- Around the web
- Beach nourishment
- Business
- Columns and features
- Community news
- Editor's forum
- Entertainment
- Horoscope
- Local government
- Outer Banks Epicurean
- Quick bites
- Real estate
- Dare County
- Duck
- Eye on Dare
- Island Free Press
- Kill Devil Hills
- Kitty Hawk
- Manteo
- N.C. Coastal Federation
- Nags Head
- Nags Head Blog
- OBX Beach Life
- OBX Connection
- Outer Banks Free Press
- Outer Banks Journal
- Outer Banks Revealed
- Southern Shores
- The Sentinel
- The Virginian-Pilot
- Truth or Dare
Sales tax is off the table
Editor’s note: Since this story was posted, Warren Judge, the chairman of the Dare County Board of Commissioners, has said the sales tax will not be considered.
Over the objections of Mayor Bob Oakes, Nags Head commissioners have resurrected a disputed 1-percent local sales tax as part of a plan to rebuild the beach.
It was added Wednesday to a proposal unveiled by Oakes that calls for a 1 percent occupancy tax increase, tapping $20 million from a county fund and borrowing $16 million.
Included in the plan, but not formally approved, is a special assessment of oceanfront property.
The board decided to include the sales tax, plus a request for $5 million from the state, as a cushion in case any part of the mayor’s plan for funding the $36 million project falls through.
Resurrecting the 1-percent sales levy for beach nourishment, however, might have introduced a new risk: Stirring up voters who rejected what opponents derided as the “sand tax” in a 2006 special election.
Commissioner Anna Sadler suggested that the tax become permanent. The argument was that the previous levy, which raised $6 million in six months, was rescinded in the referendum because leaders did a poor job of selling it. Plus, the referendum put a spotlight on the tax.
Though sensitive, the sales tax idea might serve another purpose, whether commissioners intended it or not. It’s a tempting target for beach nourishment opponents, and the board could eventually drop the idea and give them a tactical victory.
What Oakes’ original plan did not do was add a specific burden on Nags Head voters, who rejected a bond referendum that would have added 5 cents to the property tax on owners with no direct stake in the oceanfront.
“I will never, never vote to raise taxes on the west side of the bypass,” said Mayor Pro Tem Wayne Gray.
Commissioners also wondered whether the project would qualify for federal stimulus funds. With permitting nearly in hand and the engineering done, “the project is shovel-ready,” Commissioner Renee Cahoon said.
Oakes, reading from a written statement, said: “It is time to take action to protect our infrastructure, our reputation and the revenue from our tax base”
No more debate on the advisability of beach nourishment
Nags Head has moved beyond any discussion on whether to proceed with 10 miles of beach nourishment. Instead, commissioners have focused on ways to fund it after deciding the town must “go it alone.” They have acknowledged some of the unknowns but have gone ahead with engineering plans and expect to receive permitting soon. The town has already spent about $1 million in the process.
A county fund of about $24 million for beach protection is growing by $3 million to $3.5 million a year, Oakes said. That fund is already being fed by 1 percent of the occupancy tax. A second 1 percent would bring in $30 million to $35 million in 10 years, Oakes said, and the fund, even taking into account the $24 million that would go to Nags Head, would grow faster.
The first five years of the additional 1 percent occupancy tax, however, would repay a $16 million revenue bond that would not require the taxpayers’ approval. The occupancy tax in Dare County is now 5 percent.
Commissioners broached the question of issuing Certificates of Participation, which were the funding mechanism that built new schools and renovated older ones in Dare County. Those debts are backed by the assets they are funding, such as school buildings. In the case of beach nourishment, the asset would be something that will wash away.
Town will have to sell the idea to neighbors, legislature
Oakes acknowledged that the plan is “not an easy sell.” Other towns and Hatteras Island can lay claim to some of the money in the Dare County Shoreline Management Fund. It would also require some legislative arm twisting on the occupancy tax issue.
“We’re in a bad situation and we need partnerships,” Oakes said.
Commissioners passed another resolution to ask the state for $5 million. They said the state had a big stake in the economic future of the coast and should contribute to keeping it secure.
Gray said that whether the town gets the money or not “at least we tried.”
An oceanfront assessment would require the approval of 66 percent of the owners. That would be done via petitions rather than a public vote so that out-of-town owners could participate.
Related stories and commentary:
No more beach referendums, commissioners say
Can beach nourishment save this?
Take the warranty
See what people are saying:
Join the discussion:
-
- Lowe's unveils plans for store at Landing Drive
53 comments - Sand plan banking on oceanfront owners
51 comments - KDH panel looks at easing hotel height restrictions
42 comments - Plan has Nags Head assessing itself for sand
30 comments - Nags Head puts sand petition on a fast track
18 comments - Fifty-foot oceanfront limit still on the table in KDH
17 comments - Lowe's endorsed by Planning Board
16 comments
- Lowe's unveils plans for store at Landing Drive
Tim says:
Our beaches are the most important asset Dare County has. One of the most important assets the state and federal governments has. This is a great decision. Its is good to see the leaders of Nags Head doing the right thing. Trying to save our beaches, the environment and our infrastructure. Keep going!
Ray Midgett says:
The Town of Nags Head, as well as the Dare County Commissioners need to keep one important thing in mind.
The citizens of this county got together and repealed one sales tax (sand tax); and they can do it again. Every single local option sales tax collected in this county, whether dedicated to beach nourishment or not, is subject to voter recall. We did it once and we can do it again. No threat, just facts.
Ray Midgett
Beachhuggers of the Outer Banks
http://www.beachhuggers.com
Duke says:
Very interesting meeting today. I am glad they realize it is a hard sell and what was proposed is basically a wish list. I applaud them and they have my support. I still feel they should have bit the bullet and raised property taxes a few cents a few years ago and not worry about getting re-elected. But today’s decision took courage.
Tim says:
I think the citizens of Dare County missed an opportunity to protect our environment, to protect our tax base and to keep our main industry from washing away when the “sand tax” was defeated. A large number did not get involved or were misinformed about beach nourishment. More people would be vocal in favor of the sales tax if it were voted for again. It would win.
Bob says:
Why not take the cash and just throw in on the beach and watch the ocean take it away. That is what they are planning on doing. Look at old tax maps and see how many lots are now underwater. You can’t stop the ocean.
Tim says:
Yes look at the tax maps and see the waste we have let happen over the years. We should have been maintaining our beaches for years. They are just as important as our roads, bridges, government buildings and all of the other assets we spend money on to maintain. It is not throwing money away to keep our beaches. It is saving money and allowing the ability to make more.
Peggy Sijswerda says:
Yo
Ray Midgett says:
Tim, you’ve got a better chance of winning the lottery than getting the majority of voters in Dare County to support a sales tax for beach nourishment. And, yes, people were misinformed during the recent voting fiasco.
Big money, poured into the campaign, misinformed them.
Andy says:
Tim says, ” Its is good to see the leaders of Nags Head doing the right thing. Trying to save our beaches, the environment and our infrastructure.”
Our environment is saving itself by removing things that increase erosion; the houses. Our environment via Nature, wants to move. Who is man to try and stop Nature? Man will not stop it. Man will merely spend money to try.
Bill says:
Its great that action is being taken, but is it the right action? Does “Beach Nourishment” really work?? Can someone point me to a source document or study where this has been done successfully, and more importantly “sustained?”
What is the real source of the problem? Why are we losing so much beach sand along the Nags Head town shoreline?
Let me put this out there . . . lack of inlets! Prior to the heavy development of the Outer Banks, natural inlets formed and filled as the ocean sculpted the barrier islands. With construction of a paved N.C 12, this changed, as only one inlet at Oregon Inlet is “allowed.” The only other natural inlet is Hatteras Inlet, and we have none to the north. We see many attempts by the ocean to create new inlets, but NCDOT always closes them to maintain N.C 12. What would happen if we left new inlets intact as they form and instead bridged them?
Basically, it seems that the loss of beach sand may likely be tied to the lack of natural inlet formation. Rather than spending millions of dollars for a seasonal fix, perhaps a more detailed study of the cause is necessary, with a focus on natural inlet formation and the relationship to dynamic barrier islands.
All in all, I believe that pumping sand onto the beaches is a very short-term, costly solution that does not solve the problem. The money could be better spent with some strategic, pragmatic decisions driven by study and evidence as compared to “need.” $20+ million could be better spent building flyover roadways where new inlets form…
Oh well, if beach nourishment is the call, at least we will have some killer sand bars for a year or so in the town of Nags Head as all the “nourished” sand washes back out to sea. I remember the pilot beach nourishment project (was it 2005?) when we had excellent surfing breaks in town as the sand washed back out to sea. Of course now all that sand within the town limit is gone. Interestingly there are some killer outer bars at Coquina Beach this year. Is the sand migrating south towards Oregon Inlet?! Fun times!
Chris says:
Mr. Midgett:
Please answer a few questions. Please answer with “Yes” or “No” and with a lack of twisted facts and overhyped rhetoric.
Can Nags Head, or any beach tourism community survive 1) without a beach or 2) with a substandard dangerous beach?
Will taxes ultimately rise due to more properties being condemned (so vistors cannot rent them) torn down (so they do not make our beaches more dangerous than they currently are) or being taken by the ocean?
In the long run, is beach nourishment the terrible evil you always describe?
Thanks. Just “Yes” or “No”
Ann Daniel says:
I fail to understand why so many permanent residents of Outer Banks view other property owners as “vultures” who only want to gobble revenue away from Dare County and its towns. I am 64 years old and have been coming to Outer Banks since I was 5 years old. My ambition has always been to retire there and become a full-time resident.
After buying into time shares over the years, I finally bought a condominium with over 1,800 square feet with aspirations of making this my retirement home. Faced with the costs of making needed repairs to buildings which had not been properly maintained prior to my purchase and with the costs of insurance and taxes to both a town and the county, I decided to rent from Memorial Day through Labor Day. My renters not only help me maintain my condo, they contribute to the economy of Outer Banks and the many businesses which exist solely for tourism.
When my renters fill out their surveys, the main reason they state for their desire to return is my oceanfront location. Without tourism, Outer Banks would not exist, and most of the tourists are renters. Because of my location, my tax assessments are also higher. I think that those of us with rental property contribute more than we receive, and we fully expect to contribute to beach nourishment. We do feel, however, that the tourists who make Outer Banks a thriving community, should also help with replenishing the beach they enjoy.
Jay says:
“Beach nourishment” doesn’t work. Dune nourishment does. Get rid of any structure within 150 feet of the high tide line and build a 25-foot-tall by 50-foot-wide dune.
Glenn hamilton says:
I come to OBX every year and I enjoy it very much. I could’nt imagine finally being able to own a home in Nags Head, so I would hope that beach nourishment happens as long as it does not mess up the ecosystem too much. I will gladly pay an extra tax when I am there. good luck with your efforts. From Pittsburgh.
jake says:
What I find disturbing is this “ALL OR NOTHING” approach from the proponents of nourishment.
If we do not throw sand down, the beaches will NOT disappear. Our tourism revenue WILL continue.
Everything will continue the same as it is. Some homes may need to move, but that’s not going to affect the economy by even a single percentage point.
The only thing that will be affected is the personal revenue of those beachfront homeowners. That’s the ONLY effect. Dare County will be fine, as will Nags Head.
Ray Midgett says:
Chris, “no”, “no”, “no”, “yes”.
And, Jake, (above) you nailed it . . . 100% on the money . . .
Tim says:
Beach nourishment is not about “big money.” It is about the everyday working people. It is about saving the environment. Nourishment is about saving our tax base and our infrastructure. And yes we can be successful at turning the tide on erosion. It is not that difficult. It will be difficult to build enough landfills to hold the wasted infrastructure that washes away and is torn down.
We deal with nature every day. We build houses to stay out of the elements. We build farms to feed the people. We build roads to get through the woods. We build water plants to have enough to drink. We build and maintain all of the time to keep nature from affecting us.
Doing nothing will effect everyone. Large amounts of money will have to be spent cleaning up and tearing down. People will not want to vacation at a beach littered with wood and debris. Taxes will go up and we will lose our best asset. THE BEACH.
If you look at all the great projects that have been completed in this country and compare, this project is not difficult.
Earl says:
The tax burden proposed on all Dare County residents is BIG MONEY. With the erosion rates in some parts of SNH, these areas should have never been developed and “saving” these areas is a mistake.
Taxing all residents for 10 miles of “threatened” beach when we have plenty of other miles of very visitor-friendly beaches does not make sense and is not fair to our guests or our residents. Remove the homes, and the beach will not be threatened.
Yes, the beach road in KH and in front of Jockeys Ridge will eventually be moved some day, and no amount of foreign sand will change when this will occur.
Retreat is not a desirable option, but it is the best option to correct the mistakes of the past (building in poor locations with inadeqate setbacks).
Spending tax dollars to save a doomed tax base does not make sense. If you want a bigger tax base, let’s build bigger houses in better locations.
Ernie says:
facts . . . no beach, no tourists, no tourists, no money, no money, no beach . . .
got tourists, got money, lose sand, add sand!!!
Ernie says:
AND . . . “shame on audubon and defenders with DOI” !!!!!!!
jake says:
I am still waiting to see a convincing argument that if we do not save those particular beach homes with tens-hundreds of millions in sand, that
1. Dare County will lose ALL its beaches and no one will ever come here.
2. ALL of the beaches on either side will also be avoided by all guests.
You proponents act like we lose EVERYTHING if we don’t do this.
Many, many homes in Kitty Hawk have been moved or lost, and THEIR ECONOMY has not reported losing a single dollar or a single guest. Just the homeowners, who built in a stupid place, were affected.
Bill says:
For the proponents of nourishment, can you tell me why Avon does not have this problem? Can you tell me why Rodanthe does not have this problem? Why is beach loss specific to Nags Head/KittyHawk?
Please enlighten us and everyone else, who thinks nourishment is a lost cause.
Bottom line is that “nourishment” is not a solution but a band-aid. Basically, its not a one-time “fix” but will need to be happening every few years, perhaps even months. Tim, and other proponents . . . have you even considered the logistical ramifications of moving millions and millions of tons of sand into “urban” Nags Head and/or Kitty Hawk? Do we really want to be dealing with dump trucks or shipping just off-shore pumping sand onto the beach? Its a logistical nightmare, and it will need to be continuous. Do you see this aspect of the solution, Tim?
All in all, people, please think critically about what is happening here. Please open your eyes to “what it would take” to get that sand onto the beach and maintain it. If anything would scare tourism away, its sand truck traffic, offshore pumps and the simple logistics of doing this work, which would be an “eyesore” to looking out into the Atlantic and/or commuting around town. And for those who say, “it would be done during the off-season,” I say, as a year-round resident, I do not want to deal with it! Also, as on Pea Island, there is heavy equipment stationed there year-round. This will be the case in Nags Head too, to support beach nourishment.
All in all, do not be short-sighted .Please “think” about the ramifications and logistics, and really consider what “beach nourishment” entails.
Chris says:
Well, perhaps they have not reported any losses because the home assessments were so out of wack. Let’s say for simplicity the town made a total of $1 million off of 100 homes (all equal for simplicity). Now, 10 of those homes are destroyed by a storm, and another 10 are either condemned or “less than desirable” for a vacation. You decide. Do you want to cut funding to schools, emergency response and other municipal areas, or do you want to impose a much larger, indefinitely ending tax to make up a 20% deficit?
And DO NOT even get me started on the talking point “you chose to build in an unwise location.” Rest assured, the owners of these houses did not build their houses on top of the ocean. The town has not maintained its infrastructure, and that is why we are in this state. In New Orleans, they do not just allow the water to flow downhill into the heart of the city. There used to be another two rows of houses that were taken by the ocean. If we want to point fingers, using your gauge of intelligence, no one who owns a house on the entire Outer Banks should be deemed as “building their house in a stupid place.”
Chris says:
Oh Mr. Midgett:
Your answers to my questions baffle me. According to you, a beach tourism community does not need the beach to sustain its economy . . .
Under that pretense, Disney World should tear down all of their rides. They would no longer have to pay for ride maintenance staff, but visitors would continue to flock there to remain in their homes and pretend like there on a real vacation!
http://www.SANDBeachesOBX.tk
Everyone sign the beach nourishment petition on the site!
Earl says:
Some parts of the beach are more suited for development than others. Any oceanfront buyer who has any sense should at a minimum know what the long-term average erosion rate is before buying or building. Southern KDH and northern NH oceanfront is very suited for development and has a very low erosion rate, while parts of SNH have a well-documented and perfectly obvious problem for which there is only one answer–retreat.
The parts of the island (peninsula) which have width and elevation will be here for hundreds of years under the worst case sea-level-rise scenario. The narrow, skinny low parts of the island will shift positions and disappear.
We will have a cleaner, safer beach with more tourists if we accept this now before wasting money on foreign sand and a poorly designed engineering odyssey.
jake says:
Chris, you’re just “supposing.”
The revenue lost by the houses that are gone is now made up by the new “oceanfront” rentals.
Show the voters some numbers that are real. You can make up all the “supposes” you want.
Here’s what a fact looks like: in communities where the houses were not built on the dunes, the dunes are healthy, and so is the beachline.
The houses that were built over the dunes are in danger. Stupid idea. Stupid place to put them. They took a chance. It didn’t pay off.
jake says:
and the other thing.
We’re not going to lose our schools or police or FD if we don’t pay for those beachfront houses to get sand.
That’s more of your Chicken Little overreaction to the same thing that happened last time this came up.
A bunch of commissioners tried to force the tax to help save their own investments.
It was political suicide . . . and that’s what it will likely be again if any elected official runs with this ball.
Bobby says:
You think the economics are bad now on the Outer Banks? Let the beaches continue to erode and then see what you have. My hat is tipped to the Mayor and Commissioners attempting to take action against the naysayers. Let them move forward in peace and support instead of doing nothing. Because that’s not working either.
jake says:
Bobby, you have a right to your opinion.
The elected people who serve us know that this nourishment fiasco has been rejected over and over again by the majority of voters.
While individuals with beachfront homes would like the taxpayer to save their butts, the taxpayers have spoken many times on the matter.
They may think that by “repositioning” it or “reselling” it, it has a chance. But history proves, if you support it, you lose, then usually get removed from office in the next election.
Earl says:
Bobby, I am sure the same economic argument was used 40 years ago, and here we are with more homes than ever and the visitors keep coming. If Nags Head owners, visitors and residents want to pay for this, then one could make a case for them doing so, even though nourishment is still a poor choice for a host of other reasons. To ask residents and visitors from Duck to Hatteras to pay for this through higher taxes in this economy is wishful thinking. Bob Oakes is a good leader, and I am sure that the pro-nourishment folks have the best of intentions, but this is not a plausible solution.
Ray Midgett says:
I have a little hobby that I would like to let everyone in on. It is this. Everytime I see comments on the Internet by someone that is “pro” beach nourishment and they sign their name or make it available, I immediately click on my bookmarked Dare County property owners page (its on the Dare County Web site) . . Without fail, 95+% of the time, these people either own oceanfront property in South Nags Head or somewhere else along the beach. In other cases, without fail, they are either Realtors or builders. Now, why is this? . . . Well, the answer is simple. They have a direct economic interest in beach nourishment; whereas the working man here on the banks may have an indirect interest, 99% of them are honest enough to know and admit it’s a waste of time; something the others can’t/will not do. And, by the way, why do you think Nags Head Commissioner Anna Sadler is such a big pusher for beach nourishment? She’s been here on the beach long enough to know as much as any local. So why?
Here’s the answer, think REALTOR . . .
Earl says:
Ray, I often agree with you, but there are plenty of responsible Realtors, property owners and builders on the island and they all have the same goal as you — a healthy beach community. There are some bad apples in every bunch, but alienating Realtors and builders will not help us stop the current proposal. Please don’t use a broad brush when attempting to understand other’s motivations.
Ray Midgett says:
Earl, I am probably aware, as much as anyone, that there are many Realtors and builders who do not support beach nourishment, having interacted with them during the referendum. However, it was the BIG MONEY put forth by their local and state associations that was thrown away fighting the repeal. Fact is, the anti-beach nourisment realtors/builders are outnumbered by the pros, because money talks. I was not painting them with a broad brush, above, any more than I was painting all oceanfront property owners with a broad brush. The hard fact is, all three dominate the pro side of this issue.
Linda says:
Well, as an actively seeking home buyer in OBX, I would never purchase anything in S. Nags Head . . . this area is an accident waiting to happen . . . and quite frankly, already has . . . I think many just feel “helpless” watching the beaches erode along their homes . . . unfortunately, it is a fact of life . . . and throwing money at the problem, for something that will more than likely never be sustainable, is not the best way to use funds. Some things are just not meant to be. One cannot control the ocean, as much as one would like to try.
Bobby says:
Jake,
You start with 5 rows of beach-side homes, earning rental income and paying taxes. Do you believe that if you end up with 4,3,2, or 1 row, you will have the same amount of rental revenue and occupancy/property tax revenue? (Remember, the towns and villages lose the money that those visitors would have spent while on vacation, too, so the shop owners, vendors and restaurants lose too!)
The answer is no, and any 3rd grader could figure that out.
Bob O makes a bunch of good points, like resurfacing roads and updating structures.
Let me also add that the loss of all of that revenue WILL raise taxes on someone since it doesn’t change the town budget to run the town!
jake says:
Bobby, those are drops in the big bucket. Instead of “supposing” like Chris, take a look at the real world.
The number of rentals, overall, is constantly increasing. Nags Head, if it loses a few dozen homes, will make up for it easily with increased rates by row 2, and the 3,700 other new rentals getting crammed in everywhere.
This is exactly what happened in Kitty Hawk. Their tax income only increases, even when they lose homes.
The only thing affected is the personal income of that specific homeowner. So they raise a big stink and want all the taxpayers to save their risky investment.
I wonder how many of these extremely wealthy individuals also cry about socialism, but when it comes to getting bailed out, they want to be first in line.
Butch Stone says:
What a lot of people don’t realize is that there is a renters tax is 12 ¾ per cent- when tourist rent these homes.
That means that an average oceanfront cottage that rents for 3,000.00 a week — some of them rent for 1,5000.00 a week — a 3,000.00 home will take in 382.50 per week — that’s 4,590.00 over a 12-week season — and they rent more than 12 weeks a year! And we just lost 25 of these in Nags Head.
Oceanfront homes are the first to rent — rent out the most of all the homes — and 90% have no one living in them full time — so that means no children in school, no one on welfare — plus they pay real-estate tax
If we lose these homes, you will see our taxes rise. They have got to get it somewhere!!
Butch Stone
Nags Head
newjake says:
Good numbers, however, I read it like this:
We spend $36 million to pump sand under 100 houses, each of them contributes 4,500 annually to our tax base. So by spending $36 million, we get a return of $450,000 annually. So if we never spend another nourishment dollar, we recoup our $36 million in 80 years.
And the other argument, if we don’t save those houses, all the people go away and won’t rent something else? You’d need to show me numbers on that.
Louise says:
The beaches will ALWAYS be there ! Houses are not part of nature’s way. They will come and go. DO NOT spend my tax dollars on projects to save the beach. All that will save is private homes.
Brenda Perry says:
To Louise:
Yes you are right! The Beaches will always be here. But when ALL the homes are gone
and the ocean hooks up with the sound, maybe this is when the people of Dare County will do something. A little late — don’t you think?
Save the homes and the beaches now!
This Beach and oceanfront homes — also save JOBS!
Brenda Perry
Kitty Hawk
barbara says:
All these numbers . . .
At BEST the tax $ generated by these homes MIGHT pay for the project cost. (I do not even believe the levy on OF owners will scratch the surface for paying their share for this)
There will not be any money left to help pay for schools, infrastructure etc. So its a big 0 – zero benefit, zero help because I do believe the sand will not stay, and the homes will still be endangered. So, why ruin our beautiful beaches, make NH look like a war zone for MONTHS, including the tourist season, dump more taxes on both residents, prop. owners and visitors for it? If these owners really believe BN will ’save them” I have some OF property in AZ I’ll sell them too.
Tim says:
The numbers are like this. Win win for beach nourishment. Lose lose for retreat from the ocean. It is not only about the oceanfront homes. It is about every home on the Outer Banks. It is about every job on the Outer Banks. It is about the environment. Beach nourishment is what we should have been doing for 20 years. It is what we need to be doing now. It is what we need to be doing in the future.
newjake says:
“Retreat” is a buzzword, just like “Win.” We live in balance with the ocean. To move the endangered houses in SNH, establish a stable dune, and fight the battle is not “losing” or “retreating.” It’s “smart.”
In any battle, or relationship, you give and take. This idea that you can overpower nature is silly. I assume you surf, if not, go out there, just sit for a few hours; it’s really, really dynamic. Sideshore currents constantly. The amount of sediment in the water is huge. That water will saw down your sand pile so fast the rest of the engineering world will be laughing at us.
Bobby says:
I am pro beach preservation. Yes we have let the years slip by, so why is it only the owners of the homes’ dilemma? One could argue that without Oregon Inlet SNH would have much less erosion. So shore it up with beach nourishment and a groin on the north side of Oregon Inlet. Residents and visitors alike benefit. What other side of Nature do we NOT find a way to control when we are able? Do you ever have to make repairs to your home? Or do you let Nature have it’s way? Fair winds BOC!
Ray Midgett says:
Bobby, Oregon Inlet has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with beach erosion in South Nags Head. Absolutely nothing. I (personally) am not opposed to a groin on the northside of Oregon Inlet (to help keep it open), but it will do nothing to help Nags Head.
…
The beaches of South Nags Head are eroding due to the geological makeup of that area. It’s simply lower down there and we can do NOTHING ABOUT IT . . . Hey, what if an inlet opened up down there? Nags Head could become the new “Hatteras Cape Point” and the town would get rich. The federal government and state of North Carolina would build a grandiose high-rise bridge; the folks in Wanchese would have a deep-water port and flourish and everyone would forget beach nourishment . . . Now, this thought should get some conversation going…
Bobby says:
SNH is lower because WE allowed it to become that way. We control other aspects of mother nature all over the world. Then why not in SNH? If the BOC finds a way to include all homeowners, it will happen and we will see first hand. Better to do something and fail than nothing and watch the continuing devastation! After all, we attract owners and visitors because of our BEACHES! I would wonder, Ray, if you would feel different if you had a home that you bought 30 years ago and 150 feet from the ocean that was now oceanfront and threatened.
Fred Castellow says:
I live West of the bypass,how about a tax to save our homes from the ground water!
Ray Midgett says:
I agree Fred,
With all the standing water on the beach, looks like everyone has a “shoreline” that needs protecting. Try to get someone to spend money on that. Good Luck . . .
Butch Stone says:
to Fred
You wont have to worry about your home if the beach is gone!!!
Earl says:
Well said Ray about imagining the island with inlets in different places. The potential changes that mother nature will impose upon us going forward potentially have big upsides.
Butch Stone says:
to Earl
Think about how many more bridges we would have to take care of. The one we have at Oregon inlet is a lot of work. Without a beach nourishment islands will be everywhere.
It wouldnt take much for the ocean to break through at MP 15 and go to the sound.
Bobby says:
Maybe if I was much older, had a fat pension, had my home paid off, didn’t have any compassion for the owners whose homes are in harm’s way and didn’t care about the local economy, I wouldn’t care about the beaches. Nah, I would still care. “Repaving” the beaches is just the right thing to do. Controlling mother nature has created many communities across this great nation of ours that wouldn’t exist if she got her way.
Butch Stone says:
Bobby you said it all!!!!
Earl says:
I wish I had those things too . . . pension, security, home free and clear . . . I guess . . . but not really. I chose to live here years ago fully knowing the risks and rewards, have a family and 55 years in front of me here. Our family’s survival is tied to the short term and long term health of the local economy more than anyone I know.
Repaving is an outstanding analogy for the proposed “nourishment” plan.
Compassion . . . we all have it for folks who suffers a loss. Feeling bad for your loss does not mean that its fair for everyone else to subsidize the loss with regressive tax strategies (sales tax, occupancy tax) that will encourage others to make the same high risk investment.
Butch Stone says:
The only High Risk is — Doing Nothing!!!!!!!!
Tim says:
Beach Nourishment has nothing to do with protecting personal loss. We are at the point of having to spend money. There is no such thing as doing nothing. We have to keep the beach by hauling trashed houses to the landfill, buying land and moving houses or nourishing the beach. All are expensive! Nourishment is the investment that gives the best return of assets and environment.
Brian Grffith says:
Can anyone tell me:
1) Exactly how many beachfront properties in Nags Head are actually threatened by erosion?
2) How much Nags Head stands to lose in terms of property (ad valorem) and occupancy tax if every beachfront house threatened by erosion was no longer there?
3) What percent of all tax revenue (property and occupancy) collected by the town (and county) do these vulnerable properties contribute?
I bet it’s nowhere near $36 million!!
Butch Stone says:
1) This is a no brainer — 100% all of them, as in all the homes on the Outer Banks, sooner or later.
2) This would be hard for anyone to do. If it is a rental home, 99% are, there could be as many as 3 families at each home, with a changeover, every week, these three families, tell 4 people not to come here because the beaches stink,so then you multiply this per home per how many weeks that the oceanfront home rents for — and of course we all know that oceanfront homes rent first and the most of all the rental homes on the Outer Banks.
Now if you count how much money that they will spend here, a lot of tourist that come here, save all year and blow it all here, how do we know how many people will never come back to OBX because of no beach??
3) A three thousand a week home, this price is low, some of them rent for 15,000.00, the renters’ tax is 12 3/4% per week is 382.50 a week.
I think you get the idea???
Pay a penny and save the Outer Banks, before the ocean meets the sound, and we have a lot more islands!!
Bob O says:
1) Over 60 homes are either condemned (may be cured) or declared a nuisance on the public trust land. There are many others that are a storm away. I think the point is over the next 20 to 50 years, many of the homes on the oceanfront could be at risk.
2) Once a home is on the beach, the tax value goes down. Nags Head has (had) about $3,000,000,000 (3 billion) of real estate tax value in the last appraisal. I think about 2/3’s of that total is east of the beach road.
3) Rental homes produce ad valorem, sales tax and occupancy tax revenue. Only about 1/3 of our town general fund income is ad valorem (property tax). Another 1/3 is occupancy and sales tax shared revenues, generated largely by rental homes and hotels. So each rental home generates far more in tax revenue than it costs in services. Many of these are on the oceanfront, so when you lose the oceanfront, you don’t just lose the ad valorem, you lose sales and occupancy too.
You’re protecting 2 billion dollars worth of property, and a significant income stream, say 6-8 million, from ad valorem, occupancy and sales tax. Perhaps the potential damage to the Outer Banks reputation is greatest cost. Sounds like cheap insurance at 1.8% of the asset value. It’s like having a home worth $200,000 and paying $3600 in insurance.
Butch Stone says:
Thank you Bob for your response
you know this info better than any of us
Bobby says:
Thanks Bob! Beach preservation makes economic sense to me!
newjake says:
Mr. Oakes, thanks for the open discussion, I’ve said all along I think there’s a solution It just isn’t being let on the table. If none of these might be worth discussing, please ignore . . .
1. You wrote you’re “insuring” $2 billion in property. With that security, wouldn’t it be simple to get a private loan for $36 million? If the houses are in such danger as some write, wouldn’t this allow Nags Head to control the project and not have to impose on hardworking locals to foot the bill? If it works, your increased property values and rentals would easily pay for the loan, right?
newjake says:
2. Many write that all of us benefit from the beach, and we do, but in the big picture your 60 homes mean very little.
So, if we were to go along with this, why wouldn’t we also directly benefit from it? So instead of a tax, how about a loan from the voters?
Alaska cuts checks to every family for having to put up with the oil industry. Why not have Nags Head cut checks to every Dare County citizen for investing in your beach?
If we had something to actually gain other than smoke and mirror promises and watching realtors buzz by our kids in their Land Rovers, you might get a lot more people on board.
newjake says:
3. I listened to that meeting, and while it was friendly, I heard “A sales tax won’t work,” “No, Nags Head may not have all the funding,” and “How is it that Nags Head gets all the funding, and then we raise the occupancy tax, and you also get that piece to repay some other loan?” To me, it sounded more like NH is going to be on its own, but they were being diplomatic.
In that case, from a 50-year perspective as you wrote, nourishment could cost (every five years for 50) something like 360 million dollars. At least.
So from the 50-year perspective, with 60 houses out there, why not move them all (cost about $1.5 million according to your estimate), fall back, build a really nice, high dune with sand fences and preserve it (5 million according to your previous number), and then plan better.
You would A) come in under budget, B) Not be gambling $36 million that you admit is a risk and could wash away in a week? (and then you have to still repay that 36 mil even though your beach is back to square 1)
Again, just ideas. I think we could use a discussion on all potential solutions.
Tim says:
Great job Bob on the protection of the real estate. But it goes way beyond those numbers. It also protects the infrastructure. Roads, waterlines, electric lines etc. It also draws a line in the sand to give investors and vacationers confidence to keep coming to the Outer Banks. Which affects every job in Dare County and many of the jobs in Northeastern North Carolina. Beach Nourishment has so many benefits to the economy and the environment. It is well worth doing.
GB says:
When I shop for insurance, I look at several types of plans and think carefully about all of the options and benefits.
Insurance generally guarantees protection. The current proposal does not guarantee anything, but instead is a gamble made with borrowed money.
Nourished sand is likely to erode faster than natural-placed sand, and some say it will erode up to twice as fast or more than natural sand.
All of the property east of 12 does not have the same risk.
Is it fair for an oceanfront owner who has a stable dune and low erosion rate to pay the same assessment as one with no dune and a high rate of erosion?
newjake says:
4. How about a tax on the real estate management company revenue? It is they, and the homeowner, who directly benefit from wider beaches, but as far as I can tell, only the renter and the owner pay extra taxes.
Would it be a good time to discuss Joe Lamb, Carolina Designs, Sun, Village Realty and the rest kicking in a portion of their proceeds? Could someone from the Association of Realtors address this?
Bobby says:
No, those on the ocean should pay more. But without tourism we are just another broke coastal town no matter where your real estate is located. We have been watching the death of the towns slowly over the last several years. A great indicator . . . the drop in students attending our schools. Where is everyone going and why is an interesting question. Embrace what fuels this area and support it.
Bob O says:
New Jake, I admit there is a risk, but the risk of 4.6 million cubic yards of sand washing away in a week is probably less than my chances of winning the lottery.
The occupancy tax is a tax on rental companies and their property owners’ revenue. If you’re a visitor, and your absolute top budget is $100 a night, you take tax into account on your total. If tax is 10%, you only spend $90 on rent. If tax is 0%, you still pay $100, but it goes to the owner of the property. That rent is what rental companies base their commission to the owner on. So a tax on the occupancy revenue decreases the dollars to the rental property owner and the rental company.
So why would they be interested in another tax on themselves? I think they see future erosion as a bigger long-term threat to their income and property value.
And it means this tax doesn’t get paid by hard working locals, just like you said it shouldn’t.
And that renourishment number over 50 years? Our first estimate was $5.25 million every 5 years, so 10 renourishments in 50 years = $52.5 million, not $360 million.
newjake says:
Very cool, loved your quote “I hope that alternatives group will be the Beach Plan committee, meeting Saturday March 6. We need everyone’s ideas.” Reply is there:
http://outerbanksvoice.com/2010/02/19/behind-the-story-a-nourishment-sandstorm/
thanks again for the response.
bouy9 says:
i love that reggae song “how come the white man build his house in the sand, when there is no foundation” the physical and metaphorical implications and spiritual all seem to apply, bottom line is the banks are meant to move and we are trying to manipulate this giant spit to our benefit and are only moving forward into a complicated and more problematic Outer Banks! we are messing around with an unstable sand spit to begin with.
Carey Kelley says:
Has any one that is in opposition walked the beach from NEW pier south.
I have owned for 5 years in Nags Head and am appalled at the condition of this area. You should be ashamed of yourselves to let it get to this. Whenever I heard the words Outer Banks I thought immediatly of Nags Head and beaches, these aren’t beaches they are dumps. Talk about costs how much will it cost to demo the Comfort Inn, the Yatchsman, the Whalebone motel, Owens motel, etc., and how much revenue will be lost there?
I took video today and would love to see what all the folks on YouTube would think of Nags Head. I am in total disbelief that you could even consider letting this continue.
This has gone on for 20 years and and no one has made a decision and the beaches of Nags Head are embarassing.
I had family down and even though they stayed for free, will be going elsewhere because when they attempted to walk the beaches thru all the DEBRIS they ran into motels and ran out of beach since the ocean was all the way to the dunes. I never would have believed that an OCEAN community could allow this. Unbelievable.
Video of OBX/Nags Head says:
The beaches are not that bad:
I refer to South Nags Head video from this month from Village Realty’s own Youtube account.
Overall, they are no worse than any other beach from Duck to Hatteras. Look at the joggers, the beachcombers etc. Is this all just a scare tactic by the town govt?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=auU43bIcZSM
Here’s one in the heart of the nourishment zone:
http://www.youtube.com/user/VillageRealtyOBX#p/u/8/OCctkk2hFrg
Carey Kelley says:
Chunks of concrete, asphalt, lumber with nails all will help to build the sand castles for the kids.
First video viewed showed all the hunks of debris littering the beach. Not hard to see if you have walked the beach when I did last week.
The town of Nags Head (you the people) is a business, like it or not, and the business is the beaches and tourism. As a business owner if I allowed my store front to deteriorate like Nags Head has, I would be out of business. A business needs to reinvest in it’s appearence and upkeep to remain sucessful.
I am wondering if all opposed are opposed to painting their houses, cutting the grass, replacing the roof, it will only grow again and the paint will only fade, the roof will only need it again in 15 years. Once the roof is leaking will you tear it down and still pay your mortgage? I make my bed every day but I guess that it is futile since I will have to unmake it each night.
My heart goes out to the owners of all the hotels, business owners, property owners, not just oceanfront owners but all owners back and across beach road that want their kids and grand kids to enjoy the beach, who will have a mortgage and no way to pay which will lead to more bankrupcies, foreclosers, and broken dreams.
I am sure the Yatchsman, Comfort Inn, Owens Motel etc, never put in their business plans that one day they would have to tear it down and lose everything they spent years building. Especially since they, I am sure, have contriubutied to the local economy for years. (why not run those numbers over the life of the busineess to your economy)
As a business owner I realize there are many ways to look at things and find a solution. I see a situation that needs a solution. How can you tear down all those large structures, if they all decide to walk away. I would walk away, as a business owner, that thought by helping a community for as long as they have, only to be told, well we let you help us but now we don’t need you any more and we don’t care if you have a mortgage, a family and have supported us all these years.
I am sorry but my wife had to stop the grand kids from playing on the beaches south of the pier due to the hazards. The concrete, asphalt, wood with rusty nails. It was a full moon and the surf was lapping against the Comfort Inn, the dunes, houses, and she was afraid they would be in danger of the surf. This seems to be what the retreat solution will continue to offer all who would come to Nags Head.
Another solution to the situation is to tear down all homes and businesses back as far as beach road all at once so that the debris stops and the beach is clear so my kids, grand kids can SAFLEY ENJOY the beach. Is that what we are to expect from a BEACH Town?
I am no expert and don’t claim to have the years here to be able to say what is best for all in this BEACH town but I do know what I want from a resort that when Outer Banks has been mentioned for years I immediately think Nags Head, not Kitty Hawk or Kill Devil Hills BUT Nags Head. I want a BEACH that can be ranked one of the best. To be the best look at what the best does and do what it takes or just let it all go and walk away.
Don says:
Why do Nags Head Commissioners Not understand that NO means NO sand tax?
If you want more beachfront condemn all property east of N.C. 12.
Please stop wasting our tax $ on beach sand Just Stop.
Carey Kelley says:
Am not a commissioner just someone who wants something, anything done. I want to be able to have my family on a safe, debris-free, wide beach. Since you have another answer please get the people who agree to find a way to get the money to get that done. What is your answer and how do you plan to pay for it if everyone who owns there walks away?
There is a situation that needs a solution with answers. Please get your people together and do SOMETHING. Stop the talk. Make a plan and find the money.