||| FROM SAN JUAN COUNTY COMMUNICATIONS |||
San Juan County would like to acknowledge the public response to the Preliminary Draft San Juan Islands Destination Management Plan (SDMP) and thank those community members who have taken the time to submit feedback, ask questions, and engage in the conversation about the islands’ future.
The Preliminary Draft SDMP
The preliminary draft of the Destination Management Plan is a component of a larger, broader effort by the County to proactively consider the islands’ future. This effort includes climate science and adaptation strategies, capital investment prioritization, and community planning that will guide the County now and into the next 150 years.
The preliminary draft received over 900 comments from islanders on every island as well as mainlanders. County staff are analyzing each component of the robust feedback received to understand public sentiment and priorities.
Major recurring comments include concerns with ferry service, affordable housing, and resident livability; desire for harnessing revenue from visitors and mitigating impacts; and interest in further research around capacity metrics and feasibility of some proposed ideas.
The preliminary draft Plan provides a framework for discussion, identifies issues, and makes a number of “what if” recommendations on strategies and funding possibilities. These recommendations are subject to further Council assessment, legal review, feasibility studies, and additional public process.
Items in the Action Table, including revenue generating proposals, can only be enacted via public process and Council action. At this time, there is no plan for Council adoption and nothing included in the preliminary draft plan is included in the 2024/2025 budget.
Next Steps
Staff will continue to take time to assess the diverse opinions expressed during the preliminary draft public review period. There is a clear, shared desire to continue this important conversation as a community, and the County will be working to determine how best to offer equitable participation in this ongoing work.
The preliminary draft is still available for review and the public may continue to use the Ask a Question tool on the Engage platform.
**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.**
You stated, “San Juan County would like to acknowledge the public response to the Preliminary Draft San Juan Islands Destination Management Plan (SDMP) and thank those community members who have taken the time to submit feedback, ask questions, and engage in the conversation about the islands’ future.”
1) What is the definition of “community members” as used in this statement?
You stated, “The preliminary draft of the Destination Management Plan is a component of a larger, broader effort by the County to proactively consider the islands’ future. This effort includes climate science and adaptation strategies, capital investment prioritization, and community planning that will guide the County now and into the next 150 years.”
2) What is the definition of “community,” as used in this statement?
You stated, “Staff will continue to take time to assess the diverse opinions expressed during the preliminary draft public review period. There is a clear, shared desire to continue this important conversation as a community, and the County will be working to determine how best to offer equitable participation in this ongoing work.”
3) What is your definition of “community” as used in this statement?
You stated, “The preliminary draft (External link) is still available for review and the public may continue to use the Ask a Question tool on the Engage platform.”
4) What is your definition of “the public” as used in this statement?
You stated, “The preliminary draft received over 900 comments from islanders on every island as well as mainlanders.”
5) Why are you allowing comments from outsiders in our DMP?
Why did you post the 10/24/23 article in the Seattle Times seeking outside influence on OUR Destination Management Plan, a plan that will be the guide for adaptation strategies, capital investment prioritization, and community planning for the County now and into the next 150 years?
To San Juan County and the Visitors Bureau– in spite of the fact that you deny that the Visitor’s Bureau had anything to do with the 10/24 Seattle Times article, it has the Visitors Bureau’s fingerprints all over it.
From the article’s timely appearance a week before the public comment deadline, “San Juan County is seeking public feedback through the end of October on a proposal to implement an annual fee of $10-$15 for bikes, boats and cars,” to the main respondent in the article being Friday Harbor’s own Anna Maria de Freitas, owner and operator of multiple lodging establishments including vacation rentals, cottages and Bed and Breakfast suites, and the Coho Restaurant while at the same time also sits on the board of both the Friday Harbor Town Council, and the Visitors Bureau.
The only quote from her in the article that most would agree with is, “With the current pace of tourism, shoulder seasons have practically disappeared,“ and, I don’t think that’s sustainable from the business perspective nor is it sustainable for our fragile ecosystem.”
I find this to be an ironic statement considering that “increasing tourism during our buffer seasons” has been the Visitors Bureau’s top stated priority for years.
The article continues to set the agenda by framing the issue as being one that’s simply lacking in funding by stating, “Despite broad support from residents, businesses and visitors for actions outlined in the draft plan, there is limited funding to implement the improvements,” and, “Everyone made recommendations of what they wanted, but the fundamental question is, ‘How would we pay for that?” Smith said.”
This conveniently leaves out the fact that most people, businesses and residents alike, have stated that they feel that San Juan County is already at, or over capacity for more tourists, and also the fact that SJC residents have overwhelmingly voted in favor of less tourism promotion.
Let’s face it, the real reasons why you did the lead on the Seattle Times article just before the public comment deadline was because–
1) You’re using the proposed vehicle tax in an attempt to divert people’s attention away from the real meat of the Destination Marketing Plan which is to increase tourism by your use of creative accounting and industry induced concepts such as “optimal capacity, seasonality, and dispersion.”
and,
2) Because, “The pass proposal received “low to medium” support from residents on the three main islands during the public meeting process in 2022, according to county data,” and you felt the need to enlist outside “public” help in order for you to gain support for the DMP.
In your own words, “The “public”, in this case, refers to any interested citizens, inside or outside our county.”
I say there is no room for outside influence in San Juan County politics. Strike all non-resident comments from the record.
So it’s still on? I had heard (wrongly I guess) that they actually listened and scrapped it. But from these comments, they are waiting for the money to implement this.
How were the comment data categorized? Did commenters have to reveal whether they owned an air b & b or otherwise profited from the tourist industry and want year-round tourism when we can’t even affordably house workers and no one can keep help on due to this? Do they consider how many businesses – esoecially restaurants – have to close, due to being unable to find help? Was any of this factored in and if so, how?
Sounds like this is a done deal after all and as usual, people will have no say, except for a few ‘aesthetic’ meaningless details same old same. Meanwhile, SJC – where is our tree ordinance? Where’s our dark sky/light pollution regulations? Where are ANY real environmental protections that will actually be enforced?