It's about beach erosion and efforts to mitigate same (as in, sea walls and beach nourishment). The author, Jennifer Schwartz, suggests that maybe it's time for our love affair with a beach to come to an end.
We should ask ourselves what we’re trying to preserve. Is it the beaches -- or our easy access to and manipulation of them, something to which we feel entitled? Try as we might, the ocean’s unrelenting force dwarfs any man-made structures or costly Band-Aids we apply.
Our mayor, John Moak, has said that the city will bear some of the expense (maybe $70-$80,000?) for trucking sand to the Newburyport beach to mitigate erosion that is happening between 51st and 55th streets.
A candidate for Ward 1 City Councillor told me in their interview for CEB that they would support "unlimited" expenditure of public funds to stop beach erosion. There is a $26 million water/sewer project to protect (that's our dollars).
How much public funding would you support to save the beach, save that investment - or for that matter, to keep the landfill from collapsing or from more gas leaking out of it or from more runoff polluting abutting wetlands?
Reason #2 why you should watch all the interviews.
Reason #1 is because I told you to.
5 comments:
"unlimited expenditure of public funds"? really? does this candidate live on the beach, because i certainly don't and don't think i should pay for someone else's ocean views...
On the web, you don't see the great illustration that accompanies that article in the Globe. It shows a beach with a big band-aid across it. :-)
It's all a waste of time and money. Sooner or later, it will all wash away again. Plum Island is going to move.
What we should be doing is getting estimates on how long the patch is going to last, then decided if the cost is worth the benefits of that period.
Dick, "sooner" is 5 yrs., maximum, according to the Army Corps of Engineers. You should see those guys at the meeting - you can tell they really don't want to do the beach thing. All they want to do is dredge the mouth of the river. I think if it costs $70-$80,000 (to the taxpayers in the city)it's worth it but then you have to add in the state money ... I think everyone wants us to believe the state prints up money to fund this stuff.
I see, so it's OK for my tax dollars to pay for dredging that benefits recreational boaters but not to protect beaches, homes, and water & sewer infrastructure ?
you can build a house on the side of a volcano and expect the public to bail you out when it erupts. you paid money for a house with a view, and you take a chance that nature is going to take it away from you. i feel for those that have lived on the island for decades because living in what is essentially a cottage or shack is cheap and affordable, but i have no sympathy for those that bought those cheap shacks and built massive new homes on a barrier island whose coastline has changed drastically over the generations. Not our responsibility to protect your bad investment....
Post a Comment