BeachDreamer said:The greedy part is not that they want to preserve their property. It's being so worried about others possibly having access to it, that they refuse to allow the preservation in the first place.
Right. Their argument against the restoration is based upon their view that the gulf-front property owner has the absolute right to prevent anyone on "their" beach, no matter where the mean high water line is. That is simply incorrect.
I am not a big fan of renourishment (jury's still out), but their rationale smacks of arrogance. What's odd is that beach renourishment will increase the owner's beach, the way I understand it. So, public funds are being used to give gulffront owners more property. I do not understand why some gulf-front owners feel that they should get all the benefits of gulf-front ownership, but not have to bear any of the burdens of gulf-front ownership, which rather should be borne by the taxpayer. I admire the dissenters because at lteast they are consistent--they accept they have the benefits and the burdens.
And, yes, I can afford gulf-front property.