Hotel Owner Petitions Town for Relief on Glass Balconies

Click above to access the Hotel Cape Charles petition.

By GEORGE SOUTHERN
Cape Charles Wave

December 4, 2012

After receiving a second rejection by the Historic District Review Board, Hotel Cape Charles owner David Gammino is using the Internet to mount a popular appeal.

The hotel has closed for the winter, but according to Gammino, the Town of Cape Charles will not allow it to reopen in March unless the glass balconies are replaced with wrought-iron railings to lend an “historic” air to the otherwise modern facade.

At the Review Board’s meeting in September, Gammino pleaded that wrought iron would ruin the look of the building as well as add tremendous expense. The glass panels had cost $60,000. “We don’t have the money to make that kind of change. We are $800,000 over budget already,” he said then.

At the November Review Board meeting, a proposal by Gammino’s architect for wooden casings around the glass wall edges was considered and rejected.  Board Chairman Russ Dunton said the Board’s decision was final, and any appeal would have to be considered by Town Council.

But Gammino’s appeal is to the court of public opinion. In a published comment last night in the Wave, he wrote: “As the developer and contractor, I continue to express my apologies and accept responsibility for this situation. As a business owner I am trying to resolve the issue. We are still hoping that we can seek approval of our design through Town Council.  Our petition is as follows:

CONTINUED FROM FIRST PAGE

The petition, entitled Support Hotel Cape Charles, states:

The Hotel Cape Charles opened in spring of 2012 after a 2.4 million dollar renovation. The Hotel’s modern design has received local, regional and national accolades. Much of this praise relates to how beautifully the modern design accommodates the surrounding historic and diverse streetscape of Mason Avenue. The Town of Cape Charles Historic Review Board has refused to issue a certificate of appropriateness until the Hotel owners replace the current glass balcony structures with a picket and handrail system. This requirement will satisfy this Board that the Hotel “fits in” with Mason Avenue’s other “historic” buildings. The Hotel cannot receive a final certificate of occupancy in its current configuration, and will be unable to open in March, 2013, unless it complies with this directive.

The undersigned support the current design of The Hotel Cape Charles, and request that the Town Council approve a Certificate of Appropriateness for the Hotel such that no alterations are required to the existing Hotel facade.

Until Gammino made his comment to the Wave, all signatories were from the Richmond area, where Gammino lives. But Cape Charles residents immediately began to sign on, with Wave columnist Bruce Lindeman leading the way. Leave the hotel as it is — it is stunning! wrote Lindeman.

David Gay wrote: Give them a break and an occupancy permit. The hotel is a real asset to the town.

Karen Gay said, Change the historic review rules, not the Hotel Cape Charles!

Dana Lascu wrote: Hotel Cape Charles is magnificent. Please grant them a certificate of occupancy and please do not require them to substitute second-rate iron guard rails in lieu of its lovely and totally safe glass panels.

Since the only way to leave a comment on the petition is to sign it, not surprisingly, all the petition comments are positive. Comments below this story, as well as last week’s story, can and do go either way.

Share

Comments

33 Responses to “Hotel Owner Petitions Town for Relief on Glass Balconies”

  1. Gordon Campbell on December 3rd, 2012 11:25 pm

    I love the new Hotel Cape Charles; the look, the character, the feel, and the positive impact it is having on the town, so I am upset that the Historic District Review Board refuses to approve the design.

    The problem I have with the Board decision is that I don’t feel they have given good reasons for rejecting the Hotel’s application:

    Chairman Dunton said, “You are asking us to set a precedent.” No, not at all, the Hotel was only asking for approval. The Review Board decisions are not the equivalent of legal opinions. You are a review board working with guidelines; each case is always unique and precedent is never set nor should ever be followed. In fact, while the Board has guidelines that serve as “basic standards,” it only has to refer to those guidelines when determining if the proposal is “appropriate for the district.” Use of the word “appropriate” in the Guidelines gives the Board wide discretion to consider circumstances when rendering a decision, and supports acting on a whim, if they so desire.

    Chairman Dunton also said, “Town Council is bound by the Historic District Guidelines just as we are.” Not true! The Council and Review Board are only bound by the adopted ordinance allowing for a historic district (see Virginia code § 15.2-2306). This simply empowers the Review Board and Council and binds their decisions. The Historic District Guidelines are “basic standards”; if it were law (and the Board was bound by the Guidelines) there would be no need for a Board. You could simply leave it up to the Code Enforcement Officer to enforce the Guidelines. Again, the Board only refers to the Guidelines when forming a decision (think of the guidelines as a facilitator), and the Guidelines allow consideration of circumstances.

    Consideration of circumstances in this case include the business district location, the quality of workmanship and materials, the integrity (or lack thereof) of the business district, and the numerous noncontributing (derelict and abandoned) structures within the business district.

    Board member Jan Neville said, “Is there something we could do to make it more sympathetic to the other buildings on the street?” Not sure what to make of his comment. Is he admitting that the Hotel looks better than the rest of the buildings? Maybe dumb it down a bit and give it that “abandoned building” look the town has lived with for so long. Is that what we want? Please, I hope not!

    Board member Bob Sellers said, “It looks too open. It doesn’t look safe.” I assume he was referring to the glass partitions, and code enforcement administers the building code. Safety of the structure falls outside of the scope of the Review Board process.

    These examples of false reasoning have, in my opinion, prevented the board from coming to a reasonable conclusion that the current design is appropriate for the downtown business district.

  2. Anthony Sacco on December 3rd, 2012 11:54 pm

    Mr. Gammino if you were a born here,,,,,no problem

  3. Deborah Bender on December 4th, 2012 5:28 am

    I sure hope that someone, other than myself, takes notice that most of the signatures on the petition are from people that don’t even live in Cape Charles.

    If Mr. Gamminno had used the plans that he turned in to the town this problem would never have happened. If the town’s building code official had been paying attention he could have stopped the work and avoided this whole problem. Looks to me like no one wants to listen to the town’s historic review board at all. Why do we have a historic review board if no one wants to abide by their decision???

    I don’t know what the answer here is but I will say that the hotel just doesn’t “fit” in
    with the rest of the buildings on Mason Ave.

    When this problem is presented to town council they will most likely go along with Mr. Gamminno and when they do the entire Historic Review Board should just quit !

  4. Bruce Lindeman on December 4th, 2012 7:04 am

    Please stop with the “don’t even live here” comments.

    I signed that petition. I own a home in Cape Charles. I pay taxes on my property there. I “live” there 2+ days per week on average. It’s that attitute against “come heres” that is contributing to the dividing of the town on issues such as this.

    Does anyone at Watson’s turn down my money when I go there just about every Saturday? Or Honey when I buy her wine and cheese? Or Shore Treasures? Or the Shanty? Aqua? Mark down at Straight Line. No. No one says to me: hey, you’re a “come here”. We don’t accept your money! Go away. No! People welcome me with open arms when I open my wallet.

    What about my neighbors who I love. Who, I believe love me and my family back. We take care of each other. Call each other during the week to check on each other. I serve on a Town board. I’m active in my community. I attend movie nights down at the Palace on Friday nights each month mainly to share some laughs with my neighbors. I walk the beach and pick up other people’s trash. I do the same down at the playground down at the park whenever I take the kids there. I eat Breakfast at Rayfields and buy my newspaper there. I take part in the Town’s festivities. Our kids ride their bikes in the parades. I read the Gazzette every month. I voice my opnion regularly here, and with our Town leaders. I use local contractors when my home needs repaired. And yes, I even take my boat to Phil and Don when it needs repair. Not once does anyone every say, “sorry, you weren’t born here, so please go away.”

    Almost 3 years ago I even made Cape Charles my legal address so I could vote in local and county elections and to firmly plant myself in the soil there.

    Whether you want to accept it or not, people like us are part of this community and our opinion DOES matter.

    For professional reasons, I live and work outside of the Shore. But, our plan is to someday make Cape Charles our permenant home. But, until then, I do all I can do to be part of this community. And, to have someone tell me, my opinion doesn’t matter because I don’t live here full-time is a slap in the face.

    Stop dividing. Please.

    As far as the Hotel is concerned, if you want the Hotel to look like the rest of the delapitated store fronts on Mason, then you’re entitled to that opinion. Because that’s what will happen if the Board continues to play hardball with the developer. He admits his mistake and has apologized. Do we need to punish him further? To the end that he locks the doors and walks away? Great! You win. Another failed business due to the shortsightedness of the Town.

    Mr. Campbell, you raise some great arguments and I agree with you. I don’t expect everyone will, but I hope that the Board reads your post and thinks hard about the points you make.

  5. Marita Patterson on December 4th, 2012 7:32 am

    Thank you, Gordon and Bruce. I agree completely !

  6. John Rowe on December 4th, 2012 7:45 am

    I like the renovations to the hotel and think they’re entirely sympathetic to the greater Mason Avenue decor. And let’s remember that it’s the out of towners who are the most likely users of the hotel. So what if Richmond residents signed the petition, shouldn’t their opinion matter as potential customers? Maybe they’re property owners in Cape Charles, too, and have every right to an opinion as to what happens there. I’m a big fan of historic preservation, but there can be a healthy balance of old and new that works well for both. Check out Ghent, Old Town Alexandria, Charleston, or Savannah for examples of old and new architectural details working very comfortably together.

    I’ve heard positive comments from customers who stay at the hotel, dine in local restaurants, shop at local stores and galleries, etc. None of them have said the balconies are out of character. Given the number of empty storefronts on Mason Avenue I’d think everyone on the review board would want a thriving commercial area as long as the renovations don’t detract from the overall historic design of the building.

    Using the logic that seems to have prevailed here, Rayfield’s would never have been able to build the facility they’re in, the building housing Sullivan’s would be ruled “out of character” as would a few other structures along Mason Avenue. Perhaps there was no review board when those buildings went up. Somehow the big contemporary logo announcing Blue is OK but the glass panels on the balconies next door are not. Heck, even Thomas Jefferson diverted from his original plans when he built Monticello and look how that turned out!

    Being a public servant can be very uncomfortable when ruling against public opinion, especially when the ruling is for the greater good. But sometimes the public is right, even if some of them are from Richmond or Charlottesville, Alexandria, Virginia Beach, etc.

    Guidelines are very good things, but they’re just guidelines, not hard and fast rules.

  7. Nancy Garrett on December 4th, 2012 7:52 am

    Can the Town of Cape Charles afford to close a viable business because the look of the railings do not fit the guidelines of the historic district? At this point – I think not. I remember Cape Charles in its heyday – the ferries coming and going, two movie theaters, a department store and many other businesses. Today the town is a shadow of its former self. If the town is going to come back it has to support business men who are willing to invest money in the town. I personally do not object to the glass panels and do not think they in any way have a distracting appearance to the look of the town. Oh, and by the way, my family and I have been around here longer than most. Our roots go back to 1619 so I guess that qualifies me as from here. Nancy W. H. Garrett, Cheriton

  8. Susan Lindeman on December 4th, 2012 8:23 am

    I do believe that the railings were built with the “beg for forgiveness” assumption. HOWEVER, honestly, people. What SINGLE thing in the last 5 years has done for our little town what the Hotel has done? Railings or not, in just one week this summer the Hotel had guests visiting from 5 different countries. And I’m guessing that they happily spent their money in our local shops and restaurants, and enjoyed all of the small town hospitality that Cape Charles has to offer.

    Let’s give them whatever sort of variance they need, and move forward, focusing our energy on keeping the town clean, and encouraging owners of properties in disrepair to at least clean up the fronts of them to make our town even more appealing to out of town guests.

    More visitors = More revenue for shops & restaurants = More tax revenue to the town = more funding available to improve the town.

    Seems pretty simple to me.

  9. Deborah Bender on December 4th, 2012 8:38 am

    For Bruce — News flash: I have nothing against “come heres.” Some of my best friends are “come heres”! All I am saying is that IMHO the looks of the hotel just don’t fit in with the rest of the town. I do have a right to my opinion.

    When I do something to my home I play by the rules and everyone else should play by the rules and abide by the laws. I had to ask to cut a tree down in my yard a few years ago! Mr. Gammino should have done what he said he was going to do and he would not be having this problem!

    End of story!

  10. Craig Zuidema on December 4th, 2012 9:13 am

    I agree with several of the comments here, and thanks to Mr. Lindeman for so eloquently stating what many of us “come heres” feel. Gordon provides a strong basis for how the issue can be handled. I also agree with Ms. Bender’s comment that the Hotel doesn’t fit in with many of the other buildings on Mason Ave, but for compeltely different reasons. The Hotel is gorgeous, unlike so many other unoccupied buildings. An empty and dilapidated building sits right next to the Wilson Building, and nothing ever seems to be done about that. If it weren’t for the remodels of the CC Hotel, CC Coffee House, Kelly’s, Blue, and a few others, then the entire street would be depressing. What I don’t seem to understand is the lack of civil discourse some people have about these issues. Some seem to believe that if you aren’t from CC or live here full time, regardless of property ownership, your value to the community is non-existent. I think it is that attitude that turns so many people like myself off to many of the issues like Old School CC. While this issue with the Hotel is separate, it seems that the players for or against are quite similar. Give the Hotel a break, before the town forces them to leave too. Aren’t we are already losing one more business on Strawberry Street in the Betis Building?

  11. Bruce Lindeman on December 4th, 2012 9:42 am

    Deborah — You certainly have the right to your opinion and I respect that fully. I disagree with it, but that’s okay. That’s how this all works.

    What I took issue with is your constant reminder about the value — or lack of value — you seem to place on come here’s/folks that don’t live here full time. Specifically, you pointed out that a lot of the people that signed David’s petition didn’t even live in Cape Charles. That’s an offensive comment to me because of the reasons I noted above.

    That’s what upsets me — not your opinion on whether you like the Hotel’s railings or not.

  12. Susan Lindeman on December 4th, 2012 9:48 am

    Craig – thanks for your well-put comments! We would love to meet you some time – sounds like we are on the same page.

  13. Carolyn M. Wiegner on December 4th, 2012 9:49 am

    I believe this issue goes back to the approval boards and the Historic District Review Board. The Historic review board is in hindsight. We seem to do things after the fact and make businesses struggle to survive here. I volunteer at the Welcome Center at the CBBT and send many people to the businesses in our town. I hope this problem will be resolved in a good way.

  14. Mike Kuzma, Jr on December 4th, 2012 10:26 am

    Ms./Mrs. Bender, it appears that what Mr. Gammino should have done is……….chosen another town to invest in.

    Which is what you will force him and any other people with thoughts on investing in Cape Charles, to do with the incessant quibbling over minor details.

  15. Wayne Creed on December 4th, 2012 10:43 am

    The developer supplied a set of plans to the Historic Review Board. They were approved. The developer then ignored the approved design and did something completely different. At this point, I’m not sure what you expect the HRB to do about it now. I believe their hands are tied.

    When I was a civil engineer for the VDH&T, many times we had to make changes to the original set of plans. But, we had to get approval first. If the Contractor did something without proper approval, then they had to rip it out. Same here. If they wanted to change from iron railings to glass, amend the plans and submit them for approval.

    Not getting proper approvals, and attempting an end run around the HRB’s authority, is really the only issue here, not whether it is “Nice” or “Viable” or the design meets the standards, or “we’re all good neighbors who love each other.” The Commonwealth of Virginia has established standards of operation. It’s not just Cape Charles, it’s how the State has been doing it for some time. I feel bad for the developer; I think the Hotel Cape Charles is beautiful, and I personally love the design, yet again, my aesthetic yen is beside the point. This is a slippery slope. If you don’t make them follow the rules, then how can you make anyone else?
    Now, I’m expecting Mr. Lindeman to offer more baseball analogies, like the kid you tell to bunt but instead swings away and hits a home run. That is not how HRBs operate, and it’s certainly not how baseball is played. You see, baseball is a game of routines. The team that wins the pennant is the one that can perform the most routine operations on the most regular basis, like bunting and advancing the runners when the situation requires it, not ignoring the coach and swinging away (usually, that ends in a strike out).

    This is what drives us nuts. The routine play would have been to supply plans with the glass front in the first place — Historic Guidelines are just that, and you could have made an argument that probably would have led to the acceptance of those plans. Instead, they’ve created a situation that puts both the developer and the HRB in an uncomfortable position. Unfortunately, like Rochambeau at Yorktown, the terrain has already defined what Mr. Dunton and rest of the board has to do.

    This summer, my son and I were watching the Yankees on TV, and Derek Jeter picked up a ground ball and threw the runner out. The broadcast provided a nice slow-motion replay, and I told Joey, “See how fundamentally sound he is? He makes that throw the same way every time, just the way he learned to do it when he was a kid.”

    So, we’re not as fundamentally sound as Jeter, and we’ve made an errant throw. What do we do now? Well, you do your best to recover. Rather than bashing the HRB, concerned citizens like Mr. Lindeman and Mr. Campbell (that have the means to help), should do the right thing, sell off some properties, and give those monies to the developer, so that the Hotel Cape Charles can make the necessary alterations, and still remain a viable business for our downtown. The financial success of that business is very important; however it’s not so important that we must sacrifice the integrity of our Historic Review Board to achieve it.

  16. Bruce Lindeman on December 4th, 2012 11:24 am

    Wayne — Love the baseball analogy. And, once again I agree on the points that you and other have made: the developer messed up. I think we all get that.

    But, no, the HRB’s hands are not tied. As pointed out earlier, their decision is not bound by any law. What is deemed “historic” is a rather subjective thing. Have you seen the exterior light fixtures on the Hotel? They’re not “historic” either. How about the old BOA sign in front of the bank? How’d that thing ever get approved? Have you seen the automatic, sliding glass doors at Rayfields?! They’re not “historic”.

    As stated in another post, Blue has an equally unhistoric street-facing treatment, yet they were approved by the HRB. That ATM in front of the credit union? That’s certainly not “historic”. Another inconsistency. I could go on.

    The HRB is not making “that throw the same way every time” as you suggest above. They are inconsistent as can be.

    Regardless of any of this is the fact that there is code and their is common sense in how that code is applied. We’re not talking about safety here. Those glass panels are made with tempered glass and meet VA building code. It’s their aesthetic that some think doesn’t “fit” the subjective definition of “historic”.

    Others, like yourself, seem to be more concerned about how the HRB adjudicates rather than looking at the bigger picture of the impact the HRB’s disapproval could mean not only to the Hotel but to others looking to invest here. This is an un-business friendly approach and in a time when the Town should be trying to embrace businesses to set up shop here, we throw up roadblock after roadblock.

    As other have pointed out, the Town’s energies would be better spent cleaning up the derelict store fronts on Mason. The developer admited he messed up. We get that. Let’s use common sense here, make an exception and move on.

  17. Mike Kuzma, Jr on December 4th, 2012 11:59 am

    Oh, Wayne……….(shaking head sadly, sorry you had to include that socialist trope about OTHERS selling their businesses to subsidize Mr. Gammino.)

    Let me try this analogy…….The patient is DYING……there is a chance it can be saved, but GUIDELINES-not laws, not regulations- suggestions; will not allow the procedure to go forward. So, the patient is lost.

    Do not let Cape Charles die simply because of a desire to control.

  18. Craig Zuidema on December 4th, 2012 1:58 pm

    Wow, I think I just heard a class warfare argument being made. That is certainly a new one. Now it is the 1% versus the 99%? Man, this just gets better and better. Watch out, Occupy Strawberry Street is coming next. And to Susan, my wife and I would love the opportunity. It looks like we are coming in town this weekend. We hope to meet y’all sometime soon.

  19. Geneva Smith on December 4th, 2012 2:08 pm

    I don’t really see this as a control issue or a come here issue or anything like that. The fact is plans were turned in and approved and then not adhered to. Since Mr. Gammino has historic renovation experience he knew that when he
    the changed the facade without approval that he would have a problem
    getting his certificate of occupancy. It is a simple issue, the error needs to be corrected. Ask anyone who lives in or has restored a historic property and you
    will get the same answer.

  20. Karen Gay on December 4th, 2012 5:55 pm

    I think the hotel is beautiful and should be left as it is. Perhaps new guidelines need to be created that give the Board some flexibility in deciding. I think Mr.Campbell had it right in his comment. The Board members’ comments make no sense and do not refer at all to the guidelines (or are they rules?). Also, several people have mentioned that the Town had a responsibility to ensure conformance with plans. I wonder what happened there? I can’t say I’m not sorry at all that they didn’t catch the discrepancy!

  21. Gertraud Fendler on December 4th, 2012 7:34 pm

    Sometimes it is a smart business move to bend the rules.

  22. Craig Zuidema on December 4th, 2012 8:07 pm

    I just have to say to Gertraud Fendler that I love your work! We have several different photos/pieces of yours at our place. I couldn’t help but comment when I saw you post on here.

  23. John C Boytos on December 4th, 2012 8:10 pm

    At least you don’t have HOA problems,

  24. Gordon Campbell on December 4th, 2012 9:43 pm

    There are no rules to bend! Please, everyone should take a look at the guidelines!

    Notice that the word “should” is used instead of “shall”. Very important distinction and I am not sure the Review Board understands this.

    The guidelines are not regulations that must be strictly and uniformly enforced in all situations (“shall”). Rather, they are written as suggestions for the Review Board (“should”), instead of unwavering rules.

    Historic District Guidelines: http://www.capecharles.org/pdf/historic/cchistguide.pdf

  25. Gertraud Fendler on December 5th, 2012 10:17 am

    Oh Craig !

    ♫°*/★*/..♫.♫\°*˛./★* °**♫*★*♫.♫ /*★* **˛°*/.♫.♫\*˛.*★°*/♫˛… (´• ̮•)

  26. Mike Kuzma, Jr on December 5th, 2012 11:17 am

    Geneva Smith, my family has restored a 1743, 1750 and an 1800 home. We are very familiar with the heavy hand of HRB’s.

    This is NOT a historic matter, it is an ECONOMIC matter. This continued persecution (Should versus SHALL) does nothing but put Cape Charles in a bad light regarding possible investments.

    Mr. Boytos, you got that right! LOL!
    Merry Christmas!

  27. Jens Reinke on December 5th, 2012 11:40 am

    Personally, I don’t much care for the hotel’s exterior and the public areas; the hotel seemed nicer before the renovation. However, others like it and I suppose that’s good enough.
    The more important issue is that the applicable planning rules were not followed. The HRB is important for preserving the town character, and my family like many others incurred expense to renovate our house in accordance with applicable rules. I don’t like the HRB being ignored or undermined.
    Yes, the hotel is an important business and I do hope a compromise can be worked out. But let’s not forget that the hotel’s owner (or contractor) ignored the applicable rules (and approved design) and now does not want to live with the consequences.

  28. David Gay on December 5th, 2012 1:41 pm

    I don’t know Dave Gammino. I have never met him. But I like the look of his hotel. It is attractive and an asset to the commercial district of Cape Charles. This is an opportunity for the Town Council to listen to the comments of the people who elected them and do the right thing. Give the Hotel a variance and an occupancy permit. This would go a long way to bringing the town together. This is the season of good will to all. Let’s show some to our neighbor!

  29. Dana Lascu on December 5th, 2012 2:48 pm

    Comrade Wayne and Others: The time is ripe to demolish imperialist capitalism. Defunct Marina Shops, Aqua soon just a memory… the time is ripe to turn to Hotel Cape Charles to deal the definitive blows that will allow for the erection of a new social order. Then, the New Man will be subservient to the strict rules and regulations of society, rather than serve the style, design, and creativity of capitalist owners and the merchant class, whose ultimate goal is the exploitation of the people through consumption and the subjugation of labor. Long live the Revolution!

  30. Spencer Travis on December 5th, 2012 3:24 pm

    The history of Cape Charles makes our town historic, not the hand rails. Leave them be.

  31. Bruce Lindeman on December 6th, 2012 7:11 am

    Here’s the upside to all of this…

    200+ individuals, many from Cape Charles and many from outside of Cape Charles — including one signee from Iceland! — have signed David’s petition. I think that’s pretty cool and shows where folks’ preferences lie on this matter. Of course, there’s no counter petition for those to sign so we don’t really know how those 200+ balance out with those who are against asking the Town to grant a waiver here.

    But, I do hope they and the HRB read through that list and the comments folks have left.

    This is democracy at work and a grand example of grass roots community involvement to attempt to enact change. What it shows is that this community, which many consider fractured, broken, and on the down-and-outs, is really a vibrant community held up by people who care. Regardless of which side of the coin your preferences lie, that’s good stuff.

    Yesterday’s news of Aqua closing is another bullet in the chamber for the doomsdayers who cry that the town is falling apart. One could make that argument. But, we see closings typically at the end of every season. It’s a natural progression in a down economy of small resort towns like ours. What hits hard with Aqua is that it had weathered that storm, or so we thought. However, it seems as though this was a decision based on economic matters exacerbated by the owner’s legal issues. A tough pill for us to swallow, but this too shall pass.

    Just as Mariah’s closed and eventually reopened under a new name and management, I suspect Aqua will do the same.

    Towns ebb and flow. But, remember this: Cape Charles has weathered storms more unfavorable than this. She’s been around for 125+ years. Yes, you can quantify all that’s wrong with the place. But, that doesn’t come close to putting a dent in all that’s good about her.

    Public discourse and even disagreement over issues is not a bad thing. It’s a healthy thing. It shows folks care. And, as long as people care, this little town will be just fine.

  32. Wayne Creed on December 6th, 2012 5:55 pm

    Thanks Dana! Gosh, it reminds of reading Ayn Rand back in Jr. High, “The question isn’t who is going to let me; it’s who is going to stop me.” Tell me about it! Too bad Aqua and the Marina shops didn’t have more rich, powerful thinkers like you and Mr Kuzman to offer support…who knows; until then, Viva la Revolucion!

    Remember what they said:

    “Is it a rebellion?” asked Louis XVI of the count who informed him of the fall of the Bastille.

    “No, sire,” came the reply. “It is a revolution.”

  33. Mike Kuzma, Jr on December 7th, 2012 11:22 am

    Wayne: So, the French revolution — a response to the heavy hand of Imperial Government –my way or the highway — is your analogy? Are you suggesting we storm town hall? ;)
    I’m not sure I understand your class warfare comment. I cannot speak for Ms. Lascu (although I would like to buy her a drink the next time I am in town). I know that I and my family always made a point of providing Aqua with our business when we are down. Much like I make sure that I also go to Kelly’s (and spend serious $$) and now the Shanty. What more do you expect us to do? I note from a previous story that you demanded some of us sell our properties and give the proceeds to Mr. Gammino to continue operating! What’s next, you go to the Commisar to demand we kulaks get off YOUR land? Maybe, just maybe if some of the town wasn’t so hostile to the Bay Creekers they would spend more time and money in town, driving the economic engine that keeps us all solvent. And frankly, I resent your comment regarding my finances. FYI, I am a Civil Servant who works extra jobs to pay my bills — which include Cape Charles Taxes, Northampton County taxes and Utility bills in town. What I do with MY money USED to be only my business, but I guess your NWO does not allow for privacy.

    Mr. Lindeman: I do not know if I am as resolute that CC will survive as you are. As is ever the case, in bad economic times, people make choices. Spend or not spend, defer income or not defer. Well, a perusal of the trade mags will show you that the Accounting industry is going gangbusters right now. A dimunition of excess income will only translate into less chance of survival for towns that profit from vacationers. Add to that the intended, planned increase in the cost of gasoline — both marine and auto — and I foresee a real dropoff in activity in all areas that require expendable income to survive.