Bring 'Em Back in Myrtle Beach

Sunday’s editorial finishes our election recommendations with the city of Myrtle Beach:

While we can remember a time not so long ago when divisive and fiery council meetings were common in Myrtle Beach, a new feeling of collegiality and gracious respect now pervades, where members smile at each other and offer their apprecation for the views of their colleagues. Don’t get us wrong; this warm fuzzy feeling doesn’t mean everybody always agrees or ignores concerns. As current council members are quick to point out, there have been a number of 4-3 votes recently on issues that members didn’t see eye to eye on. The current leadership has simply made a point of encouraging a place that fosters positive working relationships, and the three members up for re-election have been a part of this welcome change.

The incumbents in this year’s City Council race deserve another chance to serve their city. Talk to any of the three – Susan Grissom Means, Michael Chestnut and Phil Render – and you’ll soon notice their dedication and how much they just plain enjoy giving back to their hometown.

Chestnut and Means impressed our editorial board with their love for Myrtle Beach, their knowledge of the details of city government and their dedication to communication and working with others to improve the community. Render has been a strong voice for openness on the council and one of the loudest supporters of greater transparency. It’s also worth noting that all three current council members went out of their way to deflect credit to city staff, complimenting the hard-working individuals who keep the city running day to day, rather than take praise for themselves. In short, the city would be well served by all three once again.

The challengers in this election are a diverse bunch, from long-time residents taking their first foray into politics, to newcomers to town dissatisfied with what they’ve found. While we were impressed by some, ultimately none of them shone so much in our eyes as to merit displacing a current member.

If voters feel compelled to elect a fresh face to the council, we would recommend they take a look at political newcomer Joyce Barnes, who we felt showed a real affection for the town and would work for its best interests. Barnes also lives downtown and showed a keen interest in its future. Redeveloping the downtown area will continue to be a big issue in the next few years, and while current council members represent the entire town, there’s still something to be said for the knowledge of a specific area received when it’s where you lay down your head each night. If Barnes is not elected to council, we would urge her to put her energy to work on a city commission or panel that might help her build more experience in local government.

Among the other challengers, none stood out as notable challenges to the incumbents. Robert Palmer has had plenty of government experience from his previous time in New Jersey, but he offered us little else to recommend. David Bodle, a veteran tourism promoter in the area, asks insightful and important questions, but we worry that his communication approach may not be the right way to get those questions answered. Bill Howard, while knowledgeable about the city and its issues, turned us off with his dismissiveness for current city efforts and his aggressive self-promotion. Ann Coghlan worried us with her singularly negative attitude. Sharon Collar did not respond to our request for a conversation, so we cannot offer our impression of her merits.

While we certainly don’t agree with every decision by current city leaders, we have been impressed in recent years by their deep-seated dedication to the city they call home. As such, we would look forward to another few years of the same.

 

The incumbents in this year’s City Council race deserve another chance to serve their city. Talk to any of the three – Susan Grissom Means, Michael Chestnut and Phil Render – and you’ll soon notice their dedication and how much they just plain enjoy giving back to their hometown.

Chestnut and Means impressed our editorial board with their love for Myrtle Beach, their knowledge of the details of city government and their dedication to communication and working with others to improve the community. Render has been a strong voice for openness on the council and one of the loudest supporters of greater transparency. It’s also worth noting that all three current council members went out of their way to deflect credit to city staff, complimenting the hard-working individuals who keep the city running day to day, rather than take praise for themselves. In short, the city would be well served by all three once again.

The challengers in this election are a diverse bunch, from long-time residents taking their first foray into politics, to newcomers to town dissatisfied with what they’ve found. While we were impressed by some, ultimately none of them shone so much in our eyes as to merit displacing a current member.

If voters feel compelled to elect a fresh face to the council, we would recommend they take a look at political newcomer Joyce Barnes, who we felt showed a real affection for the town and would work for its best interests. Barnes also lives downtown and showed a keen interest in its future. Redeveloping the downtown area will continue to be a big issue in the next few years, and while current council members represent the entire town, there’s still something to be said for the knowledge of a specific area received when it’s where you lay down your head each night. If Barnes is not elected to council, we would urge her to put her energy to work on a city commission or panel that might help her build more experience in local government.

Among the other challengers, none stood out as notable challenges to the incumbents. Robert Palmer has had plenty of government experience from his previous time in New Jersey, but he offered us little else to recommend. David Bodle, a veteran tourism promoter in the area, asks insightful and important questions, but we worry that his communication approach may not be the right way to get those questions answered. Bill Howard, while knowledgeable about the city and its issues, turned us off with his dismissiveness for current city efforts and his aggressive self-promotion. Ann Coghlan worried us with her singularly negative attitude. Sharon Collar did not respond to our request for a conversation, so we cannot offer our impression of her merits.

While we certainly don’t agree with every decision by current city leaders, we have been impressed in recent years by their deep-seated dedication to the city they call home. As such, we would look forward to another few years of the same.