Editor:
In response to your May 9 article on Smitty’s Oyster House in relation to The George proposal, I commend Mr. Lumley for presenting his proprietary information, but I disagree with the interpretation and conclusions.
Lumley’s data restates the obvious; from a tourism perspective, Gibsons presents a seasonal attraction, much like Salt Spring, Winthrop, Alaska, Mexico, and a thousand other tourist destinations worldwide. Visit any of these places in the off-season and find near empty restaurants and retailers closed for the season.
There is nothing surprisingly unique about the Gibsons situation.
Certainly The George would boost the economy year round, but clearly the hotel, convention centre and marina will have their biggest economic impact in the best six months of the year.
When the tourists arrive for our busy prime months, it will only mean more restaurants and more retailers, possibly including chains and multi-nationals, sprouting up to compete. For those businesses who don’t own their storefronts, they will also face higher rents. Rather than thriving, many marginal businesses will collapse under these pressures.
When the off-season arrives, there will still be more business capacity than is required by visitors and locals. There is no proof that there is some new, better equilibrium that can be achieved.
It’s also somewhat disappointing that business owners supporting The George don’t appreciate that there exists a relatively affluent local community that supports their businesses 12 months a year. Most comparable seasonal destinations don’t even have that benefit. They say the American Indians traded Manhattan for some beads. Gibsons council is preparing to trade the Lower Gibsons’ waterfront for sewer repair funding and a boardwalk. This is not about saying ‘no’ to The George. This is about demanding real, articulated vision from town leadership, to encourage development that supports reasonable, considered growth to everyone’s shared benefit.
Alan Donenfeld, Gibsons
