only a week or two ago. It, too, expressed rage and grief, emotions that in the 1970s resulted in the coining of the word “solastalgia.” Writers on both sides of the issues discussed in this column feel it, but have either come to terms with it for the reasons I set out far above this entry, or for other reasons, or they continue to express outrage..
I agree that the parking fee is an added burden to those residents whose financial means are less that those of visitors. It could be argued that this is inequitable, and I’m sure we’ll all hear more about it.
Again, I suggest that rather than outpourings of feelings, that the ultimate product of this discussion be a product that is workable without destabilizing a vulnerable economy with a lot of people living on the edge. We all understand the situation. “Less of this” and “more of that” are not solutions, and cannot be converted into a constructive plan. So … what, exactly, and I mean exactly, is a constructive, workable and lawful solution?
The current draft, though vaguely similar to the Growth Management Plan, is a proposed approach.
Can anyone do better? The comment period ends October 31. Don’t waste time vituperating. It doesn’t matter what I say. It matters a lot what you do. Get busy.
Tourism and it’s close twin, tourism-related growth, are a lot like their 1st cousin– climate change. They’re the sporn of too big to fail institutions, fueled by greed and profit, that have absolutely no regard for the common good, that have engaged in a decades long cover-up regarding the negative consequences of their being, have been buying off politicians since day one, and have deliberately lobbied into place laws that promote and protect their product at every level in spite of societal harm they inflict. Like Perkins states in his The Confessions of An Economic Hitman… “they’re killing us.”
In speaking of rage, you say, “Writers on both sides of the issues discussed in this column feel it, but have either come to terms with it for the reasons I set out far above this entry, or for other reasons, or they continue to express outrage.”
You can believe that if you want to… I don’t. That’s not the only way to frame it. People can do both. I say that outrage is in order, and for the reasons I set out in the first paragraph above. There’s room within the debate for emotion and rage… both of which are catalysts for change. I say that if you’re aware of what’s going on, and you’re not outraged, then you’re either a part of it, (by promoting it), or you’re ignorant, or apathetic (burned out from trying to make a difference on such an unfair playing field). When passion is focused on resolution (which is my goal) it can be a powerful tool for change. When enough people feel passionate about being wronged.by those in power, (as one can now see by viewing the outrage being expressed on a worldwide level in the climate change arena), change is inevitably close behind.
And just like the evolution of climate change, a chronology of the past regarding tourism and development is a tool that helps in putting such difficult subjects into perspective, and leads to a better informed public. Out of this comes dialogue, and public pressure on our elected officials to do something about it. And, no different than the climate change issue, public resentment will continue to grow the worse things get, and the more the people realize the reasons why we got here, and the reasons why we are seemingly unable, (or unwilling) to change the course we’re on. We’ve been disagreeing on this point for years Bill. You ignore the past, you seem fine with the way things are going today. I use the past to gauge how we got to where we’re at today in hopes that we don’t continue to repeat history.
“Vituperating,” I like that… that’s my new word for the day. But, unlike what you, and what some others might infer, I’m not just vituperating… I’m not just letting off steam. I’m putting this into perspective for others to see, I’m trying to promote an open dialogue with others who may not understand both sides of the issue, and am calling it like it is in hopes that something will come out of the discussion. This has been a good commentary… I’ve certainly learned from it.
Whether we can we agree or not on the obvious, that is, that by continuing to do nothing more than promoting for more tourism and growth in spite of the problems that have resulted from it… that things are going to continue to get worse, and the more vituperating you’re gonna hear from the public. Better get used to it. Perhaps when enough people start vituperating something will get done by those capable of, and who are responsible for doing so.
There can be discussion, vituperation, torches and pitchforks, but absolutely nothing can be done … until someone figures out a solution. I’m reading in this string, everything but a solution.
It’s not a question of accepting (implying some level of enthusiasm for) the situation so much as recognizing that until a solution can be crafted (and I’ve repeatedly invited exactly that), the amorphous process underway will continue.
I thought “less tourism” was a good idea. I thought “more affordable housing is a good idea.” I’ve seen a number of good suggestions on this thread.
It’s not enough that we have to leave it up to you experts to screw things up worse, I mean, deal with the problems of the day… so now you’re gonna tell us to to stfu?
Like the last place I lived, overtourism will suck the life out of our community. What other signs and symptoms, or how many other examples do we need to see? We’re living it as we speak. If we can’t undo all the pre-existing legislation that certains our current path, and we can’t… the easiest thing to do would be to NOT renew the visitors bureau’s contract.
And I don’t mean simply not renew it, and then reformulate it again within the county government, (using the same people, the same vision statement, etc.). Do away with all the overpromotion that’s turning our beloved communities into just another cheesy Disneyland.
It’s time to quit saying, “we can’t”… this is doable under the current administration.
Michael Johnson wrote: “…the easiest thing to do would be to NOT renew the visitors bureau’s contract.”
If that’s actually a possibility, it seems to be a discrete, focused, and achievable goal. Let’s make it happen. Their website Membership page states that their budget comes from taking 26% of San Juan County’s annual lodging taxes – that’s a big take, and it’s indicative of the problem: funding from tourism funds more tourism! Cutting their budget would be a good place to start. Redirect more of that money towards fixing the problems that overtourism has caused. And guess what, their membership page also states: “”We support and are a member of the County’s Destination Management Plan Steering Committee, and in fact, we applied for the lodging tax grant which funds the Plan.” Talk about the foxes guarding the hen house. They are writing the county’s own policies so that they can keep increasing their profits year after year.
For example, Michael, you mentioned the “vehicle fee” for county residents, proposed in the aforementioned “destination management” plan. Why should those of us who don’t make a living from tourism have to subsidize for-profit companies based in San Juan County? Why should an organization (the Visitors Bureau), which is controlled by the owners of boutique tourist lodging and whale watch operators, receive ANY public money? There is no apparent need to promote the San Juans to tourists, they have achieved their marketing goals and we all live with the consequences daily.
Unstoppable growth and ever-increasing tourist numbers (now approximately 700,000 people per year) are simply not compatible with environmental protection, decarbonization, reasonable costs of living, un-breaking the ferry system, or most of the other goals and quality-of-life concerns that everyone seems to talk about. This is not a passive process and it is not one that can’t be changed. We need to put all the pieces together and realize that a small group of people who are already quite wealthy are making big money while asking everyone on the islands to subsidize them, either directly (through funding and grants) or indirectly (by being forced to tolerate the encroachment of urbanism and the deterioration of island landscapes). From huge multinationals like Exxon-Mobil to the Airbnb “investor” with the noisy rental next door that keeps you up at night, the playbook is the same: socialize the costs and privatize the profits.