Friday, 26 February 2010

Don't Poke Jan Juc

Jan Juc is a small family suburb located on the Victorian surf coast. Jan Juc is winding streets, speed bumps, lots of cul de sacs, playgrounds, small to medium homes and almost a total lack of commercial development. Not even a concrete footpath. No fast food franchises with look-at-me signs. No mini malls. Not even an IGA or a 7-11 let alone a Coles or Woolworths. No resorts and no motels. All that glitz is left to nearby Torquay.

As a consequence of what must have been a total brain freeze, Rohan Pertzel thought that these factors make Jan Juc an ideal place for a pokie pub. The Jan Juc community has begun to voice its opposition.The families who live in Jan Juc are fortunate enough to live on the coast near one of the great surf beaches of the world, Bells Beach. Despite it's international fame, Bells Beach, has no commercial development. No motels, no hotels... nothing other than a car park.

It's the way the locals like it. It's why they chose to live there. Great surf. A quiet beautiful community with a few local shops. Rohan Pertzel wants to change that.

His apparent strategy was to first develop the only local hotel, The Beach, as a family friendly haven to take Mum, Dad and the kids for a veal parmigana. But even then, there was a something seriously wrong in his promotion of a child play area where it was reported "parents can also see thier children enjoying themselves through the glass walls to the children's area". It is far better if he had promoted parents and children sitting at the table together and enjoying a conversation; a shared experience.

If the gambling losses from Mr Pertzel's proposed 30 Jan Juc pokies achieve even 15% less than the level of gambling losses in the existing pokie pub in Torquay, Jan Juc will become the pokie gambling centre for the Surf Coast. The Beach Hotel will become its largest gambling venue.

Here's a video I produced. Double click on it to watch it on YouTube:

Look at the graffiti. Listen to the machine noise neighbours have to endure. Mr Pertzel needs to clean up The Beach. No industry award changes the reality of how The Beach presents itself in Jan Juc. Mr Pertzel's proposed motel units are not a fit for Jan Juc. His proposed 30 pokies are not a fit for Jan Juc.

Mr Pertzel needs to man up, admit that his proposal was wrong, publicly abandon these plans and work towards restoring real goodwill with the Jan Juc community.


Anonymous said...

Clearly you have a short memory. Before Mr. Pertzel invested in the Beach Hotel, it was a dirty, filthy disgrace and was certainly no place for children. Now it is bright and clean, it caters for people large & small, and has become something for the community to be proud of. Personally, I commend Mr. Pertzel's initiative and condemn your one sided, naive and regressive stance. The fact is that this proposal (which you conveniently overlook) actually provides the community with facilities that currently do not exist, and the owner's have publicly admitted that this investment is only possible with the revenue generated by the pokies. Unlike you, I am very much looking forward to the possibility of friends visiting and finally being able to stay in town, and even for a place that my children can hold their 21st Birthday parties - rather than having to go elsewhere as is currently the case. I will continue to take my children there, and am certain that the majority of the community agree that Mr. Pertzel should be applauded for turning what was an embarassment into something that is now a feature of our wonderful town. Finally, my advice to you is that clearly you would be much happier in Romsey, and when you're ready I'm certain that there would be many that would help you pack (might even pop up to the pub afterward to celebrate).

PokieWatch said...

1. We have a difference of opinion. The Beach Hotel as I photographed it had graffiti painted on the side. My opinion is that the venue's exterior appeared dirty and poorly maintained.

2. Mr Pertzel is an experienced venue operator with reported experience at a nightclub in Ballarat and a hotel in Queenscliff.

3. While Mr Pertzel's intentions in cleaning up The Beach Hotel may have been purely philanthropic, it is more likely that he did so with a view of making a profit and thereby maximising his investment.

4. More importantly, Mr Pertzel is now attempting to force a development that is wrong for a family suburb. It is wrong to build and operate a motel in Jan Juc.

5. Justifying a development that is already a poor fit for suburban Jan Juc by then introducing and operating pokie gambling in Jan Juc demonstrates the lack of viability of the motel development.

6. Pokie gambling is a harmful adult only entertainment. It is not suitable for children. It has been proclaimed by the federal minister and all state ministers that children should not be exposed to pokie gambling within a pokie venue. Mr Pertzel's plans allow for the pokies to be seen and heard by children. He has been asked as to what changes he proposes to make to comply with this national principle but has not responded. In this aspect, it is my opinion, that Mr Pertzel demonstrates a lack of responsibility.

7. Transforming Jan Juc into a pokie gambling destination is regressive. It will reduce rather than enhance the value of the suburb as Jan Juc loses its character as a quiet and unique beach side suburb. People choose Jan Juc to avoid the very commercialisation that Mr Pertzel seeks to introduce. Jan Juc's attractiveness for families as a place to live would decline and all residents bear such loss.

Anonymous said...

I have never seen such a more ill informed piece of faceless, gutless dribble as i have just read in this blog.

To make wild baseless accusations about a person and their legal business, whilst you have the luxury of hiding behind a computer screen is nothing short of cowardice in the first degree.

The owner of this blog, the gutless faceless DOG needs to man up, admit that he is a deadset fuckwit, and pray to whatever god he chooses that i dont run into him in the street.

Anonymous said...

sensational! well done Anonymous!!

Anonymous said...

You must be kidding Paul...!!!

How many of your supporters know hypocryte..

Anonymous said...

PokieWatch, I have read your response to my comments from 26th February, and will endeavour to comment on each of your points;
1. The photo that you have taken, is indeed of the outside of the venue, however my understanding is that Mr. Pertzel does not own the freehold, and as such your criticism is misguided.
2. Not certain of the relevance of Mr. Pertzel's experience regarding his application to develop the venue?
3. I agree, there are some horrible people in our society that choose to invest money, employ people, take risks with the specific intent to make a profit. Maybe Mr. Pertzel is one of them, and if so then he should be ashamed.
4. Mr. Pertzel has put forward a proposal for consideration as is his right. This proposal includes a function centre, expanded restaurant and accommodation in addition to pokie machines. I understand your opinion, I however see more positives in this to a family suburb than I see negatives - and I have no intention of ever putting a cent into one of his machines.
5. Spot on. The "motel development" is not viable on its own, which is why the application is accompanied by an application to also operate pokies (I thought that we had already covered this).
6. Irresponsible gambling is harmful to all people - not just children. If you are seriously implying that just because they can see them from the next room that they will become addicted to them, then I recommend that you also object to the fact that some people in the venue drink alcohol, bet on the horses & football, have been heard swearing and some even go outside for a cigarette. Then we could convince Mr. Pertzel to change it into a not for profit play centre and all the kids will be safe.
7. Investing in Jan Juc is progressive. Whether having pokies is the appropriate way to do so, I cannot judge, which is the precise reason that we have a system where responsible people can make impartial, unemotional decisions. As we have elected these people, I also feel that they are the only ones actually qualified to comment on behalf of the community - you and I can only voice our own opinions.

As I said, I am not a fan of pokies, but I do appreciate the investment in this site that has turned it today into a feature of Jan Juc, and I honestly cannot fathom how you could criticise what Mr. Pertzel has done since he purchased the business some 18 months ago.
Rather than simply voicing your opinion that pokies should not be introduced, you have actually slandered a guy that saw enough in our town to invest in it.
You have criticised the fact that he has put in a kids play area and tried to suggest that all children should sit at the table and enjoy a conversation with their parents (you haven't met many kids). You've had a go at the graffiti on an outside wall that he has no control over and you have even questioned his manhood (you're starting to sound like a stalker).
I'm sorry, but you are losing the plot and rather than enlightening people to the dangers of gambling, you have descended into a personal attack, in what could only be a hope that you will somehow become relevant.
Unlike others, I do not have any illfeeling towards you, I just feel sorry for you.

Lastly to Mr. Pertzel, I am horrified to learn that you may be doing this to profit, and if this is true, then be warned that you are certain to be judged poorly in the afterlife.

Anonymous said...

For the purpose of clarification, the article in the Australian that refers to Paul Bendat (alias Pokie Watch) reads as follows;

Pokie crusaders in the dark on partner's casino fortune
• Rebecca Urban
• From: The Australian
• April 20, 2009 12:00AM
ANTI-GAMBLING crusaders Nick Xenophon and Tim Costello launched a new push against poker machines unaware one of their fellow campaigners owes much of his family's wealth to casinos.
Millionaire Paul Bendat's latest venture, a coffee table book launched on Friday with Senator Xenophon and World Vision's Mr Costello, aims to expose the role of Woolworths and Coles in spreading poker machines throughout the suburbs.
But a little-known fact about Mr Bendat, a former lawyer who once worked for Frank Lowy, is that a sizeable portion of his family's wealth came from an investment in the asset class he loathes - poker machines.
Mr Bendat, 58, insists he has never tried to hide the fact that his father, Jack Bendat, owned part of Perth's Burswood Casino before selling the stake to the Packers' Publishing and Broadcasting Ltd as part of a $77 million deal six years ago.
Senator Xenophon said yesterday he knew nothing about it. Nor did Mr Costello.
It's not surprising. Despite having built up a public profile thanks to his website, Mr Bendat's casino ties appear to have gone largely unreported.
In September 2003, PBL announced that it had acquired a "14.2 per cent strategic stake" in the Perth casino operator from companies associated with property tycoon Bill Wyllie and Jack Bendat. A notice issued by the Wyllie Group revealed it had sold its 47 million shares to PBL for $52.9 million. The Bendat family, which owned almost 5 per cent of Burswood through a company called Dreamtime Nominees, made about $24 million in the sale.
The Burswood Casino, now owned by James Packer's Crown, is the only venue in Western Australia permitted to have poker machines. In 2003 - the same year Dreamtime appeared on the casino's share register as its fourth-largest investor - Burswood's 1000-plus machines brought in $95.9 million revenue.
Paul Bendat is keen to distance himself from his father's casino investment. "I tell people," he said when asked by The Australian whether he had disclosed the links. "But ... that's my dad, not me."
However, Australian Securities and Investments Commission filings for Dreamtime Nominees reveal that Paul Bendat - along with his father and his mother, Eleanor - was a director of the company between 2001 and 2005.
Mr Bendat said he was working in the US at the time the Burswood shares were held, and derived no financial benefit from the investment. He does not believe it detracts from his message - that Woolworths, Australia's biggest operator of gaming machines, and Coles are not doing enough to minimise the exposure of children to pokies.
Although Mr Bendat said he had told Senator Xenophon about his casino links before Friday's book launch in Adelaide, the senator insisted yesterday he did not know about Jack Bendat's part-ownership of the casino.
"But so what? You can't put what the father does on the son," he said. "He (Paul Bendat) is obviously genuine with his campaign. I think he's a terrific bloke, and I am very happy to work with him."
Mr Costello also voiced support for Mr Bendat. "I've since talked to Paul and understand it was his father's investment, and that he was not a beneficiary," he said. Asked whether he would have preferred that Mr Bendat told him of his past casino links, Mr Costello said it was "quite probable that it didn't occur to him to disclose it".

...... interesting read about the guy that feels qualified to publicly question the credibility of Mr. Pertzel.

Anonymous said...

yes, but surely the key point is that the claim of introducing pokies into jan juc is a "family friendly" thing has to be challenged.
Mr Pertzel and colleagues have claimed this, and there is a significant basis that this should be challenged. i am a family person, and i can see no way that a pokies venue is family friendly. look at the torquay pub forgodsakes- you can see the losers from the meals area- which has a kids play area off it...

Jenny said...

Jan Juc is a small and expanding town along the Victorian coast. It DOES have concrete footpaths and the houses range from being old surf shacks to excessively large million dollar "Mc Mansions". There are no resorts or hotels, only an old caravan park, which makes it impossible to find good accommodation in the area. The Beach Hotel development will not only provide that, but much needed function rooms for the local community

What Mr. Pertzel has done for the local community is far from what he is being accused of. He has taken a derelict pub which no one would patronize, and turned it into a beautiful and enjoyable place for family and friends alike. In less than 12 months the hotel has won the AHA award for the best country bistro, and rightly so. We now have a place in our community that is inviting, offers great service, food and gives us mothers a place to congregate and enjoy each others company while our children have a safe environment to play in. It is a place in our community to be proud of. The glass walls to the children's area ensure that we can watch our children while they are playing and making friends with other local children while we finish our dinner. We take our children here for a treat. We share our meals and have a conversation with our children when we are at home. This is their fun time, a night out instead of taking them to those fast food franchises. The meals they provide are healthy and appetizing.

Not only has Mr. Pertzel given us a place to meet and eat, he has also generated some much needed employment into the area, and supports various community projects and fundraisers, donating money to local groups.

The Beach Hotel is not the only business in Jan Juc that has been the subject of vandals grafitting their premises. I note that you failed to show that in your video. On the other hand, YOUR group has been littering our community with red stickers supporting your cause. I’ve seen them on road signs, post boxes, telephone booths and council property, which is illegal. They are also along the coast all up to Bells Beach, which you are so concerned about keeping beautiful. That is graffiti!

Anonymous said...

yep, good points jenny...agree that he has turned a drinking hole into somewhere to go.
BUT, you should address the question of how a pokies-funded expansion constitutes a "family friendly" hotel?
it is family friendly at the moment, but will not be when pokies come to town
BTW- great to have some sound argumentation, and not threats and nonsense

PokieWatch said...

It is an often used tactic to raise the integrity of the person asking the questions... rather than confronting the question itself. This tactic has been employed by Anonymous based upon an article in The Australian that was later qualified in that same paper.

Notwithstanding, I will deal with this matter and then let's get back to the real issue; Mr Pertzel's bid to introduce the harmful adult activity of pokie gambling into a suburban family neighbourhood.

The transaction was undertaken by my father without my knowledge. I was living in the US at the time of both the sale and purchase. I received no benefit from the purchase and sale of shares in Burswood casino.

This correction has been widely publicised on radio, television online and in the press. It is misleading for anyone to indicate that I was responsible for - or - have profited from the sale of interests in pokie gambling.

Regardless, misinformation about the fiscal source of my personal livelihood does not affect the valid reasons why Mr Pertzel's venture to bring pokie gambling to the family suburb Jan Juc should fail.

PokieWatch said...

In response to the points raised...

1. The condition of the exterior of The Beach could be seen as an indication of the business inside. It is not an excuse that Mr Pertzel may only be a tenant nor that other buildings may have graffiti. It is Mr Pertzel's conduct of his business that is being examined. It must be borne in mind that the conduct of the harmful form of adult entertainment that is pokie gambling requires rigourous standards of care.
By the same token, the placement of No Pokies For Jan Juc can be seen as an indication of the community.

2. There is nothing wrong with conducting a business for profit. My personal view is that it is wrong to conduct a pokie gambling business where such a large proportion of regular users are being damaged day after day.

3. The comments give the impression that there is no motel accomodation serving Jan Juc. There is ample motel accommodation serving Jan Juc within a few kilometres of Jan Juc. I reject the proposition that every family suburb should have a motel placed within that suburb.

4. Mr Pertzel has not indicated that his present business is in danger of going broke. Therefore, Jenny will be able to continue to enjoy the facilities of The Beach Hotel whether the application is approved or not. One of the benefits of refusal is that her children will not be exposed to the harmful form of adult entertainment that is pokie gambling.

5. Research has already concluded that exposure to gambling normalises this adult activity and leads to a greater prevalence of problem gambling. Put more simply, the habits of adults influence how our children end up.
This is legally recognised in NSW pubs where children are banned not only from being exposed to the sights and sounds of the pokies but also the public bars themselves - even if accompanied by an adult.
Coles pubs are voluntarily eliminating such exposure at their 60+ Queensland pokie pubs.

Mentioning other harmful forms of adult entertainment adult does not justify introduction and possible irresponsible conduct of pokie gambling.
However, it is noteworthy that smokers now usually smoke outside even at home. Smoking has been 'de-normalised' as a lifestyle habit.
You may have seen the TV ads warning parents about alcohol usage in the home and the research about how even the friendly family drink shared with children leads to a greater prevalence of alcoholism.

5. A 2008 study for the Tasmanian government may provide a helpful indication where they concluded that "claims that the gambling industry has significantly contributed to economic growth in the aggregate economy is not substantiated".
They also found that "A positive and significant relationship was found between gaming expenditure and some crime rates, particularly 'income generating crimes'".
They also concluded that "Gaming machine gambling has a relatively low labour intensity" and that jobs at pokie pubs come at the expense of jobs at venues without pokies.
Based upon this research, one can argue that introduction of pokies in Jan Juc will have no economic benefit, increase crime and cost jobs.

Anonymous said...

It is fascinating that you feel that it is a tactic to raise your integrity in this debate, when you devoted so much if your initial blog to personally attacking Mr. Pertzel rather than just making you point on whether pokies are appropriate for Jan Juc.
Whether you like it or not, how your family has prospered is very relevant to this discussion, and as a result your credibility is shot.
Had you have stuck to the facts, then there would have been no reason for it to be raised.
It doesn't even seem to me that you have ever been to the area that you claim to defend, and yet see yourself as the spokesperson for the people.
Daddy must be so proud.

Jenny said...

What is a family? To me it is all that are near and dear to me. My children, my husband, my parents, my grandparents and all the in betweens. We are all different ages and all have different interests.

My children like having an area to play and to meet other children. My father likes to have a bet on the races after dinner, but no one seems to have an issue with that. My 90 year old grandmother would like to spend her $20, or whatever she feel’s like spending on the pokies. It doesn’t make them bad people or “LOSERS” as one anonymous referred to them as. As a “family”, the new development will cater for us all. Both the young and the old.

As an adult I chose to spend my money where I want to. Nobody has the right to tell me how to or how not to spend it. If I chose to gamble I will, if not, then I won’t. Having pokies will not change the way I or the majority of people spend their money. Having pokies in the venue will by no means ensure that my children will develop a pokie addiction as you would like us to all believe.

The benefit to my family if the proposal goes ahead will be that ALL of my family will be able to enjoy a night out together. We will have a place that we can hold functions for our family. Friends and family will have available accommodation in the area, that is needed. Saying that there are motels in other towns, a few kms away does not mean that Jan Juc doesn’t need one. If you had been here or lived here you would know that public transport or the taxi service around here is limited. So to have accommodation in the local area would be of benefit to many.

Have you ever been to The Beach Hotel? You infer that the graffiti that vandals have done to the building and others in the area, is an indication of the intereior. It is far from what you suggest. Mr. Pertzel runs a business that supports the local community, is clean, friendly and his conduct is always professional. The development WILL provide jobs for the local community, not cost them as you suggest.

Your excuse that the graffiti of our local area with your propaganda is an indication of the community is to me an attempt to excuse the illegal behavior of your supporters. The community is made up of many people with many different opinions; they do not speak for us all. There is no excuse for littering our town, especially for your own agenda.

Anonymous said...

I have read all the above comments with interest. I am not a Jan Juc local, but have had ongoing connection with the area for nearly thirty years now. Jan Juc is different from its surrounds. I personally find it much more family oriented than Torquay and this adds to the charm of the area. I currently live in an inner city suburb with a fairly high density of poker machines. They change the nature of a suburb once they are in - and once approved they are impossible to get rid of.
Even from a purely monetary point of view, allowing these machines into Jan Juc will adversely affect the value of peoples homes in Jan Juc - you will see the value of your house go down, although the owner of the pokie license stands to make a fortune out of this.
As for the argument about not being able to find accomodation for visiting relatives and that this will somehow be fixed by granting a pokie license - are you serious??

Jenny said...

In reference to the last post. Having "connections" with the community does not equate to knowing the area and living in it. Saying that Torquay is less family orientated than Jan Juc, just shows how far removed and ignorant you are to the issues we have within our municipality.
I live closer to the proposed venue than the biggest opposes and find it highly amusing that you think that the value of my property will be devalued if the proposal goes ahead. You obviously have no idea on real estate in the area, or of the actual development proposal.
The development proposal isn't just defined by pokies. That is what this blog has made it about. Perhaps you should get in touch with the area and community, that you feel so connected to and educate yourself on the facts before you question why I think accommodation is an important aspect of this development.

Anonymous said...

Pokie's are not designed to make a loss. Therefore, they make a profit. Clearly the Beach Hotel owners figure the profit to be made from the pokies is far more important than the sad and well known negative consequences on vulnerable members of the community. Surely there is no argument here! Surely Beach Hotel, you know that this is an extremely unethical venture. Surely you know that pokies will transform your bright, clean family friendly venue into a sad, miserable hangout for the desperate and vulnerable. Is this really how you want to be remembered?

Anonymous said...

Jenny wouldn't be an alias for Kirsty Pertzel, perchance?
Or maybe another owner's wife, or friend...or maybe employee...?

Anonymous said...

I see what you mean, 'cause surely the only people that actually want investment in Jan Juc are those that are associated with the application - everyone else want it to go back to the place that it was beforehand.
The noise, the fights, the filth - oh what wonderful memories.

Jenny couldn't possibly be one of the hundreds of people that enjoy coming to the hotel each week.

On the other hand, like me you choose to simply go by Anonymous, as we don't want to be associated with a website that has been created by a hypocrite whom only developed a concern for the harmful impact of pokies, once he and his family cashed in their stake in the Burswood Casino.
Daddy must be so proud.

Anonymous said...

And the Jan Juc Hotel without pokies will most likely go the way of the Romsey Hotel, either end up a run down hole (like it was) or closed. The anti-pokies wowsers who want to protect people from themselves were all patting each other on the back when they were successful in stopping the Romsey pub from getting any pokies. Most, if not all of them, would rarely if ever have visited the Romsey Pub. Now the pub is looking at closure and possible developement and the community will lose their only pub and social meeting place.

Those in Jan Juc who do want to play pokies, the same as those in Romsey, will simply take their money to the next town thereby depriving Jan Juc of income. Problem gamblers, more than anyone else, will find a way to get their fix whether or not Jan Juc gets pokies. As time goes on you are also going to find that the internet is a bigger problem for gamblers than any pub or club with pokies, and there won't be much at all that Paul Bendat, Nick Xenaphon, Tim Costello and their wowser mates can do about it.

Anonymous said...

Should children be exposed to gambling on a regular basis? Should children be protected from the early influences of gambling? The rights of the child before they are at an age of consent needs to be considered.

For example most clubs have family areas and poker machine areas. In the poker machine area adults feed the machines on the chance of winning.

In the family area children are seen also playing machines of chance reward. Vending machines... a coin is lodged in the vending machine however to win something is a matter of chance also. Same principle as the poker machine.

In effect these vending machines in the family areas are training the child to take the chance at winning something. It may be a toy or a chocolate. But the game is the same, the chance to win.

In principle the rights of the child are being ignored, the age of consent is ignored. Children are being trained to see the rewards of gambling and can progress to full blown gambling problems after the age of consent is reached and Mum and Dad wonder how gambling took hold in young John or Mary.

Better to nip a problem in the bud stage, thank your mates for having the courage for pointing this out to you. There are better outcomes for our kids than starting them off on a course of habitual gambling, and the problems that follow.

The vending machine owners who approach the clubs with these vending machines of chance for the family areas on a shared profit basis are interested in money, not the problems these machines can be sowing in your child that later can grow into full blown gambling problems.

Parents take time out and talk this over. Think about the rights of the child before the age of consent.

Parents for better youth outcomes.

Jenny said...

I find it rather amusing that one anonymous poster would think that I am someone other than a local resident that supports the development at The Beach Hotel. There are many other local residents who feel exactly the same way. Not all of us are jumping on the band wagon of Jeremy Ham who thinks that he speaks for all Jan Juc locals when he himself is not one.

Anonymous said...

It seems that "The tribe has spoken", Jenny and Co.
The independent, council-funded survey found that 84% of people surveyed were opposed to the proposal to redevelop the pub with pokies included. A bunch of other questions showed clear opposition on a number of fronts- however locals didn't mind expanding the pub without pokies. They thought that the pokies expansion would greatly reduce the family friendliness of the pub, and decrease the character of Jan Juc.
In addition, the "Dont Poke Jan Juc" crew managed to round up a whopping 219 letters of opposition in a month or so-good on 'em. Pity the pub could only get 30 letters (only 14 of which were from 3228).

Ummm...what were you arguing about again? I think it was something about the locals wanting a pokies pub in Jan Juc. Or, a pub that has just wasted a lot of time in subjecting the community to a proposal that is too big, does not comply with height, parking and overlooking planning issues, relies on pokies for funding, and something the community just does not want.

Why not put a bit of heat on Pertzel and Co? They started this, not us locals. Why not ask them to get rid of the pokies idea, and just expand the function and other rooms (in a way that satisfies council regulations this time)? Then, there would be very little dramas.

These guys have put this community through a lot of crap, all because they're trying it on us for the big bux.

Jenny said...

I don’t need to be a part of a “tribe” to speak my opinion. I unlike you speak for myself.

BEGGING people to write letters to further your cause against The Beach Hotel certainly doesn’t convince me that I have nothing to argue about. No one has ever said they want “a pokies pub in Jan Juc”, like you suggest. That is NOT what has been proposed, yet what your “tribe” has made people think.

“Pertzel and Co” as you call them or as I would say the owners of The Beach Hotel have chosen to invest in my town, and turn what was nothing but a hole and a place where not even a pharmacy could survive, next to a doctor’s clinic, into a place that people come to in droves to patronize.

The Beach Hotel generously donates and supports the local community. They do not as you suggest put the community “through a lot of crap”. That is what you and your “tribe” have done. Jeremy Ham says he speaks for the people, yet where are his business donations supporting the local community? The Jan Juc Kindergarten weekly, benefits from The Beach Hotel and all of those who patronize the hotel, not Jeremy Ham. They, the current owners of The Beach Hotel should be applauded, not criticized for supporting the community that they have successfully invested in and continue to support.

Anonymous said...

Jenny, your beloved community-supporting Beach hotel director, Mr Closter very quickly put forward the idea of selling off the hotel for units after they lost the VCGR much for community spirit..maybe he was in it for the $$$$$$$ after all?
Of course he was.