Hey everyone,
A few people have asked me why I've spent so much time focused on the Eldorado boardwalk dispute, given that the city has many other important issues to address. That's an entirely fair question, so I thought I'd clarify.
First off, there are definitely many important issues and this one is not my main focus. I'm also digging a lot into homelessness, crime, transit, and other topics. But the reason it may seem like a disproportionate focus on a small issue is that it's part of a larger question on my mind: what happens when private and public interests collide, and to what extent will the city stand up for the public?
For background, Argus Properties owns the Eldorado Hotel and Manteo Resort, and unilaterally installed locked gates on the boardwalk in front of their properties back in 2020. There is a public access agreement along the front of their property (I'll get to that), and at the time, the City told them to remove the gates and went so far as to cut the locks. But the gates remained and the locks were replaced, with Argus citing public health and safety concerns. This issue went to provincial court, then appealed, and both times the public access agreement was upheld. But instead of removing the gates, Argus kept them closed, then citing necessary repair work while also preventing workers access to do the repairs. They appear to want to essentially negotiate a new public access agreement before reopening, though it's unclear. Most recently, the City moved to expropriate a strip of land in front of The Eldorado, so the issue is once again in court.
That all said, in my digging I've found that the boardwalk actually appears to be entirely outside The Eldorado's property line, while the gates on the Manteo section are on an officially designated City "road". Further, the public access agreement upheld in court, which has been presumed to overlap the boardwalk, actually covers the adjacent land beneath their patio. So one of my biggest questions has been: why is this being treated as a complex legal battle when the reality of the case, to the best of my understanding, seems clear and simple? If a citizen were to install gates on the boardwalk in City Park, would it be treated differently?
To their credit, the City has been taking action over the years, but it hasn't exactly felt urgent. The Mayor mentioned in my interview that he has taken aggressive action by moving to expropriate land, but I'd note that it was Argus who called for an urgent meeting to settle the matter just 4 days after my first Instagram reel about the boardwalk went viral in June. Coincidence, perhaps.
There may be technical nuances that I haven't been able to uncover yet, but in talking to the city manager, the mayor, and other citizens and City staff, I've yet to hear a satisfactory explanation for why the gates can't simply be removed. The City has talked about wanting a long-term solution, but that seems separate from enforcing basic public access rights.
Meanwhile, the City has openly discussed wanting to negotiate a mutually agreeable solution. But it begs the question: what is Argus asking for, what negotiating leverage do they even have, and why are they being given such consideration?
Their specific demands were redacted from my FOI request, and given the new expropriation battle, the Mayor says he can't comment. But some demands that have turned up in other sources include reimbursement for past property tax, not allowing dogs or roller skates on the boardwalk, and the authority to limit open hours and close for special events. My best guess, given only the information at hand, is that The Eldorado would like to continue using the boardwalk as their patio indefinitely, and therefore wants formal control over public use. That's an understandable desire, but it doesn't make public space private simply because they'd like it to be.
One last note is that I've heard at least some gates have been unlocked and City workers have been allowed to begin repairs, though this hasn't been reported in any media, nor did the Mayor bring it up in my interview as a sign of success. So it would seem Argus' prior conversation with the Mayor resulted in some sort of progress, but I'll be very interested to find out what that progress looks like, and if the City has given Argus anything it doesn't actually need to. I think whatever agreements are made should be very transparent, and given the 6 years of hassle, should absolutely favor the public. If I'm right that The Eldorado wants a long-term patio on the public boardwalk, the public should receive something equally meaningful in return. It's no small privilege for a hotel to operate the only boardwalk patio in the city, and it shouldn't be granted quietly or freely.
So overall, I'm trying to understand if this is truly as complicated as it seems, or if the City may be giving special privilege to certain people. And while I do not mean this as an accusation of any wrongdoing, communication with the City and mayor has so far done nothing to ease my skepticism toward how this is being handled. It's no secret that social ties exist between City staff and the likes of Argus Properties, and there's nothing inherently wrong with that. But in my interview with the mayor, he made his position quite clear: he views Argus as an upstanding pillar of the community, citing their extensive property assets, and does not want to "disrespect" them. Neither do I. But I have to wonder if the City is truly helpless against the legal complications, or if they're navigating a course that's unnecessarily favorable to Argus.
What I'm simply seeking is clarity on whether anyone in the City gets special treatment from government because of wealth, influence, or informal social connections. I think this is much more important than one little stretch of boardwalk, because if we can't be 100% certain that the City will do what it must to defend public interest on such a highly visible and seemingly simple issue, how can we trust them in the many other high stakes deals we hear nothing about?
