Readers, you have probably noticed the exchange of comments on my chiding post about Newbury.
An anonymous poster, who says s/he lives in the Newburyport section of Plum Island, takes me to task for comments I make about beach erosion, hiring a lobbyist and the salt marsh. S/he makes some good points.
And you have to question what's been going on, what's been put out there and so forth. 'Tis a good thing to question.
I don't know what Ed O'Donnell, the chief of navigation for the Army Corps of Engineers, said to concerned PI residents at a local meeting. Neither the Current nor I was not notified of the meeting so I was not there.
Right there, that should tell you something. I was the reporter for a newspaper serving this community who had already covered the issue. And had apparently ticked off a lot of people.
It was not my decision to not publish Howard Marlowe's email challenging what I wrote here. The powers that be above me read his email, read what I wrote, and asked me to whom I had spoken to back up what I wrote. The editor informed me that it had been determined that what I had written was solid so it would stand, unchallenged.
I wasn't even sure at the time that I agreed with her (about the not printing the email in the Letters to the Editor). It was not as if there wasn't room to print his comments. Now I really wish that she had.
Anyway, as O'Donnell pointed out to me, there have probably been a dozen studies done about Plum Island, dating back to the 1800s. Before the two jetties were installed by the Army Corps of Engineers in 1905 or thereabouts, the mouth of the river used to change around a lot.
The intention of the jetties was to fix the mouth of the river at that location. There has been a lot of monkeying around with this island - most with good intentions, some by virtue of greed. In any case, the jetties have not been repaired for some time.
This is an excerpt from pg. 12 of Jean Foley Doyle's book, Life in Newburyport 1900-1950:
"By 1900, the great days of shipbuilding were gone forever. The people of Newburyport sought repeatedly, but unsuccessfully, to have the Merrimack River dredged and improved so that larger ships could enter the harbor and the city might once again serve as an important industrial port."
The more things change, the more they stay the same.
And finally ... I was wrong about the Daily News not talking to a scientist. This story by Stephen Tait, which I somehow missed, does have input from a geologist.
In all fairness, I think the DN has done pretty good job of reporting on the erosion from a neutral stance - although they have not (as far as I can tell) addressed that report from the 70s by the Army Corps that says the towns owning beaches on PI have to come up with private funding for nourishment projects.
7 comments:
Gillian,
I was not questioning your reporting in The Current specifically, but rather his statement from your anti-Newbury rant....
"Oh and we really loved that last one in light of the fact that the Army Corps of Engineers told you 30 years ago that you had to find private funding to do what was necessary on your beach; that they were out of the beach replenishment biz and only had funds to dredge at 'significant' locations."
Again - given that dredging continued until 1999 and there is partial funding and permits in place for dredging when fully funded - the Army Corps isn't out of the dredging business for the Merrimack.
It is true that the Army Corps has no funding for beach nourishment. However, when disposing of dredged material, they are required to use a least-cost disposal method - typically dumping it at sea or near-shore disposal. They can however, place it on a beach provided it doesn't cost more than dumping it in the ocean - so as long as someone picks up the addional cost, they can apply their disposal funds towards nourishment costs.
As for the PI meeting, I was one of a handful of residents who attended - it was almost exclusively federal, state, and local officials - including a representative from Congressman Tierney's office. So Mr O'Donnell was not speaking to concerned PI residents, he was discussing the problem with state and local officials.
I found out about the meeting while reading the DN.
OK, anonymous, I'm about to concede. I did not really think of it as an anti-Newbury rant, more of a comedic sketch, but I guess it was a rant.
You are never going to convince me that it was a good move to hire a lobbyist first. Not only was there "fear mongering" involved, they did not even bid out the contract.
Who is this "someone" who will pick up the additional cost of putting the sand on the beach? Will putting the sand on the beach do any good, or will it just be washed away? These are the things that needed to be studied beforehand.
The fact that the DEP had to intervene is more than enough evidence for me that the town ran off half-cocked.
I commend our mayor and City Council for thinking this through. Yes, the mouth of the river needs to be dredged and the jetties need to be repaired. People are working on getting funds for that - and they do not appreciate the town hiring a lobbyist.
And most, if not all, of that stuff I said about Newbury is stuff I hear, and read, every day.
Thanks for the correction about the meeting - But someone notified the Daily News, didn't they?
The never-say-anything-bad-about-Newbury Daily News. Geez, they took a bold step in sideways criticizing Karp and now that's over. If you want the real scoop about what's going on here, you almost have to rely on the Globe.
Even though they also fell for the "dog and pony show," as someone else dubbed it. It's been 3months and nothing has been done except for the dismantling of a deck that should not have been there in the first place.
Oh, and there's a big pile of sand in the center parking lot. The other day I saw a Newbury policeman out there ticketing people who parked along the street so they could go walk their dog on the beach, as usual.
Nothing has fallen into the ocean. And even that would not be anything new on Plum Island (as horrific as it would be). The difference is now, something falling into the ocean would interrupt the revenue stream, big time.
I'll say it one more time: the Newbury Beach Committee built that dune up from the flat with little or no money or support from the residents, some of whose houses they may have saved.
If they had not been out there in all weather planting dune grass and putting up snow fence, I bet Jeanne's would be gone by now and Northern Blvd. would be flooded every astronomical high tide.
That was not on TV; that was not in the Daily News. I'd bet most people don't even know there IS a Newbury Beach Committee.
One of them stood up at that meeting with Marlowe and, I believe, spoke out against hiring the lobbyist.
Gillian,
I'm not trying to convince you that hiring the lobbyist was a good idea. What I do know is that shortly after he was hired, $100K was approved to study the issue. I don't really care if there was a causal effect or mere serendipity - I'm concerned more with the end than the means. Perhaps if he were a grant-writer rather than a lobbyist, he services would have been more welcomed by the community. To me, it seemed like short-money to protect $2.5 million in tax revenue to the city - but hey, that's democracy in action.
As for the "someone" it could be state, local, and/or private funds. And yes, I agree that the issue needs to be studied - and that was pretty much the outcome of the meeting - lets do what we can in the short-term whilst also considering a long term strategy.
I don't know who organized the meeting, but if I remember correctly, your story came out the day of the meeting (or the week after) - so I don't think you had yet established yourself as the reporter "who had already covered the issue".
I agree that The Beach Committee does good work.
Were the tickets written before or after they spray painted "no parking" on the jersey barriers ? Not that it wasn't obvious to anyone with common sense....
OK, wow. I'll give you all your points - except the last.
You can't get into the paid lot across the street at the center because it's not open yet, you can't park at Dick's and block his customers' access, you can't park at the bait shop, you can't park further along the street, in front of Jeanne's because that's posted for "official use only" ... so where are you supposed to park if you're someone who just wants to check out the situation and snap a few photos?
Memo to self: Must get tires on bike re-inflated. But where would I put the bike?
And how much did it cost to put that sand there and hire the earth-moving vehicles that were all over not too long ago?
But I'm prolonging this battle, which I don't want to do. Thank you for being civil in your comments, by the way. You've obviously given this issue a lot of thought and done your homework.
Hmmmm.....I've witnessed vehicles gaining access to the paid lot across from the center. Perhaps it's open for people who are willing to pay ?
Speaking of which, I've always considered the (evil) town of newbury quite generous in allowing non-residents to park in their municipal lot. While I suppose there are other towns that do this, I could not think of one.
As for the cost of the sand placement, I live in Nbpt, so how Newbury spends their cash doesn't really concern me - although their protecting the lone access road to my end of the island is much appreciated.
All I know is, I tried to gain access last week and I was denied. Can't say that I've ever been able to get in that lot, so maybe I'm just parking-lot-with-bar-across entrance challenged. I like the one at the train station, where you park and then stick your money in that board. That I can handle.
What do you mean, "allowing"? My understanding is, they do not ticket non-residents off-season but in the summer is another matter. Still, you're right, that alone is better than most places.
OK, alright, they're trying to protect your access. And the $2.5 million in revenue. But that's not the point. If those houses were not there and the dune was as healthy as it is supposed to be, it's likely we would not have this situation. Or at the very least there would have been more time to react to the erosion on the beach.
I don't think the honor system would work at that lot - strike that - I know it wouldn't.
Unless I'm mistaken, only half the center lot has "resident only" signs which were added 2 years ago.
Yes, we'd still have the situation - with more time to react.
Post a Comment