Save our town

Save our town

To the editor:

The atmoshere at the last meeting of the Planning Commission (Feb. 28) was less adversarial than It was at the first meeting.

Mr. O’Connell made a conciliar tory appeal to the public, asking for the creation of an advisory board which would present the suggestions and ideas of the community regarding the expansion project of the Inn,

However, this good-will gesture seemed rather attenuated as Mr; O’Connell declared the Inn was not withdrawing or modifying its rezoning application. Later on their attorney Mr. Dickey emphasized thfe point, when asked by Mr. Wickens }f “the position of the Inn was that the application was in conformance with the goals,” he replied: “Substantially.”

Mrs. Thomasson read the names of 56 people who are urging a compromise. In view of the unbending attitude of the Inn’s owners it is hard to see how this could bp achieved. ;

Laurie Marshall spoke elo^ quently of the “dreams” people have, and how they should try toreconcile their different views. I’d like to remind her though, th&t one person’s dream could be another^ nightmare!

I was puzzled by her remark coijceming retirees, who she said art? “part of the problem,” adding: “It is very hard to make a living here.” Aft this time South Carolina is trying to attract retirees and that for several reasons.

Retirees are usually a stable part of the population, they do hire many k people, pay their taxes, and give their allegiance to the community.

They are, in fact, the opposites of tourists, which are viewed by some as a great boon. But the tourists’ philosophy is apt to be: “to come, to see, to conquer...and to leave;” When I was traveling in France and Italy, I have seen too many of the lovely little towns bereft of their very identity, because of the influx of tourists which created an unbalance.

We have all been very lucky to

live in this modest and charming town. Let’s keep it that way!

FRANCINE D. NADLER

Washington