Feb 24, 2011
Dear ____________:
We are writing to you and each of the Commissioners today to voice our strongest objections to the deal proposed by Dewey Beach Enterprises. We oppose the project they have presented on a number of grounds:
· We, along with 86% of the Dewey Beach voters, have made it clear that we do not want you to grant anyone an exemption from the Town’s 35’ building height restriction (which each of you committed to uphold).
· We object to the intimidating tactics that DBE has employed in an attempt to overcome our legitimate objections to their project. Jim Bauerle’s recent letter is more of the same.
· We do not trust that DBE would uphold an agreement even if we found this one acceptable.
· We object to DBE’s non-negotiable process for pushing this deal through in the dead of winter when so many property owners are not physically in Dewey Beach, and its requirement that the Town Council vote immediately after the February 26th hearing. We would like to see this decided in a referendum in the late summer.
· We object to the absence of sufficient project detail and the time in which to have it reviewed for environmental impact, traffic analysis, sanitation implications, etc.
· We object to DBE’s limitation of our lawful Planning and Zoning Review process.
· We object to DBE’s requirement that the Town Council adopt the Ruddertowne Architectural Committee’s actions as if it had come from an official Working Group.
· We object to their threat to hit us with additional lawsuits if we don’t knuckle under.
· Finally, we object to the project itself. We remain unconvinced that it would be beneficial for the Town.
We urge you to vote “no” to the DBE deal. We will stand behind you as long as DBE continues its assault on a town that is unwilling to accept its unsatisfactory development project.
Sincerely,
Elissa Feldman & Joseph Tarantolo, MD
18 Carolina St., Dewey Beach
Feb 24, 2011
I urge and request all of the elected Town Commissioners to honor your individual promise when you were elected to maintain the 35′ height limit in Dewey Beach and not agree to any settlement/release with Dewey Beach Enterprises (DBE). Also I urge all of you to support efforts to hold a referendum on development of Ruddertowne by Dewey Beach Enterprises at the time of Town elections in the Fall so that all registered property owners are given the opportunity to vote for settling with DBE and allowing the project to proceed or against settling with DBE and maintaining the integrity of our small town.
Judy Scanlon
Feb 24, 2011
Town Officials,
I want to voice my opinion that the mutual agreement be taken to a general referendum and not forced onto the town by an overbearing and aggressive developer. From what I have seen, DBE & RR has done nothing to comply with the permitting requirements and the town charter. DBE & RR have not submitted complete plans for the development as required by the Dewey Beach Building code chapter 71-3. I have never heard of any municipality issuing a building permit or allowing or agreeing to a development without a 100% design of the structure. This mutual agreement appears to require the town to waive significant amounts of the building code requirements without the developer specifying what he intends to build. If you allow this kind of bullying and aggressive tactics to force the town into agreeing to approve this development, complete with significant code variances, and without requiring DBE & RR to comply with the state and local building codes you are doing a disservice to the town and failing to live up to your responsibilities as government officials. If they want to build a larger structure than the 35 feet clearly allowed by Table 2 for zone RB-1 then they should be required to apply for a variance to the code in compliance with the procedure stipulated in Article V- Chapter 101-21 of the town charter. The Ruddertowne development should be required to comply with the town and state building codes and application procedures and DBE & RR should not be allowed to build a larger and more lucrative structure by bullying Dewey Beach town into waiving the communities’ rights to due process.
In the Amended Mutual Agreement & Release (AMAR) DBE is asking to town to waive significant compliance with the building code and the town charter and is doing so in a threatening and aggressive manner. It is quite clear that DBE and RR have already failed to comply with the AMAR, particularly Section 15 ADVICE OF COUNSEL and continues to engage in coercive and bullying tactics with the threats of future litigation, or building a truly unsuitable structure if the town does not essentially waive the requirements of the town charter, building code and the communities right to due process. DBE and RR also plan to build a structure into the bay and have not provided any indication that they have followed any of the procedures for obtaining the required approvals and permits from DNREC.
The AMAR as written does a disservice to this town and is greatly imbalanced to the interest of DBE and RR.
I am not opposed to development, but I am opposed to a wealthy and aggressive developer trampling on the due process rights of the community. Protect the interest of Dewey Beach and do the right thing by not agreeing to the AMAR.
Thanks,
Carl Kohlmeyer
Property Owner
Feb 22, 2011
We’ve attended three workshops about redeveloping Ruddertowne into a collection of restaurants, bars and other commercial spaces in Dewey Beach. They included hours of posturing by those who represent the developer, Dewey Beach Enterprises.
The developers’ lawyer threatened that if the town doesn’t agree to the mutual agreement being considered, DBE will resume lawsuits designed to bankrupt the town. The core issue? DBE wants to construct a building higher than town laws allow. The building would also include a new hotel, also prohibited by town law.
During the presentations, only one commissioner asked an intelligent question. While a chart showing potential revenue was on the screen, Mayor Diane Hanson asked whether a building conforming to the 35-foot maximum height without a hotel would generate more revenue for the town than the higher building with a hotel. Bravo.
While they were running for office, all five commissioners said they would support the town’s 35-foot maximum height ordinance. Now that a developer challenges the ordinance some of these “men” may be willing to throw the ordinance under a bus.
It’s time to honor the voters who elected you to office.
Donald Gritti
Dewey Beach
Feb 22, 2011
Dewey officials are letting voters down
The following is a letter to the Dewey Beach commissioners with a copy to the Cape Gazette for publication:
We recently learned that two of you have voted against awarding indemnification to Mayor Hanson to cover legal fees incurred in her defense of lawsuits brought against her in the performance of her duties. Since Mayor Hanson recused herself from that vote, all it took was a negative vote by the two of you to prevent the indemnification from going forward.
Chapter 22 of the town code spells out the matter of indemnification for town officials, and for us it is clear that Mayor Hanson deserves payment for her legal-defense fees. You swore an oath to perform your duties faithfully, one of which is to uphold and live by the town code. It doesn’t look to us that you are doing that. We pay taxes and fees to the town for the benefit of the town, not to cover ever-increasing legal bills triggered by commissioners who disregard the town code. The meter on Mayor Hanson’s lawyers won’t get shut off until this issue is decided.
This is getting scary. Each of us has been asked over the years to serve the town by joining one of the official town committees. We’re glad we declined. The protections provided by the town code to shield a volunteer committee member may no longer be relied upon, if some of the commissioners choose to ignore them. What kind of signal does this send to the countless volunteers who work for the benefit of the town?
As Dewey Beach voters, we continue to feel excluded from what is going on in the town council. We are worried that the Feb. 26 council vote on the matter of Dewey Beach Enterprises [DBE] and the 35-foot height limit will ignore the wishes expressed by the voters in the compelling height-limit referendum of a few years ago.
Why are you keeping us in the dark? As we’ve said before, if you believe a settlement with DBE is a good idea, please tell us why. And why the big rush on an issue that really needs a referendum, per the recent clarifying ordinance, which you all voted to support? It’s time to stand up and be counted in public, rather than undermining each other privately.
You owe us an explanation on all of these matters. Good governance needs sunshine, not stealth. This is even more the case when you decide to vote on such critical matters behind closed doors in the dead of winter, when so many property owners cannot to get to Dewey for workshops and meetings.
Anne Tooke and
Brooks Browne
Dewey Beach
Feb 22, 2011
Laird should be true to his promise
Over the past six weeks, property owners have witnessed our town council agree to abandon our customary building approval procedures and a manipulative system of orderly self-governance. We have witnessed Dewey Beach Enterprises (DBE) attempt to, once again, dictate procedures and conditions by demanding the town adhere to its schedule and process for conducting public workshops – all in an effort to get what they want, while it does not adhere to our laws related to building height and prohibition on new hotels.
Our town council entered into negotiations with DBE to see if it could forge a settlement that all could live by. The outcome is a grossly flawed process that disenfranchises the public, a developer-authored proposed settlement that is riddled with loopholes, and an attempt by DBE to circumvent our town’s clearly defined building application and approval process, which they will not be required to follow solely for their benefit. Bottom line: There are no building plans, and the council is being asked to approve a concept plan that can change; that’s it. The deal limits planning and zoning’s customary role in the review of their project.
The town council will vote Saturday, Feb 26, whether to grant special property rights to DBE that circumvent our laws, our development review process by planning and zoning, and our voters’ desire to maintain our 35-foot height limit. The outcome, should council vote yes, would be the construction of a 45-plus-foot hotel/convention center. Or further yet, the future outcome could result in the original 68-foot complex. Why? Because the mutual agreement requires the town council to recognize the defunct Ruddertowne Architectural Committee (RAC) as the comprehensive plan’s working group, giving it authority that never existed.
The RAC was the ad hoc committee that voted to forward the original 68-foot proposal on to the town council for consideration. The developer’s proposed settlement requires that the council accept the recommendation of the RAC. There was no recommendation; there was only a vote to forward the plan for consideration. We have the transcripts that confirm this. I feel this demand is a game changer, as it may grant DBE the right to build to 68 feet, and it is an entrée to yet another round of lawsuits that puts the town back on the litigation merry-go-round.
Where does town council stand now? That lies, I believe, in the hands of newly elected Commissioner Jim Laird, who has become the developers’ champion for moving the incredibly deficient deal forward. The big questions is will Commissioner Laird support this deal, no matter how bad it is? In Citizens to Preserve Deweys’ first analysis of this document, we uncovered 24 major loopholes/deficits (see website preservedeweybeach.com) that leave the town exposed and vulnerable to further attacks or future lawsuits, and possibly a 68-foot complex in the end. Most of these issues have not been adequately addressed.
Mr. Laird, please take the time to evaluate this deal fully. It is your responsibility and obligation to protect the town. Do you believe this deal offers that protection? And please digest what your constituents are saying: “This is a bad deal” “No to over 35 feet,” “Yes, to preserving our small-town charm for generations to come and yes to respecting our laws and right to self govern.” I ask that you be true to your promise to defend 35 feet and your responsibility to represent the overwhelming majority of your constituents. Last time I looked, that is the oath you took.
Marcia Schieck
Dewey Beach
Feb 22, 2011
Commissioners should abide by town code
I am stunned by the latest battering in Dewey Beach related to Dewey Beach Enterprise’s effort to build what it wants to build and not in accordance with the town’s building code. Last fall Joe Nelson filed a Public Integrity Commission complaint against our current Dewey Beach Mayor Diane Hanson, following a vote by town council related to supporting the town’s 35-foot building height limit.
The battering is not only the complaint; it is also that the town has not been able to move forward to fund support for Mayor Hanson’s legal defense. Dewey’s town code states that the town shall indemnify – i.e., provide legal assistance to – elected officials for any legal actions such as lawsuits or other complaints arising out of actions taken in performance of their official duties. When legal support is requested, an affirming vote by a majority of council members is required for funding to be allocated. Thank you, Commissioners Seitz and Laird, for your affirming votes.
At the Feb. 12 Dewey town meeting, it was revealed that two Dewey Beach commissioners – former Mayor Rick Solloway and Commissioner “Zeke” Przygocki – voted against funding legal support for Mayor Hanson, despite the code provision providing for such support as well as legal advice provided by the town attorney. As a party to the complaint, Mayor Hanson had to recuse herself from voting. A tie resulted, thus precluding town support. The effect of Mr. Solloway’s and Mr. Przygocki’s no votes is that Mayor Hanson must use her personal funds to defend herself.
Dewey Beach is turning its back on our mayor, who has worked honorably, consistently and without compensation to ably represent the citizens in Dewey Beach. Dewey’s citizens have elected its commissioners to represent us, to speak for us, to vote on our behalf. Please, Commissioners Solloway and Przygocki: Represent us by voting to provide legal defense funding for Mayor Hanson.
Susan Slye
Dewey Beach
February 20, 2011
When does a vote count? Apparently never in Dewey Beach. A vote by property owners in September 2007 resulted in a 86% approval to retain the long established building height limit at 35 feet. This was in response to a developer proposal to build a massive structure nearly twice that limit.
Subsequent legal wrangling and multiple lawsuits brought by the developer sought to bring the Town to its financial knees and force the Town Council to abandon that height restriction. Now an agreement has been proposed under which the developer would attain much of what he wants [including an exception which enables him to exceed the height limit by 10 feet] in return for dropping his lawsuits.
An aggressive timetable for consideration of the agreement by the Council has severely curtailed public input. Attempts by some members of the Council to condition approval of the agreement on a voter referendum have been thwarted by the developer’s supporters on the Council. [no sense getting even more evidence that property owners reject the granting of an exception to the existing building height limitation for such a grandiose project].
Now the Council must approve or disapprove this agreement. There is disagreement among its members. A meritless lawsuit has been filed against the Mayor by the developer in an effort to forestall the Mayor from voting on the agreement, or on other matters relating to this project.
So, the pattern of intimidation by the developer, through the piling on of legal expenses now includes both the Town and the Mayor, and, I suppose, any other person or entity who would oppose his overreaching development plans. He is supported in this effort by two current Council members who, in violation of a provision in the Town Code, have denied the Mayor reimbursement of legal expenses incurred in defending herself.
This is further continuation of an environment of harassment and intimidation directed at the Mayor. One of these members was censured by Council for pulling a tasteless frat boy stunt against the Mayor last year. His actions would very likely have had him fired had he held any job in any responsible U.S. company.
Enough of this gamesmanship nonsense! Stop the lawsuits unconditionally. Let both sides make their arguments. Let all the votes be counted. Let’s be bound by the results.
N.F. Cartier
Feb 22, 2011
I’m not the first to raise this issue, but how will the proposed mixed-use project at Ruddertowne make money? As I recall, the 68 ft. version of the project proposed in 2007 was to cost $40 million to construct, though we’ve all been hearing a figure of around $100,000,000 for this compact model. The 45 ft. version can’t cost more by any reasonable standard, so let’s just stick with the $40 million figure for this exercise. With a $12-15 million price tag to buy the property, DBE would have to make at least $55 million just to break even.
Well, I suppose 120 condos might go for an average price of $300,000 – though there are still Opal units unsold at around those levels. And for the sake of argument, let’s say that a hotel chain might be willing to kick in $5-10 million if they get involved. The commercial space could bring in a couple of million more.
So let’s see, if we add that up, that will be about $45-50 million. No one would build to lose money, so where does the rest come from to make a real profit? Hey, maybe they’re doing this just to be nice guys.
Dave Davis
Feb 21, 2011
I recently received an insulting letter, as many home owners may have, from Jim Bauerle. All I can say is,” what a desperate plea” I am reminded of how inexperienced he is and how it appears now more than ever that his involvement with the partnership was a failed attempt to have a local guy on their side. What developer with any balls would have even written this nonsense. It was like listening to a bully kid on the playground making threats, all of which hurt his own outcome. Not to mention the enclosed letter of reference he provided from a mayor in a town I never heard of revealing “what a great guy Jim is to work with”. Where is the “Gold Star” from his teacher. He seems to be unaware that his partners have “set him up”. Though he claims to be a long term resident of Dewey, there is no way his push for this development/project benefits any Dewey Beach resident. The community must remain steadfast and call their bluff on building a losing project. What developer would do that? Send them back to the drawing table.
Thank you.
Jeffrey Rickenbach
February 18, 2011
To the Editor,
Emotions are running deep in little Dewey Beach during the run up to the February 26th vote by the Dewey Beach Town Commissioners on the proposed Mutual Agreement and Release between The Town and Dewey Beach Enterprises. Both sides are ratcheting up the rhetoric which, unfortunately, will do nothing to solve the problem of reaching an amicable settlement.
The latest bone chilling event is the sudden cancellation of the Dewey Beach Planning and Zoning Committees workshop/public hearings. The meetings were cancelled because Planning & Zoning was advised by counsel that the meetings could lead to additional litigation. This cancellation, in effect, restricts the free exchange of ideas about the Ruddertowne Redevelopment Project. This indirect suppression of due process represents the tyrannical acts of a fat cat developer reaching directly into the corridors of our town’s government. This act alone has all the subtlety of an improvised explosive device (IED). It is safe to say that Dewey Beach Enterprises has not done a very good job of establishing goodwill and trust.
It’s time to hit the reset button and reboot the process. This is the last chance to wipe the slate clean and give everyone an opportunity for a new beginning. There are too many savvy property owners to think that the heavy handed tactics used up until now will succeed in the final analysis. A large number of property owners on Dickenson and Van Dyke Streets, in particular, are going to be victimized by the loss of their property value. The developer has taken for granted their property rights and at no time have they discussed or apologized for the loss of bay views and increased foot and motor vehicle traffic (with all the inherent problems) that will result between the Ruddertowne Redevelopment Project and the beach. Are the property owners going to stand by and let this happen to their property rights with no vote in the process? I think the answer is NO!
The Town of Dewey Beach desires a town center. Dewey Beach Enterprises wants to build a town center. If everyone can start from that basic premise, I believe, a deal could be worked out. The process up until now has been flawed and any attempt to “fix it” is the equivalent of putting lipstick on a pig. We have to start from scratch but unfortunately, “what’s past is prologue”. History repeats itself and continually influences the present, so it would take an incredible effort on both sides of the equation to say enough’s, enough.
Tony Murray
Dewey Beach, DE
Sarasota, FL
February 9, 2011
Dear Mayor Hanson and Commissioners:
Mr. Cadell and I are becoming increasingly discomfited with the deliberately-hurried consideration being given to the important decision regarding the DBE effort to circumvent orderly process and proceed with their desire to overbuild in little Dewey Beach. In fairness to those of us who own property there and who pay taxes there we think this decision should be decided by referendum – not by a hodgepodge of cockamamie meetings held in the dead of winter.
Please let ALL of us make this important decision.
Respectfully submitted,
Elizabeth and Henry Cadell – Sea Strand/Dewey Beach
Dear Editors,
Yesterday, we received the most amazing, brazen mailing from Dewey Beach Enterprises. Essentionally, the letter highlights their threats to continue filing more lawsuits against the town unless the mayor/comissioners back down from the citizen’s clearly articulated wishes to maintain the 35 foot height limit, and agree to support the so-called “compromise” plan, purported to “benefit the town”, with parking, public bathrooms, and, of course, a plethora of more empty storefronts. (by the way, would DBE or the town receive revenues from the additional parking they claim to offer?) Anyway, we can’t find any real benefits in their proposal. Dewey Beach Enterprises is claiming that they have all of the the info needed to win their many lawsuits (is it 6), and when they win, they will (are you ready for this?): “build whatever they want”, which, of course, they clearly state is the 65 foot structure that they originally wanted to build! They also claim that they can sue the town for their legal costs. This is the most blatant, egregious form of corporate bullying that I’ve ever encountered!
There is no mention of efforts to address erosion and sediment control, stormwater management, the required DelDOT entrance permit onto SR1, and protect the bayside wetlands.
We actually believe that we can prevail, and why couldn’t we recover our legal costs that we’ve incurred from their frivolous and intimidating lawsuits? We implore the Commissioners and Mayor to continue to represent the will of the people and NOT COMPROMISE OUR WISHES – that is why we elected them! If they succumb to DBE threats, I’m sure that they can find yourselves voted out of office in the next election, Heck, as elementary and middle school teachers, we know very little about politics, but we do know what the citizens of Dewey expressed in our most recent election. Maybe we could run on that one plank of a platform, and get some true representation!
Michael and Ann Durkos
Dewey Beach and Annapolis
Dear Editor,
I am sure you are aware of the battle going on in Dewey Beach to keep DBE from exploiting our town. I know their PR folks are trying to make them the victim and saying the the citizens are “bullies”. If you look at the facts your can see who the spoiled children and bullies really are!
DBE have filed several lawsuits to try to get their way. As you know they want have the courts ignore the towns 35′ height limit! We the people voted to keep the 35′ height limit because we do not want the “way of life” in Dewey Beach to become commercial. My family has been here since 1920 and our home is the oldest ocean front Beach House left in Dewey Beach (I am pretty sure that is a correct statement judging from my walks on the beach). I love our house in Dewey and can hardly wait to get there when I get some time to get away. It sickens me what has already happen with Dewey. In season the traffic to get anywhere is usually stop and go and long lines. You can barely find a spot on the beach to enjoy it and the ocean. Parking is horrible anywhere you need to go. I work in the Baltimore Washington area and wonder why anyone with common sense would think I’d want to spend my time off stuck in traffic and dealing with long lines. Frankly most of us don’t want Dewey to be a year round destination. The off season is the only time that I truly get to enjoy my home in Dewey.
DBE claims they want to make Dewey more family friendly and they want to be a part of our town and community. You do not sue your friends and family if you value the relationship you have with them. And to use the multiple lawsuits against a small town is showing that you are willing to be a bully to get what you want. The town council is afraid and seems to be leaning towards allowing DBE to have their way with us. If they do DBE will cover any lawsuits that follow which basically stops the citizens from suing the town council for ignoring the people’s height limit of 35′ and not allowing a referendum on their offer to end the lawsuit.
When greedy white politicians wanted to exploit the sacred Black Hills of South Dakota they told the leaders that either they sign the “hills’ over or rations would be cut off and the their people would starve to death. At ione point shotguns were held to some leaders heads. It would not surprise me that if DBE could get away with it they would use the same tactics on the citizens of Dewey Beach!
As rental property the DBE plans would increase our income (I mean, people love to stay in a place where they can sit on the front deck and look at the ocean) and I am sure we couild raise our rents big time. Our opposition to DBE is not motivated by GREED as it is with DBE! That should be plain and clear to anyone looking at this with an objective eye.
The exchange below is between myself and Diana Smith Dewey Beach Town Manager. I wrote to her again after the email below requesting that she reply to my request to post the letter in the public record. She had contacted me as you can see regarding my original letter/email saying that it was not respectful. While it is agressive (I am not happy with DBE and they are not my friend and I have very little respect for bullies and extortion) it does fall under freespeech. I am not being mean when I call them Greedheads. It is a term that the writer Hunter S. Thompson came up with for people like DBE and in that spirit I used it. However as you can see I wnet bakc a revised the letter with out any guidelines from Ms Smith. Then I request her to acknowledge ky revised letter/email and post it please.
I thought you might be interested to seen how many friends DBE actually has working “for the town”. You be the judge, but I see no reason why she should not reply to my request and post the revised letter for the town record.
Georgie Mauler
January 29, 2011
To the Editor,
Former mayor of the Town of Dewey Beach, Pat Wright’s idea that “it’s time Dewey sits down and works together” is excellent. As a show of good faith, Dewey Beach Enterprises should unilaterally drop their six lawsuits and enter into negotiations without any manipulation or posturing, which has been the pattern the last three and a half years. This would demonstrate their goodwill and sincerity. Under those circumstances, everyone could relax and an equitable give and take process could take place. The community supports the concept of a town center and has every incentive to make this problem go away.
In her recent letter to the editor of the Cape Gazette, Ms. Wright expressed concern about my “definition of the character of the town.” Let me try to address that concern. Over the years I would describe Dewey Beach to my friends as a unique, understated piece of paradise. I often compared Dewey’s low key personality to Half Moon Bay in the late 60’s, located on the California Coast, just south of San Francisco. Back then Half Moon Bay was a beautiful beach town. My California friends understood that description. Regrettably, Half Moon Bay today has been forever changed through over development by greedy developers building mega-hotels and assorted monstrosities. Once the development process starts, there is no turning back and it would be a shame to see Dewey Beach meet that same fate.
Ms. Wright had a few other personal questions, “Does Mr. Murray travel from Florida to Dewey to check on his rental property?” “Does he ever stay in his rental property to frequent the use of the beach and restaurants?” “Is he just responding to eblasts and newspaper articles? He appears to be an absentee landlord who writes a lot of letters.” To answer your questions Ms. Wright, I live in Dewey Beach during the summer months and enjoy the beach immensely. I do not rent my property nor do I frequent any restaurant, bar or establishment that has supported HHA, DBE or the Bar PACT members, though I have fond memories of the years when I used to stroll to local bars and restaurants.
Again, I like the idea of peace and tranquility in Dewey Beach, but DBE has to act more like a good neighbor, than a plaintiff in six lawsuits.
Tony Murray
Dewey Beach, DE
Sarasota, FL
January 25, 2011
Dear Commissioners,
I received two emails dated Wed. 7/18/07 and Sat. 7/21/07 from former Dewey Beach Commissioner Mike Eisenhauser, who was also the Chairman of the Ruddertowne Architectural Committee, in which he described the scope of the RAC. These emails were sent in the week after Mr. Eisenhauer presented the RAC’s final report to the commissioners at the 7/13/07 town meeting. The following is a direct quote from one of those emails:
“The RAC was a committee established by the Town Council to work with Hwy1 to come up with an alternative to the approved residential development. There was and is no basis for wanting any of the specialists involved with the negotiations with Hwy1 because the issues you suggest being studied are the responsibility of the Planning and Zoning Commission. The Town recognized the importance of the issue and for that reason the RAC was established and was composed of property owners, non-resident voters, business owners and a professional business representative.”
After reading Mr. Eisenhauer’s statement, my question is, how can anyone think the RAC had any legal authority?
The above quote of the RAC Chairman speaks for itself. I believe that all references to the RAC in the Mutual Agreement and Release should be deleted and the response to question 22 in the Frequently Asked Question section, dated 1/13/11 should be revised to reflect this new information.
The lead attorney for the plaintiff likes to argue that the Town’s P & Z made an error because they did not follow the dictates of the RAC in denying the new zoning plan to implement the Comprehensive Development Plan, so therefore they did not follow the CDP. That is twisted logic and the RAC should not be part of any agreement.
Please let me know if you have any questions.
Tony Murray
Sarasota, FL
Dewey Beach, DE
Jan 9, 2011
To All Commissioners, et al.
We support the 35 feet maximum. Otherwise, 35 becomes 45, 55, 65, etc. AND in addition to DBE, other “Developers” will build 35 plus feet commercial and residential structures.
We believe that even with a 35 feet maximum the Ruddertowne site can be redeveloped to include a boutique hotel, retail shops, restaurant, public area, public and hotel parking, etc.
We believe that only the homeowners/voters (and not individual Commissioners) should be able to change the height requirement (35 feet) AND that a referendum on a height change should be included in our September 2011 election.
Sincerely,
Gilbert and Sharon Lentz
January 21, 2011
Dear Editor,
On July 17, 2007 I received a letter addressed “Dear Dewey Beach Property Owner” from E. Thomas Harvey III, President, Harvey, Hanna & Associates Inc. That letter was a follow up to a letter received the previous week from Mr. Harvey touting the benefits, in his interpretation, of the Ruddertowne Redevelopment Project. The second letter invited me to a complimentary breakfast workshop on Saturday, July 21, 2007 at 10:30 AM located at the Ruddertowne Bay Center, “just to learn the details of the Ruddertowne Redevelopment Project”. I guess it is safe to say, what goes around comes around.
The conceptual drawing in that July 2007 letter looks to be more attractive than the recent drawing published in the Cape Gazette. The earlier drawing shows a tiered construction and according to Mr. Harvey, is to reduce shadowing. Financial considerations must have precluded attractive architectural design considerations this time around because the proposed building now looks like an irregular concrete box. However, this should blend in quite nicely with the other boring box already standing on the south east corner of Highway One and Van Dyke Avenue. This building has empty retail space on the lower level that has never been rented since it was constructed 10-15 years ago. Experts say, with the evolution of internet retail sales, it is estimated that the United States is 50% overbuilt in retail space. I wonder how the other businesses in Dewey Beach feel about the new competition in town.
If you recall, in 2007 HHA had obtained an option to purchase the property from Highway One Corporation, resulting in the two letters that Dewey Beach property owners received from Mr. Harvey. Much to my surprise, in the imploding real estate market of the fourth quarter of 2007, HHA exercised their option and bought the property. What is incredible and amazing is that HHA bought the property after receiving a letter from the Town Solicitor John Brady, advising them prior to closing that the town building code called for a maximum height limit of 35 feet on all construction. As I understand it, as part of the transaction HHA also purchased stock in Dewey Beach Enterprises, along with the name. It’s my opinion that they structured the transaction this way to confuse the court if they ever filed a lawsuit by implying that DBE existed as an owner of the property prior to the execution of the sale by Highway One Corporation in October 2007.
The US Supreme Court decided the doctrine of “Caveat Emptor” in 1817 which means “Let the Buyer Beware”. It is beyond my comprehension that the DBE attorneys think that they can overcome that doctrine with smoke and mirrors. How do they overcome the serious problem of being forewarned about the building height limit in Dewey Beach? The answer is to settle the lawsuit and convince the people you are negotiating with that they are destined to lose. Respectful developers acting in an earnest and businesslike manner in 2007 would have handled the problem differently by entering into cooperative negotiations to work out the solution but instead HHA and DBE decided to seek an aggressive, manipulative and hostile legal path to get their way, behaving more like spoiled children rather than honorable businessmen.
After three and a half years and six lawsuits, their only shallow legal victory is an increase in the density of what they can build on their property. Now that the preliminary and relatively inexpensive legal battles have been fought, with no clear cut winner, we are entering the very expensive deposition phase of the lawsuits. DBE has blinked and is attempting to settle because two commissioners that are active supporters of DBE will be defeated in the next election. My concern is that all the Dewey Beach commissioners may think they have a right to preempt the will of the property owners and settle the lawsuits, in effect seizing defeat out of the jaws of victory. After three and a half years of disruption and blatant intimidation tactics, should the property owners stand still for any power play on the part of the town officials? All five commissioners promised to uphold the 35 foot height limit and we the property owners that elected them to safeguard the town on this very specific issue will respond.
In the final analysis the January and February workshops are effective in educating the property owners as to what HHA & DBE is currently proposing for the Ruddertowne Redevelopment. This is very good information and will be helpful data for voting in the September Election when the matter can be equitably resolved in a referendum.
Tony Murray
Dewey Beach, DE
Sarasota, FL
Jan 7, 2011
To All Commissioners:
Re: Item #2 – Dewey Beach Enterprises Litigation
This matter must not be rushed through without a full discussion of all of the issues and then you must hold a referendum in Fall 2011 based on Ordinance #682 concerning any decisions made regarding this litigation.
Robert and Mary Kelley
117 Chicago Street, Dewey Beach
December 26, 2011
Dear Commissioners,
On Sunday December 19, 2010 in response to a letter I had written that day, Commissioner Jim Laird, in an email said, “I believe both the indemnity language and the height restrictions lock DBE into protecting the town on height challenges and prohibit elevator shafts, pool enclosures etc. unless the town and P&Z agree to those modifications. There were extensive conversations about those items. It is our language, not theirs”. Well Mr. Laird, your comments on the approval of the height issue could be characterized as the commissioners collectively agreeing to arrange the deck chairs on the Titanic during its maiden voyage, as a solution to the problem. What you failed to take into account is that by the time that building is completed, your one term as commissioner will be a blip on the radar screen in the town history. You will only be remembered for one thing… the commissioner that had the swing vote that enabled the Ruddertowne Redevelopment to go forward and destroy the character of Dewey Beach forever.
Before it is too late and you step over the line by adopting this agreement, you should realize that the group of five commissioners is the equivalent to a school of minnows swimming in a tank of Barracudas when compared to the lawyers representing DBE. Please, before it is too late, get a second opinion. You need unbiased, legal help experienced in the subtleties of these types of contracts to make an informed decision. The survival of our town, as we know it, is in the balance. The one step of engaging competent lawyers to review the lawsuits and the Mutual Agreement will level the playing field. That opinion will be the basis for making an intelligent decision. If the lawyer’s recommendation is for a settlement of the lawsuits, the Mutual Agreement should be rewritten so that it is acceptable to both parties. Then the agreement should be put forth with a recommendation for acceptance in a referendum by the property owners.
I would like to restate the dilemma a little differently. The majority of the voters are second home owners, many of whom rent their units to offset operating expenses. These are working people living “the American Dream”. They own small businesses or work for one of the many major corporations and government entities that operate in the Philadelphia to Washington, D.C. corridor. Through their votes, 86% essentially instructed their elected officials that they want to maintain the character of the town and the 35 ft height limit. They had many options in any number of desirable locations along the Atlantic Coast to buy their second homes but chose Dewey Beach.
They trusted you. All of you ran on 35 ft and were elected because you endorsed the 35 ft limit. Had you not made that promise you would not be a Dewey Beach commissioner. Now, you inform us that it is your best judgment that we should accept an offer from DBE that has all the charm and pressure of a used car salesman attempting to sell a clunker to an unsuspecting motorist. You justify this outrage because of your arrogance and alleged collective knowledge claiming you are more competent than the people who elected you, which is ridiculous. These property owners have worked their whole life to earn the opportunity to have a beach house. You are casting that aside in the dead of winter.
For the last three years we have become very familiar with the obvious tactics of the plaintiff DBE, but now, in a very stealth manner, they have enlisted the cooperation of the Dewey Beach bureaucracy. The lure is the growth this project brings to Dewey Beach, which translates into increased tax revenue. Statements by our town manager such as “I never have heard of a town that doesn’t have a property tax” and “the transfer tax income will be a boom to Dewey Beach” indicates that the town government has developed a taste for more money and that appetite will continue to grow. The town manager is paid to spend money and hire people. The larger her organization becomes, the more she is respected and paid. On the other hand, most companies in the private sector today are valued by investors for their effectiveness in increasing profit by reducing spending. Freely translated the property owners in their desire to preserve the small town character of Dewey Beach are polar opposites of pro growth DBE and the town bureaucrats. And please don’t forget the town attorney, another bureaucrat worthy of close scrutiny.
As the town government grows more tax dollars are going to be needed. Not only will the commissioners betray the property owners with the acceptance of this settlement, but they will change the entire character of the town against the will of the people. The increased taxes needed to feed this growth monster will be the next betrayal.
Sincerely,
Tony Murray
Sarasota, FL
Dear Editors,
Yesterday, we received the most amazing, brazen mailing from Dewey Beach Enterprises. Essentionally, the letter highlights their threats to continue filing more lawsuits against the town unless the mayor/comissioners back down from the citizen’s clearly articulated wishes to maintain the 35 foot height limit, and agree to support the so-called “compromise” plan, purported to “benefit the town”, with parking, public bathrooms, and, of course, a plethora of more empty storefronts. (by the way, would DBE or the town receive revenues from the additional parking they claim to offer?) Anyway, we can’t find any real benefits in their proposal. Dewey Beach Enterprises is claiming that they have all of the the info needed to win their many lawsuits (is it 6), and when they win, they will (are you ready for this?): “build whatever they want”, which, of course, they clearly state is the 65 foot structure that they originally wanted to build! They also claim that they can sue the town for their legal costs. This is the most blatant, egregious form of corporate bullying that I’ve ever encountered!
There is no mention of efforts to address erosion and sediment control, stormwater management, the required DelDOT entrance permit onto SR1, and protect the bayside wetlands.
We actually believe that we can prevail, and why couldn’t we recover our legal costs that we’ve incurred from their frivolous and intimidating lawsuits? We implore the Commissioners and Mayor to continue to represent the will of the people and NOT COMPROMISE OUR WISHES – that is why we elected them! If they succumb to DBE threats, I’m sure that they can find yourselves voted out of office in the next election, Heck, as elementary and middle school teachers, we know very little about politics, but we do know what the citizens of Dewey expressed in our most recent election. Maybe we could run on that one plank of a platform, and get some true representation!
Michael and Ann Durkos
Dewey Beach and Annapolis
December 19, 2010
Dear Commissioners,
In the spirit of the holiday season, I’m going to attempt to point out the serious issues with the Mutual Agreement and Release approved by Dewey Beach Enterprises (DBE), Ruddertowne Redevelopment Inc. (RR) and the Town of Dewey Beach in a logical manner as diplomatically as possible.
All five commissioners ran for office promising the property owners that they would preserve the 35 ft height limit. Two commissioners made that promise less than three months ago. As all of you know the property owners, in most cases, are non residents. They have entrusted you, as their elected officials, to protect their interests particularly in the off season. They are focused on work, family and the holidays this time of year. Speaking from Sarasota, Florida for one nonresident, I interpret this document as a total sellout of the promises you have made to the people who supported you. I will detail why I believe this is a total outrage and a violation of the trust given to you by the people and of your fiduciary obligation.
Four commissioners are defendants in the DBE lawsuits and, in my opinion, because of their prejudicial self interests do not have the objectivity to vote in a manner that represents the property owners best interest. There is one solution, a referendum conducted as a part of the Town of Dewey Beach election process in September 2011. This will afford all of the interested parties an opportunity to weigh in on this defining issue affecting the town of Dewey Beach forever.
Before agreeing to any settlement, the town needs an independent evaluation of the DBE lawsuits from a credible law firm. Lawyers hired by your insurance carrier are mostly concerned with a long term relationship with your insurance company. I would be delighted to recommend first class law firms in either Philadelphia or Washington, DC in which I have worked with over the years. I am not a lawyer, but it is my belief that none of the claims, other than minor technicalities, will stand up in court. Former Mayor Dell Tush’s instructions to former town solicitor John Brady to send a letter advising DBE of the towns 35 ft building height limit in October 2007; before they exercised their option to purchase the Ruddertowne property, will be the defining document when DBE looses. The caveat is buyer beware. The law suits naming various commissioners and officials are just smoke and mirrors. DBE’s primary objective is harassment and intimidation of unpaid public officials fearful of their financial future.
The so called Mutual Agreement and Release has clearly been written by the plaintiff’s attorneys and is tilted very heavily towards the plaintiff. If you want a fair agreement between the parties, you have to have your attorneys, competent in contracts law, prepare the document. This is Contract Law 101. I never signed a contract I didn’t either write or review with a contracts law attorney. It is called the price of doing business.
When is 45.67 ft structure really 65 ft? First, add a 3 ½ ft provision for an air handling system, elevator bulk heads and alternative energy systems. The true hand grenade in the height limit agreement, is “any accessory item approved by the town and necessary to create this attraction shall not be included in the height limits contained in paragraph 2 (e.g. railings/canopies)”. They are talking about the pool/café which I can imagine in my mind’s eye as having a Reggae Band playing Red Red Wine at sunset or some other Jamaican favorites as two hundred nymphs and their companions splash around in the pool. The canopy could be as tall as The Big Top at the Barnum and Bailey Circus and you will be able to hear that music in Cape May, New Jersey.
The Time Schedule outlined in the contract is arbitrary and capricious. It is a heavy handed attempt to limit discussion on this incredibly important issue to every property owner in town.
The Voluntary Indemnification clause by DBE does a great job of protecting DBE but does nothing to protect the property owners of Dewey Beach. It creates an environment whereby if an individual or citizens group wanted to challenge the project, the town would become DBE’s partner in the defense of that lawsuit. In addition, nothing in the clause protects the town from other developers challenging the 35 ft height limit. In fact, the clause virtually invites another developer to challenge the 35 ht limit because then the all bets are off and DBE could alter their redevelopment plans. After reading this clause at least six times, it is beyond my comprehension how it was approved by the commissioners. This clause is DBE’s ultimate power play.
The five year building permit is outrageous. What you are saying to me, as my summer home is on Van Dyke Ave, is that I will have to live in a construction zone for five years. Why do they want five years to complete this project? I don’t think DBE has any money. It is my belief that they are seeking these zoning changes to increase the value of the property in order to flip a short term loan without increasing their out of pocket cash requirements. To help you understand the severity of the problem in the country today, most builders and developers had serious cash flow problems. Too much land was purchased on credit and they built too many houses, condos and retail space on speculation. So in 2008, the Congress approved an unprecedented change in tax law that received little or no publicity. The IRS is allowing construction companies to use the tax paid on their profits from previous years when business was good to offset their losses in the years during the real estate downturn. If they didn’t make that provision in the law, most major construction companies/developers would be bankrupt today. Incidentally, I do not include (REIT’s) Real Estate Investment Trusts in this category because most of their financing is handled by Wall Street investment bankers and the stock market. My guess again, once DBE has their approved agreement, they will seek investors to provide the necessary cash to leverage the building of their proposed structure. The five year permit is all about breathing room with no concern for the nearby residents.
I invite all five commissioners and the town manager to respond to me in writing with their comments. I will be happy to defend my position.
Sincerely,
Tony Murray
Sarasota, Florida