Chamber politics

Russ Lay | March 2, 2010

It appears The Outer Banks Chamber of Commerce raised the ire of some locals by passing a resolution in support of beach nourishment, then releasing a strongly-worded statement in which Chairman Paul Tine emphasized support for the proposed project in Nags Head. He called on local municipalities to put differences aside for the benefit of the entire community.

That criticism would arise from the Chamber taking a stand on beach nourishment is not unexpected. Members of many broad-based organizations in the region, including the Outer Banks Association of Realtors and the Outer Banks Homebuilders, have released policy statements on beach nourishment and other issues that do not reflect the views of all their membership, or the majority view of the voting public.

But to accuse the Chamber of overstepping its bounds by taking a political stance is to misunderstand the function of Chambers of Commerce.

As a former banker with experience in six different Chamber organizations in three states, I find in most cases Chamber members carp about the lack of political activity or policy suasion from the organization. Instead, members view the Chamber as a social network for after-hours gatherings, ribbon cuttings or selling advertisements in guides to perpetuate organizational salaries. What members often want is for the Chamber to act as their voice before legislators, bureaucrats and other policy makers.

Nor is Chamber political activity in the least bit unusual. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce is very active politically, having taken recent positions on “cap and trade,” health care and even global climate change.

The Manhattan Chamber of Commerce’s mission statement from its web site states, in part, “The Chamber supports the business community through advocating for positive business legislation . . .”

A perusal of the Los Angeles Chamber of Commerce site’s “News & Publications” section reveals a slew of policy statements on everything from political appointments and water legislation to endorsing various propositions on California’s ballot.

Even Elizabeth City’s Chamber site cites “legislative affairs” as one of its activities.

Special interest groups are nothing new, nor are they sinister by their nature. Typically, anger directed at these groups depends on whose ox is being gored, or less often, if the group engages in the intentional release of disinformation. The passions on both sides concerning the activities of environmental interest groups relative to beach driving and the Oregon Inlet bridge provide other examples.

Members and non-members alike may disagree with the position the Chamber, its board and its chairman took in regards to sand. But I suspect many members approve of both the position and the fact that the Chamber has decided to engage the political world. The interests of business and the perceived well-being of the local economy is bound to tie a group of business interests to political action.

With all that is on the table in Dare County, it’s not a surprise that the Chamber has elevated its political profile. What is surprising is that it took this long for the organization to step up to the plate.

Posted in Featured Columns, Russ Lay

See what people are saying:

Duke says:

I dropped my membership to the Chamber a few years ago because of the lack of political activity. I applaud the work they do, but personally I felt I did not need to belong to an organization that’s main function was ribbon cuttings and after-hours socials. When the Towns were enacting weekly building moratoriums, there was no support for the Builders Association and when the neutral stance was taken on the beach nourishment referendum a few years ago I felt there was no need for me to renew my membership. I will rethink that choice now that they have taken a stand. In the future I may not agree with their positions, but at least they will have a position, I hope.

on March 3, 2010 @ 7:44 am

newjake says:

I would like to ask the Chamber and their business experts if they feel this project, as proposed, qualifies as being “fiscally responsible.”
We have bidded no options, have no backup plan, and will have no reserve if it fails.
What about Proof of Concept? A test that works? The nourishment failure rate is 100% here so far.

on March 3, 2010 @ 12:16 pm

DP says:

Your editorial misses the mark. Speaking out is one thing, invoking a tone of self-rightousness is another. The Chamber’s President would have served the organization well by positively encouraging communication and coordination by our local governments. You might argue that is what he did. From what I’m hearing he further alienated his organization and his statement was viewed as berating. Criticism of elected officials is fair game. He would do well to tone down the rhetoric lest he be perceived as little more then another know-it-all, a quarterback who has never touched a football.

on March 3, 2010 @ 4:09 pm

Bobby says:

Your editorial is right on Russ! And I like Mr. Tine’s remark that now we have everyone talking even though we are far from solutions. I think it is proper for the Chamber to be proactive Outer Banks business. His remarks were very professional and well written. And without Beaches, we have no business! Thanks for your remarks.

on March 3, 2010 @ 4:24 pm

Bob O says:

If the project is permitted, and funded, multiple bids will be requested.

The backup plan is retreat, which is what we have been doing for the past 20 years by default.

The total fund balance doesn’t dip below 9 million dollars.

We have never attempted a nourishment project on the Outer Banks, so I would argue there has been no success and no failure yet. It seems reasonable to construct a well engineered project, and see if the results match our expectations. There’s nothing to stop us from returning to a policy of retreat, and we know where we end up in 50 years with retreat. There’s really only one way to find out if it works, and that is to try it.

on March 4, 2010 @ 12:19 pm

Homeowner says:

Looking at all the boards, Mr. Oakes, it seems there is a possible solution without all this rancor:

1. Gail on the other board said the oceanfront owners could pay 400 per foot, which another poster said would raise 20 million.

2. Add that to what you would get from the fund without the other towns’ interference, you would have 27-8-9? million already.

3. You said here you would go get bids if you get permits. Everyone thought you were stuck on the 36 million bid. But could you get your work done for 28-9-30 million? As a contractor who bids a lot of work, I’m 99% positive you could.

You don’t even need to address the political headache under this scenario.

on March 4, 2010 @ 5:23 pm

Selena K says:

Homeowner–would you then advocate disallowing anyone on “your” beaches, as owner Butch Stone commented on a different thread?

on March 11, 2010 @ 12:04 pm

Join the discussion: