Heard It all before? Been there. Seen It. So what?
Well Queen's Valley Is an attractive, largely undisturbed valley which, should it become flooded as a reservoir will displace and affect few people. Ideal situation and an obvious attraction for the Jersey New Waterworks Board; loss of valley to residents.
However I believe that the potential flooding of Queen's Valley provides the opportunity for all residents to question where this water will be required. I do not accept that the marginal increases in the Island population up to 80,000, will place demands on the water supply requiring the additional reservoir.
My belief is that it is the Tourism Industry which places such demands upon the water resources. That is in addition to land space, roads, aircraft and airport, and many local amenities.
Is the great golden goose known as Tourism laying such golden eggs? Jersey has for a long time sacrificed quality for quantity and seems to be doing little to alter the profile of the mainstay tourist away from C2, D and E socio-economic persons with little real disposable income. The environment of the Island has altered so as to appeal to this market. The holiday camp near Grosnez, the camping sites and anonymous concrete hotels, combined with the faceless town of St. Helier where too many of the shops sell "junk" aimed at the tourists walking the pavements. This all reduces the appeal of the Island to the higher spending quality tourist. As to how this mess affects the resident - one would have to be very thick skinned not to occasionally wonder what it is all for.
Supposedly it is in the interests of an Island industry. If this is the case, is the reasoning that it provides employment for local people or that it produces a surplus profit contributing revenue Unfortunately exact figures are not known though I will wager that the majority of jobs created by tourism in hotels and restaurants/cafes are taken up by seasonal workers. If the industry is there to make a tax contribution then the Island's wealth; residents are many more times "tax efficient" with many residents paying several times what the hotel, are contributing. We need only to look at the banks for the solution of how to provide employment and taxable revenue.
It is my opinion that a long term policy should be established so that a strategy for developing a new tourist industry can take shape. My view is that the policy would aim to reduce the volume of tourists while improving the quality. The hotel bed space should be reduced as hotels improve the accommodation and facilities available. As for the camp sites and holiday camps - well they can be returned to their original green field state. The number of guest houses would be drastically cut back so making available a small though valuable amount of housing space for the local housing market Incidentally this would do a lot to return St Helier back to a "living town". Some hotels could be converted into flats - for instance the Portelet Holiday Village could provide many luxury two or three bedroom units. The entire tourism industry would be pushed into a different economic grouping - fewer numbers, higher quality and less affected by unemployment and recession.
Well, where does all this come into the Queen's Valley debate. It is simply that in reducing the number of tourists, the demand for water will decrease and it is no longer a necessity for the Queen's Valley reservoir to be built. As it is, the hotel, travel agency, tour operator and coach operator business sector are a strong lobbying power within the States. Such lobbying powers may be too great to ever allow the tourist trade to come into question. Though, with a little thought and imagination, my wish to see the Island without the dreadful riffraff that spill off the beaches into the pubs could become an actuality.
Something of the past - a little similar to the German Occupation - not wanted, but endured.
Footnote:
When is the law allowing a household up to five lodgers before requiring Housing Committee permission going to be changed?