THE VIRGINIAN-PILOT
Copyright (c) 1995, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: Sunday, August 27, 1995 TAG: 9508250290
SECTION: VIRGINIA BEACH BEACON PAGE: 06 EDITION: FINAL
TYPE: Editorial
SOURCE: Beth Barber
LENGTH: Medium: 74 lines
The North End of the Oceanfront gets sand by a natural process of accretion from the South End.
If the South End doesn't get sand, the North End won't get accretion.
If the North End queers the hurricane protection project, the South End won't get sand and other flood-control measures paid for primarily by the feds. The city will get the full tab for sand replenishment of the Oceanfront. And the North End will get no sympathy from the rest of the city, plus a special-tax-district levy.
It's that or Pat Robertson.
That's the simplified case for the hurricane protection project that North End property owners mightily resist. But it illustrates a natural progression.
The project, according to a letter Aug. 7 distributed by the North Virginia Beach Civic League, was ``frankly designed to provide hurricane protection for the Resort Area at the expense of the North End's residential character and our beach.''
Conversely, civic leaguers want to preserve the North End's residential character and ``their'' beach at the expense of the Resort Area. They fear that the project's plans to improve access over the dunes will turn their quiet haven into a hell of traffic, illegal parking and touristas, and that plans to augment the dunes for flood control will block their ocean view. And gosh knows where day trippers will go to the bathroom.
North End homeowners have a right to protest. But according to experts, they are wrong to insist that opting ``their'' stretch of beach out of the hurricane protection project is the answer.
In excerpts from a memo published on the opposite page today, the Virginia Beach Department of Public Works identifies some misconceptions about the project and sets out some realities.
Basically, North Enders' choice is not between the hurricane protection plan and their peaceful enjoyment of their beach homes and ocean view. The choice is between watching pelicans from their second-floor windows and watching storm waters rise in their own bailiwick, then ripple south to the 40 blocks of tourist beach that contribute millions of dollars a year to this economy.
North Enders make a distinction between their stretch and the heavily commercial Resort Area. Nature doesn't. Coastal engineers can't. Congress won't: Without the North End included, the cost-benefit ratio of the project may meet the cutoff of the Corps but not that of a budget-cutting Congress.
In sum, according to an evaluation by the Corps:
Studies have proved that sand accumulation at the North End is a direct result of the northward drift of sand being placed at the South End as part of the federal renourishment project. This federal nourishment, which began in 1962, expires in 1997; if not renewed, nourishment at both areas would fall to the city.
When the residents at Sandbridge suffered severe erosion just a few years ago from a northeaster, they turned to the federal government. Since there was no federal project in place, the federal government could do nothing to help. The same could be true for the North End and, after 1997, the same could also be true about the Resort Area.
There is also some question as to whether, without a federal proj-ect, residents would be able to get insurance. This was the case in the aftermath of Hurricane Andrew.
For inland taxpayers (which is most of them) tired of subsidizing the longtime-lousy stewardship, residential and commercial, of public beach-front, now's as good a time as any to debate federal flood insurance and disaster relief, triumphs of political hopes over experience.
For Oceanfront owners who view dune enhancement as an impediment to the vista rather than the first line of defense in flood control in storms that permit some flood control, now is not so hot. by CNB