As the tropical storm/hurricane Hannah approaches, it lends more urgency to the BHI Village beach project. All of us will be checking out the beach erosion from the coming storms. If you develop information, by all means comment. I will not review the proposal in this version of the post since it was in the last. (I accidentally deleted the whole blog in my ignorance of computer matters) and it is to be found on the Village website.
Peter Ravella continues to work with Village Council and all of us who have given input. The Council did well in selecting Mr. Ravella to develop this project. He is a lawyer who has worked as a congressional aide and in several state and nonprofit agencies having to do with beach development and preservation. He is committed to having a united community in this effort. The first 4 charrettes have demonstrated a marvellous coming together of all parties.
All of the beaches and related erosion/accretion problems are included. The 4 groins North of the Marina entrance, dredging of Bald Head Creek and hopefully placing an entrance bulkhead at the creek mouth. Left undone, but pledged to be solved soon is the jetty extension at the marina entrance. Eric Olsen's report placed this as a high priority and stated this could be done with a rock structure which could curve to the South. This should alleviate the frequent shoaling of the entrance. and contribute to stability on West beach.
The cost of the added projects are minor compared to the overall effort. The Engineered Beach is now estimated at 16 million plus and the added projects bring it up to an estimated 17.5 million. The costs are to be amortised over 5 years. Web casts of the charrettes and details may be found on the Bald Head Village website.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 comments:
Please note that the appraised value of my duplex on South Beach already reflects its waterfront location. If my property were inland, its appraised value would be much, much less. So you really are taxing me four times as much if you charge two times the tax rate on a property that is at least twice the value of a similar one inland. I want to pay my share but feel that a flat rate is more equitable.
Also, most of the owners on South Beach are part-timers; my place is not suitable for full-time residence. It is not always convenient to attend the meetings. I suspect that waterfront property owners are under-represented at the meetings.
Thanks for your consideration of these matters.
Sara Fruechtenicht
803A Killegray Ridge
Peolpe who own beach front property should pay 4 times the amount in that they get 4 times the benfit. Their properties are worth more and they get the beach at their front doorstep. As an inland owner I do't want to subsidize their investment. They knew what they were buying.
I wasn't prepared to speak at yesterday's meeting but, as an ocean-front property owner, I felt compelled to do so. I think the thing that struck me as most curious was the assumption that there is a "public" interest and a "private" interest regarding the re-nourishment project. I remain dismayed as to how this notion took hold from the onset, but it's certainly firmly held...(as the previous writer will attest). Perhaps I wouldn't be troubled by this notion of public vs. private if it didn't defy logic; but I believe it does, and here's why...
Start with the term "benefit." This term was used in PARC's meeting to discern or measure the positive financial impact the re-nourishment would have on a particular property, based on its proximity to the ocean. A few of the noted "benefits" were: higher rental income, property protection, property values and enjoyment of use. I don't deny the value nor the validity of any of these "benefits"...but I have a great deal of difficulty understanding how something purchased evolves into a "benefit." The aforementioned writer states that:
"Peolpe who own beach front property should pay 4 times the amount in that they get 4 times the benfit. Their properties are worth more and they get the beach at their front doorstep."
Personally, I take great offense to the notion that we GET the beach at our doorstep. We paid a premium for that doorstep ...not only at the date of purchase, but with higher taxation, higher insurance premiums, higher risk and twice the maintenance costs. Of course, our properties are worth more because of their proximity to the ocean...but you cannot logically, nor do I believe responsibly, extract those incurred costs associated with the "benefit" of our location. To do so would be analogous to saying: "Your house has a metal roof, therefore you have the benefit of not replacing shingles." It's a shallow observation, but more importantly...it's a flawed one.
Even more disconcerting than this "benefit" misnomer, is the notion that we're not all in this together... That somehow, having a nice beach contributes more to some than to others. The undeniable truth is: Bald Head is attractive to tourists and residents alike not because of its beach or its forest or its natural seclusion, but rather its encompassing beauty, charm and tranquility. That's why I was dismayed to see the eagerness with which owners took to reject this truth and the voracity with which they sought to single out (and disown) one of the island's many attributes. The sheer magnitude and expense of the beach project, in and of itself, should be indicative of its pertinence to the island as a whole. And yet the rush to disavow its value could not have been more evident. Why this divisiveness? Was the culling of deer financed in a tiered manner? No...It was deemed a necessary action for the sake of the island. Not for the sake of the forest, and certainly not for the sake of the beaches...but for the entire island. Granted, there's no cost comparison between a $17M re-nourishment project and the culling of deer...(perhaps that's the problem) but in both (and all) scenarios...concern should be for the entire community.
I'm certainly no public speaker, but I did make a point yesterday that I believe may have been tacitly acknowledge as relevant. I offered the hypothetical suggestion that if a live-oak destroying beetle were to ravage the forest (at a considerable expense to eradicate, deforest and replant)...would the appropriate course of action include a tiered assessment for said expenses? Who could logically come to that conclusion... and how could they muster the nerve to voice such a stance, much less defend it?
Ron Hesmer
813 Killegray
I urge you to read Robert E. Morrison’s cogent article “Beachfront Bailout?” in the January 2009 issue of the Island Report and consider taking a stand AGAINST the Integrated Shoreline Project. I defer to scientists who have spent a lifetime researching beach erosion, scientists like North Carolina’s own expert on the geology of barrier islands and beaches, Orrin H. Pilkey.** A "united community" advocating a scientifically-flawed project is a waste of resources anytime but especially in the current financial climate.
Ed Samulski
Timbercreek-7A
** In 2008 Pilkey received a Lifetime Achievement Award from the North Carolina Coastal Federation (NCCF).
Orrin H. Pilkey, James B. Duke professor emeritus at Duke University's Nicholas School of the Environment, says ‘beach re-nourishment projects waste millions of your tax dollars every year and amount to taxpayer-supported welfare for rich beachfront property owners.’ In announcing Pilkey’s award, the NCCF called him, “the man who saved our beaches.” They noted that his tireless, science-driven advocacy has been a key factor in persuading the N.C. General Assembly to enact two piece of landmark environmental legislation: The Coastal Area Management Act of 1974, which designated North Carolina’s beaches and estuarine shorelines as protected areas; and new state rules in 1985 prohibiting seawalls, jetties and groins along the oceanfront.
Excerpted from: http://www.nicholas.duke.edu/news/ns-pilkeyaward.html
I believe that beach re-nourishment is an embarrassingly expensive, unsatisfactory non-solution to a normal environmental event. Another good piece of reading is Cornelia Dean's book Against The Tide: The Battle for America's Beaches, published by Columbia University Press in 1999. My observation on the BHI beaches' health is that they are getting sicker, not healthier, despite the money and effort we have poured into them.
I was also impressed by Mr. Morrison's article in The Bald Head Association Island Report; I found his ideas refreshing and intriguing. Spending money for a natural, more permanent solution might justify a beachfront bailout. I'd love to see us consider options other than re-nourishment and placement of groins.
I apologize for not having been involved earlier in the process and for delivering my comments at what must seem like the last hour.
As a brief addendum to my previous blog...Please note that as an oceanfront property owner, I am neither for, nor against, beach re-nourishment. Frankly, I consider myself ill-informed to take a stance on the issue. (The recommended reading is appreciated.) Rather, the intended point of my previous blog was to highlight the irrational approach funding the project.
Post a Comment