Private Benefit vs. Public Liability

The headline in today’s newspaper: “Cost to SAVE BEACHES may drown budgets.” [EMPHASIS added.]

For the most part, there is little threat to “losing beaches.” Most of the beaches in question are on barrier islands, which by definition move and shift. Those wandering spits of sand have existed in various forms for millennia, and they will continue to exist in some form after the more recent structures wither away or are consumed by the ocean.

The efforts, which are afoot, are intended to artificially alter, stop, or manipulate what are natural processes. Landowners, who “own” lands that notably may not have even existed mere decades or generations ago, wish to stop the beaches and the barrier islands themselves from doing what they do naturally: move with the ebb and flow of the tides.

When mankind seeks to oppose or to stand in the way of Mother Nature, such arrogance rarely ends well. The efforts are not so much to “Save Beaches,” as they are to save development along the beaches. This is development, which in the overall scheme of things is unnecessary: No one NEEDS a beachfront home hugging the edge the earth.

It is development, which many would argue is ill advised. Any development on a barrier island is subject not only to erosion but also to tidal flooding and tropical storms. Generally, if you cannot afford to lose your beach house. You probably should not own a beach house.

Nevertheless, many homeowners look to neighbors and to taxpayers generally in order to subsidize and insure what is arguably a “bad investment.” The “costs,” which are being borne by local, state, and federal governments (i.e. taxpayers) represent the TRUE costs of owning, operating, and maintaining homes, properties, and businesses in a fragile and evolving environment.

The ultimate questions is, “Who should bear those costs?” Should those costs be borne by the landowners themselves or must those costs be “shared” by the rest of us? If we “share” the costs how should we also “share” benefits — i.e. access to the beaches and amenities of the barrier islands? What “bargain” is to be struck between the beach dwellers and others, who “share” in the costs of protecting and maintaining at-risk properties?

Tax dollars, which are ostensibly spent to “Save Beaches,” are actually being spent to subsidize development. The money is being spent to “save” someone else’s beach house. The money is being spent to enable what many would argue is reckless behavior and irresponsible development.

We can certainly debate whether it is money well spent, but we should be candid about the purposes and objectives, honest about the cumulative costs (all of them), and realistic about the possible outcomes.

https://wilmingtonstarnews-nc.newsmemory.com?selDate=20210821&goTo=A01&artid=2