Help for the Shore Towns?

[bobpbx]

Tim Dillingham, executive director of the American Littoral Society (on the recent flooding in places like Stone Harbor and Ocean City): there is “no silver bullet,….we are committed to long-term management of the shoreline because we’ve altered it so much and we’ve put ourselves into vulnerable places.”

I'm not sure where this is going to wind up, but now they are discussing piling sand on the back sides of the islands to create marshlands as a barrier to these storms.

http://www.njspotlight.com/stories/...l&utm_term=0_1d26f473a7-421e7c0776-398650705#

 

[GermanG]

I do find it somewhat refreshing to see acknowledgment that the destruction of and development on former salt marshes was a bad idea. Creation of new marsh, if successful (a big "if"), will improve habitat in and around the estuary as well as help mitigate storm effects.

The article also touched on Christie's comments regarding criticism aimed towards him. I'm far from a fan of Christie but I actually applauded the "bring a mop" comment. A small segment of our society destroys and develops some our most fragile and valuable habitat, which is also the most inhospitable area in the state for human development, then looks to the government for help, or even blame in some cases, when nature takes the expected and inevitable vengeance.

 

[bobpbx]

A small segment of our society destroys and develops some our most fragile and valuable habitat, which is also the most inhospitable area in the state for human development, then looks to the government for help, or even blame in some cases, when nature takes the expected and inevitable vengeance.

One thing came through in this article is that some of the townspeople are starting to shrug and accept the inevitable instead of calling for help or blaming the government. They admit to having to build higher. But to me that is self defeating...what are they going to do, row to their homes in the future?

 

[46er]

A small segment of our society destroys and develops some our most fragile and valuable habitat, which is also the most inhospitable area in the state for human development, then looks to the government for help, or even blame in some cases, when nature takes the expected and inevitable vengeance.

That blame is well placed, since the destruction and development would not happen if, in the first place, the 'govt' did its job properly and not issue permits to develop those fragile and valuable areas. But it is very hard for them to turn away from more tax revenue A sticky wicket for sure, especially for the existing homes. IMO, you build in these places, you own it and the problems that may come along. The USA taxpayers paid for all that beach replenishment sand that was put back this past weekend from whence it came, and they will be paying again when it starts over, as it surely will.

 

[GermanG]

You blame the government. I blame the government. But for the person who moved or opened a business there, who I was referring to, to blame the government? Nope, can't go that far. It's like complaining about the noisy aircraft taking off from the airport you just moved next to.

 

[h2ochild]

In the case of OC. They spent years dredging sand from behind the island(the bay)and pumping it onto the beach. Now they want to reverse that and put sand on the bayside. Does anyone else see the humor in that?

 

[46er]

You blame the government. I blame the government. But for the person who moved or opened a business there, who I was referring to, to blame the government? Nope, can't go that far. It's like complaining about the noisy aircraft taking off from the airport you just moved next to.

As I said in the post; "IMO, you build in these places, you own it and the problems that may come along.". Ultimately it is local govt 's fault for allowing building to take place. Now how far back one can go with the blame is questionable. To this day it is a case by case decision, by local govt with state guidance, where building can take place, and there have been many decisions in the past 10-20 years to allow, where arguably, it should not have been. To their credit, the Feds, through the NWR and NPS systems and NJ, several WMA's, have saved thousands of mainland coastal acres, but very few on the barrier islands. Probably because it has all, with the exception of 2 state parks, 2 NWR's and 1 NRA, been developed already. There are only 2 good examples of what the barrier islands should look like; Gateway NRA and Island Beach State Park, the rest is mostly stick frame and concrete.

 

[bobpbx]

"IMO, you build in these places, you own it and the problems that may come along.". Ultimately it is local govt 's fault for allowing building to take place.

46er, you can't see that those 2 sentences contradict each other? Adopt that line and both will point fingers at each other from now to eternity. It's like saying, "yeah, I built here and I own the problems, but I'm going to court to make the government pay, because the Judge will say it's ultimately the government's fault". If the Judge agrees with him, then we all pay.

 

[bobpbx]

So, only 5% think it needs to be done. Wonder where they live? And yet, the beat (beach) goes on.

http://www.njspotlight.com/stories/...il&utm_term=0_1d26f473a7-401f9891b1-398650705

 

[bobpbx]

..."But the Army Corps' mission to protect life and property must be its first priority."

Whose property? And at what cost to the land and sea, and to the public's pocket? Aye, therein lies the rub.

http://www.njherald.com/article/20170114/AP/301149916