Comments on: Chamber politics

By: Selena K

Selena K — Thu, 11 Mar 2010 17:04:55 +0000

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

By: Homeowner

Homeowner — Thu, 04 Mar 2010 22:23:38 +0000

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.

By: Bob O

Bob O — Thu, 04 Mar 2010 17:19:59 +0000

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.

By: Bobby

Bobby — Wed, 03 Mar 2010 21:24:52 +0000

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.

By: DP

DP — Wed, 03 Mar 2010 21:09:06 +0000

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.

By: newjake

newjake — Wed, 03 Mar 2010 17:16:19 +0000

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.

By: Duke

Duke — Wed, 03 Mar 2010 12:44:17 +0000

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.