Back in 1999, there was debate over what Wildwood should become. A bigger, better version of its authentically "tacky" self? Or something that aligns to the more "mainstream" tastes of other nearby communities? But as the 1990s turned into the 2000s, what they didn't see coming was - it would never be "their" choice. The decisions were about to be made by the "central planners" far, far away from Wildwood… that is, the ones who would print all the money, encourage all the bad loans to be made, inflate a real-estate bubble that grossly outpaced any economic fundamentals (and then bail everyone out when it all blew up) that would forever change not just Wildwood, but the entire American economy (and probably also, society at large).
.
In other words - while the original vision for revitalizing Wildwood and its working & middle-class tourism economy was in eschewing the idea of too much "central planning" (i.e. let the dreamers of a better tomorrow do it on their own terms at the local level) a different kind of "central planning" (as in, monetary central planning from a central bank at the federal level) ended up setting the course. The locals never even had a choice.
.
But in hindsight, it feels almost quaint to look back at a time (not so long ago?) when members of a local community might have actually had (or thought they had) the opportunity to choose their own future, or at least set the direction in which to steer it. Self-determination? Now that sounds like America to us. Central planning? Not so much. But if for nothing but nostalgia's sake, we can look back fondly at such a time, and perhaps with the hope of a better tomorrow (not so far in the future?) where the power is put back in the hands of the communities once again?
.
Excerpts from 1999 article in the New York Times:
.
"There are really two faces of Wildwood," Ms. Snyder said. "Part of the island wants to turn into something more mainstream. They were horrified when we suggested we wanted Wildwood to be more in the doo-wop style because they're aspiring to what they think is a higher taste. From what I've learned about the island's history and tourist economy, these people are dead wrong. The island's economic well-being extends from the boardwalk honky-tonk. It's not enough for Wildwood to be tacky. It has to become wonderfully tacky."
.
"What we're saying with this study is that Wildwood is 95 percent O.K. as it is -- just don't ruin it," he said. "Cape May was created along a very, very tight plan, and it's nice, it's cute, it's tasteful, but it doesn't have that kind of unplanned, pie-in-the-face fun that Wildwood has always had. The way to solve Wildwood's tourism problems is to encourage a crazy, wacky, non-conforming atmosphere where people can get the feeling that anything can happen. The worst thing that could happen to Wildwood would be to impose any kind of rigorous outside order on it."
.
Read full article in the New York Times from July 11, 1999:
How to Save Wildwood? Make It Even Wilder
https://www.nytimes.com/1999/07/11/nyregion/at-the-shore-how-to-save-wildwood-make-it-even-wilder.html