||| FROM THE SEATTLE TIMES |||
What is the price you would pay for paradise?
For many cities, counties and countries across the world, a tourism fee is a sufficient starting sum.
As travel has rebounded since the start of the pandemic, an increasing number of popular destinations are considering a tourism tax to curb over-tourism and fund development. Visiting the San Juan Islands, too, may soon cost a little more.
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. Residents and visitors would be required to purchase the passes, which would fund management and infrastructure improvements needed to address the impacts of more people on the islands, the county said.
If approved, residents and visitors would be required to purchase the pass — similar to the Discover Pass — to display on their bikes, boats and cars.
When San Juan County first addressed tourism on the islands in 1985 there were 17,000 annual visitors, equal to today’s full-time resident population. The island population has since been on a steady rise with each passing decade, just over 1% per year in the last 10 years, according to the San Juan Islands Visitors Bureau. Seasonal visitation has also steadily increased, the bureau said.
Since 2018, there has been an average of 650,000 visitors per year to the islands, with most visits concentrated on San Juan, Orcas and Lopez islands. In summer, the county experiences a surge of travelers, with the majority of tourists visiting between June and September, according to county data.
Tourism is a top economic driver, second only to construction in terms of tax revenue generation and local job creation, and the community has identified the need for balance between the environmental, social and economic costs and benefits of growth, the county said.
I’m slightly confused — aren’t local residents already paying for local infrastructure in the form of property taxes and levies? If so, but there are “excessive” or “unusual” costs due to the large amount of tourism, wouldn’t it make sense to tax the tourism economy more heavily than the resident economy?
And this could be implemented along different dimensions such as an additional lodging tax, or a annual pass that’ must be purchased to use the WSF SJC ferry route (though that may be illegal/against the WA DoT rules). Or you could add a “congestion fee” for entering/exiting San Juan county, similar to how large cities (NYC, London) charge for entry/exit.
The logical extension of the above proposal, that doesn’t take into account the driving factor for additional revenue (tourism side-effects), would be to add a fee for *everyone*; just add a “WA state tourism infrastructure” fee to — oh, say — the annual vehicle registration fee, which, if I recall correctly, was voted down a few decades ago.
Thanks county peeps in charge! Just what the struggling county residents need right now! What’s next, a septic system use tax? Or maybe a Crescent Beach stroll tax?
Err, this seems like a no-brainer. Tax supported National and State parks charge visitor fees. We are kinda getting overrun. 650,000 X $10-25 per visitor would certainly help us offset some of the impact. Given the effect tourism has already visited on the local environment, resources and infrastructure, one wonders if $20-50 might make more sense.
I’m not confused.
In reading today’s Seattle Times / San Juan Islands Visitors Bureau’s “San Juan Islands consider annual tourism fee for residents, visitors,” this article is another example of the continued misaligned framing and the narrow focus that’s being presented to the people today. It is one that has the earmark stamp of collaboration between the visitors bureau and the Seattle Times, and is an article that’s intention is to garner public comments from outsiders that would be favorable to the pending San Juan Islands Destination Management Plan (DMP).
The article states,”What is the price you would pay for paradise? For many cities, counties and countries across the world, a tourism fee is a sufficient starting sum.” “If approved, residents and visitors would be required to purchase the pass — similar to the Discover Pass — to display on their bikes, boats and cars.”
and,
“I just have a hard time with [the pass] saying ‘residents,’” said one San Juan Island resident during a May 2022 community feedback meeting. “I think there’s another way of doing it, and as a resident, I find it very offensive.”There is a widespread local perception that it is visitors, not residents, who are overwhelming the islands, with 94% of residents and 79% of businesses indicating the islands are at or over capacity, according to a 2017 survey.”
and,
“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.”
As important as an item such as having a tourist tax levied upon the local citizens may be, I feel that we’re being asked the wrong question and would forewarn us to not get side-tracked by just this one aspect of the issue alone. Instead of becoming focused on an annual fee for tourists and residents alike, a fee that’s designed to help promote the San Juans into the future as an all-natural, Certified Green, and Certified Sustainable eco-niche’ resort destination on the world stage, the reality is that the DMP represents an issue that is much larger than just focusing on the proposed tourist tax alone. Instead of asking, “What is the price you would pay for paradise?” A more realistic question would be, “What are the real costs that are associated with over-tourism on our island communities today and into our future?”
According to San Juan Island resident Anna Maria de Freitas, (owner of two inns and a restaurant on San Juan Island, and also a San Juan Islands Visitors Bureau board member and member of the Friday Harbor Town Council), “There’s some folks on the islands who want to say, ‘Put up the bridge; we don’t need tourists,” “but they realize if they don’t have tourists, there’s a lot of things they’re not going to have on this island, and our quality of life would definitely change.”
Let me say to people like Anna Maria that I’m not opposed to tourists. We all enjoy travel and most of us probably arrived here the first time as “visitors” and certainly tourism plays an inevitable role in our island’s economy. What I am concerned about is what is happening now and the resultant downstream effect that an increasing level of tourism will have on our island resources, services, the residents quality of life, and ultimately, on our capacity for growth.
My observations are that quality of life to someone who owns three tourist businesses, and serves on the visitors bureau and the Fri. Har. town council may be different from those who moved here mainly because of SJC’s once-pristine environment, our once-laid back lifestyle, our quickly disappearing rural character, and our priceless sense of community. If one were to ask me, I would unequivocally state that I was much happier living here 30 years ago when the numbers of tourists and the numbers of residents were more in balance.
Freitas’ further comment, “With the current pace of tourism, shoulder seasons have practically disappeared, she said, “and I don’t think that’s sustainable from the business perspective nor is it sustainable for our fragile ecosystem,” is one that is absolutely correct. Our shoulder seasons ARE rapidly disappearing, and over-tourism is NOT in anybody’s best interests.
The article states, “When San Juan County first addressed tourism on the islands in 1985 there were 17,000 annual visitors, equal to today’s full-time resident population. The island population has since been on a steady rise with each passing decade, just over 1% per year in the last 10 years, according to the San Juan Islands Visitors Bureau. Seasonal visitation has also steadily increased, the bureau said.”
The mathematics of averages is an interesting concept, a tool that is easy to use in an effort to manipulate reality. What this comment leaves out is the exponential growth that we’re experiencing now. We’ve passed the tipping point and we’re in danger of losing our island community’s most treasured attributes at the hands of those who seek profit from one of the world’s largest industries. Considering the problems related to over-tourism that we’re experiencing today, problems that are the direct result of 28 years of the visitors bureau over-promoting mass tourism, to the proponents of tourism I say now, that you’re selling something that does not belong to you: the quality of life of the people who live here.
The article states, “Since 2018, there has been an average of 650,000 visitors per year to the islands, with most visits concentrated on San Juan, Orcas and Lopez islands.”
This is a prime example of our being misled by the visitors bureau’s creative accounting, the intention of which is to grossly understate the number of visitors coming to our islands each year. This new and creative accounting methodology that’s being used by the visitors bureau, is one that significantly diminishes the long-standing numbers of visitors coming to the islands annually from over 1,000,000 per year to 655,000 per year, and is one that does so by including only the three main islands (Orcas, Lopez, and San Juan), while excluding the number of seasonal second home owners, the number of guests of both full-time residents and second home-owners, the number of pleasure boaters, water taxis, cruise-ships, cyclists, walk-on ferry riders, package tour groups, airplane flights, illegal campers and illegal vacation rental owners, and by only counting repeat visitors once per year.
(diminish– to make (someone or something) seem less impressive or valuable).
“It doesn’t matter that we have over 1,000,000 environmentally conscious, socially educated, and culturally aware visitors coming to our shores annually. It only matters that we have over 1,000,000 visitors coming to our shores annually.”
Regarding the DMP, “Despite broad support from residents, businesses and visitors for actions outlined in the draft plan, there is limited funding to implement the improvements, the county said.” “Everyone made recommendations of what they wanted, but the fundamental question is, ‘How would we pay for that?’ Smith said.”
Parsing through past tourism surveys for bits and pieces that support your views is not representative of “broad support from residents, businesses and visitors for actions outlined in the draft plan….”
and,
By stating, “… there is limited funding to implement the improvements,” and asking, “How would we pay for that?” you’re asking the wrong question.
The better question would be, “What are the consequences to our island communities by continuing to over-promote tourism?” Over-tourism that pays for itself is still over-tourism. Balance will not be achieved by promoting more of that which is destroying the most valued assets that our island communities have.
I encourage the citizens to act now, and make a public comment to both the visitors bureau and to your county elected officials by denouncing the current draft DMP as being something that does not have our communities best long-term interests in mind, and by asking them to not renew the visitors bureau’s current contract.
Like Nantucket, like here, (the below from a dated Nantucket tourism survey)-
The Premise
Nantucket is a special experience.
It is a special experience for both year-round residents and visitors.
It is special because it is like nowhere else.
It is an island.
It is small in scale, muted in tone.
It is a fragile, balanced ecological laboratory.
It is a real, living and working New England community with its own kind of understated energy.
It is isolated from the mainstream of American life.
It shows us where we are by telling us where we have come from.
It exudes a strong sense of place — and identity and uniqueness that is unmistakable.
It has preferred quality to quantity in years past.
It is different.
You can make your comments here–https://engage.sanjuancountywa.gov/destination-management-plan?page=2
You can contact your elected officials here–
Orcas: Cindy Wolf—cindyw@sanjuanco.com or 360-370-7477
San Juan: Christine Minney— christinem@sanjuanco.com or 360-370-7478
Lopez: Jane Fuller— janef@sanjuanco.com or 360-378-2898
A plan written by the San Juan Islands Visitors Bureau, for the benefit of their members, with public money… and they are asking for more!
It’s pure corruption, not much different than the fossil fuel industry convincing citizens and government alike that their “product” is a prerequisite to maintain standards of living. This is a money grab of epic proportions, they are trying to pull the wool over everyone’s eyes.
Rural communities much smaller than these islands have basic services without a flood of 650,000, 750,000, 1 million tourists, whatever the number might be. The suggestion that without tourists, we’d be living in misery, is ridiculous.
What we need is DEGROWTH of the tourist industry. Despite the rosy language in the plan, there is nothing “sustainable” about these numbers. Reduce visitation by any means necessary and disband the Visitors Bureau. We shouldn’t have to live in Disneyland just because a handful of hotel owners and whale watching companies got used to record profits during the pandemic. And residents who don’t make a living from tourism shouldn’t be paying for tourist infrastructure, period.
The county has been hijacked by the tourist industry and everyone who reads this needs to send feedback and SHUT DOWN this absurd plan.
A tourism fee for residents? When I first saw this headline, I laughed, thinking it must have been lifted from a humor publication like The Onion or, more locally, The Needling. It’s absurd. If the county council adopts it, the tourism fee for residents will be faced with a level of revolt and noncompliance that is no laughing matter.
The County cannot impose regulations on visitors that are not also imposed on residents.
The tourist fee should be the least of your worries.
Incredulous’!
So let me get this straight: Residents, who are already shouldering the tax burden of building and maintaining all of the infrastructure and services for the tourists are going to be charged a “tourist fee”? Right, no one is going to argue with that logic.
@Micheal Johnson — Is the constraint you mentioned (“The County cannot impose regulations on visitors that are not also imposed on residents.”) a legal one, or one that you believe would need to be an attribute of any solution? I may not be as familiar with WA or SJC legal codes as you are…
Even if that were the case, one could impose fees that get to the heart of what is being viewed as the root cause of the concern: excessive tourism. An additional lodging fee, for example? Alternately, the county could impose a fee on everyone (e.g. a SJC “use fee” — something that everyone pays), but reimburse residents, such as via a credit on property tax payments. (though I’m not generally a fan of regulatory schemes of the “in one side, returned out the other side” ilk). But fees that are more targeted at a specific uses/users, such as “vice” taxes, are certainly legal.
It’s not really about the tax. A $10-$15 sticker fee (even not considering the logistics and costs of enforcement) is not going to discourage tourists here for a week or two. The real premise of the plan is to offset the impacts of tourism by paying for tourist-serving amenities, not to moderate tourism itself. The tax is a bait-and-switch–have your cake and eat some more (or maybe the planners just lost sight of the goal). You can’t buy your way out of the problem.
But don’t just talk about it here. Comment on the plan at tourism@sanjuanco.com and cc your Council members.
The DMP has stirred up a lot of interesting comment. It’s also stirred up a slick mailer from “Concerned Citizens”, 689 Airport Car, FH. In contrast to the lively discussion in the Orcasonian, these “concerned citizens” do not identify themselves, nor do they seem to have any online presence. Does anyone know who these people are?
Following up on @Brian Wiese’s excellent advice of “But don’t just talk about it here. Comment on the plan at tourism@sanjuanco.com and cc your Council members.”, here is the link to the county’s official feedback site, as taken from the Seattle Times article.
https://engage.sanjuancountywa.gov/destination-management-plan/survey_tools/sdmp-comments
The site does require registration however, and, curiously enough — whether out of incompetence or malice aforethought, depending on how cynical you happen to be — doesn’t actually mention the fee proposal, but simply asks for feedback without providing additional context. That said, comments put there may have more weight, or be better recorded for posterity, than just email to the county or council. Personally, I would just do both — use the feedback side _and_ also email the county.
IT HAS TO BE A JOKE. IT IS TO EARLY FOR APRIL FOOLS.
A GOOD PRECENTAGE OF THE SAN JUAN COUNTY RESIDENCE CAME HERE AS VISITORS. THEY STAYED, OR COME BACK TO LIVE HERE. THEY LIKED WHAT WE HAVE/HAD HERE. AFTER A FEW MONTHS THEY WANT TO CHANGE IT. WHO ARE THE PEOPLE WHO DREAMED THIS IDEA UP? IT IS JUST ANOTHER TAX. SAN JUAN COUNTY IS BECOMING A PLACE WHERE ONLY THE WEALTHY CAN AFORD TO LIVE. EVEN IF YOU PUT HOUSING ASIDE, THE WORKING FOLKS CAN NOT GET AHEAD FINANCIALY. NOW WE WANT TO TAX “BIKE” RIDERS. THERE MUST BE SOME WAY TO MEASURE THE NICE CLEAN AIR WE BREATH. HOW LONG HAS THIS CRAZY IDEA BEEN FLOATING AROUND. THEY WANT INPUT BY THE END OF THE MONTH. I DON’T LIVE IN A COCOON AND I JUST HEARD ABOUT IT. I CAN ONLY SPEAK FOR ORCAS, IF WE DID NOT HAVE VISITIORS. WE WOULD NOT HAVE THE GREAT MARKET, PLACES TO EAT, SHOPS, THEATER, MEDICAL CENTER, ETC.
Ken, I don’t remember where I first heard or read that “The County cannot impose regulations on visitors that are not also imposed on residents,” whether it was at the county level (one of the RCWs), or from pre-existing legislation at the state level. It’s just one of the many criteria that has gotten drummed into my head after making suggestions to the county over the years, and consistently hearing them say, “that can’t be done.”
The visitors bureau’s Engage website has a “ask questions” link on it. Perhaps they could answer your question–
https://engage.sanjuancountywa.gov/destination-management-plan?page=2
For all who’s concerns are focused on the proposed $15 per year tourist fee, I encourage you to read the DMP. The proposed land-use concepts of “dispersion,” and “seasonality” outlined on P-8 carry weight, and will have negative impacts on our rural areas, and our islands lesser used, lesser known, special spots on our islands.
When viewing the massive tourist infrastructure that’s being proposed, see “Destination improvement on P-61 thru P-70, and the “Distribution of Estimated Costs P-85, one very much gets the idea that this is an undertaking that is designed to increase tourism.
Considering all… the tourist fee should be the least of our concerns.
DMP– https://www.sanjuanco.com/DocumentCenter/View/28726/San-Juan-Islands-Destination-Management-Plan-SDMP—Preliminary-Draft-2023
I’ve been mostly assuming well-meaning folks making the proposal, even if I disagree with their policy approach. However, one item on the FAQ page for this project (https://engage.sanjuancountywa.gov/destination-management-plan/widgets/69979/faqs#question11214) struck me as the group being terribly misinformed or deliberately inaccurate.
Specifically, in the FAQ, the claim is made:
10. Can we use the lodging tax to pay for actions in the Plan?
Washington State Law limits the use of lodging tax revenue for uses classified under tourism promotion. While some suggested
actions in the Plan which advance sustainable tourism are fundable by the lodging tax, many measures and improvements in the
Plan do not qualify. This is why generating ideas for a range of possible funding strategies is part of the Plan.
I tried to understand this constraint, and looked up what I believe to be relevant section of the Washington state code (RCW 67.28.180, Lodging tax authorized—Conditions), from https://app.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=67.28.180
There are a number of constraints listed under item #3 of that part of the code, but the first line of item #3 is:
“(3) Any levy authorized by this section by a county that has a population of one million five hundred thousand or more is subject to the following:”
So, unless the population of the county has grown by 1.4M residents when I wasn’t looking, it seems that all those constraints don’t apply to SJC.
If someone more expert in WA law can correct me/what I’ve missed, that would be great, since I would no longer have to decide whether I viewed county staff as incompetent or malicious.
If the WA code is, in fact, as I’ve interpreted it above, then we really should publicize this inaccuracy and make sure that the group *does* put the lodging tax on the table as a solution.
First and foremost, the proposed “Destination Management Plan” is not about limiting tourists, its about promoting more tourism to the detriment of the local population as in part the proposed fees will not stop anyone from coming here.
The Plan, all eighty-nine pages of it, is classic Orwellian double speak diatribe representing a new low even for the tourist promoting industry, and one guess who they want to help pay for it.
The proposed plan’s startup cost is $13 million plus, (page 85). Page eighty-four gives a breakdown of that the monies go towards including $8.6 million for tourist accommodations and bicycles. If you build it, they will come.
Funding: “Require all cars to purchase and display and annual San Juan Islands parking sticker. Permit must be displayed for each car on the islands May through September.”
Exactly where the “sticker” would be required is not stated. Private Property? I don’t see how that could even be remotely be legal. Mind you this is a County proposal. not State, and not Federal, therefore it should only be for parking on County property. Grocery stores and business with onsite parking, Post Offices, Church, Dentist, Doctors, Lumber yards, your home, etc. should all be exempt, if not, I’m quite sure that a multitude of attorneys will be lining up to go after the County, your tax dollars at work.
Friday Harbor is incorporated, they make their own law’s, thus other than the County Court House and County Fair ground’s onsite parking, San Juan Islanders need not apply, thus putting the burden solely on Orcas and Lopez, well, possibly Waldron and Shaw as well.
Page seventy-nine implies that converting cars from gas to electric will take up less space in the islands: Is the County going to make its parking space’s smaller as a result? No wait, silly of me, if cars are shorter you can then get more of them and the tourists in them on the Ferries. Speaking of Ferries, I’ve lived on Orcas for fifty-two years, am I to be denied boarding in Anacortes for lack of a parking permit?
Enforcement: Who? The Plan does not say. Reality: the County will either have to hire multiple enforcement officers for each island, or, use the Sheriff’s Department. It’s reassuring in knowing that the Sheriff’s Department has nothing better to do with its time than to issue “parking without a permit” tickets to the locals. Hopefully the revenue generated from the aforementioned tickets will cover the Sheriff’s and ensuing District Court’s cost’s they will sustain, if not, well then it’s your tax dollars further at work.
This is not about sinking the Ferries, they do a good enough job of that on their own, or at least they try to, it’s about stainability. Land in San Juan County is a finite resource, I’m sorry, but you simply can not invite everyone here. The Comp-Plan being a good example of too many invitations already being issued as the land does not have the capacity to support everyone who wishes to be here. Adding more tourists to the equation does nothing to resolve the long term problem, it simply acerbates it.
For those that are concerned by what is sometimes being referred to as the “tourist tax,” and at other times called the “vehicle tax” Bill Appel wrote a recent article that’s relevant to it that might make sense in helping to understand it’s proposed use, and might somewhat allay some of your concerns in regards to it.
Why I support a San Juan County Motor Vehicle Fee–
https://theorcasonian.com/guest-opinion-why-i-support-a-san-juan-county-motor-vehicle-fee/#comment-360711
Ken, this is the 2020 lodging tax proposal list (the criteria by which qualified applicants would have to meet). Though it’s not the latest it’s the only one I could find in my archives, and the 2022 proposals havn’t come out yet, (or they were due to come out this week, I believe). This should give some view of what the LTAC dictate was in 2020–
The purpose of this posting is to seek proposals from qualified entities interested in:
1) Funding single project proposals concerned with acquiring, improving or developing County facilities for enhancing the tourism experience; AND/OR
2) Funding the operation and promotion of tourism facilities that enhance the tourism experience AND/OR
3) One-time grants to establish or enhance events that draw tourists AND/OR
4) Projects that carry out the tourism-related goals of the adopted San Juan County LodgingTax Advisory Committee (LTAC) Master plan.
II. APPLICANT QUALIFICATIONS FOR GRANT TYPES
Amendments to the Lodging Tax program adopted by the Washington Legislature in 2013 permit Lodging Tax grant funds to be awarded to Municipalities (the County), nonprofit organizations described under U.S.C. Sec. 501 (c)(3) and 501(c)(4), and visitors bureaus or destination marketing organizations for the following purposes:
1) Supporting marketing and operations of special events and festivals designed to attract tourists.
2) Supporting the operations and capital expenditures of tourism-related facilities owned or operated by San Juan County.
3) Supporting the operations of tourism-related facilities owned or operated by qualifying (see above) nonprofit organizations.
III. BACKGROUND San Juan County is one of the most desirable tourist destinations in the country due to its natural beauty and variety of outdoor activities. It currently experiences an uneven tourism year, with a strong summer season, and substantial unused lodging and facility capacity in the remainder of the year. This was recognized in a 2002 report of the Lodging Tax Advisory Committee in two important ways – first, in a recommendation of an additional 2% special Lodging Tax (that was enacted); and second, that the special lodging tax be used to promote tourism year-round. The corollary to the need for year-round promotion is a planned, logical and integrated facilities and amenities program that provides an attractive “package” for the special tax to promote.
The 2020 process is intended to be an evolution and refinement of the prior facilities investments to date. In the current grant offering, San Juan County is interested in a cohesive investment model in which the grants support the goals of a long-range tourism plan. In the cohesive investment model, the County will contract directly with the entities, selected under this process, which have submitted in the four identified categories. In these grants, accountability and return on the expenditure of public monies is important. It is also important that these grants emphasize investments that can be supported by the tourism promotion program (special 2% lodging tax). It is especially important that special emphasis be given to those facilities, events and facility operations that enhance tourism throughout the year.
IV. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Total available funding for 2020 will be approximately $ 1,023,533; however, applicants should recognize that approximately 75% of those funds are traditionally used to sustain operations of Historical Museums, Performing Arts Centers and Public Parks.
In recent years, first time grants have generally ranged from $1,000 to $12,000 with a strong preference for non-operational grants (e.g. one-time start-up expenses, advertising, or production of special programs, rather than ongoing expenses such as staff salaries). The expected outcome of the funded activities is to increase economic activity in San JuanCounty in 2020 and beyond through the overnight lodging of tourists, through tourism-related expenditures, and construction of tourism-related facilities.
Program categories are: Tourism facilities capital expenditures (County owned or operated facilities only):
Construction
Improvement
Renovation Grants for Tourism Events and Festivals designed to attract tourists
Grants for operation of existing eligible tourism facilities that meet the criteria of this RFP and the long-range tourism plan (including, but not limited to historic museums, performing arts, visual arts)
Special Investments that help to accomplish the goals and objectives of the LTAC Master Plan
V. 2020 AREAS OF EMPHASIS Funded projects will be expected to achieve the following objectives:
Advance the priorities set in the LTAC Master Plan (Available on County web site AT: http://sanjuanco.com/614/Lodging-Tax-Advisory-Committee).
Emphasis on tourism may include a variety of methods: i. Development of key community assets that function as point destinations, or venues for multi-purpose events, and serve on a year-round basis; ii. Special Events or festivals that exemplify the natural resources, cultural offerings or history of the San Juan Islands; iii. Meetings or retreats that focus on the “best of the San Juan Islands” as identified above;
Developing innovative opportunities (i.e. new events, interesting partnerships); creativity and synergy are encouraged. Use of capacity in existing community facilities is encouraged.
Improving the tourist/islander relationship/enhancing the tourism experience:* i. Visitor education events (i.e. eco-tourism, agri-tourism) ii. Community involvement strategies iii. Improved effectiveness of coordinated transportation and trail linkages including streetscapes and signage
Projects that promote coordination and cooperation in tourism activities
Projects that demonstrate countywide benefit *(Note: The category of enhancing the tourism experience is based on the increasing recognition that the tourist is purchasing “experience(s)”. The concept is to encourage facilities, events and tourism facility operations that heighten, expand, improve, or lengthen the tourism experience with the idea of encouraging longer stays or more frequent returns.)
Actually, as you will see, and as I just now figured out, the link provided within the document above leads to the 2023–
LTAC Process Application Overview
Lodging Tax Grant Application
Read the San Juan County LTAC Master Plan
http://sanjuanco.com/614/Lodging-Tax-Advisory-Committee
Also, in further answer to your question regarding “The County cannot impose regulations on visitors that are not also imposed on residents,” One more informed than myself just told me that, “As I recall, it is basically a constitutional issue prohibiting creation of separate classes of citizens.”
@Michael Johnson — thank you for the additional context and historic information! Very helpful to understand the bigger picture.
My takeaways are the following (stating explicitly, in case I got it wrong)
1. Regarding the lodging tax, the grants that disburse revenues from the lodging tax are all geared towards increasing tourism, as evidenced by the “areas of emphasis” and solicitation guidelines.
2. With regards to “differentiate amongst different groups of citizens”, this may be {WA state, I assume) constitutional issue.
If the above is the case, my main policy concern is #1 — basically, if tourism is causing a revenue/services delivery shortfall, then promoting more tourism seems counterproductive. It’s like that old joke of a business that “loses money on every transaction, but makes it up on volume”. The basic (financial, neglecting other factors like quality of life, which are fair concerns but harder to quantify) logic is — if SJC nets a positive cash flow from each visitor, then it makes sense (from a purely financial point of view) to bring in more visitors. If SJC nets a cash loss from each visitor, then bringing in more tourists only digs the hole deeper. But the argument for needing to raise additional revenue (whether from a car/bike/boat tax, or some other means) is that visitors are causing excessive (more than they bring in) load on the SJC infrastructure that needs to be funded somehow. In that case, the answer is *not* bring in more tourists, but to either bring in less tourists or bring in more revenue per visitor.
Separately, the cynic in me still finds the county’s argument that the lodging tax cannot be used for infrastructure as disingenuous — there are no state legal regulations that stipulate that (for rural counties like SJC), and the lodging tax committee is the one making the guidelines for how the proposals will be judged.
On the secondary topic around the WA state constitutionality issue, I am a relatively recent WA resident and not a lawyer, but the clause I most often see cited for that is the so-called “uniformity clause”, which states “taxes shall be uniform upon the same class of property within the territorial limits of the authority levying the tax…. All real estate shall constitute one class”. That, I believe, only applies to property tax (it used to, and still somewhat(*), applies to income tax), but it doesn’t apply to other forms of taxes, such excise and lodging taxes.
(*) Recent WA supreme court decisions appear to make it questionable about whether or not uniformity (effectively) applies to income tax or not, as the court has ruled that excise taxes on revenues that are considered part of income are still excise taxes, and therefore not subject to uniformity (https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/23722296-quinn-v-state-no-100769-8)
I am completely puzzled by all the hostility to what is in reality a very simple “impact fee. ” This would be a once a year fee of $10-$15, the cost of a few cups of coffee. We have 600,000 to 700,000 visitors a year. Depending on how it is implemented it would raise 5 to 10 MILLION DOLLARS A YEAR at a minimal cost to both locals and tourists. The tourists pay hundreds to thousands of dollars to visit the islands. $15 is a very minor cost. This amount pf money coming into County coffers every year means more amenities, more services and lower taxes for the residents. What is not to like?
@Bob Gamble — assuming that wasn’t a rhetorical question, my concern isn’t primarily (*) based on the amount of the fee, but rather the issue — are the incremental revenues being used to (a) address the problems that are the nominal goal of the revenue (overloading of the county infrastructure, the stated concern for why more revenue is needed) OR (b) bring up more visitors, each of which place more load, thereby “digging the hole deeper”.
The stated goal appears (to me, at least) imply (b), and the first rule of being in a hole is to stop digging :)
If, instead, we have data to support (a) — that every incremental visitor more than pays for the overhead for the county, then I’d be less concerned (though, if that were the case, then I’d be happy if my property taxes went down as we got more visitors). Perhaps you or someone else could provide some data towards option (a)
(*) I do have some secondary concern about a flat-fee, given many SJI residents are retirees with fixed income, or young folks with 3 jobs struggling to make ense meet. Also, as an aside: revenue is probably a factor of 2-3x less; that is about $2M-$3M/year, since the proposal is per-vehicle, not per visitor.
Ken, respectfully, though you seem to be an astute observer of the issue(s) at hand, I must say, once again, that financial flow is only a part of the issue. For those that have not been around long enough to see the changes, or those who come from large metropolitan areas where the San Juans would still look good to them if we had 20,000 full-time residents, and 2 million tourists a year, I can only ask that they listen to those who have been around long enough in an effort to gauge what is happening, and also realize that there are many who feel that the social costs of over-tourism to our communities, those costs that are more difficult to measure, are also the ones that are the most important. I mean, what difference does it make if we successfully create a tourism model that pays for itself if we are fast becoming a place where many of us will no longer even desire to live?
It does seem like we’re being fed and devoured at the same time. That we’re stuck in a Faustian bargain that what feeds us also destroys us.
In line with this what stands out for me most in the current debate is that the very things, the allure, that brings tourists here in the first place, our rural atmosphere, the beautiful environment, our laid-back lifestyles, and our sense of community, (also being the same reasons why most of us moved here for in the first place), are also the very things that are being destroyed by over-tourism. In consideration of this it makes little sense for San Juan County to continue over-promoting an addiction to policies that have created a too big to fail institution (a tourism dominant economy).
In regards to some of your questions I have the following to offer–
A wise person educated in SJC affairs once told me, “My personal opinion about the lodging tax has always been this: There is no legal requirement for them to set aside any amount of money for tourism promotion, per se. A different LTAC membership could decide at any time to focus the funds on capital improvements that would benefit both tourists and locals alike. Good examples of this are the Deer Harbor trail system and the landscaping around Eastsound, both which were due to LTAC grants and both of which benefit everyone. All we’ve ever needed are people on the LTAC that are willing to think out of the box about how the money is used. Unfortunately, the committee is over-represented by business people who are reliant on tourism, and this has always been the case.”
You can find the list of previous LTAC grants from 2015-2019 on the last page of the RFP:
https://www.sanjuanco.com/DocumentCenter/View/18597/2020-Facilities-Grant-Program-RFP
If you want to see the ones from the period 2011-2016, you can find them on the last page of this document:
https://www.sanjuanco.com/DocumentCenter/View/12722/2018-Facilities-Grant-Program-RFP—Final?bidId=
Cost of Community Services (COCS) in San Juan County
The major conclusion of the report is that residential land uses receive far more in public services
than they contribute in revenues, while the other two major categories receive far less. The
implication of this conclusion is that as open space and agricultural lands are converted to
residential, the revenue benefits of the open space category will be reduced, while the pressures
for additional services will increase.
https://theorcasonian.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/02/COCS-Report-Exec-Sum-5-18-04.pdf
The Skyft Report– Tourism’s New Competitive Advantage is Protecting Destinations
MAXIMUM CAPACITY– A decade on, what today feels something of a taboo in the tourism world — openly admitting that there is actually an upper limit to the amount of tourists who can visit a destination — will likely be a baseline assumption of a sustainable destination. As Vranken said, that will depend on having the appropriate data and metrics. “The answer is absolutely yes, there is a carrying capacity, but in order to measure it we have to establish a body with the authority and funding to measure it,” he said.
https://skift.com/2020/02/03/travel-megatrends-2020-tourisms-new-competitive-advantage-is-protecting-destinations/
City Lab University: Induced Demand (Benjamin Schneider) 9/06/18
This is an analysis similar to the, “If you create the infrastructure the people will come.”
With 26 lanes at its widest point, the Katy Freeway in the Houston metro is the Mississippi River of car infrastructure. Its current girth, which by some measures makes it the widest freeway in North America, was the result of an expansion project that took place between 2008 and 2011 at a cost of $2.8 billion. The primary reason for this mega-project was to alleviate severe traffic congestion. And yet, after the freeway was widened, congestion got worse.
https://www.citylab.com/transportation/2018/09/citylab-university-induced-demand/569455/
(And, regarding pre-emptive legislation) USA Today– Who’s Writing Your Laws?
http://ee.usatoday.com/Olive/ODN/USATSample/shared/ShowArticle.aspx?doc=USA%2F2019%2F04%2F05&entity=Ar00102&mode=text&sk=DE47C0B1
In 2021 the Charter Review Commission made a recommendation to the County Council regarding tourism and the Visitor’s Bureau. There was no support for it from the County Council, or honestly the public. Here was the attempt we made: https://www.sanjuanco.com/DocumentCenter/View/24203/Tourism-recommendation?bidId=
In fairness, there were Charter Review Commissioners who voted against this recommendation. Including Bill Appel. It was dead on arrival.
This proposal seems to me to be another attempt by the fox at the hen house trying to burnish is image as a guardian of chickens.
Reading the website of the San Juan Islands Visitors Bureau (visitsanjuans.com), we find their mission statement:
“To enhance the economic prosperity of San Juan County by promoting the San Juan Islands as a preferred, year-round travel destination, while respecting and sustaining the Islands’ unique and diverse ecosystems, environments, lifestyles, and cultures.”
The second half of that statement looks to be an attempt to not look so “foxy.” Love to se their budget.
The leadership team listed below that statement is all heavily invested in MORE tourists and is financed (74% according to that site) by the county bed tax.
They would have to violate their mission statement and personal economic interests to fulfill their goals stated in the Times article.
I can’t see that happening.
Since part of my income comes from tourists (Artworks), I’m somewhat “foxy” myself.
I am not in favor any fee towards tourists or people who live here.
I would be happy to pay a $15 fee per year to help SJC transition away from fossil fuels. And I’d love it even more if the tourists did the same. That’s hardly the issue that’s at stake.
Thank you everyone for the good and lively discussion! I learned a lot of history and at least some of “the story behind the story”.
My takeaway is that while there are some interesting pros and cons about how and who to tax at the $15/vehicle level, the *real* story is about how tourism dollars — not just the aforementioned fee, but also the larger pot of revenue from the lodging tax — should be spent (and I’ve learned it’s *should*, not *can*, because it is SJC lodging tax advisory committee that strongly influences the priorities, with few constraints from the WA state code).
So, the real debate is about whether/how much of those revenues should be spent on promoting more tourism, or whether/how much of those revenues should be spent on offsetting the impact (environmental and excess infrastructure costs) from the visitors.
That said, I’d encourage everyone who has a point of view, whichever side of this discussion you’re on, to make your voice heard to the council and the advisory board. The decision should represent as many of the residents of the county as possible, and not just a small handful of people on the board and council. Below are the relevant links; if you have an opinion, speak up — everyone deserves to be heard!
From @MIchael Johnson:
You can make your comments here–https://engage.sanjuancountywa.gov/destination-management-plan?page=2
You can contact your elected officials here–
Orcas: Cindy Wolf—cindyw@sanjuanco.com or 360-370-7477
San Juan: Christine Minney— christinem@sanjuanco.com or 360-370-7478
Lopez: Jane Fuller— janef@sanjuanco.com or 360-378-2898
And from @Brian Wiese:
Comment on the plan at tourism@sanjuanco.com and cc your Council members.
Lastly, from the Seattle Times article:
https://engage.sanjuancountywa.gov/destination-management-plan/survey_tools/sdmp-comments