Daily News in Jacksonville Changes proposed to CAMA 50% rule

The Daily News, Jacksonville NC reports on possible changes to the CAMA rules for non-conforming structures.

Under current CRC rules, work is considered replacement if the cost exceeds 50 percent of the physical value of the structure at the time of damage. The cost to repair is to be determined by the local building inspection office. (snip) Draft revisions to the 50-percent rule presented to the I&S Committee last week changes "physical value" to market value and defines the term to mean the structure's value independent of the land value or any accessory buildings. The cost to repair could be determined by a licensed general contractor, insurance adjustment papers or state or federal inspectors.
Ray Sturza, a member of the Coastal Resources Advisory Committee, spoke against this idea.
"I think it's real estate 101, location matters," Sturza said. "Once you take location out of the equation, I don't see how you determine the value."

You rock Ray. Lets hope this gets discussed a good deal more. Probably the biggest factor is making sure the the CRC rules and FEME-Federal Flood rules use the same milestone. The goal is to bring properties into compliance with current regulations. The trigger if the trigger value is 50% for both programs lets hope we can get it measured the same way so property owners (and local governments) will be able to figure out easily when a property must be upgraded and when improvements are not required to meet current rules. Property owners have a lot of incentive to try to not meet standards but the communities will be much better served if they do. Storm damage will be reduced, water quality improved etc.
Keep an eye on this, it does not look like a good idea.

VA Pilot Reservations

Paradox

I think I have this right. The government organization charged with attracting people to the Outer Banks invited a speaker, who has told people not to come to the Outer Banks, to speak to leaders of the Outer Banks. When he came he told the group that people wouldn't come to visit the Outer Banks because too many people are coming to visit the the Outer Banks. Do I have this right? The upshot is that the Outer Banks Visitors Bureau wants us to adopt policies that will make us look like a place where not many people come to visit so that a lot of people will come to visit.
That's my take on the lead article in the NC section of the Va. Pilot on Thurs.. The artilce reports on a speach by Jonathan Tourrellot (ryhmes with tours a lot) the geo-tourism editor of National Geographic. Mr. Toursalot ( I mean Tourrellot, is this really his name??) doesn't like the way the Outer Banks has developed, whats more the geo-tourism experts that Mr. Toursalot works with don't think much of it either. This we found out in 2004 in a geo-tourism evaluation of about 150 tourist destinations published in National Geographic Traveler. This survey did not treat the Outer Banks well. It showed us at the top of the bottom third of desitnations. The implication is that we are trending away from the "good" things in geo-tourism.

[Toursalot} said the area is primarily a rest-and-relaxation destination. “But,” he told the audience at Wright Brothers Centennial Pavilion, “what’s important about this place is there’s a lot of heritage and a lot of other cultural assets. That makes this different.”
A global survey of more than 200 specialists in sustainable tourism and destination quality, published in March 2004 in the traveler magazine, gave the Outer Banks a score of 52, with 100 being the best. Experts rated the aesthetics and tourism management as bad and gave a warning on environmental conditions. [snip]
With giant houses taking over the horizon and chain restaurants and stores replacing the quirky momand-pop establishments on the Outer Banks, tourists are taking note, Tourtellot said as he read some of their recent comments: “junk tourism,” “abuse of the word ‘ecotourism’ to promote visitation,” “grossly overdeveloped,” “massive second home development.”

I tend to be a little suspicious of this type of survey. I think you can find a better view what the editior thinks of the Outer Banks if you go back a little further in his magazine and find his piece written about the Outer Banks. Entitled "Fight Urban Sprawl" It bashes what the author refers to as "KittySnag" the strip running from Kitty Hawk to Nags Head. He stays at the FIrst Colony Inn, which he likes, but finds the the rest of the area less than pleasing

Acres of parking lots surround shopping centers and outlets and real-estate offices and stores selling T-shirts, coolers, kites, and seashells labeled "Product of the Philippines." Driving the bypass, you get a kind of franchise déjà vu: Food Lion, Exxon, BrewThru, Food Lion, Exxon, BrewThru. At night, over-lit businesses and unshielded floodlights on hundreds of rental houses keep the sky pale. Worst offender: The glass-wrapped beach-gear stores called Wings, each pouring out enough candlepower to light up a baseball diamond. Seashore romance? Here your nighttime walk on the sand is not by starlight, but by electric sky glow.

What, pray tell, does our frequent traveller like. Any guesses?

Now skip 90 miles south, to Ocracoke, a village on the sound side of a barrier island accessible only by ferry. Here, you can walk and bike on narrow lanes past charming houses. While relaxing at a harbor-side lunch table, you can watch pelicans and fishing boats.

Surprise, Surprise, I like it too. In fact its where I go on vacation, but Nags Head wasn't an old fishing village, it has been a place where tourists have come since the mid 1800's. We were what we are only smaller. Any attempt to make us into some kind of Colonial Williamsburg period piece is just phony. People have been selling beach supplies to tourists for a long time. This is our heritage Johnathan, get over it.
Actually I agree with some of the comments about overdevelopment (he did spot Wings) but I have a really hard time with the pretentious approach. He doesn't like local stores selling shells from the Philipines in Nags Head but has no problem with the same shells in Ocracoke. I wonder how he would react to an industry that harvested local shells from the beach for resale in Nags Head shops, kind of a large scale Nellie Myrtle Pridgeon business. My guess is he would object. He doesn't like Exxon or Brew Thru even though these businesses are locally owned and some dating back to well before anyone thought about over-development (Stop & Shop in KDH, Stop Quik in Nags Head, Kitty Hawk Exxon in KH). Brew Thru is nothing if not quirky, a t shirt store mascarading as a drive through convenience store, where else do you see that? In the Virginian Pilot article Toursalot sites " chain restaurants" as another precursor of our impending doom. I count 3 of them (french fry alley doesn't count, there hasn't been a new fast food place built in many years) on the Outer Banks, two at the OB Mall. neither of which look like their base chain building, neither of which even have free standing signs. I compare that to the nearly 100 locally owned restaurants that blanket the Outer Banks and I don't see Armegeddon just yet. There is so much that I don't like about his guy that I need to stop and explain how I think we can solve the problem. If you want more you can read an excellent speach he gave somewhere about what geo-tourism is and how it works. Note the section about the transition from R&R tourism to Entertainment tourism this is a shift we need to guard against.
Let me first say that I like Carolyn McCormack. I think she has done a good job promoting the Outer Banks and the Visitors Bureau is a pretty progressive organization, after all they brought us Mr. Toursalot, BUT if we really want fewer visitors then lets promote less, if we want to promote open space and envriomental conservation lets spend more on those values. In fact lets reverse the ratio of spending for the Visitors Bureau. Lets take the one-third of their revenue that is supposed to go to providing tourist infrastructure and make that the promotion budget then lets take the nearly $2,000,000 annually they get for promotion and use it to buy land for open space, reduce congetstion, install stormwater systems that reduce pollution, promote proper maintenance of septic tanks and promote sustainable tourism by starting home businesses to build beach chairs in Colington.
Secondly, lets stop promoting the Outer Banks completely and start to promote our individual communities. Some areas have done it better than others yet we all pay the price. Why should Duck by tarred by the commercial mess of the bypass in Kitty Hawk and KDH. Why should Nags Head get hung with the traffic problems of Southern Shores and Duck. And why should any of us be blamed for the travesty that is Corolla, (so many houses, so little land, see the photo above) Lets start some competition amongst areas for travel dollars, lets make areas responsible for their choices rather than spending dollars earned by the popular places to promote those that just don't get it. If the Outer Banks is getting a bad name then change it and make sure that ol' Toursalot can recognize the difference between South Nags Head and condo row in Kill Devil Hills.
Let me start again. If the OBVB really thinks that Mr. Tourtellot is right then they need to convene a major local conference on sustainability and make sure that it gets attended not just by the effete editor of the National Geographic but experts who can address the specific problems we face, the conference shouldn't just talk about how bad the area is but it should yeild a list of objectives that communities can take home and work on. It must also yeild consenus not just within local governement but including the business community that this really is the goal we want to pursue. Finally, the conference should identify funding sources for the objectives that come from it. They should do this because In the end Tourellot and the Visitors Bureau are right, we are threatened by our success but we are far from ruined by it and if we have leadership not lip service from the Visitors Bureau, maybe we can sustain that success and not succumb to it.

PS. For an interesting observation on Fla (and the Outer Banks?) read this column from Mr. Tourtellot written in 2003. Do we use tourism in the same manner?

OB Sentinel Richard Burr comments

I wasn't at the meeting so I didn' hear the comments but I suspect that the Sentinel got it right when they quote Sen. Richard Burr (R. NC) disparging the possibilities of federal funding for COE Dare Beaches Storm Damage Protection Plan". Since Pres. Bush has dug a pretty big hole for the federal government and Katrina has pushed the deficit even higher it is not surprising that the good Senator would be pessimistic about funding for an admittedly expensive program not matter how deserving. What is surprising and alarming is where he thinks the money for such a project should come from:

“What you need is some type of permanent funding - such as royalties.”
And from where might those royalties come? That answer was part of the response to Outer Banks Visitors Bureau Director Carolyn McCormack who asked the senator about the future of oil drilling off the Outer Banks.
Burr said that the Congressional moratorium on offshore drilling that has protected the state's coast from that activity must be reaffirmed each year, but that at present, there aren't enough votes to do that. The Presidential moratorium still has a few years of life but the president can rescind it at any time.

In defense of Carolyn McCormack she has led her organization in opposition to drilling off the NC coast. Even a strong BN advocate like Commissioner Warren Judge dimissed this ploy after a meeting in Elizabeth City, where some real numbers about how much money might come to the state and how much might get to the county.
Lets hope that we manage to keep the two issues separate and don't see them bound together. BN should sink or swim (bad analogy sorry) on its own merits, likewise decisions on off-shore drilling need to be made without blackmailing communities or bribing state governments. Like the lottery, off-shroe oil drilling is not a good way for governments to raise money. Debate it as an energy policy if you wish but not as a revenue source.

CNN.com - Communities march against 'McMansions' - Mar 27, 2006

Piece on CNN about communities fighting to maintain their character in the face of redevelopment. Set in Delray Beach Fla. it highlihgts the fight to maintain older homes in the face of redevelopment of large singel family homes. Is this starting to sound familiar. The article casts the Mcmansion phenomenon in an urban environment, not the way I usually see the term Mcmansion used. In any event, the loss of community character is a familiar theme on the Outer Banks. I guess its good to know that we are not the only one's struggling with this issue. What is deprssing is the lack of answers or even sensitivity that local governments show to the issue.

In Atlanta, the City Council last month rejected by an 11-3 vote a proposed 120-day ban on construction of McMansions in five neighborhoods.
"You would have thought it was the second burning of Atlanta," said Councilwoman Mary Norwood, who drafted the plan. She said the Atlanta Board of Realtors mounted a massive campaign to defeat the measure.
Last year, leaders in Arlington County, Virginia, adopted limits on home sizes that, in most cases, means a house alone can occupy just 30 percent of a lot.
Officials in Lewes, Delaware, the state's oldest town dating to 1631, recognized the rash of demolitions in historic neighborhoods and instituted a design review process for construction projects.

Nags Head has update in its "initiative" to protect historic properties on the ocean front. I use quotes because the community to be regulated doesn't seem to see the problem with quite the same fervor that some elected officials (now former elected officials) seem to hold. Kind of the reverse of the situation in the CNN piece.
I am increasinly struck by the appearance of new homes in Nags Head. The archectural standards are making a difference and are increasingly showing up in other communities. There is a new home going up along the bypass in Kitty Hawk that would get at least 100 points under Nags Head system.

WSJ Money, Loyalty and Power

An excellent article in the Winston-Salem Journal detailoing the Jim Black's rise and fall. It includes copies of the subpeonas served to Black's office by a federal grand jury as a list of the activities that have been referred to the Wake County District Attoryney. Part 2 on Monday

OB Sentinel Losing Landmarks

Two interesing stories in the Sentinel on Sat. both deal with the lose of landmarks and the changes brought to our communities by continuing growth.
One artilce details the closing of Mrs. T's deli, a Nags Head landmark for more than 20 years. The deli's lease at the Satterfield Landing Shopping center was bought out, as were the leases of others in the center including the shop where I get my hair cut. The rumor mill has a Staples office supply store going in here. I don't know if this rumor is true.
The second story highlights the closing of the last fish house on Ocracoke. The fish wholesaler is being demolished to make way for residential development. The article details the way that fishermen are dealing with the loss, some by shifting their catch to vendors at other locations and some becoming wholesalers themselves, selling to local restaurants.
Nags Head's Vision Statement focuses on locally owned businesses as a key element in building our local economy. The loss of small businesses hurts the identity of the town whether it is replaced by a home or a chain vendor. I attended a workshop Thursday night. It was a brainstorming session on the future of development on the beach road. I was pleased by the seeming consensus that keeping small business on the beach road was important. It was a factor mentioned by many at the workshop.
Lets hope we can find some way to slow the trend. Nags Head imits on the size of new retail spaces (50,000 sq. feet). I am curious to see just how big the Staples plans to be and if the town allows a recombination of the Food Lion and adjoinging shops to create a retail building that exceeds the limit. I don't know if this is the plan but I am very curious.

Star-News | Wilmington, NC Where to draw a line in the sand

Offered for your information is a better explanation of why the post-nourishment static vegatation line is getting attention.

"State considering new setback rules for beach houses" The state agency that sets coastal policy is mulling over a rule change that could open hundreds of oceanfront lots, including dozens on Oak Island and Ocean Isle Beach, to development. (snip)
(CRC Chairman Courtney) Hackney said he hopes any change in the rule creates a “realistic” line that reflects the facts on the ground, especially in areas that are regularly nourished, while still offering sufficient protection for homeowners building in a naturally unstable environment.

I will stick by my previous comments and add only that I agree it is a slippery slope and one that we need to be very careful about.

Advice on dealing with debaters

Dealing with diatribe is never fun. Finding consensus is seldom easy. This post gives some good advice about how best to establish dialog and maintain focus during debates that can become heated and where the people you are talking to may not want to engage in honest dialog. This is not aimed at anyone who posts or comments regularly on this blog, I just found the advice interesting and useful so I thought that I would share.

Ownerhsip of blog changes hands

In a major development ownership of this blog has been transferred from Mr. J. Ridge to Bob Muller, former Mayor of Nags Head. Mr. Muller says he will continue the style and content standards set by Ridge and hopes that readers will see little or no change to the site.
Because of limitations in the software used to publish this blog all previous posts will now show Mr. Muller's name as the author. Mr. Muller has indicated he has no problem with that attribution.

Going after Ophelia-wrecked houses

The Daily News, Jacksonville NC: " NORTH TOPSAIL BEACH ” Owners of condemned houses on the north end of North Topsail Beach vied to retain control of their homes at a meeting Monday night."

Timing is everything. I sat down to write a response to comments on my post about replacing properties behind the static vegetation line and was handed this sad but timely piece about one town's struggle to deal with damage homes left on beach following a storm. The culprit here is not the town or the property owner but FEMA through its flood Insurance arm and the State of NC for its failure to provide a statewide shoreline management program and take responsibility for property that is sitting on state owned land.
Lets start with FEMA. Structures remain on the beach, not because communities want them to but because owners refuse to let go of significant investments. Investments that generally have been insured, damage beyond reasonable repair, that need to be demolished but that cannot recoup the property value from flood insurance even though the ocean is what has damaged and devalued the property. Currently, the only way federal flood will pay for the loss of a house is if it is completely destroyed by a storm. This leads property owners to fight tooth and nail to keep homes standing until they can be knocked over by a storm. It leads to situations like the one in N. Topsail with property owners and local officials struggling to do the right thing for the community and be fair with property owners. It appears from the context of the article that these homes may qualify for insurance reimbursement but this is not their first bout with the ocean. Note the sandbags around the home in the photo above. They have been being protected in place until storm damage forced FEMA's hand.

But attorney Ron vonLembke, representing property owners of four of the homes, said in a letter read to the board that owners needed more time to receive aid from the Federal Emergency Management Agency to tear the homes down. He strongly urged the board not to use eminent domain.
Once the structures are declared a total loss, my clients will each receive $30,000 ($60,000 for each duplex structure) from FEMA to demolish and remove the buildings as desired by the town, the letter read. (snip)
FEMA has not yet come to a conclusion on coverage or compensation for the homes. Some home owners said they still had not gotten compensation from their insurance companies.
One homeowner, who said it took him four months to get an insurance adjustor to his home, even wanted to keep his home on its current lot.

Undoubtedly someone will write, "Why should the federal government bail out the idiots who buy by the beach?" BECAUSE THEY WOULDN'T BE THERE WITHOUT FLOOD INSURANCE! If there was no flood insurance, if the feds had not encourage people to buy property with the promise of reimbursement for damage, if premiums had not been paid, the debate would be very different. These property owners bought with the reasonable expectation that if their home was destroyed by the ocean they would be protected.
A more reasonable policy would be to bring back the Upton-Jones provisions of the flood insurance act. This policy allowed reimbursement for properties that were threatened by erosion and moved or destroyed voluntarily before they fell in the ocean. It was dropped some time ago and replaced with a different mitigation policy that has little or no relevance to the coast. Upton-Jones was an extremely successful policy. During that period we did not have a problem with homes left on the beach and sandbags were virtually unknown. A return to Upton-Jones is a reasonable approach to coastal erosion the current FEMA policy is not and it is the cause of problems described in this story.
The article also highlights the difficulty and expense of condemning property. The town is having the properties appraised, the homeowners have their own ideas about what the property is worth. The elected leaders must take the risk that a jury will decide that the properties have little to no value or risk a major financial hit and they have to do this without knowing what the outcome will be.

Its been a long, long journey for me in the past seven months, homeowner Janice Forster said. Im sitting behind my house watching it every day. I don't want anybody to get hurt on my property, but if you think you can come in and offer me $200 on my property, you're kidding yourselves.

A recent comment to this blog accused the towns of not wanting to cause anyone to lose property. No one wants to see another person hurt by the lose of property but that not what keeps towns from moving more quickly against property that is blighting the oceanfront. It is the risk of a major financial setback for the community. Do you buy and then go before a jury to let them decide what a damaged piece of ocean front property is worth? I doubt it. Do you want elected leaders playing roulette with your tax dollars? I doubt that as well and that is why they are reticent to act in all but the most extreme cases.
I mentioned that the State of North Carolina bore some culpability in this sad event as well. If the state had a clear policy on beach nourishment or shoreline management it would serve to inform the expectations of property owners about what protection they can expect from the state. The state does not have a coherent policy for its beaches. If that policy is going to be retreat OK tell us but don't foster some hope of shoreline maintenance but provide not assistance or guidance. We have no policy about dealing with long term erosion other than the 30 year setback rule but that policy doesn't address the reality of the situation.
Further the homes in this article are sitting on state land. Everything from the wet sand beach east is public property. These homes are in the ocean, yet the state does nothing about it. If the state had a policy to address this issue (say 6 months to remove a property or it will be destroyed with a state mandated and paid reimbursement) this problem wouldn't exist. I can hear my critics say "Why pay people for their stupidity?" fine, take out the compensation if you can get around the constitutional questions of taking private property. I won't quibble here about the specifics of the policy only that there should be one. The state is leaving problem to local government with its limited resources and that is driving the results.
There are few good answers to N. Topsails quandaries but there are lessons, lessons we need to teach, not local governments who are dealing with the results of a mixed mess of policies but to the state and federal government who do not provide a consistent framework to deal with coastal erosion. No wonder towns like beach nourishment it is the only policy that keeps you out of this morass. This is what retreat looks like and it is not a pretty picture.

The Beat Goes on

A story printed yesterday in the Washington Post shows just how arrogant the Bush administration has become in the face of a lapdog Congress. The article reports on a law suit filed to stop the implemnetation of mammoth budget cutting bill that stripped social welfare programs

"by reducing Medicaid rolls, raising work requirements for welfare, and trimming the student loan program, among other changes."

But the issues raised by the changes are not behind the suit. The fact that the bill never passed Congress, specifically the House of Representatives, is the issue raised in the suit.
Our "education" president can't even wait to follow the Constitution before he cuts student loans. You can't make this stuff up, everyone agrees on the facts of the case and the legal community says the case is a slam dunk but the Bush administration will do what it wants to until it is stopped regardless of public sentiment (Iraq), law (domestic wiretapping) or the Constitution.
What's next? The level of mendacity of the Bush administration is just too long and depressing to detail here but if you want one more example checkout the analysis of the President's claim he never wanted war in Iraq. Increasingly, I am led to believe he will go down as the worst president of all time. It is difficult to recite even a short list of positive accomplishments in the last 5 years.

NYT Behind Louisiana Aid Package, a Change of Heart by One Man - New York Times

Intersting piece in the New York Times New York Times highlighting the work of the Bush administration recovery czar Donald Powell. It details Mr. Powell's shift from a policy that only homeowners with flood insurance would recieve federal housing help to an acceptance that a broader intervention was needed.

Mr. Powell's own idea of housing aid excluded thousands of homeowners, many of them poor, who lived in the flood plain but did not have flood insurance when Hurricane Katrina hit...But barely a week would pass before Mr. Powell did an about-face that turned many of his critics into fans, ...Mr. Powell announced that the president would seek $4.2 billion more for Louisiana to compensate homeowners — even those in the flood plain.

The rationale identified in the paper was that the government was partially at fault for the disaster through the failure of the levies. Therefore those who had relied on the levies, rather than flood insurance, should be helped as well.
Consistent with federal policy homes will be rebuilt in the flood plain but flood damage mitagation methods will be used. Interestingly it seems the federal government doesn't want to run people out the their homes no matter how flood prone or foolish the location may seem to others. The argument that rebuilding in locations that have been flooded in the past didn't seem to hold much political value, no matter how big the price tage. In this case the price tag is 4.2 billion of our tax dollars.

VA Pilot Offshore drilling: The big questions

The VA Pilot is doing a series on the push for offshore drilling in Virginia. The home page for the series is at pilotonline. It includes links to a 3 views of the issue published in Sundays Pilot. The view supporting drilling is laughable. Basically it says we need evergy independence so lets drill off shore for natural gas. It does not address what to do about environmental issues, how to get the country off fossil fuels once the gas is used up etc. Myra Oberdorf, long time Mayor of Va. Beach says lets get more facts before we make a decision. Her fence sitting doesn't play well at all. She does not provide any framework for analysis once "the facts" are known. The final installment of the series was from the local Sierra Club president, not surprisingly he doesn't like the prospect of offshore drilling. None of this is the most inspired writing but it does set the stage for what hopefully will be some slightly deeper thinking about the issue.
That is not to say that I think the issue needs a lot of deep thinking. If we are going to address the fossil fuel issue then lets address it now and not after we have risked the environmental well being of the entire eastern seaboard. Get on with it.

CRC in town

The CRC is in town this week meeting Thurs and Friday at the Ramada Inn. The agenda is posted on the CRC website. Much of the action at these meetings takes place in the two standing committees. These are joint committees of the CRC and the CRAC. The Implementation and Standards Committee and the Planning and Special Issues Committee are where the fundamental issues get sorted out. Staff and the stakeholder groups represented on the CRAC sort out how values will be prioritized. There are 2 topics in the I&S committee that look interesting in light of this question asked in a comment to a recent post:

And, whats you take on what appears to be a big push by some appointees within CAMA to relax the rules and give oceanfront property owners more leeway in building (once more) too close to the ocean following beach nourishment?
It appears they want to use the argument that nourished vegetation on nourished beach should become the new marking line for building setbacks. Quite foolish, I would say, given that even CAMA acknowledges that a nourished beach washes away quicker than a natural beach. With that said, will they also increase the expected annual erosion rates accordingly? Bet not! And, surely this action would not lead to more development, would it?

The I&S Committee will be discussing both "Static Vegetation Line (I&S-06-07) - Jeff Warren" and "Structure Repair vs. Replacement Rule" and both of these play into the discussion of this issue. Let me start by saying that I do not know what will be discussed at the meeting and neither of these topics may involve the issue I am going to talk about next, but they sure sound like it.

Lets start this discourse by establishing a scenario. There is an oceanfront lot with a natural beach. The owners of the lot build a house on the lot and comply with the CAMA setback rule. The house as constructed complies with all local and state rules. TIme passes, erosion occurs. The house is now located within the CAMA setback and could not be reconstructed in it present location if damaged more than 50% of its value. A beach nourishment project is undertaken to protect the home and its neighbors from erosion. After the nourishment project the setback line remains where it was prior to nourishment, following current CRC rules, it does not shift east with the expanded beach. The house is still nonconforming but now further from the surf and the first line of natural vegetation than it was when it was constructed. There is a fire, the house is 48% damaged. The house is rebuilt in its current location with no decrease in setback or increase in size. The house burns, is rebuilt and the status quo is restored. Now the house burns again but is 70% damaged. Now the house cannot be rebuilt unless it completely complies with CAMA rules (this is the famous 50% rule) but the lot is too small and no house can be built on the lot under the strict interpretation of CAMA rules because the setback rule does not leave enough lot area to build a house. What should the policy be in this situation?
I support the current rule maintaining the pre-nourhsment vegetation line. It makes no sense to use nourishment as a reason to allow development that could not have occurred prior to putting sand on the beach. Using nourishment as an excuse to increase density of development is a path to disaster. However, the scenario I laid out asks a different question, what happens to properties made nonconforming by the static vegetation line, properties that now are safer from erosion than when they were constructed. Does it make sense not to allow them to be rebuilt to their previous condition? The goal of the setback line is to insure that newly developed properties have a minimum useful life. That useful life is pegged at 30 years for residential property (the setback is 30 times the annual erosion rate). That goal is met for the property I described because of beach nourishment. It will have a reasonable life expectancy, probably even greater than the 30 years. It was destroyed not by flood or erosion but by a peril CAMA does not address, fire. CAMA rules would have let it remain indefinitely if it had not been destroyed what changes if it is reconstructed. Finally, if reconstruction is not allowed, the state may be "taking" the lot (denying all reasonable use without compensation). So why not let them rebuild? Well, first off their neighbors couldn't build the same house on a neighboring vacant property and equal treatment under the law is a very important constitutional principal. Secondly nourishment is a temporary solution, erosion will continue and presumably the house could again be less than 30 times the erosion rate from the first line of vegetation and be threatened by erosion. Also, If the house is not rebuilt the risk of general flood damage is reduced for the state and federal governments, reducing the risk of flood and storm damage is the intent of the setback policy.
Good reasons on both sides, what is the answer? I have spent some time mulling this over and still have not balanced all the values. Here are a couple of minimum standards that I believe should apply,

• No reconstruction should be allowed if reasonable use can be made of the lot and all CAMA rules met. (build the plan that meets the rules.


• No reconstruction for large structures under the 60 times erosion rate rule (convert the property to conforming residential property if possible


• Reconstruction cannot encroach into current (nonconforming) setback of the builidng


• Reconstruction cannot increase the size of the structure inside or outside the setback area

If all of these conditions are met then I think a variance of the setback rule should be considered on a case by case basis with a general guideline being the house can be reconstructed to its original design with the maximum setback from the vegetation line that can be achieved on the lot. (if you were at 50 feet of a 60 ft setback but can rebuild at 55 ft. then you must rebuild at 55 ft.) That said I am still not sure that every variance under this scenario should be granted. The depth of the setback, size of the house and other nonconformities are all elements to be considered. I can see a scenario, however, when I might vote to grant a variance to the setback rule to allow reconstruction if there was no other reasonable use for the lot. The alternative is to condemn the property, pay the owner for it and then use it to provide public access. A good goal but an expensive one unless NC DCM is ready to pick up the tab.
The actions from the last CRC meeting show this entry:

Granted a variance to
Charles and Ellen Darrigrand of Brunswick County, who sought relief from the commission’s rule requiring the use of a pre-nourishment static vegetation line to calculate setbacks in order to construct a single family residence on a lot in Oak Island.

I do not know the particulars of the case so I can't say whether it was a case similar to the one I described of not. This indicates that the CRC was not asked to consider changeing the rule, only to review how the rule affects a specific property under the CAMA rules variance process. We'll have to wait and see what happens.
The same writer also asked "What's your take on what has been success of CAMA's 2000 study whereby it attempted to define weakness and improve the effectiveness of its statewide land use plan?"I have not had any experience with the new process. I am waiting and watching both Nags Head and Southern Shores experience to see how the changes play out. Some of the changes will not be be changes for Nags Head. The Town had already made its plan a Land and Water Use Plan and it included an achievements section that detailed actions taken to implement the plan (this for the last 2 LWUPs). More on this topic as the process goes along.

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.

Sunshine week

Its Sunshine Week, a week dedicated to openess in government, a very important cause. The N&O has a series of articles, while the Wed. Sentinel has a surprisingly weak pullout section that appears to be a local reprint of material from the national Sunshine Week group with local ads added. This is surprising for a paper that has made quite a name for itself going after local governments that violate open meetings and public record rules.
What really got me thinking was an article in the N&O detailing at speech by NC Attorney General Roy Cooper. Cooper talked a lot about putting teeth in the states laws.

Cooper said the internal culture of government often disrespects the public's right to know whats happening, contrary to state law and good management.

Cooper said too many state and local government workers violate the public's right of access to government information, often out of ignorance. His office and the N.C. Press Association are putting together a sunshine manual for government officials.

Cooper suggested that government workers who illegally withhold public records or close meetings might deserve punishment.

He is not going to get many votes from the State Employees Association for that kind of language but he is right about finding ways to protect the public's right to know what its government is doing and I have two suggestions.
First pass an open meetings rule for the NC legislature. There is a ridiculous double standard in this state when the legislature meets in private to set rules to require other public bodies to meet in public. Get the General Assembly to hold open committee meetings, especially regarding the budget. Many of the problems with the budget, like the last minute changes to the lottery bill and the eye exam requirement for school admission, could have been avoided with a little sunshine.
Secondly, if an elected official shows an egregious disregard for the law take away their right to serve as an elected official either for a length of time or forever if the crime is bad enough. In fact take away the right to vote, no jail time just forbid the individual from participating in public life in North Carolina. The threat of removal from office with no hope of return would be a pretty strong deterrent for most elected officials. Establish and independent panel for review and provide one court appeal. Yes it could be strung out for a while but just the negative publicity from a conviction should be enough to keep an offender out of office.
Just a thought.

heraldsun.com: Protect our precious, popular beaches

Here is another response to the Pilkey/Coburn letter. This one is in the Herald Sun a paper that serves Durham, Chapel Hill and RTP.

N&O NC Poultry farms on Guard

As I noted in an earlier post the avian flu now spreading around the world is a major threat to Eastern NC. Apparently someone else things so as well. The N&O details the state and federal efforts to identify and quarantine the disease when it is identified in the state, The article suggests that there may not be a way to prevent the disease from breaking out but the foucs is on isolating any infected flocks. The planned response to a disease outbreak is pretty brutal.

If the disease is found, the farm would be quickly quarantined and the disease traced to its source, Marshall said. Every chicken would be gassed with carbon dioxide, and over the next two or three months, the bodies would compost inside the houses. That way, the disease never leaves the farm. A farmer could not raise chickens again until the Agriculture Department determined that the houses were disease free

. The article confirms the threat not just to poultry but to the state's economy. The outbreak in France "made North Carolina agriculture officials think twice about their theory that bird flu is more of a threat to humans than to the state's $2.7 billion poultry industry." Let's hope it never happens but it's good to know the someone is doing something about it.

Va. Pilot Letter re: Pilkey

Noted this letter in the Sunday Virginian Pilot. A considered response to Pilkey and Coburn:

Finally, Pilkey and Coburn suggest retreat from the beach. Retreat to where? The Outer Banks is mostly built up. There is no room to retreat. One could argue that we never should have allowed development on the Outer Banks. But it has been done, and before it started many years ago, the population had an insufficient understanding of shoreline dynamics.

Indeed.

OB Sentinel Shoreline Access / Paradox

Good piece in The Outer Banks Sentinel about growing concerns over the loss of public access to the shoreline (not just beach but all public waters). The problem is real. It is almost impossible for local governments to afford to buy oceanfront property for access without help from the state and sound and riverfront property is nearly as dear inland. The piece cites a Winston-Salem paper with this lovely quote:

When the Long Beach pier on Oak Island closed, The Winston-Salem Journal wrote, "With each closing, the coast becomes less a shared resource for all and more a private enclave for the wealthy."

I don't know the context in the original piece but given the context in this piece it would seem to imply that using piers for public access is a good thing. Which brings us to the paradox. The Sentinel strongly objected to the purchase of Jennette's Pier using state and local funds even though public ownership would guarantee public access.
Maybe as the debate over shoreline access moves forward the Sentinel will let us know what their position on public access is, until then we will have to wonder if this article is just news or reflects a genuine concern.

Ray Midgett

I want to make sure that readers understand I meant no disrepect to Ray Midgett when I wrote:"No less of an expert than Ray Midgett, head of BeachHuggers, the group that led the movement to repeal the tax, has stated publicly that he does not expect the tax to bring in anywhere near 50% of the expected annual revenue of $13 million.". in the piece on the Southern Shores resolution Ray is dedicated to his cause, no matter how misguided I may think that cause is. I fault his tactics sometimes but not his dedication, sincerity or intelligence. It must also be said that he has been very successful. The following comment has been posted to that story from someone who knows Ray very well apparently and I thought that I would pass it on.

Some Outer Banks residents may not know that BeachHugger founder, Ray Midgett (retired) is a former tax auditor (including sales tax) for the North Carolina Department of Revenue. According to Midgett, he made his assumption that the county would garner less than 50% of the anticipated $12 million yearly revenue, based upon these facts, (1) all rental reservations made prior to Dec. 31, 2005 for the 2006 summer season are not subject to the new sales tax, (2) all building contracts signed and/or quoted prior to Dec. 31, 2005 do not have to pay the new sales tax on building materials, etc. even though construction takes place after Jan.1, 2006, and, (3)the first six months of the year, historically, do not produce 50 of the annual sales tax revenue.
And, this is only the beginning...add in, (a) a declining economy, (b)taxpayer's buying out of the county...yes, many of them are doing just THAT!

PS. I agree with his analysis.

N&O Slimy Senators

If you want to see how the game is played in DC here is a good example of how the Republican leadership punishes those who oppose them.
This is the final paragraph in an N&O article on the Senate's puny attempt at reforming lobbyist corruption

The Senate also approved by voice an amendment by Sen. Jim Inhofe, R-Okla., that would force senators who vote against annual cost-of-living pay raises to turn over those raises to the Treasury to help pay for veterans' health programs.

Remember the majority party controls how votes are taken either voice or by computer. When you vote by computer everyone knows who votes. So this vote is designed to keep Senators from voting against giving themselves raises, no matter how wrong they may think it is.

Molly Ivins: Enough of the D.C. Dems | The Progressive

this is simply too good to pass up. Molly Ivans rant on the DC Democrats. Would that it weren't true.

"Every Democrat I talk to is appalled at the sheer gutlessness and spinelessness of the Democratic performance. The party is still cringing at the thought of being called, ooh-ooh, “unpatriotic” by a bunch of rightwingers.

Take “unpatriotic” and shove it. How dare they do this to our country? “Unpatriotic”? These people have ruined the American military! Not to mention the economy, the middle class, and our reputation in the world. Everything they touch turns to dirt, including Medicare prescription drugs and hurricane relief."

I came to this from the Dent blog, good source for thoughtfullness.

Interesting question

An article in the Va. Pilot today recapping testimony yesteday by Prof. Stan Riggs before the NC Legislative Study Commission on Global Climate Change raises an interesting question. How much development is too much? Part of the strategy suggested by Riggs is to reduce the amount of development on North Caroina's barrier islands.

Riggs suggested that smarter, less-intense development is needed to protect the island chains.
“I don’t think for a second that we have to abandon the barrier islands,” he said. “If we want those barrier islands, we just can’t pack them solid.”

What does that mean? The photos to the left are one section the skyline in Ocean City Md. taken about 3 years ago. I don't know anyone who advocates this type of development for our area. In fact we have some of the least developed coastline along the eastern seaboard (in my informed opinion). Most of Dare County's beaches are developed in homes less than 35 ft tall. Yes recently some have become large in comparison to earlier development but they remain several orders of magnitude smaller than Ocean City, Va. Beach or Myrtle Beach, communities with economies the size of Dare County's. Whats more the overall density of development is substantially less as well not just building size. There is little true urban development on the Outer Banks as opposed the the denser communities listed above. It is ironic that that some coastal critics are calling for more urban style development to address water quality issues but that is a topic for another day.
What level of development is appropriate in the face of sea level change? How much value should be put at risk and who gets to make those choices? Right now local communities are making those decisions with substantial guidance from the Coastal Resources Commission (setbacks, AEC lot coverage requirements etc.) Is Riggs talking about Corrolla or Carolina Beach where lot coverage sometimes exceeds 100% (porches overhang the right of way)?
Personally, I don't think we are overly developed in Dare County. Yes, I would like to see less development and more open space but given the cost of either I am not unhappy with the current mix. We do need to be vigilent that we maintain the current scale anddon't move to another level of lot coverage or heigth. How much is too much? Pilkey say none, Riggs says some, what do you think?

Coastland Times Vs. Dr. Sandlove

It is a pity that the Coastland Times doesn't have its content available on the Internet. As the paper of record for the Outer Banks it would make a lot of good reporting available to people who simply don't want to read 2 week old news. If the paper had a web site this post would be linked to the editorial in the Tues (March 7,2006) edition. Since that is not possible I will try to provide the flavor of the piece.
The editorial responds to a letter from Orin Pilkey and his associate Andrew Colburn published in the Va. Pilot Commentary section on Sunday March 5. As readers familiar with the authors might suspect, the missive was another joust in Pilkey's quixotic struggle to get people to stop building on the coast and to retreat. Pilkey begins by citing the recent Dare County sales tax referendum as proof positive that coastal residents don't want to protect the shoreline. He goes on to call for the abandonment of the coast and retreat to the west. When Pilkey suggests such a strategy would ensure "clean and healthy beaches" the Coastland Times responds:

Yes, perhaps; but by that time the beach would be in the vicinity of Elizabeth City and everyone would be instructed by Duke University Earth Sciences professors to pack up and make a further retreat in order to keep it clean and healthy.

On the question of what the referendum meant the CT again says Pilkey comes up short:

Pilkey and company take for granted that Dare County residents are overwhelmingly opposed to beach preservation, as was Carteret County, they say, when voters there they rejected a $30 million bond proposal in 2002.
But that's not at all clear. Nor was it the issue in last month's referendum. It was who should pay for maintaining Dare beaches, and how. Voters simply said 'no' to the sales tax increase. Many may have opposed beach nourishment as well particularly the $1 billion plus sand-pumping plan proposed by county advocates but given the opportunity, a majority of voters will almost always say no to a tax increase.

Finally the CT disagrees with Pilkey in a most fundemental way. Pilkey's letter concludes that the only thing lacking for a retreat stratgegy to work is public will but the Coastland Times sees the peoples will differently.

Pilkey tells us, "There is absolutely no reason except not wanting to why buildings cannot be moved away from the shoreline." That's like saying there's no reason except for not wanting to that Dare County residents don't pack up homes and businesses and move away from here. Not wanting to is reason enough.(emphasis added)
The majority of our residents live and work here by choice. Unless we're mistaken, they want to maintain and preserve what we have. They differ on how to go about that but while most realize that changes are inevitable, they are unwilling to abandon these Outer Banks to the forces of nature. Or to Professor Pilkey and friends..;

Right On.

Southern Shores Resolution

The Town Council of Southern Shores passed a resolution this evening calling on the Dare County Board of Commissioners to develop a comprehensive shoreline protection plan and to disseminate the plan, its cost and financing plan to the public. The council deleted from the final version of the resolution language that called on Dare County to hold an advisory referendum on the plan.
The discussion of the resolution showed the council had differing views on beach nourishment, but a general skepticism that a workable plan for shoreline protection could be developed. The board decided to amend the draft resolution language, suggesting that after a plan was developed might be a more appropriate time call for a referendum on the plan. Mayor Pro Tem Dan Shields suggested that it might not be clear what effect a referendum would have, whose actions would be limited, if the results of the referendum restricted the Dare County's ability to protect the shoreline. He suggested that if the county was limited then the municipalities in the county might try to fund their own shoreline management plans through property tax increases. Such increases could reduce Southern Shores share of sales and occupancy tax passed back from the state to the county and distributed to the towns based on the ratios of property tax levies (more taxes for beach nourishment more shared revenue for the nourishing town, less for Southern Shores)
The council also voted to ask Dare County to share funds from the short-lived sales tax for beach nourishment with the municipalities. The resolution called for the funds to be distributed based on the ratio of respective populations but it was recognized during the discussion that while this formula was advantageous for Southern Shores any final distribution plan would have to be negotiated with the County and the other towns. The vote on both resolutions was unanimous.
The first resolution is a very smart move on the part of the town and very hard to dispute. The County needs to get on with its planning in the event the Federal project is not funded. It also needs to do a better job of getting the public to understand and hopefully support whatever methods of shoreline management the county decides to use. Much of the discussion focussed on the failure of the sales tax referendum (or its success if you will), Council member David Sanders expressed his skepticism about beach nourishment being successful on Dare County beaches, while Council member Brian McDonald reminded the body that the ocean beach was central to Dare County's economy and hence Southern Shores economy and much of its success as a community. Mayor Don Smith pushed to have the call for a referendum left in the resolution but relented as it became clear the rest of his board did not agree.
Actually the draft language didn't call for Dare County to hold a referendum, wisely it called for the county to seek the authority to hold a vote. The resolution was structured this way in becuase neither advisory referendums and binding voter initiatives are provided for in the North Carolina Constitution. Depending which lawyer you ask, such a vote would, at a minimum, require an act of the legislature and possibly an amendment to the Constitution.
The question of what happens to the sales tax money is a good one. No less of an expert than Ray Midgett, head of BeachHuggers, the group that led the movement to repeal the tax, has stated publicly that he does not expect the tax to bring in anywhere near 50% of the expected annual revenue of $13 million. Southern Shores spoke in terms of $6 million as the county's windfall from the tax. In theory the money could be combined with revenues from the one percent occupancy tax dedicated to shoreline management. Dare County segregates this money in a separate fund. These are the county dollars Nags Head is considering requesting if if proceeds with a locally funded beach nourishment project.
Interestingly, Southern Shores planned to use the funds to supplement (or replace) town funds currently used for the protection of ocean dunes. One wonders why Southern Shores has not asked the county for funding for this program before. It certainly sounds like "shoreline management" to me.
Kudos to some very smart elected officials in Southern Shores.

N&O Social Justice Goal for Orange County

I was struck by a piece in the N&O. It reports that the Orance County Board of Commissioners is considering adopting as a goal the promotion of "Social Justice

"Such a goal likely would identify areas the county wants to improve on and include some way to measure progress, said Milan Pham, the county's human rights and relations director." ...

There is no one definition of social justice, said John Calmore, who teaches social justice lawyering at the UNC-Chapel Hill School of Law and cowrote "Social Justice: Professionals, Communities and Law, Cases and Materials."
"Social justice seeks to really address the opportunity-denying circumstances," he said. "Whatever those opportunity-denying circumstances are, you want to free people from them."

You have to wonder why this is not the goal of every government everywhere but certainly it is not.
I guess the county that contains the Town of Chapel Hill, renowned bastion of liberalism, might have an inclination in this direction, but taking the first step, actually acknowledging governments obligation to address these problems as way to build a better community, takes courage and conviction. My hat is of the the board if they are able to follow through. It reminds of a line in a community vision statement that I once read. " We recognize that in order to secure this future we must work together, treating all with respect and providing all with justice, keeping our common goals in front of us and our petty differences behind us."

N&O - says Culpepper should GO!

This story just won't go away. The News and Observer called for former Rep. Bill Culpepper to resign in an editorial. published today.

" When a governor appoints you to something and then says he's revisiting that appointment, that means in plain English: You're making me look bad and you should resign right now. If that's not clear enough for Culpepper, then Easley needs to withdraw the appointment on his own. Not just because it reflects poorly on him, but because it's the right thing to do."

I doubt Cupepper will resign. He is a strong willed man and an excellent politician. I expect he will count on the whole thing blowing over. The problem is that the corruption scandal swirling around Speaker Jim Black, a very close associate of Culpeppers, will not go away. The state Board of Elections and Jim Black himself (first he hadn't filled in checks then he did) seem bent on keeping it around for a while. That makes it very hard for the Govenor to look like his taking a stand and Gov. Easley is all about looking like he is doing something

Va. Pilot: Growth in Currituck

Intersting article on the Va. Pilot NC section dealing with the lack of growth along the Rt. 158 corridor in Currituck County. Accepting for the minute the premise that commercial development along the road to the Outer Banks has not been heavy as expected the reasons are very telling.

For more than a decade, longrange plans by county agencies and boards have called for clean commercial development along the highway.
“We’re still waiting,” said Paul Farr, a member of Currituck County’s economic development board.
Two of the biggest factors hindering more rapid business development are stalled plans to build a midcounty bridge to the Currituck Outer Banks and the lack of a countywide sewer system, Farr said. Mature development of the southern end of Currituck could be more than a decade away, he said.

Former Currituck Chamber of Commerce President Willo Kelly cites the same reason.

Kelly has said for years that the county’s lack of a sewer system is stalling economic development. A countywide system would cost millions, and while a public sewer is in the works for the Moyock area, it would be years before it reached the southern end of the county.

What does it say if the availablity of central sewage is what is keeping business out of Currituck. It says that central systems don't make businesses pay their fair share and put the burden of commercial development on residential property owners who are forced to hook up to central system but don't need them because their on site systems are working well. Imagine the density of development that is being considered in Currituck if it requires central sewage. Does not sound pretty.
Imagine if central sewage is in stalled where the businesses want to be, on the beach. Just one more little proof the central sewage promotes high density commercial devleopment. Exactly the kind we don't need on the Outer Banks.

---

Question? If the article is about development in Currituck (or the lack of it) Why use a photo of a Nags Head construction site? Why not a vacant Currituck field?

Coming in Just 2 Weeks

17th Annual Kelly's Restaurant and Tavern's St. Patrick's Day Parade
North Carolina's largest St. Patrick's Day Parade.
Beach Road MP 12 - 10.5, Nags Head.
March 19, 1:00 pm. Rain or Shine. 

OBX Marathon & Half Marathon. The Outer Banks Marathon

OBX Marathon & Half Marathon. The Outer Banks Marathon: "

Where will you watch the OBX Marathon. Should be a lot of fun to watch the matarhon. It will run (sorry for the pun) past Kitty Hawk south of the KH Village Rd. , the length of Kill Devil Hills and in Nags Head from 8th St to Whalebone Junction. , Over the Bonner Bridge to Roanoke Island through Manteo and end at Festival Park. Should be a lot of fun. Lots of answers to questions at their website

Final listing of Candidates for Dare County BOC

Democrats

District 1 - Roanoke Island & Mainland
Robin Mann
Sybil Ross
Virginia Tillet (I)
District 2 - Nags Head, Colington & Kill Devil Hills
Stan White (I)
Max Dutton
District 4 - Chicamacomico, Avon, Buxton, Frisco & Hatteras (two year term to replace the late Mac Midgette)
Alan Burrus
District 5 - At Large
Ray Midgett
Rex Tillett
District 3 has no seat up for election

Republicans

District 1 - Roanoke Island & Mainland
No Candidate
District 2 - Nags Head, Colington & Kill Devil Hills
No Candidate
District 4 - Chicamacomico, Avon, Buxton, Frisco & Hatteras (two year term to replace the late Mac Midgette)
John Head
District 5 - At Large
Jack Shea

Hisses from the OB Sentinel

Apparently this blog has struck a nerve with the OB Sentinel. Sundays edition carried a Hiss on the editorial page that referred to a recent post in this blog. It stated that we were incorrect about the process for holding a referendum that needs to pass both town wide and in a service district

Obviously either the blogger or -- if town officials really stated such -- the town is not aware of federal and state election laws that ensure the privacy of the voter and how they choose to vote. How would it be possible to identify the oceanfront property owners without violating their guaranteed privacy of how they voted? And there is the issue related to the fact that voting is not just a privilege of property owners.

Good question, too bad you didn't ask it before you published the piece. Here is how it is done. When voters come in to vote they are asked where they reside (they have already provided this information as part of the voter registration process, you ask again in case it has changed). Voters are identified as residing in a service district or not residing in a service district. This creates two or more groups of voters depending on the number of service districts that have been created. Each voter is given a a ballot. The completed ballot is placed in the ballot box for the appropriate service district, the ballots are counted. The referendum must pass both on ballots cast for each service district and on all the ballots cast townwide. The Sentinel is correct that the vote is not limited to property owners, the group a voter belongs to is established by where he or she resides not by property ownership. I should have been more careful in my use of the term property owner.
As I go back and read the article again I realize what the problem is, the reporter doesn't understand (or doesn't accept) the concept that the voters who reside in a service district have an approval requirement that is separate from the townwide approval requirement. Here is the relevant section of NCGS 160a - Article 23 Municipal Service Districts

§ 160A -543 Bonds authorized.
A city may incur debt under general law to finance services, facilities or functions provided within a service district. If a proposed general obligation bond issue is required by law to be submitted to and approved by the voters of the city, and if the proceeds of the proposed bond issue are to be used in connection with a service that is or, if the bond issue is approved, will be provided only for one or more service districts or at a higher level in service districts than city wide, the proposed bond issue must be approved concurrently by a majority of those voting throughout the entire city and by a majority of the total of those voting in all of the affected or to be affected service districts.(empahsis added) (1973, c. 655, s. 1; 2004s. 4.)

This citation makes it clear that a bond that provides a higher level of benefit to an established service district must be passed both by the voters in the service district and townwide and it must pass concurrenlty, that means in the same election. The full text of the service district law was provided to the BOC in their packet for their meeting on Feb. 15 under item C. This is what the committee recommended and this is what the town is considering, The referendum must pass two separate tests. With two different sets of voters, one a subset of the other. One vote, counted two ways.

---

Now here is another issue. Journalistic ethics.. The Sentinel choose to refer to this blog as :" the be {sic} blogger...This person, whose identity is unknown to us" Why not name the source so readers can evaluate for themselves that accuracy of the criticism. The name of this blog is View from the Ridge, the URL is http://jockeysridge.blogspot.com/. I clearly reference and provide links to their pages why not have the same courtiesy Perhaps the Sentinel didn't want readers to view the rest of that post which amplified and explained a number of quotes that appeared in the original Sentinel article.
Hisses to the Sentinel for getting it wrong again and for not providing a link to this blog so readers can judge for themselves.

SPIN Cycle-Basnight to step down?

This note from SPIN Cycle. Lets hope that Marc does what is best for his family and himself. He derserves whatever he wants after his long service to the area and the state. :

"Maybe it has something to do with the funky, summer-like weather we've been having, but we have to share the latest buzz around the capital city. We have heard (from more than one source) that Senate President Pro Tem-for-life Marc Basnight may be giving up his Pro Tem position. Why would a man who can snap his fingers and have a channel dredged be willing to give up the most powerful position in state government?"

Sorry about the gratuitous slap at the good Senator about getting a channel dredged.

OB Sentinel Beach Nourishment Workshop

How do they do it? The Sentinel's headline writers find the one fact in the story that is wrong and make a headline out it it.

Nags Head might hold two referendums on beach nourishment

Actually the Town explained that there would be one vote and votes would be counted separately, once for the entire town and once for property owners in any service (special assessment) district that is established.

Catherine Kozak had an excellent article in Sundays Va. Pilot
A full set of the slides used in the workshop can be found at this site.
The memo's and analysis for the financing plan can be dowloaded from the Town web site under item C of the the Feb. 15th agenda.

Other than the headline the Sentinel article is pretty factual though several of the quotes bear more explanation:

"I want everyone to know that we are going to talk about just one plan that we have been considering,” said Beach Nourishment Committee member Bob Muller. The one plan is one financing plan not one nourishment plan. In fact Muller described both the Federal project and a proposed locally funded project as the article described.

“In other words we asked them to go find us a project,” said Muller.
Muller expalined that after completing engineering work on the post Hurricane Isabel emergency berm the Town asked CS&E to develop a plan for a locally funded project with specific parameters: affordable, effective and relatively immediate. This research led to the development of the plan now being considered.

“We believe that if we don’t interfere with Dare County’s federal project then they will help us with 25 percent of the cost,” said Ratzenberger. Not interfering in this context means proceed with an emergency project that would not delay the federal project.

“I’m concerned that these tax increases will affect a lot of business owners,” said an audience member. We haven’t considered that issue yet,” responded Muller. The premise of the question was whether increased rental rates required to pay assments might reduce the disposal income of guests and therefore reduce income for local restaurants and shops. This is a tough question to answer because it assumes that rental fees will increase which may not happen due to competition from other segments of the beach. The committee explained their analysis of possible assessment plans was based on raising adequate revenue, providing susbtantial equity amongst contributors to the project and developing a politically viable plan.

According to the Committee, when performing beach nourishment the federal government will put sand on the beach only in areas where it is protecting something but not always where it is really needed. “If we went with the federal project you’re going to find that areas that need protection aren’t going to get it,” said Muller. The discussion on this issue revolved around the positive cost benefit analysis required for approval of federally funded projects. Muller's comment was aimed at areas like Kitty Hawk that were not included in the federal plan because of low cost benefit ratios but where erosion is causing threats to major community infrastructure.