A Reply to The Reverend
Rev. Candler states “Our families would be as horrified as anyone if huge subdivisions were developed on Cumberland. Thus, we are investigating ways to limit the number of houses that might be built per year.”
Might I suggest that they stop urging the County to rezone the 1,000 acres to allow for development then? 1 house per every 2 acres (the number I’m hearing most often) would result in 400 houses…eventually. Who cares how many they’re allowed to build each year? Does it truly matter whether the Island is destroyed slowly or quickly? (It brings to mind the old Greek proverb “Society grows great when old men plant trees whose shade they know they shall never sit in.”)
From the Very Reverend Sam Candler: “”The common good” is an aspiration used by many folks, too, from environmentalists and philosophers to economists and politicians. In our present world, so quickly connected by communication and travel and trade, the challenge of a truly common good – a common good for the whole world – is critical. Today, all our reflections and endeavors, whether they be religious or political or economic, will be tested by the value they bring to a common good.”
Where, sir, is the “good faith” in compromising a Global Biosphere Reserve and violating the enabling legislation of Cumberland Island? Where is the “common good” in impacting the lives and livelihoods of St. Marys citizens, sullying the experience of 60,000 people per year who visit the Island, and risking the integrity of complex ecosystems?
He states (in the letter to the editor) “Finally, of course, our families have lived there; we have been baptized and married and buried on that island. It is a holy place.”
How very fortunate they have all been to have had such a wonderland in which to vacation – and I do not begrudge them that. Some of us are born heirs to vast fortunes and some of us are not. Luck of the draw. What I do question is why that should serve as some sort of argument for rezoning: “We’ve been here for a long time so we should be able to negatively impact a national park.”
Please note: I am not attacking Sam Candler, impugning his character, or in any way “disrespecting” him. In fact, I like Sam and have enjoyed my time with him. I am simply confused by the contradiction between what he writes and his actions.
Certain Island families speak often about their contributions to the creation of Cumberland Island National Seashore, and I could not admire their past actions more. But one wonders why they would not be the first in line to want to continue that work by protecting and enhancing the wilderness nature of Cumberland. Instead, they risk tarnishing their proud legacy for all time and destroying that which they claim to consider “holy.”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.