||| BY MATTHEW GILBERT, theORCASONIAN OP-ED REPORTER |||
At long last, the county has put the finishing touches on the “San Juan Islands Destination Management Plan” (DMP), an ambitious effort to make “sustainable tourism” a centerpiece of island life. Sustainable tourism is defined by the UN Environment Program and UN World Tourism Organization as “tourism that takes full account of its current and future economic, social and environmental impacts, addressing the needs of visitors, the industry, the environment and host communities.” This process has been driven by the Environmental Stewardship Department on behalf of the county’s Lodging Tax Advisory Committee (now chaired by Councilwoman Cindy Wolf) and executed by a diverse team of consultants.
Those consultants have done an admirable job weaving the many threads of investigation that have preceded this proposal over the last few years, and there are plenty of statistics (more on that later). The most sobering of them reveals that in 1985, when the very first tourism plan for the county was released, there were 17,000 annual visitors – the same as our current full-time population. That number has ballooned (mushroomed, exploded . . .) to a non-COVID average of nearly 700,000 unique visitors a year. Anyone who has been on the islands prior to, say, 2000, can attest to the accumulating impacts. Others simply don’t have such a history to draw from. Still, the plan attempts to do what most such plans aspire to: balance economic sustainability with (in our case) preserving island character, minimizing ecological degradation, and optimizing resource use. Many would argue that it’s way too late for that, but having “a plan” is probably better than none at all. More specifically:
The Vision:
Visitation in the San Juan Islands is balanced and sustainable, protecting and nurturing our unique environment while supporting a vibrant island community and thriving year-round economy.
Shared Values:
- Environmental and cultural stewardship
- Livable communities
- Authentic island experiences creating a sense of place
- Stable, equitable economy
Major Themes:
- Almost everyone values and wishes to preserve the natural qualities of the Islands and the benefits it affords for relaxed, enjoyable nature-based experiences.
- The current use levels demand active management by design, not default.
- Tourism/visitation may increase.
The authors do acknowledge more than once (the word “however” is used a dozen times) the delicate balancing act of serving all masters, and that our systems are being pressured not just by “traditional tourists” but a growing resident population (one begets the other) and all the activity associated with that (e.g., delivery vehicles, construction workers, family visits). They also recognize that many popular destinations like the San Juans are vulnerable to “life cycle” effects, and that “increasing use and development may significantly change a destination [as] earlier stages of exploration, development, and consolidation often lead to later stages of stagnation and decline . . . destinations must ensure that use and development are in balance with available infrastructure, carrying capacity, and the destination’s intended types of experiences. Perpetual growth is not an option for San Juan County . . .”
Nevertheless, the nuanced intention of the DMP appears to accommodate current levels and trends of visitation (along with off-season promotions) with infrastructure investments, campsite and park expansions, expanded bike trails, and so on – essentially “resortifying” the islands while adding some guardrails to the impacts – in hopes that the quality of experience for residents and visitors alike doesn’t continue to decline and that the natural environment isn’t further pummeled into submission. It’s a lot to ask.
The DMP notes that in 2021, the Tulalip Tribes released a report titled “The ‘Recreation Boom’ on Public Lands in Western Washington: Impacts to Wildlife and Implications for Treaty Tribes.” Researched and written by a wildlife biologist and an environmental policy analyst, it offers a stark assessment of how excessive visitation levels over the last decade or so have been diminishing the natural world – and our experience of it – because of “increasing degradation of resources, disturbance to wildlife, and disruption of lifeways.”
Crunching the Numbers
2021 and 2022 were watermark years of post-pandemic euphoria with lodging and sales tax revenue at all-time highs – and the locals felt it. 2023 got off to a slow start (especially on San Juan Island) as ferry disruptions and pent-up international travel made an early dent in visitor traffic. But the numbers picked up by summer, and according to data provided by the Orcas Chamber of Commerce, lodging and sales tax revenue for Orcas Island through August is now up 1.4% over last year. It should also be noted (at least according to former DCD Director David Williams) that the number of single-family building permits – spurred in part by the pandemic – has more than doubled county-wide over the last three years, and that the recently approved Comp Plan estimates that “Orcas Island is expected to add about 1,000 new residents between now and 2036, raising total population to 6,423. This means an additional 500+ people will [in theory] end up in the Eastsound UGA, which is required to accommodate 50 percent of all new growth.”
Ferry ridership to the islands in the second quarter (April – June) was up 3.6% over 2022 (though still slightly behind 2019 and 2021 figures). As reported by Washington State Ferries (WSF) in one of their July communiques, “July and August are typically our busiest months. This year’s peak travel season kicked off with 88,192 riders on Saturday, July 1 – our highest in a single day since summer 2109! For the week of July 2 – 8, we had nearly 500,000 customers. For comparison, ridership averages close to 250,000 during our slowest winter weeks. With more sunny, warm weather and big events ahead, we expect to remain very busy through Labor Day!” And so they did as traffic patterns kept pace with last year’s surge.
The report emphasizes the importance of developing tools for site-specific capacity analysis “based on their natural resource and cultural conditions, recreational infrastructure, and transportation dynamics . . . to help identify which sites could handle additional visitation without degradation, as well as those that need more active management practices implemented to prevent further site decline.” This is fine as far as it goes, but as the report wisely adds, “There is a complex interaction between visitor numbers, the quality of site conditions, and the infrastructure to handle them. If visitation continues to grow, the Islands will need increased infrastructure to maintain high quality conditions. However, it is important to recognize that improved infrastructure may also attract additional use (‘build it and they will come’).”
Importantly, identifying those site-specific capacities is a subset of the bigger – and more complex, and likely more costly, and generally ignored – issue of attempting to define the “carrying capacity” of each individual island (and the county overall) to reasonably support the needs of a growing population, whether permanent or temporary. The Salish Current recently reported on the drought emergency in Whatcom County that left 300 households in the Nooksack watershed without water because three public water systems dried up.
The report’s “Cooperative Action Plan” proposes various actions across a wide range of areas, including 29 infrastructure projects at an estimated cost of $10.7M and 58 “management actions” totaling an additional $2.3M. Of this $13M (+/- 30%, but I’d wager the +), $4.5M is earmarked for creating up to 90 additional van, bunkhouse, and/or yurt-style seasonal camping locations on each island and $4M to improve and expand bike lanes-paths on each island. As for funding all of this, another broad range of suggestions was made, including the creation of $10 – 15 vehicle, boat, and bicycle passes (similar to the Discover Pass) that would apply to both visitors and residents.
There is also the impressively compiled Recreation, Open Space, and Stewardship Plan (ROSS) released late last year that envisions “an interconnected and integrated system of parks and open spaces” and proposes an additional $51M in capital projects over the six years to accomplish this.
And so . . .
The San Juan Island Visitors Bureau (SJVB) has come under some fire for its role in driving traffic to the islands, but it is inherently designed to do just that. To change its mission would be akin to asking companies to no longer maximize quarterly profits. But the damage of such short-sightedness in the corporate sector is increasingly clear, and as stated in the report, the SJVB has been adjusting its “messaging and promotion to address community concerns.” But even with that, “community feedback in 2022 still encouraged a continued evolution of their strategy” to include “an increase in stewardship programming, active management of visitors via dispersion approaches, and direct, strategic education of visitors before they arrive in theIslands.” But then it was also pointed out that (for example) dispersion – “directing people to less-visited locations” – has its own glaring disadvantages.
The closing date for public review of this Gordian Knot of conflicting ideals has been extended to October 31. Visit the San Juan Islands Destination Management Plan project page which also includes background information and resources, ongoing updates, FAQs, and tools to submit feedback or ask questions.
Continued growth of our tourism based economy will necessarily require corresponding county investment in infrastructure such as bike lanes,public restroom facilities,increased vehicle parking in our towns…..parking time limits during high summer ,….increased law enforcement of our speed limits,parking enforcement,noise control,…….and review of our zoning and home building restrictions.
Parking in Eastsound is in crisis mode during summer peak months.The county council has exempted many new business expansions from abiding to the few regulations that are enforced.we must become proactive and plan for future needs that the tourism economy desires….or not
“Continued growth of our tourism based economy…?”
Yes, continued uncontrolled growth will become an infrastructure nightmare for the tax payers of SJC… forever.
Has anyone looked at the price tags of doing such things? And all in the same breath you shut down vacation rentals which would have funded half of it.
Seems like 6 weeks is a bit short to get community participation.
I skimmed the draft plan a few weeks ago and welcome this summary. The statistics are shocking. Sadly the language around “seeking balance” and “sustainable tourism” is pure greenwashing that the county should be shamed for using. There is no balance to be found in this plan, and there is nothing sustainable about 700,000 people boarding diesel-powered ferries with their SUVs or hopping on a float plane (which creates 10-20x more GHG emissions than driving) for a brief experience of the “rural charm” of the San Juans.
This plan assures that the hegemony of the tourism profiteers will only be extended, expanded, and perpetuated, while being heavily subsidized by the taxpayer. In case you missed it, the summary mentions $64 million for “improvements” that will largely benefit those who are already making record profits from tourism. Yes, they want YOU to pay for an annual vehicle pass so that they can build yurts for tourists and improve bike lanes that will draw even more tourists. This is madness. This is pro-growth mania. Where is the plan to REDUCE the number of visitors? Anything less is an economic crime against those of us who can make a living without tourism.
The unspoken reason that we even need a “Destination Management Plan” is that a cabal of short-term rental operators, whale watching boat captains, wedding planners, real estate agents, hipster restaurateurs, private jet owners, and peddlers of kitsch have conspired to lock in the record profits that they’ve extracted during the past few years. This group of profiteers, aided and abetted by the San Juan Island Visitors Bureau, has an outsized influence over the daily life of these islands and anyone who isn’t in on the scam has almost no way to fight back. These tourism profiteers believe that it is their right to bring vans full of tourists to your parks; to sail boats full of whale-watching enthusiasts through your waters; to direct a wedding caravan to the grotesque vacation rental right next to your home. And they’re laughing all the way to the bank while paying you less than a living wage to clean toilets, wait tables, and stock shelves for this group of economic parasites.
Eventually our county government, which is run primarily by people with the same pro-tourism and pro-growth mindset, will be forced to take drastic actions to “accommodate growth pressures.” From upzoning density changes to easing parcel division regulations, such moves will be packaged as a “compromise solution” even as the outcome ensures an increased flow of tourists. This creates higher population growth, higher population density, higher localized GHG emissions, and higher costs of living. The islands are becoming increasingly suburbanized, with just a few specially-protected preserves serving as reminders of how things used to be. The fragmented ecosystem will be increasingly pressured by the climate crisis, which is ironically linked to the GHG emissions of those 700,000 tourists.
Those of us who would like to put sharp limits on tourism and REDUCE the numbers; create a net zero energy system on the islands; reform the ferry system to prioritize island residents over tourists; and create a local economy that is not fed by the disposable income of affluent tourists have almost no voice. We may be able to slow the process but it cannot be stopped. These islands will continue to become sliced up, commodified, and sold to the highest bidder, and the crisis that we are experiencing regarding the cost of living and the scarcity of housing will continue to get worse. A recent article on The Orcasonian (” How UK seaside towns fight back”) compared the process to the growth of cancer, and sadly, that is accurate.
Tourism is just another form of resource extraction. Those who feed, shelter, entertain, and transport tourists are not much different than those who came here to clear cut the forests, mine the lime, and turn intact forests into cattle farms. What the modern-day resource extractors take from us is the same thing they sell to visitors from far-flung places: unbuilt land, wild nature, rural simplicity, peace and quiet. They take it from you and me and they sell it to tourists from Seattle, Sacramento, Sarasota, and Singapore, even as these finite resources dwindle with each passing year. I fear that too many islanders are either blind to what is happening or too polite to speak out against it, and they won’t know what’s being stolen from them until it’s gone.
Aye, aye! Quite a profound statement David. I feel the exact same regarding the draft Comp. Plan… hoping but never expecting to see anything else.
I might further by asking such rhetorical questions as, “Why is it that everytime there’s a political compromise… the environment always loses?” “How come when you mix science with profit, science always loses?” Likewise, “Why is it when you mix environment with profit… the environment always loses?”
Nothing got “shut down” Norris. Quit trying to misframe the issue. Don’t you already have enough vacation rentals as it is?
17,000 Annual visitors in 1985 can’t be accurate… Anyone remember Jazz Fest?
@ David Bowman
Do you know of any places in the world that have successfully become the ideal balance that you seek? It would be interesting to look at how they were able to do it. Thanks for sharing.
Perhaps we could look at what’s happening in New York City (or cities around the world) in an attempt to address short term rentals. San Juan County shows no real signs of reigning in this disastrous problem.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/sep/06/airbnb-new-rental-regulation-nyc-housing
I hope that David Bowman would consider running for public office – we could use more people like you.
Great article, Matthew, as usual. At first glance of what the Plan hopes to accomplish, all I can do is cringe.
From 17,000 in 1980 to 700,000?! We have said for decades that we don’t want the SOLE economic driver to be tourism (note the word sole, meaning ONLY). That fell on deaf ears for decades -other ideas always got shot down, as did their permit applications. Hence, the pac-man style real estate ‘boom’ in 1989, runaway growth, and the requirement to be in the Growth Management Act. What a boondoggle.
We have been promised ‘dark sky’ – not the increase of high mounted spotlights. We have been promised ‘open space’ including in Eastsound. If you consider rampant deforestation and roads going straight up steep hills (erosion waiting to happen), ‘open space’, I guess this fits the criteria. 200 year old trees have to go to make way for yet MORE cars, bigger food trucks, bike lanes instead of trails. The list goes on and on of promises never met – just to assuage us I guess. Which is why I no longer go to their meetings and hearings, based on Delphi Technique where, by the time you get a meeting, the decisions have already been made and they are just doing the required-by-law meetings before enacting their plans.
I remember a conversation with Russ Harvey at some meeting or other where he told me that Eastsound wetland watershed had been planned as an ‘urban growth area’ since the 1960s! he would know since he was in Public Works for decades. How can that be? Who decided THAT? That is insanity or greed, or both. To sacrifice our highest functioning wetland watershed for… what? Who would call what happened to Eastsound and the disgusting glut of vacation homes, with the poor and poor working class paying for all the utilities – water, sewer, all-electric everything… ‘sustainable?’
Countless times now since that first Comp Plan, tourism and unlimited economic growth trumped everything else. The environment, human services, rural character – other elements of the Plan – were pushed out by special interests. ‘Investors’ came in droves. Please don’t tell me you want to make the San Juan Islands ‘smart’ islands and the UGAs ‘smart cities!’ Let’s stop the nonsense and the doublespeak, please.
Will they listen to our pleas this time? No. Not until the golden goose is out of eggs. To use words like ‘sustainable’ at those numbers is an insult not only to our intelligence but also to the life of other beings struggling with the impacts and slowly, or quickly, going extinct from the impacts of planes, boats, cars, light pollution, and NOISE.
This gets my hackles up and I think I speak for a lot of people by remembering when things were more balanced – but that was before the boom. I will read the articles’ finer points and have more to say but it probably won’t be much calmer.or ‘nicer.’ I’m all out of ‘nice.’
Actually Janet, the current council has done a great job of reigning in vacation rentals. Councilwoman Wolf opened the door, Yonatan Aldort formed the Orcas chapter of the Vacation Rental Working Group, and while having to drag one councilwomen by the heals and fighting the Pros. Attny.’s office step by step… 2 years and thousands of voices later we now have limits on vacation rentals in SJC. It’s a good start.
And don’t even get me started on the County’s definition of ‘short term’ housing (under 30 days) and ‘long term’ housing (31 days or more). I wish it were some kind of sick joke. But no. That’s in our policy on housing and VRs and it drives all our land-use decisions.
Don’t anyone even try to say we are anti-tourism or tourists! I understand we need tourism and have met many great tourists who see this place with fresh, wonderous eyes. This isn’t THEIR fault. They are lured here by the hype of natural beauty, then they see the reality of signs all over Eastsound such as from one whale watch company in particular that promise ‘guaranteed’ whales – is this accomplished by chasing and harassing our starving resident orcas?
The ‘protective regulations’ for the environment are only for those who don’t have enough money to threaten to sue the county (or try to bribe officials) for their right to trash their property and their neighbors’. I have actually seen a ‘back door deal’ or two in action, so I know this happens too because I have witnessed it and evidence of more of it.
I propose that we form a citizens watchdog group to fine-tooth our way through this draft plan and comment on it in droves. At least we will have legal Standing if we do that. So much about this is wrong ethically and morally, yet is couched in language that belies this fact.
Giving people incentives and inspirations to do the right thing have always the superior path. Mandates don’t work either – that just breeds resentment, hate, and lawsuits. But what do you do when you have greedy repeat violators getting hand slaps and tiny fines? Something’s gotta give. If the People are the government, the time is NOW to take back the reins. It should have been decades ago and it may already be too late, but we have to try – don’t we? Or are people that apathetic?
The “Destination Management Plan” (how did that name get changed?) points out that the two biggest economic drivers for San Juan County are tourism and the building industry. The two are clearly and directly related. The County is about to embark on the next iteration of its Comprehensive Plan, due in two years. With issues of continued growth and “unoccupied” seasonal housing (38%) continuing to push into rural lands, Comp Plan issues of regulating growth and appropriate zoning (while providing “affordable” housing) are ever more important. At the same time, we are without a Community Development Director. The choice of the next planning director will be critical in updating the Comp Plan and determining the direction of the Islands’ growth and protection of our rural character. The interview and selection process for the next director should be fully open to the public.
Tourism has always been the tail wagging the dog in San Juan County. Claiming that tourism is the most important “economic driver” in the local economy seems misleading at best.
Looking at county tax revenues for 2022 shows $7.5M in property tax, 7.1M in sales tax, 2.3M in lodging tax, 1.2M in real estate excise tax, and 1.4M in permitting fees. Tourists do not pay property taxes, excise taxes or permitting fees. With a generous assumption that tourism accounts for one-half of sales taxes, the conclusion seems to be that residents and county property owners are responsible for 70% of county revenue. This is only a “back of the envelope” rough estimate.
I’d be happy to consider any alternative analysis.
Why are SJC property owners expected to fund touristic amenities such as bike lanes, increased parking pavement and other infrastructure improvements for the benefit of the “guaranteed whales” business and other tacky tourist outfits?
I would also like to mention the grotesque unfairness of the ferry reservation system to residents. Why are all the available spots on the most timely ferry runs 2 months always booked? Bots?
“Why are all the available spots on the most timely ferry runs 2 months always booked?”
1) Because we live in a beautiful place where many desire to visit;
2) Because of the dysfunctional ferry system many people now reserve several spots for their return trips back home… and then cancel the one they don’t want at the last minute;
3) Because we have a visitors bureau that tells those on their mailing lists that, “Tickets are hard to come by during the tourist season, so be sure and reserve extra tickets for your friends and family members who might also wish to come visit the islands.”
There are some really excellent points and insight in these comments. I appreciate the way Orcas residents are involved in the county happenings. As someone mentioned, this needs community involvement, not apathy, but everyone is exhausted and stressed to the max, I know I am. With proper initial organization, many voices coming together is what is needed at this time to come up with solutions and alternatives to this current plan of the residents paying for tourism infrastructure.
I think those 38% of empty second homes (anyone that doesn’t claim SJ County as their primary residence that owns real estate), should pay a higher property tax. This isn’t unheard of and is enacted in many places that draw vacationers. I have watched the market like a hawk since 2017 and have seen some homes sell 3 times with each seller laughing all the way to the bank making 100’s of thousands in a little over a year. Meanwhile, now one would have to make $178k per year, and have a down payment of $120k to be able to finance their first home at the median price of $880k….it is sad to me that the next generation doesn’t have a chance to make a life here unless they come from a wealthy family.
I sat through and participated in all three of those zoom sessions in Spring of 2022 that our county paid $200,000 for from 3 different consultants to facilitate. Sadly only about 70 people from all of the islands participated. I wish more had so I could get some affirmations on how bizarre it all seemed. One of the biggest issues that residents spoke of was the issue of traffic and cyclists. Enter the consultant “ok, what I’m hearing is you want more paved bike paths”. Then, just a few months later, it is announced that SJI has received a federal grant for a non motorized PAVED bike path, two miles long from town out to the Lake Zylstra land bank property….Their solution to cries from the public about over-tourism, is to create a whole new thing to advertise for visitors to do when on island. They will need over 30 easements through private property to do this. Most of it is through generational working farms and a large portion of WETLANDS. These farmers found out about it on Facebook! It gutted me to think of little old John Wilson and Guard Sundstrom and how hard they’ve worked their farms their entire lives, out there rain or shine at dawn for over 70 years, to then be told we’re going to make a tourist attraction on your land. Meanwhile, avid cyclists will still want to get long rides in and hug the coast and explore the islands, therefore this isn’t really any kind of solution. AND it will still need to be subsidised by the taxpayers beyond the $4.3 million dollar grant. Personally, I would love a safe bike path to take family bike rides, but not this way, this way just feels yucky!
It is also concerning the amount of money that is earmarked for the county to get into the lodging business. Why on earth wouldn’t they earmark that money for permanent affordable housing. We are seeing in real time the inability to cater to the current amount of “heads in beds”. Restaurants and business’ are shuttering left and right in Friday Harbor. Employers are desperate for employees, including the county! They haven’t had a code enforcement officer in over a year and many different sectors are hiring. The hopes in changing to a 32 hour workweek (WOW, this is life altering, I am happy for them) is that this will draw more people into the pool to hire. I do think that before creating more regulations, fees, and taxes on year round residents, they should get their current operations running smoothly and find other avenues for funding and facilitating tourist activities. Remember, this is just a draft, we can influence the outcome, but we must not remain apathetic.
@junioer “Meanwhile, avid cyclists will still want to get long rides in and hug the coast and explore the islands,
really hope for more trails and gravel roads to do exactly that! Especially around the east side of orcas and the backside of turtleback, but really everywhere.