Beach battle heating up
Wild Dunes renourishment plan steeped in controversy
Wild Dunes renourishment plan steeped in controversy
ISLE OF PALMS — Many residents say the us-versus-them tension between Wild Dunes residents and the rest of the city were put to rest years ago, but some fear the multimillion-dollar controversy over beach renourishment is dredging up those old feelings.
As the Atlantic Ocean continues to threaten pricey beachfront real estate in the gated Wild Dunes community, and the debate rages over who should help foot the bill for efforts to stop the erosion, City Council took its first step Tuesday toward finding a solution that might be palatable to both sides.
Council voted to start the permitting process for an offshore-dredging project that would replenish the disappearing sand.
City Administrator Linda Lovvorn Tucker estimated that the permit would cost anywhere from $300,000 to $500,000 dollars.
Wade Spees
The Post and Courier
The Isle of Palms Town Council addressed its long-range beach management plan in a meeting on Tuesday night. This aerial view shows the Isle of Palms and its beach, looking north, on Monday. Wild Dunes is visible at the top right. The Breach Inlet bridge (lower left) and the Isle of Palms Connector (left) connect the island to Sullivan's Island and to Mount Pleasant.
Offshore dredging is expected to cost hundreds of thousands more and Wild Dunes residents cannot bear the cost alone.
Island resident Bev Ballow said many people on the island wouldn't be happy with a decision that included funding from Isle of Palms tax revenues.
"It would be happening over a lot of dead bodies as long as current regulations require there to be public access for public money and Wild Dunes refuses to allow general public access," Ballow said.
Wild Dunes resident John Herron said people farthest from the Wild Dunes beach may feel they should pay nothing.
"I think they are wrong," Herron said.
The resort community of Wild Dunes draws tourism and the whole city benefits from that, he said.
"We've needed this kind of commitment from the city for a long time," he said.
A committee of residents, state and city officials have met for the past six months to develop a long-term beach management plan that would guide the city through the island's anticipated erosion episodes. The beach at both Dewees and Breach inlets are the most susceptible to natural erosion cycles. Currently Wild Dunes suffers from the worst erosion.
A consultant, Chris Jones, a coastal engineer, who presented the committee's plan and his recommendations Tuesday, said working out a funding formula for beach renourishment would be the contentious issue.
"People don't want to pay for someone else's problem," Jones said.
Jones said Isle of Palms has a unique erosion problem in that offshore shoals come in, causing short-term erosion until they attach to the main beach, bringing more sand to the barrier island.
Jones recommended that the city keep permits ready to go to manage future shoals because they can't predict where the next will occur.
Currently, the city is awaiting approval of its local beach-management plan that would make public areas of the island eligible for state beach renourishment funding. But Jones said the city should also look at how they use accommodation tax revenues generated by Wild Dunes. Jones said at least some of that money should be reinvested in that area, if there is no change in public access.
If the city decides to spend more money, that increase should be tied to increased access to the beach, Jones said.
"I know that's a tough one to swallow on this island and that is the nut of the problem that we have," Jones said.
Though the Long-Term Beach Management Plan was meant to center on future erosion, the committee discussed problems at Wild Dunes in detail. Jones said that if the offshore dredging-permit process began now, it would be at least one year before sand could be pumped to the beach.
Large sandbags that have been protecting some oceanfront property must be removed by Nov. 30, or property owners will face fines from the Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management.
Mayor Mike Sottile said he hoped the state would look at Tuesday's actions in a positive light and reconsider the deadline.
"We are all in this together, we are all one community regardless of where we live," he said. "This is a city problem, not just a Wild Dunes problem."
Isle of Palms erosion problem
-- The location of many oceanfront buildings at the east end of the island is poor and erosion there was foreseeable.
-- Reliance on the state's 40-year setback line for development along the eastern unstabilized inlet erosion zone does not protect buildings from erosion.
-- Current oceanfront property owners did not cause the erosion problems.
-- Emergency sandbagging is a temporary way to provide limited protection to buildings threatened by erosion.
-- All beach management alternatives impose costs on oceanfront property owners and the community at large.
-- The lack of public beach access at Wild Dunes is likely to be the greatest impediment to Isle of Palms residents agreeing to spend city money on beach renourishment.
-- Under current state law, the lack of public beach access at Wild Dunes prohibits spending state beach renourishment funds there.
-- The likelihood of receiving federal beach renourishment funds for the east end of the island is believed to be remote, and attempts to do so will be time-consuming and costly.
-- Doing nothing could result in buildings collapsing onto the beach, and a variety of associated problems.
-- Attempts to forcibly remove buildings that encroach onto the beach would likely be tied up in court for years.
-- Continued erosion along the eastern end of the island could lead to reduced property values, reduced property taxes, reduced rental income, and reduced accommodations-tax revenues.
-- Source: Isle of Palms' Long-Term Beach Management Plan
Reach Jessica Johnson at 937-5921 or jjohnson@postandcourier.com.
E-mail this story 
Printer-friendly version
Notice about comments:
The Post and Courier is pleased to offer readers the ability to comment on stories. We expect our readers to engage in lively, yet civil discourse. The Post and Courier does not edit user submitted statements and we cannot promise that readers will not occasionally find offensive or inaccurate comments posted in the comments area. Responsibility for the statements posted lies with the person submitting the comment, not postandcourier.com. If you find a comment that is objectionable, please click "suggest removal" and we will review it for possible removal. Please be reminded, however, that in accordance with our Terms of Use and federal law, we are under no obligation to remove any third party comments posted on our Web site.
Full terms and conditions can be read here.
Comments
This article has 85 comment(s)
Posted by yeahright on November 14, 2007 at 1:01 a.m. (Suggest removal)
It's not us vs. them. It's them vs. Mother Nature. And they're going to lose, regardless of how many tax dollars they throw at her.
Posted by bluecap on November 14, 2007 at 3:35 a.m. (Suggest removal)
This is the outgrowth of a problem that began a generation ago when a certain family/developer first took beach access from long time owners then developed the purloined property and Wild Dunes.
The Beach Co. bears the primary responsibility and should bear the primary accountability.
Posted by overthepond on November 14, 2007 at 4:05 a.m. (Suggest removal)
As a child we used to be able to go camping, fishing and swimming where Wild Dunes is now. When they closed the camp ground I was deeply saddened. When they put up the gates, I was "ticked". Open the gates, and make it all part of Isle of Palms. Erosion is a never ending development. Messing with it usually messes up something else, somewhere else. Take a look at Hunting Island. Have you ever heard where that lighthouse used to be?
Posted by sjmehlhose on November 14, 2007 at 5:21 a.m. (Suggest removal)
The owners of these properties should be the ones to foot the ENTIRE cost. They were foolish enough to build there. The government at first wasn't going to let them build there until they filed a lawsuit. They made their bed, now sleep in it!
Posted by poorboy on November 14, 2007 at 6:08 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Bluecap I agree the developer should bear some responsibility but they won't. The IOP and the state of SC knew back when they approved and permitted the Wild Dunes project exactly where they were building and that it would be a private gated communtity. Therefore they too have some responsibility and should pony up. Don't try and change the rules now in the middle of the game. I bet you IOP'ers will be singing a different tune when those million dollar homes start falling into the sea and YOUR property values start to wain! You allowed it now fix it!
Posted by sjmehlhose on November 14, 2007 at 7:06 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Let them fall into the ocean!!! So what!!! It's not the communities responsibility to bail out these rich cry babies. They were told not to build there because of this!!! If they want us to bail them out, then make the beach and all other community ameneties open to the public.
Posted by theronce on November 14, 2007 at 7:31 a.m. (Suggest removal)
This is not new. The ocean has been eroding local beaches at least 50 years that I personally know. You knowingly built a house on an eroding beach...and now you want me to pay to keep up your front yard?!?! You must be nuts. I will always have a front beach to visit, and I do not care whether that front beach is in front of your house or 4 blocks behind where your house once stood. South Carolinians need to wise up and stop this renourishment nonsense. We can no more hold back the sea than could what's-his-name (Canute?)?
Posted by skeeter on November 14, 2007 at 7:38 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Ezcuse me, I don't mean to impose but I am the Ocesn.
Posted by karmann on November 14, 2007 at 8:07 a.m. (Suggest removal)
If Wild Dunes gated community brings in so many tourism dollars, then compute a percentage of the tourism dollars and use that for re-nurishment. When a house is built on sand, one has to expect the sand to not be a firm foundation. Risk has to be assumed by the buyer when making such a purchase and not shouldered by those who choose a firmer foundation on which to build. If everyone is going to be held responsible for poor construction decisions, then Colony North needs to share in that financial pie with many of the houses having foundation cracks due to the poor soil quality to build on. I am sure we can find many other examples where homes should not have been built due to foundation problems. Are we to then solve all these problems with tax dollars.
Posted by desspec on November 14, 2007 at 8:28 a.m. (Suggest removal)
"Private gated community" ought to maintained by private gated dollars.
Posted by whatelseisthere on November 14, 2007 at 8:30 a.m. (Suggest removal)
So far, it seams we are all in agreement. Buyer beware! However, anyone who bought condos at Wild Dunes had to have either been misinformed or just plain dumb. Now there's an idea....sue the realtors who sold it to them. There should be some lawyers circling offshore.
Posted by Nosynora on November 14, 2007 at 8:32 a.m. (Suggest removal)
You can't fight Mother Nature. Those houses should never have been built in the first place. Anything you build on a barrier island should be of a value that you can afford to lose. How many of the Wild Dunes residents are native to the area and know how erosion works? If erosion doesn't get them, the next megahurricane or global warming shall.
Posted by devster on November 14, 2007 at 8:37 a.m. (Suggest removal)
While this is unfortunate, I would always buy a beach house one row back, so that I will have beach front property in a few years.
I really think that the owners knew what they were risking; how can you not?
Posted by rascaljr on November 14, 2007 at 8:37 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Hey, I bought this property, and you can't look at it, build me a fence, NOW!
Posted by greyrider on November 14, 2007 at 8:53 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I love the beach, but I wouldn't live there if you handed me the house. Can you say "storm surge"? But seriously, they're building too close to the beach. Erosion is going to happen. If the houses were 1000 feet from high tide, would we even be discussing this?
Posted by eyfigueroa on November 14, 2007 at 8:56 a.m. (Suggest removal)
i'm in agreement with most of you on this board. but i can tell you EXACTLY what's goin to happen. wild dunes residents are going to cry foul. claim that those who don't live there are guilty of wealth/class envy. and some of you on the board have confirmed that.
but truly this is an issue of private entities wanting public funds solve a foreseeable problem. if tourism on wild dunes is so exceptional, why haven't funds been set aside for an issue such as this? the residents pay exorbitant regime fees why hasn't some of that been set aside by the HOA?
i tell you why! they know that local governments pander to those with deep 'political contribution' pockets.
i don't envy the wealthy. wealthy people stay wealthy because they continue doing what got them wealthy to begin with. just as poor people stay poor by continuing to do what made them poor.
for the most part wealth and poverty are the results of the decisions made by individuals. i get that.
just as i don't want to subsidize 'welfare' i don't want to subsidize beach renourishment for an area that i'm not even allowed to freely enjoy.
Posted by sandy on November 14, 2007 at 9:01 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Sounds like those outside the gates would like for everyone to pay their own way for everything. Not a bad idea- let's see Wild Dunes could save alot by only paying for the students it sends to schools not a big school tax, upgrade their security force and stop paying the police, contract for fire service with Mt. Pleasant and stop paying for IOP fire service, collect and keep their own taxes and stop paying for IOP roads, parks, administration. and public works etc. Frankly That's not a bad idea for income taxes too. I think you are on to something pay for services you use and don't have any taxes just buy the services you want as individuals. Pay your own way-works for me and will save most Wild Duners a whole lot of money for things they never use and then the money will be there for the projects they want to support. Let's go with it.
Posted by sjmehlhose on November 14, 2007 at 9:14 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Hey, I need a new roof and carpet for my house. If the government pays to replenish a PRIVATE beach, then I think that the government also has a responsibility to pay for my new roof, carpet, and oh by the way, can they buy me a big screen TV too?
Paying for their private beach is just as ludicrous.
As far as I'm concerned, their overpriced condo's can just quietly slip into the sea. . .
Posted by afternoondelight on November 14, 2007 at 9:22 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Hey!! People who live in Wild Dunes pay taxes too. Arn't they entitled to a little help.
Posted by Two_Sheds on November 14, 2007 at 9:30 a.m. (Suggest removal)
All I can think of is that Sunday School song I used to sing..."The foolish man built his house upon the sand, the foolish man built his house upon the sand.....and the walls came tumbling down!"
Posted by rascaljr on November 14, 2007 at 9:30 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Bottom line is, everybody's got a coin in the hat with their own best interests on it. All that matters is who reaches in the hat.
Posted by sjmehlhose on November 14, 2007 at 9:43 a.m. (Suggest removal)
afternoondelight:
Hey, I pay taxes too. If they pay for a private beach, then I'm entitled for a little government help in paying for my roof!
Posted by Fire_Inspector on November 14, 2007 at 9:45 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Wild Dunes is EITHER open to the public or private.
Private property rights nuts are the first to scream when they can't build whatever they want whereever they want. And then they cry when it gets washed away.
To heck with them. IOP should tell Wild Dunes open the gates FOREVER or pay your own way...
Posted by locallady on November 14, 2007 at 9:46 a.m. (Suggest removal)
It is important for Isle of Palms residents to realize that people who live in Wild Dunes are still residents of the Isle of Palms.
Posted by whatelseisthere on November 14, 2007 at 10:03 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Technically $peaking...isn't the beach public, but the acce$$ private? $o you could walk or ride on the beach to get there, or take a boat for that matter. That may be their arguement for renouri$hment. But it'$ a croc. They will get the $and on our tax dollar$. It's WHO you know in thi$ $and equation.
Posted by oldglory on November 14, 2007 at 10:38 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Would someone post what year the first Wild Dune resident moved into that community, please? I'd like to know how many years it has taken for this erosion problem/threat to encroach on these residents.
Sounds as though Wild Dune residents foolishly denied public access to the beach, a deliberate show of 'who has' and 'who can't have'.
'Tax adjustments' to benefit those who don't need it makes the recent real estate tax reduction that appears to benefit a selected group more than a bit suspicious.
I am appalled at how wealth is 'kept' when it comes to doing the 'right thing'. What right thing? Why the 'right thing' that benefits 'he who has it', of course--and let the devil take the hindmost! I guess the devil is us--the poorer ones.
Posted by devster on November 14, 2007 at 10:43 a.m. (Suggest removal)
The wealth envy does get a little apparent on here sometimes. I would love to have their problems!
Posted by dawhetsell on November 14, 2007 at 11:01 a.m. (Suggest removal)
My Grandparents had a beach house in 1929. It was 3 streets back from front beach. When I was a boy in the 1950's we were on front beach. In 1959 Huricane Gracie took the house away. The point is these people who build where mother nature tells you not to build will have to pay the price and no one else should.History keeps repeating itself because of these people not reading and understanding history.
Posted by MsBehavin on November 14, 2007 at 11:01 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Oldglory - I think some of the first homes in Wild Dunes were built 1980'ish. I know for a fact that by 1985, most of the beachfront condos and homes were standing. Ocean Club condos were built 1986-1987'ish.
Posted by glevans on November 14, 2007 at 11:09 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Ok mother nature built the sandy land that they are sitting on and now she wants it back...too bad. Go cry to your over priced insurance company about it...don't take tax money to replenish the sands around over priced homes that block public access to what used to be free beaches. It is nearly impossible to get to an actual sandy beach area anymore because of all the fancy homes and condos that have popped up along the shore line. You can rebuild the sand all you want but if mother nature wants it back she is going to take it.
Posted by misfit on November 14, 2007 at 11:21 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Anytime I defend public schools, I am called a socialist. How is using state/federal money to renourish the beach at Wild Dunes not socialism? It is a handout isn't it?
Our society as a whole benefits from educating my children. Who benefits from renourishing the beach at Wild Dunes? - One group of people who took a risk and got burned. When I take a risk and get burned, who pays for it? Me. And if I go on welfare for a while, it is called socialism, right? As I hear in SC all the time, if you keep giving them handouts, they'll never change.
One thing about politics. The government will always spend more than you want them to. The decisions to be made are: who will pay, and who will benefit.
Posted by Hey_U_Guys on November 14, 2007 at 11:25 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I watched this story on the Weather Channel the other night. They were at IOP on night and Myrtle Beach the next. It was reported that over 8,000 sandbags were in place on the IOP beaches. They also reported that the town was going to make it mandatory for the sandbags to be removed, due to the quickening erosion they have caused. It was also said that they will not allow sea walls to be built, ever. That they are a bad idea and worsen erosive conditions. What IS going to be done to help these people? It seems like nothing at all. I would suggest selling your homes and moving. It beats the alternative, losing your home to the ocean in a few years.
Posted by DCartisan on November 14, 2007 at 11:27 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Poor people have "government welfare." Rich people have "government welfare." Those of is in the middle always get screwed. Gotta love America!
Posted by Hey_U_Guys on November 14, 2007 at 11:42 a.m. (Suggest removal)
OLDGLORY:
Courtesy of http://www.wilddunes.com/charleston-reso...
"After World War II, local developer J.C. Long built low-cost housing on the island. Veterans and their families moved in. Many remain.
Wild Dunes Resort’s development began in 1972, when Finch Properties purchased the site and sold the land to Sea Pines Company. They established the Isle of Palms Beach and Racquet Club – a tennis resort on 1,600 acres of land at the northeast end of the island."
Posted by Oceanlover on November 14, 2007 at 11:53 a.m. (Suggest removal)
When they open their gates and give the public access, maybe we can talk about helping pay for their sand. Until then, let the owners figure it out - and let them pay to get it from a non-environmentally damaging source. Utterly ridiculous we're even having this discussion. If IOP or Charleston County moves to help these folks with local or state taxpayer dollars they're going to be thrown out of office faster than you can say "itwasastupiddecisiontobuildyourcastleonthesand"
And to the person who wrote:
"It is important for Isle of Palms residents to realize that people who live in Wild Dunes are still residents of the Isle of Palms." Maybe I'll have a little more sympathy for you when Wild Dunes'ers start acting like residents of the Isle of Palms. Oh wait, most of them can't do that - because better than 90 percent of the owners at the Seascape for example, DON'T EVEN LIVE THERE!! These properties are investments and second homes. Boo Hoo.
Posted by JC on November 14, 2007 at 12:13 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I thnink its all been said. I hope IOP City Council takes note as your reelection will depend on it!
Posted by whatelseisthere on November 14, 2007 at 12:13 p.m. (Suggest removal)
$how me the money. The WD crowd ha$ it which equal$ political power (which in thi$ instance) equal$ $AND and lot$ of it. They aren't fixing poor area$. Money talk$.
Posted by notrich on November 14, 2007 at 12:41 p.m. (Suggest removal)
OK all of you people who say " let them fall into the sea" or "if you are stupid enough to build that close to the ocean...", where is your indignation for the extremely "stupid" people who live in the ninth ward in New Orleans!!! They built their house in an area BELOW sea level - NEXT TO A HUGE LAKE!! Where is the indignation?? Why don't we hear you complaining about the Billions of our dollars thrown at that debacle. You are all just a bunch of whining hypocrits!! Actually you could apply the previous statements to the entire coastal populations of Florida, Mississippi, Alabama, Lousiana and Texas. I won't even get into the Outer Banks.
Posted by capnphil on November 14, 2007 at 12:54 p.m. (Suggest removal)
You have cause and effect. You build the house on the beach or buy one there, in the V zone...YOU ASSUME THE RISK of erosion, not me. YOU PAY THE INSURANCE, BUT NOT THROUGH MY FEDERAL TAX DOLLARS...Barrier Islands by their very definition serve to protect the mainland from erosion. ANY FIFTH GRADER STUDENT knows that...I guess you all would lose that game eh?
Don't build on the beaches, the marshes such sweetness, you'll regret all your losses as the storm surge tosses, all your possessions won't mean a thing with a wall of storm water fifteen feet or taller, crashing on your rooves, swelling up your homes, God don't you hope you'll still have your bones.
Posted by Hey_U_Guys on November 14, 2007 at 12:56 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Not ALL of us are complaining. So there for: not all of us are hypocrits.
Posted by notrich on November 14, 2007 at 1:12 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Hey - Hey_U_Guys. I was directing my diatribe ONLY at those who don't think we should have some help. Not all WD homeowners are rich. I bought mine long before the prices escalated. Right now, I would be lucky to sell it for enough to cover the mortgage. I apologize if I offended you.
Posted by devster on November 14, 2007 at 1:17 p.m. (Suggest removal)
re: notrich
I think building or buying a house in the ninth ward is/was ridiculous too. I don't think they should be rebuilt.
The argument could also be made that the residents didn't know any better or could not afford any better. I blame the idiots that built there in the first place.
Posted by devster on November 14, 2007 at 1:38 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Or allow me to say the idiots that APPROVED the construction --
Posted by scgirl123 on November 14, 2007 at 1:39 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I see so many people saying that it is there fault they shouldn't have built so close, but what about all the public buildings that are close to the water. I know out at Folly where the Holiday Inn is located the water at high tide comes all the way to the wall of the hotel. There is no beach to walk on. It use to not be that way. There is erosion on every beach all the way around the U.S. Here's an idea, public or private quit giving out permits to allow such close building to the water, because eventually it's going to catch up to you. You don't have to live right on top of the ocean to enjoy it, but you do have to respect it, because no matter what it's bigger than you and will always remain here long after your gone.
Posted by realscientist on November 14, 2007 at 1:43 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Wow, some of you wake up nasty. How about people who build/live in earthquake-prone areas, like the rest of the Lowcountry? Should we all move to Iowa? Uh, no, they have tornadoes. California? Oops, wildfires and quakes. Montana? Forest fires and the Yellowstone Bulge ready to pop. New England? Nope, snow and Kennedys. Missouri? Nope, New Madrid fault zone. Dakotas? Really bad weather. Hawaii? Vocanoes. Washington State? Rain and volcanoes; did I mention rain?
Chew on this: the IOP gets 73% of its revenues from Wild Dunes. Even the town council understands that money talks . . .
Posted by eyfigueroa on November 14, 2007 at 1:53 p.m. (Suggest removal)
realscientist: regardless of where you live in this country, some type of natural disaster can befall you. the point is private entities shouldn't look to the municipality to bail them out. and i mean that for EVERYONE. I pay my homeowners insurance so if anything was to happen i would be covered. if you choose to live in an area that is absolutely prone to natural disasters then take it upon your self to insure. no public use/access no public funds.
scgirl123: that holiday inn is a private venture. if anything was to happen to that structure then the corporation that built it should foot the bill.
Posted by yeahright on November 14, 2007 at 1:56 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Erosion is NOT a natural disaster. It's nature taking it's course. Sure, money talks. How about some common sense talking? There's not enough money in the world to stop barrier islands from eroding.
Posted by halfsheli on November 14, 2007 at 2:07 p.m. (Suggest removal)
The homes in the ninth ward flooded due to failures in the government owned, built, and maintained levees. These people are not wealthy beach-front landowners. I would say that many of the homeowners in the ninth ward have owned these homes for more than a generation. These are generally lower-class individuals who have lived in those neighborhoods for all of their lives. They have also -- in most cases -- been denied claims on their homeowners and/or flood insurance policies.
(By the way, flood insurance is typically optional and therefore most people did not have it -- they depended on those levees.)
They are asking for public funds to help the devastation of a public area.
I don't see the comparison between Wild Dunes, which still stands, and the Ninth Ward, which no longer really exists.
Posted by sjmehlhose on November 14, 2007 at 2:19 p.m. (Suggest removal)
scgirl123:
The building department DID try to stop them from building because of just such an occurance, but the developer sued them in court and won.
Posted by islanders on November 14, 2007 at 2:32 p.m. (Suggest removal)
This is something the IOP needs to sort out.
No public access means no public funds.
On the other public beaches I'm not convinced the renourishment is a bad idea. We don't spend much to maintain beaches, yet spend a lot more to maintain other natural access areas, such as natural parks, state parks, war sites, etc.
You could find a lot more wasteful public programs. I'll even speculate that taxpayers spend more for logging companies to access public parks.
By the way I don't live at a beach either.
I'm just thinking people who live near the coast shouldn't say no thanks give all our tax dollars to log some national park either.
I'm not saying this is a solution either, but to maintain the beach is much more reasonable than most of you claim.
just my 2 cents worth.
Posted by Oceanlover on November 14, 2007 at 2:37 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I would like to see the proof that IOP gets 73 percent of its revenue from Wild Dunes. And even if that were true, it sure as heck doesn't see the lion's share of that from the threatened buildings on the beachfront. Please provide proof for your 73 percent figure. If you want proof that the Seascape is owned almost entirely by out of towners, all you have to do is call the property manager.
Posted by yeahright on November 14, 2007 at 2:38 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I don't think it's reasonable at all to spend 14 million dollars to renourish Folly twice in the last 3 years and you still can't walk on the beach at high tide because EVERY BIT of the renourished sand has washed away already.
Posted by notrich on November 14, 2007 at 2:43 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Early - Federal assistance on my insurance!? I also have a home in Mt. P and my insurance went up about 20% this year and 30% last year. Also... my insurance bill & real estate taxes at WD are real close to $10,000 - and I'm in the 'low rent' district...so... I pay my fair share.
Your table is ready also!
Posted by scgirl123 on November 14, 2007 at 2:43 p.m. (Suggest removal)
eyfigueroa: I know that it is a private venture but the beach it sits on is not. I don't care about the buildings. I love the beaches.
sjmehlhose: There is a limit to the amount of building permits that can go out. After Hugo they seemed to up that amount just started throwing permits around.
Look I'm not trying to start an arguement with anyone. I just think that we "as a whole world" have been irresponsible with are beaches and waterway. Sand was not meant to be built on, nor was wetlands and swamps. The animals that live in these areas need there homes, and we are taking them away. That's why the are coming into ours.
I love SC and the Charleston area as a whole, but I hate living here because of the way people take forgranted the wonderful nature around them.(This statement not pointed at any one person, or meant to group everyone. I know there are people out there who try.)
Yes, no mater where you live you are at risk for a natural disaster, but erosion is not a natural disater. It's a natural part of the earth.
Posted by Ham on November 14, 2007 at 3:16 p.m. (Suggest removal)
When are they(those who bought on the beach front to have that 'pristine' view) going to realize you can't stop Mother Nature, and others shouldn't have to pay to have your property 'renourished'. It won't stay anyway. IT'S A WASTE OF MONEY! Look at what happened to Hunting Island. It's slowly being eaten away by the ocean and has been for years. Roads, campsites, and trees have washed away! In the real estate world, there is a phrase...'buyer beware'.
Posted by miki on November 14, 2007 at 3:17 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Erosion has been going on... FOREVER. It was there before, it will be here after. If you want to fight Mother Nature, pull out YOUR checkbook but stay the hell away from mine. I wasn't dumb enough to buy there and think I could control God.
Posted by DixieTiger on November 14, 2007 at 3:18 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I think many participants in this discussion have oversimplified the issue at hand. Once the words "private beach" are inserted many readers condemned the idea of using public funds for beach renourishment. But as tax payers, the residents of Wild Dunes are entitled to government help in the face of an eroding beach in order to protect their property. I can't believe how some of my fellow coastal residents would turn so quickly on government help for private property owners. Going on the logic of your argument I should fight against any government help, in the form of flood insurance or whatever, to you, a private property owner, after the next hurricane. The majority of readers today should rethink their position on "private" beach renourishment or maybe the government should get rid of flood insurance because it provides money to homeowners who were "foolish" enough to build on a flood plain. Remember what's good for the goose is good for the gander.
Posted by islanders on November 14, 2007 at 3:22 p.m. (Suggest removal)
The Jetties are blocking the sand drift to Folly Beach.
What about removing those?
This is an important beach not only for half the county but for tourism as well.
Most of the sand at Folly is there from the last renourishment.
The federal government is also raising flood insurance for anyone living near the coast.
We pay a lot of our tax dollars to maintain the roads up north from the cold, yet they don't want to kick in for the climate problems down here.
We also pay for the Mississippi River, and all kinds of dams, yet get nothing back.
Beach renourshment is a red herring the upstate and the north use against us in the big picture.
Posted by yeahright on November 14, 2007 at 3:28 p.m. (Suggest removal)
DixieTiger, I think it is you who is missing the point. Floods, hurricanes, tornadoes, earthquakes, etc. are devastating natural disasters that can randomly affect anyone in there path virtually anywhere in the world, but BARRIER ISLANDS NATURALLY ERODE OVER TIME!!! How many times does that have to be said? You can't stop it, it's not random, it doesn't happen in the blink of an eye. It has nothing to do with whether it's a private or public beach. It's going to erode over time. It CAN'T be stopped. Comparing this to hurricane damage and flood insurance is comparing apples to oranges.
Posted by yeahright on November 14, 2007 at 3:32 p.m. (Suggest removal)
"Most of the sand at Folly is there from the last renourishment"
This simply is not true. It all washed away during a 2 week Northeaster that coincided with a full moon during September. Ride out to Folly at high tide and have a look for yourself.
Posted by Ganthony101 on November 14, 2007 at 3:35 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Those residents who want private beaches, should pay to maintain thier beach. It is thier choice that the beach is private. If they do not want the public on thier beach, then the public should not pay. The State and County should issue a special tax on those residents to cover the total cost of beach renourishment for that community.
It is not a matter of us vs them. It is a simple matter, of private landowners who want to restrict public access to the beach in thier community. As such, the HOA or a special tax on those members of that community should cover the cost of the beach renourishment.
Why not have the public pay for the upkeep of my private pool?
Posted by eyfigueroa on November 14, 2007 at 3:41 p.m. (Suggest removal)
scgirl123: i see your point. developers are only able to build if the permits are awarded.
growth needs to be reigned in for all of our sakes. without added infrastructure all of this building only creates more of a burden on taxpayers.
Posted by DCartisan on November 14, 2007 at 4:01 p.m. (Suggest removal)
A question to those living on Wild Dunes. If you had to open your beaches to the public in order to receive money for renourishment, would you? If not, why?
Posted by Kerry on November 14, 2007 at 4:18 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I am more than surprised that these buildings and many others at Wild Dunes have not collapsed and fallen to pieces long before any were threatened by the ocean based on the shoddy workmanship and poor code enforcement prevelant during the period of their construction.
Posted by Oceanlover on November 14, 2007 at 4:57 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Yeahright - your points are well taken, but actually aside from the Washout, Folly still has a lot of sand from the last renourishment. The reason Folly gets renourished w/o much controversy is because the Corps is required to renourish there. The Charleston Harbor jetties - prevent the north to south migration of sand that would put sand on the island. Same thing's happening on Morris Island, but Morris doesn't have any residents and so it doesn't get renourished - and is allowed to disappear. The erosion on Folly or Morris is largely an Army Corps created problem -fed maintained navigation jetties. That's why the feds/Corps - and taxpayers - pay to pump new sand onto Folly and not IOP.
Posted by yeahright on November 14, 2007 at 5:13 p.m. (Suggest removal)
The washout was the only part of Folly that was renourished the last time. The Corps is required because they dynamited the entrance to the harbor in the 50s and Morris Island and Folly started eroding at a faster rate than they would have naturally, depositing on Kiawah. Now Kiawah is also eroding as evidenced by their own renourishment to protect the Ocean Course last spring, which is also almost completely gone. If I thought renourishment was anything other than a very temporary band aid, I'd be the last person posting negatively here. As it is, though, we're just throwing tax dollars into the ocean.
Posted by Oceanlover on November 14, 2007 at 5:37 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Yeahright- agreed. I'm just saying that when the Washout's renourishment drifted south, it made for a big old beach of ugly gray sand and sharp shells all the way to the pier. I agree that it's throwing tax dollars into the ocean. Next step though, is convincing insurers and gov't not to insure people on the beachfront - and somehow figuring a way to get their houses off the beachfront. Maybe instead of tax dollars for renourishment, we spend them to buy these morons out. Yeah Right.
Posted by yeahright on November 14, 2007 at 5:50 p.m. (Suggest removal)
BTW as a taxpayer who helped foot the bill to renourish Folly, I thought it was a slap in the face to now be required to feed parking meters to park on Folly. No showers, no bathrooms, what do they use this money for? Off subject, but had to vent!
Posted by devster on November 14, 2007 at 5:55 p.m. (Suggest removal)
yeahright: I have to refuse to go out to Folly Beach now because of the meters. My whole life I have gone there without paying to park and I was not about to start.
Posted by realscientist on November 14, 2007 at 5:59 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Early, do all of those people in other states live in public housing? Why then do they get Federal and state assistance for fires, floods, earthquakes, mudslides, volcanic eruptions, blizzard damage? They all live on private property, don't they? Next time you want to make a point, have a point first.
Oceanlover, just give the IOP a call and ask for the budget statistics. Those beachfront condos make up a significant share. And they ALL pay taxes to the tune of $3 million, total, for the 420 at-risk properties, and most of that is for the school portion, thereby subsidizing the rest of IOP.
Posted by DCartisan on November 14, 2007 at 6:07 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Once again...
To those living on Wild Dunes. If you had to open your beaches to the public in order to receive money for renourishment, would you? If not, why?
Posted by BeefNBeanBurrito on November 14, 2007 at 6:22 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Wild Dunes is PRIVATE. It is THEIR beach. It is THEIR problem. THEY are responsible for fixing it.
Posted by yeahright on November 14, 2007 at 6:45 p.m. (Suggest removal)
realscientist--You're still comparing unpredictable natural disasters to the slow, predictable natural sequence of events that is erosion, which takes place on all barrier islands. It's not a fair comparison.
Posted by Oceanlover on November 14, 2007 at 7:08 p.m. (Suggest removal)
realscientist, that's a crock. You're telling me that 423 units out of the thousands at WD somehow make up the lion's share of IOP's budget? No way. Even if they do generate significant tourism tax revenue - I guarantee their portion is much smaller than the rest of WD's that is either not beachfront or not threatened beachfront. And so what if they pay taxes? Everyone else who doesn't live in a gated community does too. Why don't you explain to us all what makes them any MORE entitled to have their share of those taxes go to beach sand for a PRIVATE beach? Nothing. Open your gates to the unwashed masses, then we'll talk. Til then come up with a genuine argument.
Posted by poorboy on November 14, 2007 at 8:29 p.m. (Suggest removal)
You know I agree with the majority here that it's not a taxpayer problem and you know you can't tame the ocean. BUT you people missed my point all together. There are many people to blame even before the first nail was hammered. Do you even know what the building process is in say Colony North (since that was mentioned) VS say Wild Dunes on a beach? There was all types of studies, engineering, permitting, by many local and federal government agencies. If you have never developed you haven't a clue. This development wasn't drawn up and developed over night so there is plenty of blame and the homeowner is NOT the primary responsible party. How did the development get approved anyway?
Posted by yeahright on November 14, 2007 at 8:55 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I agree with you that permits should never have been issued to build that close to the ocean. But what's the solution now that they've been built. A futile battle against mother nature that cannot be won? Throw tax dollars into the ocean because the state issued the permits in the first place? It's a bad situation for those involved, but I promise you the ocean won't lose this battle.
Posted by DCartisan on November 14, 2007 at 9:17 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Didn't someone mention the reason why houses were built there was because developers went to court & won the right to build? The state KNEW that it was unsafe to build there & would not allow it. The developer took them to court & won. In essence, the state had NO CHOICE but to grant building permits & the engineers were getting paid to design houses, contractors were paid to build. Money talks and if you're willing to pay, someone's willing to do the work. Unfortunately, you cannot pay off Mother Nature...
Posted by oldglory on November 15, 2007 at 8:42 a.m. (Suggest removal)
MsBehavin, Hey_U_Guys, et al: Thanks for your info. I think you all must have known I was just too lazy to research IOP!
scgirl123, yeahright: Your points are clear, and I agree that sand erosion is not a natural disaster.
I do wonder which officials backed issuing the building permits, obviously they didn't have a clue as to erosion--that takes brains.
Posted by marriott99 on November 15, 2007 at 9:23 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Within the next 30 years we'll be faced with the enormous logistical, legal and ethical problems associated with moving or demolishing multi-million dollar structures on IOP, Kiawah, and the other barrier islands as the sea levels rise and the oceans warm, promoting monster hurricances and storm surges. You'll see astonished owners begging for FEMA aid from jittery LIVE5 reporters, nervously eyeing the angry, rising sea behind them, as the waves lap against the pylons.
Sand bag controversy? 18th Hole gone? Private Beach?
HA HA HA
This is nothing, just wait.
Posted by IsleBeBack on November 15, 2007 at 8 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Folks, Hilton Head has figured this all out years ago. Just look South, no need to reinvent the wheel. Or have a hissy fit.
HHI funds a once every 5 or 6 year renourishment of 13 miles of beach by 2% of the local accommodations tax. This past year was the most recent, to the tune of... $16.6M.
Here's loads of detail on last years' effort:
http://www.hiltonheadislandsc.gov/Depts/...
Posted by yeahright on November 16, 2007 at 12:37 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Hilton Head doesn't get anywhere near the wave action (and therefore, erosion) Folly, Isle of Palms, Sullivans gets, and the coast line of these three combined is certainly much much more than 13 miles. Apples to oranges.
Posted by SCHokie on November 16, 2007 at 1:37 p.m. (Suggest removal)
if they pay taxes don't they deserve government assistance?
Posted by realscientist on November 16, 2007 at 9:27 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Why aren't some of you getting nasty and irrational on the Morris Island lighthouse thread? My goodness, it doesn't even pay taxes, but tax dollars are being used, and there's no public access. Worse, a "hard structure" is being bulit! The lighthouse should never have been built so close to the ocean!
Posted by combahee on December 1, 2007 at 5:08 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Hey realscientist it wasn't built near the ocean the jetties caused the erosion and beach erosion took the island. Secondly it isn't just another structure it is a historic landmark. There is public access you can boat to it! Finally the "hard structure" is there to stabilize the lighthouse, not to direct the sand. The "hard structure" rip rap can not cause environmental hazards or erosion to any other structure or beach. Not apples to apples.
Posted by researcher on December 5, 2007 at 7:36 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Combahee, Duh, lighthouses tend to be built near the ocean. Building one inland defeats its purpose. And riprap is a hard erosion control structure that does indeed cause problems elsewhere. There is less public access at the MI light than at Wild Dunes. It's dilapidated and nonfunctioning. It's not only apples to apples, it's Granny Smith to Granny Smith. Get an education.