Sandbags remain as deadline looms
By Bo Petersen
The Post and Courier
Dozens of large sand bags are carried by truck and that will be placed in front of homes on Wild Dunes where severe erosion threatens the homes. All of the sand bags are supposed to be removed by Saturday.
ISLE OF PALMS — Midnight is zero hour at Wild Dunes — the deadline to remove thousands of sandbags from six condominium complexes and two other properties, the state says.
On Thursday, the bags hadn't budged, and trucks were still replacing damaged bags. The owners say they can't tear down the only thing left between their properties and the sea.
On Monday, S.C. Ocean and Coastal Resource Management officers will begin making checks of the bags to assess daily fines of $100 to $1,000 per owner, said Dan Burger, communications director. Any fines would be retroactive to Saturday. The law enforcement section "will be treating this as a routine enforcement matter," Burger said.
The deadline is the latest development in a high stakes tug-of-war between fearful home owners and regulators faced with what some call their biggest challenge in
20 years of the rules that restrict developing and protecting the beach front. The bags have become the line in the sand in a heated ongoing coastal battle over just what should be allowed on public beach to protect private property.
The owner's attorneys have said they will sue the state for $500 million, the value of properties that could be lost or condemned. As the deadline approached, they continued to try to negotiate a compromise to keep the bags longer.
High tides swamp the bags, scouring sand from underneath, washing over pools and under buildings in the gated resort community. The inlet beach is undergoing dramatic erosion in a periodic cycle of eroding and accreting.
"At this point, we're considering all the options available to our clients. If the bags were removed, it would be devastating," said Melinda Lucka, an attorney for most of the owners. Asked Thursday if some kind of agreement could be reached before Monday, she said in an even voice, "Ideally. That would be wonderful."
Owners and regulators have gone back and forth for six months over the use or removal of the sandbags. More than 100,000 small bags approved by OCRM as an emergency erosion stopgap earlier in the year shredded along the beach in storm tides and washed out to sea, outraging beachgoers and environmentalists.
Thousands of larger bags replaced them and have held together somewhat better. Owners want the permit extended on using those bags, saying there is no justification for not allowing these people to protect their properties because the bags aren't worsening erosion of the beach and the state has an obligation to show there is harm it's trying to prevent.
Controversy over the dilemma, and its costly long-term solution of offshore dredging, has roiled across the island and the Lowcountry. Meg Kivett, an Isle of Palms resident riding her bike along the beach on Thursday, said owners farther down the beach worry that the Wild Dunes effort will disrupt their accreting stretches.
"I've been here since 1993. I've seen big storms come in and take out globs of the beach. I don't know how effective (the sandbags) can be," she said. "It looks like a war zone."
The lawsuit would be a "takings" suit. The regulation that governs how sandbags can be used was weakened dramatically in the 1980s when the state was sued successfully by a Wild Dunes property owner who called its restriction on developing his lots an uncompensated "takings" of his property.
Today's deadline was set to give the owners time to develop a renourishment plan but prevent long-term damage to the beach by use of the sandbags, which exacerbate erosion around them, Burger said. They are allowed only as a temporary solution. The owners appealed a permit that would provide for sand to be trucked in for the beach as a stopgap, saying it's not enough.
The city of Isle of Palms this week applied for a permit for a large-scale renourishment project that would include Wild Dunes. Mayor Mike Sottile has said the application could make the difference in whether OCRM extends the sandbag permit. But it's uncertain whether the city has the money to go ahead.
"The situation at Wild Dunes has persisted for several years and there is no guarantee that the erosion cycle will correct itself or that sufficient funding will be available to conduct a large-scale renourishment project," Burger said.
Jessica Johnson contributed to this story. Reach Bo Petersen at 745-5852 or bpetersen@postandcourier.com.
E-mail this story
Printer-friendly versionComments
poorboy (anonymous) says...
"The situation at Wild Dunes has persisted for several years and there is no guarantee that the erosion cycle will correct itself or that sufficient funding will be available to conduct a large-scale renourishment project," Burger said.
SHOULD HAVE THOUGHT ABOUT THAT BEFORE YOU ALLOWED THEM TO BUILD THERE NOT NOW THAT SANDBAGS ARE THE ONLY THING HOLDING THIS TOGETHER!
November 30, 2007 at 5:15 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
MDW (anonymous) says...
I'd advise they start moving out. Uhauls don't haul well in water.
November 30, 2007 at 5:34 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
MDW (anonymous) says...
Geechie - The lawyers are way over-estimating. As soon as those properties were built there, the value wasn't worth a squat.
November 30, 2007 at 7:46 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
theronce (anonymous) says...
No one is responsible except the owner who chose to build on a temporary island. I do not owe them anything. Perhaps the state should allow them to keep the bags. Then shortly they can have their own island. Then also we start squabbling whether the taxpayers owe them a bridge to their property and the length of their docks.
November 30, 2007 at 7:48 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
oldglory (anonymous) says...
Sadly, this appears to be a no-win situation. Who do you think will pay for a $500,000 lawsuit against the state? Imagine the amount of legal work the state will have to perform in order to defend it's position.
How ignorant the builder and the purchasers of these beach homes! How dare they think that the average person should welcome a tax increase to support their ignorance!
My observation is that builders have free rein in a good ol' boy system, and it's just tragic. Maybe the state will third-party in the builders at least!
November 30, 2007 at 8:17 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
obrbob (anonymous) says...
You biult it, it's your responsbility to maintain it. I feel for them....I really do. I'd bet many of them sunk the majority of their dough into these things as investments, and now they will loose their shirts. But....if you mess with mother nature, you'll loose every time. Bet there are some real deals on rentals right now.
They should not be living in a privatly owned community and asking for state or federal help. You bought it, you own it. Don't ask for taxpayer dollars to bail you out.
I guess one way to look at it though is how much tax revenue is generated from the rentals in Wild Dunes? If they pay their share, then by all means, they should get help. BUt I'm guessing that won't offset the cost.
November 30, 2007 at 8:58 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
tigerrecord (anonymous) says...
I neither live on IOP or in WIld Dunes but feel the need, as a taxpayer, from a middle income bracket at that, to support these property owners.
Every day I get my pockets dredged in taxed dollars to support thousands of people with no jobs, no income, and no production. They drain the hard earned dollars of thousands of South Carolinians and Americans. However, when those who have provided not only IOP and South Carolina millions in tourism revenue (and the highest amount of income tax) have an actual, worthwhile issue we choose to snub our nose at them as though our government is going to spend the money on something more worthwhile.
Don't forget that in order to build a structure it must first be permited by the city, the county, or a regulatory board. All finger pointing should be shared as OUR government approved where these buildings could be constructed. No one can predict erosion cycles.
Not all of these condo's or beach front homes are occupied by the property owners. Many times they are beach rentals which provide significant income, not only to the primary owner, but to the surrounding areas. To think that visitors rarely leave the gates of Wild Dunes is foolish and ignorant at best. Where do you think IOP would be without the development of Wild Dunes?
Don't look at it as a middle class taxpayer pays into the rich. They have paid a significant amount of taxes as well, and many of us would agree this wouldn't be anymore of a waste of tax dollars than any other program we pay into everyday.
I would wonder the reaction if this problem persisted at the other end of the island where other incredibly rich people live on the same type of private property.
November 30, 2007 at 8:58 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
yeahright (anonymous) says...
tigerrecord-you make several good points, however, I'd argue that erosion is absolutely predictable on the shoreline of a barrier island. It's unfortunate that the gov't issued permits because of this very fact. At some point those issuing permits are going to have to recognize that it's irresponsible to continue to do so.
November 30, 2007 at 10:50 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
MDW (anonymous) says...
I do agree that the government is stupid when it comes to spending our money but this would be another stupid thing to spend it on.
November 30, 2007 at 10:59 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
sockface (anonymous) says...
Had these folks taken a bit of wisdom from Jesus...
24 "Therefore everyone who hears these words of mine and puts them into practice is like a wise man who built his house on the rock.
25 The rain came down, the streams rose, and the winds blew and beat against that house; yet it did not fall, because it had its foundation on the rock.
26 But everyone who hears these words of mine and does not put them into practice is like a foolish man who built his house on sand.
27 The rain came down, the streams rose, and the winds blew and beat against that house, and it fell with a great crash."
Matthew 7:24-27
November 30, 2007 at 11:39 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
marinelle1 (anonymous) says...
If the government had refused to issue building permits for these properties, the property owners would have sued to be able to obtain those permits. The only blame that needs to be placed rests on the shoulders of these property owners. They were not purchasing property on inland highground. The reason they were drawn to these lots were because they were ocean front. I don't believe we should not allow them to build where they would like to if they have the cash but don't whine about it and expect the government to correct the situation when Mother Nature decides to reclaim her barrier island.
November 30, 2007 at 11:41 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
MDW (anonymous) says...
Marinelle - The state did refuse to issue the permits because of this very problem. They were sued and the builders won. These people are being whiners again and again and again...
I would say "to heck with them" but it would be better said with the words "to the water with them."
November 30, 2007 at 11:49 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
theronce (anonymous) says...
Do they still own the property? Isn't public property something like 10 or 20 feet beyond the high tide mark?
November 30, 2007 at 12:19 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
dano (anonymous) says...
For Over 20 years I.O.P. and Wild Dunes have abused that area. Now they want tax payers to bail them out? It just shows their stupidity and self centered greed. I say let nature take it's course!
November 30, 2007 at 12:35 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
misfit (anonymous) says...
To those who think these rich people pay more in taxes: Actually, in SC, you don't have to make much to be in the highest tax bracket. And the people who make the most probably have so many shelters and loopholes that they pay almost nothing in income tax. Sorry, nothing to back this up, just my opinion. Lets just say most of us don't have tax accountants to minimize our burden.
And to those who think your all tax dollars go to people who don't work: I could be wrong again, but many of these people work, but still qualify for assistance.
And to those who say erosion cycles can't be predicted: You do not have to predict the cycle. I have lived here for a long time, and I have always heard about the erosion and beach renourishments around here. It should be no surprise to anyone that Wild Dunes would have an erosion problem.
I have a dead tree threatening to fall on my house. Will the government please come remove it for me? And there are termite colonies threatening to attack my house, will the government please come install a liquid barrier or a Sentricon system, before the termites eat my home? No. Because I built a home in SC, and we know that the termites are here, it is up to me to protect my home from them.
November 30, 2007 at 1:10 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
tigerrecord (anonymous) says...
For the privatized area issue.
Yes it is true that it's private property, but so are the homes at the end of the island at Breach Inlet. I can't set up my beach chair and towel in their backyard either. It's the same thing.
The beaches are public in Wild Dunes, you don't have to be a guest or a resident to use them. You just have to travel farther to get to those areas. You can drive your boat up to the beaches, or walk or run on them as well. The same goes for walking through someone's yard on IOP, Folly, or Sullivan's. It's their property, and they don't have to allow you public access to the beach through it.
My original point wasn't made because I believe that Wild Dunes shouldn't be held accountable to some degree, or because the property owners weren't somewhat unwise in their purchase decisions. I made it because you are setting dangerous precedents in property rights and taxation by claiming the city or the county aren't responsible (to a degree, again).
November 30, 2007 at 2:01 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
theronce (anonymous) says...
Governments cannot be held accountable. Only people can be held accountable. Please name the people, in or out of government, who are responsible for buying the property and for paying for the development of the property. No one as a representative for a government did that; the government is no more liable than Lowe's or whoever else enabled the owner to build there. Should Lowe's give them a rebate?
November 30, 2007 at 3:04 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Reader (anonymous) says...
Let's blame the people who built their homes on the beach.
No, let's blame the people who let them build those houses.
No, let's blame the contractors who built those houses.
No, let's blame the people who made the supplies those contractors used.
No, let's blame . . .
The government let's lots of people do stupid things, and the contractors and their suppliers are just doing what the owners want. The blame rests exclusively with the people who bought houses on eroding beaches. They might not have known exactly when the sand would wash away, but everyone knew it would happen.
I have absolutely no sympathy for these people at all. I don't care how much the beaches contribute to the economy. Those same beaches would have been an even bigger draw if those ugly beach houses and condos weren't looming over the waves.
Good riddance.
November 30, 2007 at 10:27 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Walt (anonymous) says...
Bottom Line- the northeast end of IOP and the adjacent near shore ebb tidal delta is an extremely unstable, dynamic hydrogeologic system. Renourishment may, at best, buy time, albeit briefly, but in terms of the cost-effective use of limited federal and local matching funds, its a poor investment.
Sometimes it's just time to "pull the plug" and take the patient off life support. The property owners in Wild Dunes now in danger of being swept away took an economic risk - they lost. There is no basis for a "takings" cause of action when the defendants are natural forces. Neither the the State nor the Town of IOP can be held liable for "acts of God" over which they have no control.
There's no one to blame but the person in the mirror.
November 30, 2007 at 10:51 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
blueline (anonymous) says...
You peons need to understand something. First of all, I can build wherever the hell I want to. There is no such thing as a bad investment in MY world, because all I have to do is get my lawyer/politician buddies in the state and local government to bail me out when my condo is threatened by the sea.
The second thing you need to understand is that you will never be able to afford to live on the beach like I can. If you work for me, I might give you a Christmas bonus, but I will never pay you enough to put you anywhere NEAR my tax bracket. After all, if it weren't for peons like you paying taxes, where would the state get the money to renourish MY beach?
December 1, 2007 at 12:08 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
tj66 (anonymous) says...
they wanted to buy property on the beach.. well they should of thought of the beach when they did... not for us to pay if something goes wrong on property we own we have to fix it or move on same for them,
December 1, 2007 at 4:30 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
CarolinaWren (anonymous) says...
Good morning blueline! What a joy to read your lovely comments this beautiful morning. (Smile) I agree, Yes a person may build anywhere they want but does it not lack common sense when a person decides to build on sand or on low lying wetlands. You would think intellect people would know better. I guess there are people who do lack common sense after all or they would not have build or bought condo's in those areas. The developers don't care where they build. All they care about is their profit. They have their money. I can still remember a person telling me who lives in an extremely wealthy section in California, over looking Los Angeles telling me, "This would be heaven if it weren't for the earthquakes". You also may think you may live in heaven, if it weren't for the sea. My heart goes out to you but the sea IS going to win. There is not enough money in the world that can win a victory against Mother Nature!
I do not know what your tax bracket is or how much money you have in your bank account. I say good for you but Do Not put yourself so above everyone else. It is not how much money you have in your pocket but how you treat your family and neighbors. Do you ever think about the poor who struggle everyday just trying to keep a roof over the heads of their families and food on their plates or do you only think of yourself?
December 1, 2007 at 10:41 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
summerville (anonymous) says...
Blueline what are you trying to tell us poor folks
December 1, 2007 at 10:54 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
whatever974 (anonymous) says...
just give up, pack up, and give room for the new shore line to move in. theres no fighting and winning with mother nature.
December 1, 2007 at 11:17 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
whatever974 (anonymous) says...
come to think of it it's been years since these sandbags were first put in place as temporary barriers. from what was said since 1989 hurricane hugo. thats almost 20years and nobody thought of a more permanent solution to save their own homes and property? all these dumb rich people that couldn't all chip in to save their own land and property. i find that funny.
December 1, 2007 at 11:27 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
ironhorse (anonymous) says...
blueline, you're just trying to inflame the topic. I'm suprised you have internet access available to you at your Burger King job. Didn't I read in the paper you were about to be evicted from public housing?
December 1, 2007 at 1:15 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
MDW (anonymous) says...
Thank you, Ironhorse. That's what I wrote on another article. That the posting was just a setup. Glad to see someone else saw it too.
December 1, 2007 at 1:23 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
blueline (anonymous) says...
At least someone else caught the sarcasm. I was beginning to think I needed to lay it on a little thicker.
December 3, 2007 at 10:22 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Postandcourier.com is pleased to offer readers the enhanced ability to comment on stories. We expect our readers to engage in lively, yet civil discourse. Postandcourier.com 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 "report abuse" 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 website.
Users can now build user-to-user connections, follow friends' recent posts, add an avatar that fits their personality, and more. If you have posted here before you'll need to sign up again, or if you've never posted before, start now by signing up!
Full terms and conditions can be read here.
Thank you for your interest in this story. The comment thread for this article has been closed.
- Most Commented
- Most Emailed
- S.C. losing port traffic to other states
- Out with old ...
- Cart gives Buddy new lease on life
- Water — 'The smell is gone'
- New drug may hold promise for lupus sufferers
- Schools plan to update visitor-security system
- GenPhar site 'red-tagged'
- Off campus
- Man, 17, killed in motorcycle wreck
- Historic manor house used by Girl Scouts is among buildings that might be torn down to make way for future
