Seawalls

[Smiling JOe]

I will interject and throw out something. I believe it was I who first brought up the idea of having GF property owners having ID labels on each piece of walkovers and seawall so that when they are destroyed, the County will know who to charge. After thinking about it further, I realize that inland people whose homes may be ripped apart by the same storms Mother Nature sends our way would be in the same category as the GF owners regarding the mess to clean. I retract that idea on grounds of just being p.o.'d at all of the seawalls being erected, and from seeing all of the debris piled up on Hwy 30A and in the Coastal Lakes after the other storms.

However, I do believe that we should take note of Mother Nature and learn a bit from her past. ;-)

 

[BlueMtnBeachVagrant]

I believe that every point ecopal makes is valid. BMBV, I know you are trying to do your best in a very difficult situation, and you seem to be putting forth a good-faith effort, but you lose me when you talk about how one continuous seawall would be ideal. That just sounds like a disaster and once again, would be solely for the benefit of the gulf front structures, because the beach itself would be in danger of disappearing.

I don't think there's anything wrong with looking into a plan where the state or county would buy out owners on an as needed basis, over time. I read in that Tampa Tribune article SJ posted awhile back where someone suggested not just paying the owners but throwing in some interior land as compensation, and that makes sense too, given that there is so much state owned property along and nearby 30-A.

"I know you are trying to do your best in a very difficult situation, and you seem to be putting forth a good-faith effort, but you lose me when you talk about how one continuous seawall would be ideal. "

This is just my opinion based on the NOW EXISTING myriad varieties of walls that are out there. Seperate your (and my) dislike for walls from the reality of today. I am more of a factual type of person. If I know walls are going up (regardless of all the debate behind them), then I would much prefer continuity in their construction over the somewhat random end products we see now.

"I read in that Tampa Tribune article SJ posted awhile back where someone suggested not just paying the owners but throwing in some interior land as compensation, and that makes sense too, given that there is so much state owned property along and nearby 30-A"

This sounds like a pretty decent idea. If they were to exchange with me, land or land and money, I would have to seriously consider the proposition. NOT A BAD IDEA! Problem is I'm just one person. It's going to be a tough sale, however, to many of the gulf front owners.

Oh yea...
"I believe that every point ecopal makes is valid."
This is the only problem I have with your post. Ecopal's last post simply throws out incendiary comments with no real solutions explored. How do you debate statements like am I going to pay for my neighbor's home when their home is destroyed as a result of my retaining wall. What a load of crap! How many homes have already been destroyed adjacent to NO retaining walls? Any home built after 1985, theoretically, can survive even if completely undermined. AGAIN just look at some of the homes at Gulf Trace, Dune Allen, etc. And for the record, all my neighbors have retaining walls anyway.

Here's what I believe
All this hostility which is directed at gulf front property owners would be better focused on the State of Florida. It is DEP, along with FWL, who says who can and can not have a retaining wall. It's that simple.

Some posters do indeed just rant. Perhaps if they truly understand what they're talking about and truly do love and care for the beach (which I believe - love and care part), then perhaps their negative energies would be better channeled toward making a real difference by writing their congressman and senators. What a novel idea!!!


Otherwise, thanks for the mostly thoughtful post !

 

[ecopal]

To BMBvagrant: It is no surprise to me that you don?t have a response to my questions because you obviously never considered the effects of your seawalls on other people's property and the beach.

SJ said: ?I believe it was I who first brought up the idea of having GF property owners having ID labels on each piece of walkovers and seawall so that when they are destroyed, the County will know who to charge. After thinking about it further, I realize that inland people whose homes may be ripped apart by the same storms Mother Nature sends our way would be in the same category as the GF owners regarding the mess to clean.?

To SJ: I am disappointed in your faulty logic- I will just blame it on too much StPatty?s cheer tonight.
You need to make a distinction between beach walkovers which are built for sound ecological reasons and seawalls which are well known for damaging beaches.
Walkovers reduce beach erosion by providing a way to access the beach without disturbing the dunes & beach. Seawalls are notorious for contributing to beach scouring and are only put in for the purpose of protecting a private property.

You also confuse peoples homes -both inland and beach front homes- with seawalls which inappropriately intrude on the beach
environment. Debris from storm ravaged homes whether inland or beach front are the results of an unavoidable tragedy. You can not say the same of the debris of seawalls.

 

[Smiling JOe]

To SJ: I am disappointed in your faulty logic- I will just blame it on too much StPatty?s cheer tonight.
You need to make a distinction between beach walkovers which are built for sound ecological reasons and seawalls which are well known for damaging beaches.
Walkovers reduce beach erosion by providing a way to access the beach without disturbing the dunes & beach. Seawalls are notorious for contributing to beach scouring and are only put in for the purpose of protecting a private property.

You also confuse peoples homes -both inland and beach front homes- with seawalls which inappropriately intrude on the beach
environment. Debris from storm ravaged homes whether inland or beach front are the results of an unavoidable tragedy. You can not say the same of the debris of seawalls.

Now don't you go putting words into my mouth, ecopal. :nono1: Perhaps you misread what I have been stating for the past year and a half. No St Patty's for me today.

I am against seawalls along the Gulf for several reasons which I have mentioned numerous times - while still trying to remain objective, I have not changed my opinion.

Regarding unavoidability, you building a home destroyed by a Cat 4 Hurricane is no more unavoidable than a seawall being destroyed by one. Building a seawall is a choice, just as you building a home 1 mile inland is a choice. That is pretty simple math - add it up.

 

[BlueMtnBeachVagrant]

Smiling Joe:

I have indeed read many of your posts. Are you paid a commission per post by Kurt?

From your previous post "....having ID labels on each piece of walkovers and seawall so that when they are destroyed"

After Hurricane Dennis and Ivan, the majority of the debris that I saw accumulated at the "usual" locations were decks and walkovers. To tag every walkover would be a waste since the majority of walkovers were wiped out anyway. Do you really think it cost that much to clean up this debris relative to all the other losses that are typically associated with a hurricane? Don't forget that most of the county walkovers were also destroyed... not to mention some of the "public" facilities, especially near Miramar. All these required clean-up.

Here's a suggestion to the clean-up expense (isn't constructive dialog what this is all about?)....Why not include a $500 "recovery" fee for every walkover permit. Walkovers, by nature of their construction, are dispensible. I think that would take care of your concerns relative to walkovers.

Now about the good 'ole retaining walls...
Many people seem to predict the demise of most of the retaining walls as if they are as vulnerable as walkovers. AGAIN, in my opinion, this is a bad assumption. I do agree that some if not all of the wood retaining walls that were not adequately anchored, will end up being debris. What I can guarantee you is that these owners of the "cheaper" wood walls WILL NOT MAKE THE SAME MISTAKE TWICE. It's too expensive when you add the cost of the wall and sand. The back-fill sand ends up being MORE expensive than the wood wall itself. Oh well, I tried to convince a neighbor of this, but to no avail.

People, who installed wood walls, did so to save money. In their short-sightedness to save money, "corners were cut" with the anchoring system. The anchoring system is everything when it comes to retaining wall strength. So I continue to believe that the wood walls will end up being the majority of the debris.

Oh yea, guess who built the majority of the wood walls?

 

[BlueMtnBeachVagrant]

To BMBvagrant: It is no surprise to me that you don?t have a response to my questions because you obviously never considered the effects of your seawalls on other people's property and the beach.

SJ said: ?I believe it was I who first brought up the idea of having GF property owners having ID labels on each piece of walkovers and seawall so that when they are destroyed, the County will know who to charge. After thinking about it further, I realize that inland people whose homes may be ripped apart by the same storms Mother Nature sends our way would be in the same category as the GF owners regarding the mess to clean.?

To SJ: I am disappointed in your faulty logic- I will just blame it on too much StPatty?s cheer tonight.
You need to make a distinction between beach walkovers which are built for sound ecological reasons and seawalls which are well known for damaging beaches.
Walkovers reduce beach erosion by providing a way to access the beach without disturbing the dunes & beach. Seawalls are notorious for contributing to beach scouring and are only put in for the purpose of protecting a private property.

You also confuse peoples homes -both inland and beach front homes- with seawalls which inappropriately intrude on the beach
environment. Debris from storm ravaged homes whether inland or beach front are the results of an unavoidable tragedy. You can not say the same of the debris of seawalls.

Perhaps you should change your handle to ECHO pal. Your repetitive crap is starting to annoy me. Guess what?? You've have succeeded in the art of ANNOYANCE PUNISHMENT for a gulf front property owner who is simply trying to protect his property by the rules and laws granted to us by the GREAT STATE OF FLORIDA !! Sleep well tonight, young soldier.

 

[SHELLY]

Unfortunately, I have a gut-feeling that all these "theories" WILL be put to the test this season...Man v.s. Mother Nature--my money is riding on Mother Nature.

Oh, and about that statement: "Any home built after 1985, theoretically, can survive even if completely undermined"

BEFORE: OCT 23, 2005

AFTER: OCT 25, 2005

 

[ecopal]

To SJ:

Seawalls do not equate with peoples homes. People need to live in a house somewhere. It is a necessary impact on the environment. Peoples homes can be in the way of mother nature anywhere whether it is by a tornado, earthquake, forest fire etc.

In contrast a seawall is a deleterious and unnecessary intrusion of the beach ecology. Therefore the debris of seawalls is an additional negative consequence of their inappropriate installation and thus deserves a more severe level of scrutiny than debris from someone's home.

 

[BlueMtnBeachVagrant]

To SJ:

Seawalls do not equate with peoples homes. People need to live in a house somewhere. It is a necessary impact on the environment. Peoples homes can be in the way of mother nature anywhere whether it is by a tornado, earthquake, forest fire etc.

In contrast a seawall is a deleterious and unnecessary intrusion of the beach ecology. Therefore the debris of seawalls is an additional negative consequence of their inappropriate installation and thus deserves a more severe level of scrutiny than debris from someone's home.

Make up your freakin' mind...
The walls will fail and cause debris.
The walls will survive and cause my neighbors home to fall in.
Which is it ??

You actually brought a smile to my face. I'm starting to enjoy this!! So much for the annoyance factor. :funn:

 

[BlueMtnBeachVagrant]

Shelly,

These are indeed scary pictures. Was this house weakened with elevated waves hitting the structure directly? I would estimate the home in the picture is sitting only about 16 feet above sea level. It is very easy to imagine a 15 foot storm surge with waves riding on top of that just battering the hell of the house. On the other hand, the other 3 adjacent homes in the background appear to be still standing on their pilings. Keep in mind that Navarre Beach is also a barrier island that truly shifts about over time.

We at Blue Mountain Beach obviously sit much much higher than Navarre Beach and it is ALL that land we are trying to preserve from the "cake knife" cutting action of the "virgin" yellow sand bluff (as opposed to recently developed pure white sand dunes within the last several centuries) after each tropical storm and hurricane.

I know you are just referring to homes surviving that were built after 1985 regarding pilings and newer construction techniques. One question, just because this home is sitting on pilings, do you truly know when it was built? I'll admit it looks younger than 20 years.

But I don't think one can compare Navarre Beach with, let's say, Blue Mountain Beach (in my strong opinion). The homes at Navarre's elevation were directly subjected to brutal conditions. Had my land not disappeared below my structure, we would have suffered absolutely no damage after Dennis.

Thanks for sharing the pictures and provoking some thought!