namelesstavern.net

http://charleston.net/news/2007/nov/10/wild_dunes_homeowners_ask_let_sandbags_r21817/

so here it is..it looks like charleston is finally in the running of "most dangerous coastal city" with some of california breaking off due to earthquakes, burning up in fires and New Orleans drowning, Isle of Palms in Mt Pleasant has lost a significant amount of beach and these property owners are up the creek! They've been told that they have a temporary solution...they're getting blown off.

are you sympathetic? what if this was your property? There is so much money involved here, it's no secret how much property is worth on the coast, the wealth here is incredible. We have two islands, where all the money is and as of now they do not report erosion in those areas, but how long do they have?

Consider that your home on Kiawah is your second home, and there isn't a home on that island worth less than $1 million..you probaby have at least that much in the bank..you're rich. You realize erosion will destroy that property and structure that stands on it in the next five-seven years. You can't sell now. Why don't these rich people move? Surely they can afford it. It's the smart thing to do right? I think some of them are stubborn and refuse to admit how bad it's getting. (Look at the people in New Orleans!)

What is it about the coast, the property value, and the fact that it's being washed away all the time and it's getting worse? Why is it that people inland do not have sympathy and is it so easy as "just move" for the folks that aren't rich?

How many people consider in their lifetime that are born native to the coast "maybe I should move further inland" when everyone that owns beach front property are wealthy and actually have the ability to move..and is there any way to know how far inland property owners would have to be in order to be safe?

We made it through this hurricane season unscathed! Hugo was almost 20 years ago. I remember that hurricane, I was 90 miles inland. Our coast took a huge hit, even that far inland. I am willing to bet that based on our last major Cat 5 and all of the smaller hurricanes and tropical storm remnants our coast takes that we would have to relocate people as far as 50 miles inland to never have a problem with property damages and loss due to nature (hurricanes, flooding) on the coast and because everyone knows what an issue it is, I think they just keep ignoring it while chewing their bottom lip.

What I didn't get, and admittedly only skimmed the article, is why it is such an issue letting them keep sandbags in place.

The sandbags get worn out, break, wash out to sea, and then back to other people's beachs after fouling props & endangering wildlife.

Personally I don't see why they can't create seawalls if they are so concerned about losing their property... they'll end up losing the beach, but save the homes.

what happens to the property value if you lose the beach? I have no idea, I'm asking.

in Garden City (south of Myrtle Beach) they have concrete walls in front of condos, high tide brings water all the way to the wall.

Seawalls are expensive to build and won't hold forever, surely the power of the atlantic ocean would eventually wash over and/or under a concrete wall. I mean it might just buy time...seems pretty silly to even consider "holding back" the ocean.

Lueyen wrote:What I didn't get, and admittedly only skimmed the article, is why it is such an issue letting them keep sandbags in place.

this is a joke to me...it's a joke that they give a shit what it looks like when they're not going to have any beach soon!

araby wrote:what happens to the property value if you lose the beach? I have no idea, I'm asking.

in Garden City (south of Myrtle Beach) they have concrete walls in front of condos, high tide brings water all the way to the wall.

Seawalls are expensive to build and won't hold forever, surely the power of the atlantic ocean would eventually wash over and/or under a concrete wall. I mean it might just buy time...seems pretty silly to even consider "holding back" the ocean.

Seawalls are expensive, but wouldn't be to those folks in a relative sense AND they will last for decades... Lets assume the average property has ~150 feet of coast to call their own? A well built seawall runs about $2k per yard. Possibly less depending on the amount of excavation needed and prevalence of cheap labor. So we are talking about $100k. Property values wouldn't drop tremendously with the loss of their precious beaches.

Another option would be the construction of a breaker wall out past the low tide marker. That would be extravagantly expensive and would require EPA approvals though. In addition, it would require many permits & a consolidated front from all property owners along the coast. However, it would permit the retention of most of the beaches and would help stop the worst of the wave erosion.

-Adam

so do the property owners bear that financial responsibility? why would the city or town or other agency be responsible for funding that? is this part of what property taxes are for? Should you pay more for where you live based on that risk?

who would pay for that?

araby wrote:so do the property owners bear that financial responsibility? why would the city or town or other agency be responsible for funding that? is this part of what property taxes are for? Should you pay more for where you live based on that risk?

who would pay for that?

The homeowners should pay for a breakwall.

They bought the property knowing full well the possibilities.

Potentially they could try to file a claim to their insurance companies.

Property taxes are for funding local schools more than funding stuff like this.

I'm sure the insurance companies long ago raised the premiums based on this stuff..I guess that's why flood insurance is separate.

I mean hell I moved fifteen miles and have to pay 50 more a month now, on my CAR.