Replies
52Beach Fanatic
As long as it isn't a Hampton. 
Seriously it will breeze through I don't even think any additional puppets are needed.

Seriously it will breeze through I don't even think any additional puppets are needed.
Beach Lover
Some people prefer hotels.
SoWal Insider
Do you want one in your neighborhood?
Beach Fanatic
I've been disappointed that the Seaside Motor Court has never reopened. That we could all agree on? Otherwise, you hate to see anything added. And that Jimmy Buffett development? Oh my. Ellen
Beach FanaticAuthor
Do you want one in your neighborhood?Nobody does. I could go for a nicely done bed and breakfast, but a 76 room hotel? That's ridiculous. The people behind this don't care about those of us who live here. It's sad.
Beach Fanatic
I've been disappointed that the Seaside Motor Court has never reopened. That we could all agree on? Otherwise, you hate to see anything added. And that Jimmy Buffett development? Oh my. EllenSeaside Motor Court is undergoing renovation and will re-open with a new name and a cafe where the real estate office is.
Skunky
Nobody does. I could go for a nicely done bed and breakfast, but a 76 room hotel? That's ridiculous. The people behind this don't care about those of us who live here. It's sad.Lloyd is an evil genius.
Beach FanaticAuthor
Some more info about the development is attached if anyone is interested.
SWGB
Gotta love how it's being framed as being responsible.
Beach Fanatic
Responsible would be single family homes or a small Inn with maybe 20 rooms.
Beach Fanatic
I like it.
Especially after reviewing the documents in the link provided by Jimmy T.
It appears the developer is building with much less density than allowed.
And the retro style is attractive.
Especially after reviewing the documents in the link provided by Jimmy T.
It appears the developer is building with much less density than allowed.
And the retro style is attractive.
Beach Fanatic
I like it.Adding 74 units to a tiny village is not attractive. Build it and they will come is not Grayton.
Especially after reviewing the documents in the link provided by Jimmy T.
It appears the developer is building with much less density than allowed.
And the retro style is attractive.
Beach Fanatic
Adding 74 units to a tiny village is not attractive. .You are welcome to your opinion.
Mine happens to be that it looks like an attractive project.
Beach Fanatic
Build it and they will come is not Grayton.You mean like a:
Restaurant
Bar & grill
General store
Oyster bar
Cafe
Coffee shop
Clothing store
Real estate office
Hardware store
Bakery
Fitness center
Professional offices
Vacation rentals
Art studio
Souvenir shop
T-shirt shop
Jewelry store
Beach Fanatic
You mean like a:Exactly.
Restaurant
Bar & grill
General store
Oyster bar
Cafe
Coffee shop
Clothing store
Real estate office
Hardware store
Bakery
Fitness center
Professional offices
Vacation rentals
Art studio
Souvenir shop
T-shirt shop
Jewelry store
Beach Fanatic
Exactly.That ship has sailed.
The Summer of 42 is available on DVD at Amazon for about 30 bux.
Pop it in. Pour a glass of wine. And reminisce.
Beach Fanatic
That ship has sailed.Your attitude is why developers are allowed to continue ruining our community. It's never too late to be on the right side.
The Summer of 42 is available on DVD at Amazon for about 30 bux.
Pop it in. Pour a glass of wine. And reminisce.
Beach Fanatic
Your attitude is why developers are allowed to continue ruining our community.My post was based on reality and facts. With a little tongue in cheek for the sake of humor.
My apologies for your offense.
Beach Fanatic
It's never too late to be on the right side.You assume I am on the wrong side.
Beach FanaticAuthor
I have a couple of issues with this project:
1. Infrastructure. Grayton has no public restroom and limited bicycle parking. Both need to be addressed before approving developments like this.
2. The project is not compatible with the neighborhood.
3. The project site is mostly a wetland with a creek that feeds alligator lake. The pollution from a large development like this will damage the environment.
1. Infrastructure. Grayton has no public restroom and limited bicycle parking. Both need to be addressed before approving developments like this.
2. The project is not compatible with the neighborhood.
3. The project site is mostly a wetland with a creek that feeds alligator lake. The pollution from a large development like this will damage the environment.
Beach Fanatic
I have a couple of issues with this project:Grayton Grand was going to be a big fight because of wetlands and bordering the state park. If this new project has wetlands and borders state forest or a coastal dune lake it will be a battle.
1. Infrastructure. Grayton has no public restroom and limited bicycle parking. Both need to be addressed before approving developments like this.
2. The project is not compatible with the neighborhood.
3. The project site is mostly a wetland with a creek that feeds alligator lake. The pollution from a large development like this will damage the environment.
Beach Fanatic
I have a couple of issues with this project:#1 is as valid of a point today as it was 10-20 years ago.
1. Infrastructure. Grayton has no public restroom and limited bicycle parking. Both need to be addressed before approving developments like this.
2. The project is not compatible with the neighborhood.
3. The project site is mostly a wetland with a creek that feeds alligator lake. The pollution from a large development like this will damage the environment.
#2 I disagree as most of that “neighborhood” is commercial.
#3 is another valid point and storm water runoff is addressed as part of any new development, including a single family home.
Beach Fanatic
Grayton Grand was going to be a big fight because of wetlands and bordering the state park. If this new project has wetlands and borders state forest or a coastal dune lake it will be a battle.And the developer made out like a bandit turning a 700K investment into a 7 million dollar sale. At the taxpayers expense.
And now the county is using the property to shuttle people to other businesses so they can prosper. At the taxpayers expense.
Beach Fanatic
And the developer made out like a bandit turning a 700K investment into a 7 million dollar sale. At the taxpayers expense.Are you saying buying land in sensitive areas and selling to the county is a repeat scheme?
And now the county is using the property to shuttle people to other businesses so they can prosper. At the taxpayers expense.
Beach FanaticAuthor
#1 is as valid of a point today as it was 10-20 years ago.I would argue that #1 is much more valid today than it was before. The number of visitors to Grayton has increased dramatically and nothing has been done to accommodate them.
#2 I disagree as most of that “neighborhood” is commercial.
#3 is another valid point and storm water runoff is addressed as part of any new development, including a single family home.
Checking your forum account
Please wait while we verify your forum account.