Editorial

Editorial

Call for compromise

We applaud Patrick O’Connell’s suggestion that a citizens’ advisory panel be established to assist the design of the planned expansion of The Inn at Little Washington. It is indicative of the type of innovative and flexible thinking which has characterized this world-renowned chefs rise to the height of his profession.

It is certainly to the credit of Mr. O’Connell, and his partner Reinhardt Lynch, that they have acknowledged — albeit belatedly — that their project is indeed something which is deserving of the suggestions of the townspeople and others who will be affected by the result.

Though many people unfamiliar with our town might scoff at the idea that a 22 room expansion of a hotel constitutes a major project, in a town as small as Washington, with its 200-year history and the fierce loyalty of its residents — such a project indeed has the potential to rend forever the fabric of the community if it is done without a clear understanding of the potential dangers.

On the other hand, the Inn has, for the most part, been an asset to the town. It has brought revenue, and jobs, and new people who love the spirit of this town which traces its history directly to the founding of our republic.

Though Messrs. O’Connell and Lynch apparently attempted to take into account the feelings of the residents as they worked with their architects, that is a different thing from actually talking with and listening to those residents. Laurie Marshall’s comments at January’s public hearing addressed just that point.

Mr. O’Connell’s offer Monday shows that they have realized their mistake.

His suggestion, if implemented, could go a long way toward alleviating the strained relations which have often characterized the Inn’s dealings with the town during its 12year history. Much of that strain, we feel, is caused by a lack of understanding by the town of the Inn’s goals — and for the Inn’s part, of the concerns of the town about what they are about.

The debate about the Inn’s expansion has, thus far, unfortunately been conducted more by inuendo and character assassination than through a dispassionate discussion of the issues involved. We’re not going to point fingers in that regard. Those involved know who they are — and would probably indignantly deny any such accusation anyway.

We think that Mr. O’Connell’s offer represents an opportunity for both sides, for the Inn’s supporters as well as its opponents, to elevate the debate to a level which is worthy of the Town of Washington.

We hope that volunteers from both camps will be willing to forget their personal differences and sit down to talk — realizing that everyone involved has the best interests of their town and county seat at heart.

There are no guarantees that Mr. O’Connell’s suggestion will meet with success. But if it is not at least given an opportunity, we’re afraid that both sides will end up as losers. r