In a recent government meeting, community members expressed strong opposition to a proposed extended stay hotel, citing concerns over zoning regulations and the potential negative impact on their neighborhood. One resident passionately argued that the hotel, which would allow stays longer than 30 days, would classify guests as tenants, thus requiring a change in zoning from commercial to multifamily. This shift, they argued, would necessitate eviction processes and could lead to further complications for the community.

Residents highlighted a lack of essential services in the area, noting that the nearest store is a restaurant and a gas station, which raises concerns about accessibility for those without vehicles. The speaker criticized the local government for what they perceived as a lack of transparency and accountability, claiming that the community is being misled and that their quality of life is at stake.

Another resident, Harriet Castle, urged the council to postpone any decisions regarding the hotel until an easement agreement is finalized, which has reportedly been pending for over six months. She emphasized the importance of public review of the easement and raised alarms about the financial and legal troubles of one of the hotel owners, who faces serious criminal charges in another state.

Castle also pointed out that a performance bond related to the project remains unpaid, raising further concerns about the developers' commitment to maintaining the property. She called for the council to prioritize community interests over developer requests, urging them to take a more cautious approach before moving forward with the project.

The meeting underscored the tension between community members and local government officials, as residents seek to protect their neighborhood from what they view as detrimental developments.