N&O Rising Coastal Concerns

The N&O published an editorial Tuesday March 14th that discusses the work of the Legislative Commission on Global Climate Change. Being the N&O they use the opportunity to call for revisions to the Coastal Area Management Act (CAMA), the state law that sets parameters for development in the coastal counties. A specific term caught my eye

"North Carolina also has a more immediate, and related, issue to tackle -- overdevelopment [emphasis added]in coastal counties. Its harmful effects are incontrovertible now. Lawmakers prudently passed the Coastal Area Management Act in 1974, to protect the shore from the congested, ugly development rampant elsewhere. Developers since then have found more and more ways to circumvent CAMA's farsighted rules.

The use of the non-specific term "overdevelopment" echoes Dr. Stan Riggs comments before the commission which I have cited before. The N&O may not like current development patterns on the coast but at least in Dare County (If not all the NC Coast) CAMA has done exactly what it was intended to do. It has prevented urban style high rise ocean front development. Towns have chosen different patterns of development and every Dare County town has been taking steps to limit the size of new homes and development in general. I am not sure what the N&O has in mind for CAMA but it needs to be very careful. If they think the NC legislature is going to be a better steward of the coast than local governments they had better revisit reality. The level of influence of homebuilders and realtors in the legislature is not going to allow any meaningful changes to CAMA and could quite possibly have the reverse effect, allowing a lowest common denominator for development statewide that reduces local control of development and increases the intensity of development rather than achieving the the N&O's goal of reducing development.
The editorial goes to to bemoan the threat of coastal storms and damage "The result is costlier storm-related damage to homes and other structures. That costs every North Carolinian (and every American) when emergency management agencies must clean up after a disaster." Two contradictions here, first this paper has railed against federal nourishment projects engineered and proven in this state to protect against coastal damage. See the work of Spencer Rogers on the performance of nourished beaches during hurricane Floyd. If you want to prevent hurricane damage support programs designed to do exactly that, then go look at the taxpayer dollars spent in Raleigh and across the state for hurricane damage, If you want to prevent storm damage cut down all the trees in Wake County or prohibit development in the mountains, regrettably they have suffered much more damage than the coast in recent years.
The N&O rails about pollution on the coast while Raleigh and other eastern NC towns pour millions of gallons of raw sewage in to the rivers every year. Sprawl around Raleigh and in the Triangle is part of the problem with global warming. Stop pointing fingers at the coast without at least some recognition of your own culpability.
Finally back to the question about revising CAMA. I am sure there are elements that could be improved but a better step is that the land use planning that CAMA requires be done across the state. Establish statewide rules for development in sensitive areas, stop the Bush administration from selling off our public forests and cutting roads to nowhere through the rest.
According to one comment here, the coast can't be overdeveloped because the definition of overdeveloped is when people say a community is overdeveloped. The people elect the councils that promulgate the development rules; ergo the people get what they want through local elections and the community is not overdeveloped. (OK, I'll stop trying to give Ray Midgett a heart attack and be a bit more serious here). Local governments in Dare County have done a good job of limiting growth, Look at Kitty Hawk and Southern Shores. I don't agree with some of their choices, (I don't think big box stores are a positive influence) but it is hard to say they are overdeveloped in any fashion. How would these communities be helped by the wisdom of Raleigh or even the wisdom of county government in Manteo ruling their fate. Quite simply, they wouldn't. Let local government make decisions about local development with the state setting minimum standards in sensitive areas. This is the current CAMA system and its results have been very positive. If there are loopholes (start with better protection of isolated wetlands) then fix them but don't try to overhaul the system. Its not broken.