Emergency BCC Meeting - 8/1/05

[Cork On the Ocean]

I have mixed feelings about the meeting. First , I know who I am voting for and against without a doubt. No Ro! Cindy is a true leader.

I feel very sorry for the gulffront owners and the confusion regarding existing contracts to bring in 6.2 sand. Not sure what they are going to do about that. My understanding was no more 6.2 but it sounded like some owners have had it dumped and not placed and some still have more already ordered and paid for. Really feel sorry for them. It was clear that some gulf front owners were responsible and wanted to do what was right. A few others were clearly motivated by money. They saw that first ruling as an opportunity to save money on the sand to shore up their homes and they are ticked that they're gonna have to pay more.

Also, the one guy that said the white sand came from Appalachicola and dredging wouldn't do any good was elegantly addressed by the other man who has been doing the work for years. Maybe the sand came from Appalachicola many years ago but it washed into the gulf over the last year and I'm sure it hasn't migrated back to Appalachicola. It's still right out there and as he said, just pull it out of Destin pass which is constantly accreting beautiful white sand. It worked for PC and apparently worked for the New Jersey shoreline as well. Seacrest Beach has not made a decision to replace sand yet saying that they are waiting to hear about dredging permits. They indicated that they should know by about Friday

I'm not sure that I agree Joe that they are going to pull out much of the dark sand. When they were clarifying the motion, they only said that sand that didn't meet the 6.2 was being removed but I didn't really hear them say that a "washed" 6.2 had to go. I just checked with a friend who was there and she also understood that "washed" 6.2 would stay and that the standard would now be based on "unwashed". My bet is that only the mud at the BM (appropriate) public access is really going to be required to be moved and it's at our expense for their screw up but I'd rather pay than leave it there.

I still think we had a great victory, we get the BM sand moved out and we've raised the standard slightly. Basically, it was a compromise but a move in the right direction.

 

[Smiling JOe]

I'm not sure that I agree Joe that they are going to pull out much of the dark sand. When they were clarifying the motion, they only said that sand that didn't meet the 6.2 was being removed but I didn't really hear them say that a "washed" 6.2 had to go. I just checked with a friend who was there and she also understood that "washed" 6.2 would stay and that the standard would now be based on "unwashed".

I think you are correct, but that part about unwashed vs washed 6.2 is vague and was left unaddressed.

 

[Miss Kitty]

Last time I checked, washing soil made mud! What does washing do? Do they try to use Clorox and Downy for soil that is whiter and softer?

 

[Smiling JOe]

Last time I checked, washing soil made mud! What does washing do? Do they try to use Clorox and Downy for soil that is whiter and softer?

Washing the soil, if it has a high content of sand, will separate the sand from the dirt. You cannot just put it in a pot and let it soak, in which case you will make mud. It has to be filtered and the debris(dirt) removed. As the County Engineer stated last night, you run it through a coffee filter a few times then microwave it. To me, it sounds like fast food. Yuck!

 

[DBOldford]

I spoke with a very nice young woman in the County Clerk's office this morning, who said that the meeting was well attended. She was trying to figure out what the decision was in detail for purposes of the minutes. But she told me that the Commission voted 3 to 1 in favor of a clarification that imported sand had to meet the .62 standard BEFORE being deposited on the beach, not that it MIGHT meet it after deposit/mixing/bleaching/etc. The latter was apparently the claim of the person who imported the brown sand to Blue Mt. Beach. That matter remains unresolved as to whether it constituted a violation, according to the young woman.

One Commissioner was absent (Brannon); three voted in favor of the .62 standard before deposit (Meadows, Pridgen, Jones); and one (Cuchens) voted against. She also said the question was raised in the meeting whether Cuchens had a conflict and he reported that he had no financial interest or relationship with the issue or properties effected by this. But it doesn't really factor in the face of how the vote went.

I also heard that there were more people in attendance at this meeting than had ever attended a County hearing, which I am hoping is good news.

Not so good news---I was also informed that the County's server went down last week and that they did not receive any e-mail since July 24 and still are not up. My e-mail to all five of the Commissioners was returned just this morning. So those of us who e-mailed letters to the County Commission on this subject were not heard unless the letters were mailed or faxed. In the interest of time, I sent mine via e-mail and to all the departments and the governor's office, too. Sent an e-mail with the letter as an attachment. I plan to send a hard copy of my letter, in view of this, even though the vote is already in. If this vote was as I understand it (and in the face of as much anger as was noted), then the Commission deserves credit for making a brave decision.

Does anyone who attended the meeting last night have a different impression of what happened there? We are very eager to hear. Thanks for feedback on this important issue.

 

[Kurt]

See the posts above about the results of the vote. Your discussion sounds a little confused.

The standard has been raised to 7.2 or higher for any new soil starting today, with a 3-foot minimum cap of 8.1 or higher. Any soil on the beach deposited before now that is crrently below 6.2 must be removed.

Washing is out.



The largest crowd I have ever seen or heard about was at a meeting at Butler Elementary about the asphalt plant on Peach Creek. 2nd largest was probably the dog ordinance meeting at Bay school, or last night's.

Last night's meeting should have been at a bigger venue.

 

[DBOldford]

Thanks for clarification, Kurt. I was so eager for news of the meeting that I failed to scroll through pages 2 and 3. The various posts were pretty clear. When I receive the minutes from the County Clerk's office, I will post on this Board as a link. Based on my discussion, I am very eager to read them. But sounds like the Commission made a brave decision, in the face of considerable controversy. And although he made a terrible error in judgement, that County Engineer is admirable for his accountability in a forum like that. He's not been there that long, right? A tough job, to be sure, and the County has lost so many employees over the past year.

I am very disappointed that the County's e-mail server was down, so letters were not received. But it would be a good idea for those concerned to send a letter of commendation to the Commission members. I am very impressed with Cindy Meadows, who has been responsive to my stated concerns and who is often the lone brave vote on that Commission. It is always difficult to be the only woman official on that dais, up there with the "good old boys." The women tend to vote more independently and so are often ignored or shut out of the information loop. She strikes me as a well informed, well meaning, and a very courageous elected official. We may not be able to vote in Walton County, but we can raise funds to support elected officials who can protect what we hold dear. And we must keep writing.

Isn't it always the rather obscure issues that attract the largest crowds? Our best attended hearing in Napa County (600+) was over the Wine Train, whether it should be allowed to stop in the towns or not. Not was the result. But emergency sessions are typically less well attended, because when there is an urgency condition, the hearing does not even require the typical noticing. Anyway, thanks to all who managed to attend and who let the rest of us know what was happening so that we could try to make a difference.

 

[OhioBeachBum]

Would this be a time when the new definition of eminent domain could be used? Would aquisition of the beach front properties be for the better good of the public?

Was surprised that specter hadn't appeared earlier, then got to thinking. Even assuming successful navigation of the throng of those with $mils to throw around in court (presuming affording mils in beach assets implies similar scale liquidity to expend on protecting same), just paying the fair market for those props would be into 10 digits (public money)... Then what? Another 10 digits to bust it up and haul it off? Then "across the road" becomes prime (and horribly expensive). Cascade that ripple effect back from the beach and eventually the closest "common folk" - translate to those with modest sub-quarter-mill incomes - could afford to get to beach accomodations would be just slightly south of Montgomery, AL

 

[OhioBeachBum]

See the posts above about the results of the vote. Your discussion sounds a little confused.

The standard has been raised to 7.2 or higher for any new soil starting today, with a 3-foot minimum cap of 8.1 or higher. Any soil on the beach deposited before now that is crrently below 6.2 must be removed.

Washing is out.

BTW - I took some pix (last Fri or Sat afternoon) of what was being dumped down to replace what washed out seaward of Pompano Joe's parking lot. Kinda brown looking. Forgot to bring images with me today - I'll upload tomorrow AM.

 

[PureBeaches]

It may not take using eminent domain and the purchase of those houses to have them removed. Once the beach line moves inland such that those homes are now on "public access" beach, the owner may be responsible for removing them.

For example, in Galveston, Texas erosion of the beaches has caused the mean high tide line to move behind or under some homes. Therefore they are now on Land owned by the State of Texas. The land the homeowner's had owned when they built their homes is gone. Under Texas law, the homeowner's are responsible for removal of their homes. Florida law of course may be different.

Don't let the beaches be destroyed just to save a couple of private individuals vacation homes. It was a risk they took when they bought on the beach.