Comments on: COMMENTARY Why Is Downtown Losing 160 Parking Spaces?

By: Chip Moore

Chip Moore — Sat, 26 Apr 2014 11:16:32 +0000

Nancy is 100% right on the money. What has happened to this country? It is private property and the owner can do what he wants with it. Maybe the town needs to raise taxes so they can put in a bus system so that grandmother doesn’t have to walk in the rain…Again, what has happened to this country? Everybody wants something for nothing.

By: Veann Duvall

Veann Duvall — Sat, 26 Apr 2014 04:47:12 +0000

“How could the town lose what it never had?” Ask the grandparents who now might have to walk from Rayfield’s in the rain to see their kids in a play at Arts Enter. We have had the USE of those 160 parking spaces for years, with the permission of the owner.

By: Sandy Mayer

Sandy Mayer — Sat, 26 Apr 2014 04:05:37 +0000

I agree with Nancy. The 160 parking places did not belong to the town in the first place so how is it that we are losing them?

By: Deborah Bender

Deborah Bender — Fri, 25 Apr 2014 21:59:26 +0000

When Mr. Hand takes possession of the Belo and ropes off the parking lots then the merchants on Mason Avenue will feel the burn. When I go downtown I look for a parking space on Mason. If there are none I use the parking lots. If we can’t use those lots anymore and people have no place to park, they will leave town without shopping.

I know everyone says that the parking lots were never ours to use; however, the owner generously did allow the public to park there. We became accustomed to using the lots, and now they will be gone.

Maybe the town should have made contact with the owners instead of waiting for a developer to grab them up.

By: Nancy Daniel Vest

Nancy Daniel Vest — Thu, 24 Apr 2014 19:08:02 +0000

The title of this article is “Why Is Downtown Losing 160 Parking Spaces?”
How could the Town lose something it never had?

By: Daniel Burke

Daniel Burke — Thu, 24 Apr 2014 18:05:25 +0000

A quorum is defined as: the number as a majority of officers or members of a body that when duly assembled is legally competent to transact business. An applicant and three council members “talking it over” in the coffee shop, or wherever this “talking it over” took place in my humble, non legal opinion does not constitute “a majority” or “duly assembled.” When I went to Richmond to get my certification in Town Planning we were cautioned to avoid discussing town business outside of an official planning commission meeting. We were told it was inherently illegal. It was referred to as an “ad hoc” (synonym: un-planned) meeting. My question is: why does this not apply to Town Council? We elect six council members with the reasonable hope of some diversity of opinion and to broaden the knowledge base as it applies to decision making. This diversity could lead to open and earnest public discussion of issues before the outcome is determined. Instead we get invited to a “public hearing” in which we are allowed to vent for three minutes on an issue in which the outcome has been predetermined. And, by the way, don’t ask a question. Questions are not allowed. Insanity is defined as doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different outcome. Remember this when you go to vote on May 6.

By: Wayne Creed

Wayne Creed — Thu, 24 Apr 2014 15:50:25 +0000

I have to attend play rehearsals at the Palace on Saturday mornings, so I get in around 9:45 or so. Even at this early time, parking on both sides of Mason starts to fill up, and by noon, folks are spilling over into off-street lots to park. And this is not even the “busy” season. It seems that downtown parking is one of the fundamental infrastructure issues that should be addressed by Town Council. Disturbingly, the Mayor and her cohorts once again (once more for the road) have met in the dark, back rooms to weave yet another dubious deal. Obviously, they feel they have to make these decisions in private because the indigenous populace as well as fellow members of council is incapable of grasping the implications of such a deal (although, we keep electing the same people, so maybe they’re right). As Mr. Wendell and Mr. Bauman point out, the property has been privately held for a long time. Understanding that the public has been using those lots as spillover for so many years, why did the Town stupidly not attempt to acquire that property? As a Cape Charles citizen, do you ever get the feeling you’re a character in a James Dickey novel, in a canoe, heading for the rapids?

As usual, instead of assuming responsibility and getting their hands dirty, the Town sits, arms folded awaiting the latest developer/savior to rescue them (who will be this year’s recipient of the Jim Alberts award?). At this point, the deal is done, and it’s no longer the private sector’s responsibility to fix the Mayor’s mistakes — Mr. Hand’s only allegiance should be to the viability of his project. Mr. Gay also brings up a good point: where does the Cape Charles Business Association stand on this, and were they privy to this plan before 50% of Council was? As Mayor Sullivan’s handpicked successor, does Mr. Proto plan to continue the retiree’s scorched earth policy of waste and abuse? I hear banjos — paddle faster!

By: Deborah Bender

Deborah Bender — Thu, 24 Apr 2014 14:43:51 +0000

The fact that the town should have made a move a long time ago to purchase at least one of those parking lots is a problem for me. When BeLo was open they didn’t mind people parking in those lots to go into the Mason Avenue stores. Mr. Hand has already said cars would be towed away if they park in his lots. The town had bargaining power with Mr. Hand and as usual did nothing.

Elections are coming folks so please cast your votes for Wendell, Gay, Mitchell, and myself if you want to see the change this town deserves — governmental transparency, lower taxes, lower utility bills, and no back-room deals.
And — a group of councilmen that will listen to the needs of the citizens.

By: Kearn Schemm

Kearn Schemm — Thu, 24 Apr 2014 12:37:19 +0000

The current town council never stops amazing me. SIX MONTHS of negotiations with a developer and not so much as a comment about the negotiations to the other town councilmen. Where were the meetings held? Were notes kept of them? Why the secrecy from the other councilmen? Just another example of why this crew, that views the town as their fiefdom, needs to be put out to pasture in just a few weeks. Get out to vote!

By: Pete Baumann

Pete Baumann — Thu, 24 Apr 2014 12:33:23 +0000

Mr. Wendell makes some points. However, it’s a tough call for me about whether decisions by our elected officials (important or not) should be opened up to public discourse. We elect people to make those decisions. Should voters and non-voters alike be part of the forum process? What’s the value of our votes then? But, I’m also curious about who titled the piece. The 160 parking spaces that the downtown is allegedly losing are located on private property and have been so all along. People have trespassed (technically) and probably will continue to do so to the benefit of local merchants all along Mason Ave., who unfortunately have no off street parking at all. I’m on the BZA, I saw the 30% shallowness (compared to other commercial lots) of the Be-Lo property as a serious hardship, hence my vote for the variances. On the other hand (no pun), burdening that private property alone with the responsibility for the parking needs of the whole downtown area would have been a gross injustice amounting to a “taking” in my opinion.