||| BY MATTHEW GILBERT, theORCASONIAN OP-ED REPORTER |||
In Part 1 on the future of the SJC Visitors Bureau, I had planned to include the thoughts of each candidate vying to represent Orcas Island on the County Council – Justin Paulsen and Rick Hughes – since one of them will likely play a significant role in its evolving fate. However, the length and substance of their responses regarding both the future of the VB specifically and the impact of tourism in general (with the recently released Destination Management Plan and subsequent blowback as backdrops deserved to stand alone. Here they are:
Rick Hughes
Rick Hughes
When it comes to independent destination marketing entities such as the San Juan Islands Visitors Bureau (SJIVB), I believe it would be a misstep for the county to absorb or operate it. Because of the additional cost, staffing required, potential conflict of interest, and oversight responsibility, having an independent third-party entity following direction from the county and an approved Destination Management plan is the best way to protect our county and support tourism-related businesses.
Secondly, the County should conduct a wide and inclusive RFP (request for proposal) process reaching out to other marketing agencies to give them an opportunity to compete to be the destination marketing organization for San Juan County.
Thirdly, the decision regarding the Visitors Bureau is a complex one that affects many individuals, businesses, and the incorporated town of Friday Harbor. In the SJIVB’s existing contract, they receive funding from the Lodging Tax (administered by the Lodging Tax AdvisoryCommittee/LTAC), which in turn provides operational money to the Lopez, San Juan, and Orcas
chambers of commerce. The town of Friday Harbor pays a separate sum to the SJIVB for their marketing. An entity acting independently on behalf of San Juan County would be better capable of being more fair and agile, therefore, more efficient.
As for whether or not the county should scale down its efforts to promote the islands and focus more on mitigation of impacts, such as those referenced in the recently completed tourismplan, the ferries are currently doing a fine job of scaling down tourist numbers and dollars. For instance, San Juan Island was down 15% in estimated revenue for 2024. Regardless of the ferry issue, many islanders, chambers of commerce, and businesses devoted time to providing feedback on the Preliminary Draft Destination Management Plan (DMP). The draft received over 900 comments spanning many topics including “defining island capacity, addressing affordability and transportation, reconsidering destination marketing efforts, protecting property rights,” and many more.
I especially appreciate the ideas on addressing island affordability and completely agree with the strong opposition for introducing any new fees or taxes for residents. I support the need to protect the island environment and our quality of life while balancing the needs of tourism. I would be supportive of funding to mitigate the negative impacts of tourism and improving core infrastructure for islanders (dog parks, restrooms, walking paths, garbage cans, etc.) using lodging tax funds.
# # # # #
Justin Paulsen
Justin Paulsen
The DMP was an attempt by the County to create a document that it has been attempting for decades. Its release for review by the public was premature. As a result, the feedback from the public was extremely negative and the useable takeaways from it were of limited use.
When it was released, I provided public comment on the document, which indicated that muchof the data and information in the early part of the document was useful, but that the document went too far into proposing policies which needed far more vetting and discussion. I do expect the document to be a reference point for future destination management discussions, but any policy discussion will require a new, fresh look.
With regard to the pending renewal of the VB contract, I believe that given the delays in getting the current contract settled, and the absence of a thorough and inclusive re-examination of “how” we want to look at tourism going forward, I would propose that the Council grant a one-year extension. My qualification to this would be that we need to immediately bring a stakeholders group together to start talking about what tourism planning should look like for the next 3 – 5 years.
That stakeholder group should include not just tourism-related businesses but also those in our community who have raised concerns and who represent adjacent interests (e.g., the Land Bank, housing leaders, childcare, etc.). Tourism is a major economic driver in our county and an industry that offers many positive tangential supports. That said, we must be cognizant of the impacts and preventing degradation of place. This is not just a consideration for tourism but a part of planning generally throughout the county. There are limits to everything that, frankly, I’d rather we not test.
I do believe that we need to begin to shift priority away from promotion (tourism increase). San Juan County will always be a place that draws the interest of people from around the world. In that way, tourism is part of our basic fabric. We should focus on fostering tourism that connects people with what is important to us – what draws and keeps us here – highlighting our natural environment and focused on education and experience. I’ve talked with many in the hospitality industry who would be more than happy to simply operate a sustainable, reliable business not focused on growth.
The Visitors Bureau can and should be part of helping us, as a county, shift our tourism focus. It offers our county and their members far more than just promotion. They add expertise in tracking visitor behavior, monitoring and predicting economic trends, and are uniquely qualified to engage outside our community, drawing in information that can help us mitigate and even avoid unintended consequences from over-tourism.
I do not believe that San Juan County should take over in-house management of tourism-related activity. Our government structure has plenty of work to do with limited staff and budget, and we need to focus our core energy on what we are mandated to do. The County Council can and should set the priorities and identify the desired focus for the VB in the operating contract, and that strategy should be guided by stakeholders (as identified above.)
I also believe that to really drill down into this conversation even further, there should be a discussion of LTAC goals, funding, and priorities. I believe the county has opportunities to be far more impactful with those monies and in a way that not only improves the tourism experience but also builds on the direct needs of residents in a way that we have not been doing thus far.
# # # # #
If you have questions or comments for the candidates on this or any issue, they can be reached here:
Justin Paulsen (justin@paulsen4council.com / (360) 201-1366)
Rick Hughes (hughesforcouncil@gmail.com / (360) 472-0253)
**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.**
What a refreshing change to have an election with TWO well qualified and competent candidates to choose between!
This is in response to both Part 1 of Matthew’s article, and to our Orcas Council candidates.
Once upon a time in America,
half the country went to war
in order not to give up
a way of life that
depended on slavery.
The ease and wealth of that way of life was
comfortable
for the slave owners.
They justified the comfort they “needed”
by the magical thinking
that slaves were not human
and felt no pain
or love.
Now in America,
most of the country
refuses to give up
and readily goes to war
around the world
to protect
the ease and wealth of
a way of life that
depends
on killing millions of living beings every day,
and enslaving millions more,
and creating miserable conditions for still more millions.
It depends on depriving those other beings of
life
their children and parents
homes
safety
clean water
clean air
clean soil
uncontaminated food
reproduction
privacy
a peaceful place to sleep
the quiet required to communicate with one another and find food
freedom to move and roam
This way of life may be comfortable
for those who have “The American Dream”
and “own” land
and for those who can afford
power clean water clean air vehicles gas food
clothing shelter privacy laundry new things
clean air children college medicine recreation
quiet taxes savings
We justify our comfort and our wars
by the magical thinking
that all those living beings we
kill enslave immiserate
are either not human
or not worth our notice,
or both,
and feel no pain or love.
Every time we act as if there should be no limits on the destruction of nature to make way for our comfort–or our recreation, convenience, ease, wealth, overpopulation of humans–we are no better than the slave owners.
I realize that this statement will make almost everyone reading it uncomfortable and tempted to attack me for saying it. How dare I? I, who am as guilty as anyone else of choosing comfort, of not noticing or wanting to notice the pain and harm caused by my lifestyle.
Others will point to the belief that it’s “human nature” to reach for ease and wealth, and therefore a losing battle to try to get us to “give it up.” Or that our neanderthal brains are not capable of the complex thinking required to grapple with the reality of our human situation on earth.
Yet, I propose that we rethink what we “need” and demand and are accustomed to, and challenge indoctrinated beliefs about human nature. I propose that we consider a world based on love and respect for all living beings; that we consider deeply how we can learn to love and respect, and therefore limit our harmful impact on, other living beings, despite living in a capitalist country, and make different decisions from “business as usual,” or the “necessity” of economic growth and the accumulation of individual wealth, or the “necessity” of meeting the growing human demand for electricity and water and better ferry service and wider roads and more infrastructure on the islands, and even the “necessity” of more people, in our county.
This, even without the consideration that the destruction of nature dooms our own species, and its protection is our ultimate protection.
In other words, this decision on what to do about the Visitor’s Bureau is not just a practical or business decision about how best to manage tourism or the incomes of those who depend on the VB and tourists, but I propose must be viewed in the larger context of a living world seven generations hence that we are brave and wise enough to contribute to creating.
Could we allow ourselves the love and satisfaction of acting like brave, loving parents and stewards instead of like children or addicts grabbing for candy or drugs because of the sweet taste or short burst of good feeling?
I choose to believe that at our deepest core, every one of us would choose to feel unconditional, infinite love over anything else, and allow our decisions to come from that place.
On a practical level with regard to the tourism question, I challenge the lip service given by Rick to “the need to protect the island environment” in the same sentence as [simultaneously protecting] “our quality of life while balancing the needs of tourism.”
I agree that we can protect the island environment and all have a very high quality of life–the one we’d have by experiencing the unconditional, infinite love I mentioned, and loving and respecting all the wild, not-human residents with whom we humans share the county. I suspect, however, that what is meant by “quality of life” is the ease and wealth we associate with the material things we like to have and use and consume. I also see from what Rick wrote no interest, plan, or intention for reducing tourism or its growth or promotion beyond counting on ferry limitations to do it for us.
This sounds like the same illogical argument that’s in how we use (or misuse) the county Vision Statement: that we can have our cake (the island environment) while continuing to eat it (by continuing the trajectory of overconsumption, overtourism, and continued development, a growing economy, etc, that we’ve been on for decades.)
I challenge Justin’s idea that we should create a stakeholder group to figure out the “new, fresh look” he proposes, that includes “tourism-related businesses”–people with a direct conflict of interest with any wise long term plan for the part of the living world that is geographically designated as San Juan County.
San Juan County is home to thousands of people whose jobs, income, and political aspirations are not at stake regarding tourism management, who could and would contribute wisdom and experience to solving this challenge without these direct conflicts of interest.
Thank you Alexandra. The more things change, the more they stay the same.
Thank you Alexandra for your comment, which I completely agree with. Lip service is about all we ever get from candidates who must toe the line of business-as-usual in order to get elected.
We live in times when we must be willing to speak up and say the uncomfortable things, because the fate of the living world is at stake. It sounds hyperbolic to say that, but unfortunately, it’s not.
I got permission from my friend Max Wilbert to post something he said recently, something related to your comment Alexandra, and which is apropos here as we consider our options in the coming election: options limited only to tiny nuances in business-as-usual, options which ensure a future of suffering.
“Every day that this way of life continues, more species are pushed into extinction, more square miles of forest are lost, more rivers are desiccated, more soil is eroded, more dead zones expand in the ocean, more pollution is released, more toxic chemicals are created and released into the air and water, more carbon dioxide enters the atmosphere, more land is destroyed, more habitat is lost. With every single day that goes by.
It is similar to the situation of the abolitionists who lived in the north of the United States during slavery. Many people in the north were content with slavery. It didn’t affect them personally, and they got benefits from it. They got access to cheaper products because of slavery. The harms of slavery were far away. The suffering was far away.
It took the bravery of people to stand up and speak out, to write books, going out into the community to expose the violence and injustice of what was happening, to expose the horrors of that system. These people took great risks to fight slavery, people like John Brown who gave his life to fight slavery, to stop the abomination from continuing.
We are living in the same world right now, except it’s global. A world in which we all benefit from and are dependent on the exploitation of other humans, of non-humans, of wild beings, and entire ecosystems. We’re economically dependent on that exploitative system. Our food, our water, our housing, our clothing, our medicine, everything about our modern world is utterly dependent on a system that creates extreme injustice, cruelty, destruction, devastation, death, and ecological collapse.
The situation is extraordinarily challenging. There are no easy answers. But we have to start somewhere and one thing we can be certain of is that business-as-usual, more of the same by alternative means, is not the answer.
We are living in a time in which we all need to take action; we all need to be John Brown. We all need to be Frederick Douglass. We all need to be Sojourner Truth. We all need to be speaking up, taking risks, questioning the status quo, and doing things to change this.
Every day there are human rights and environmental defenders who are being killed around the world. Killed, tortured, sent to jail, imprisoned, harassed, beaten, fined for their action to defend the planet and their communities. These people are taking risks. They are taking action in line with their heart, in line with what’s right.
The question for every single one of us needs to be: Why are we not doing that? And if we are doing it, how can we be more effective?”
— Max Wilbert, author of Voices of Resistance: We Choose to Speak