Old summer home is now a nuisance
Its septic tank exposed, the house has been declared a nuisance. Russ Lay photo
Returning each summer was a tradition for many families, and they would sign up for the next year as they checked out at the end of their vacations.
Now, it sits in the middle of the public beach, declared a nuisance by the town of Nags Head.
Owned by George Moore, the house and others like it are stark evidence of the ocean’s relentless march westward. And they are at the center of renewed debate over beach nourishment.
According to Dare County records, the house was built in 1985. At the time, it sat one row back from the ocean in South Nags Head, at the corner of a road connecting Proteus to its northern neighbor, Altoona Street.
George Moore
Moore bought the house in 2003. Severe erosion in South Nags Head was readily apparent, as it had been for many years.
“We thought the town or county would nourish the beach,” Moore said. “It had been done elsewhere and worked. If we hadn’t thought that, I’d have said, ‘We’re flying a kite here, we’re taking a chance.’ But we didn’t think they would let it go this far.”
He said he does not seek sympathy. Instead, he seems stoic about his situation, but he is disappointed with the lack of erosion control measures.
Older homes represent memories of simpler times
This home, and its neighbors, represent what many nostalgic for the old, underdeveloped barrier islands miss about the Outer Banks. It is a memory of modest cottages, mom and pop motels and small stores.
But they are among the oldest houses in the county, and they are falling prey to the ocean at a rapid pace, leaving behind the newer and larger rental homes and condo projects many old timers dislike.
Seeing the layout of South Nags Head, one can readily see the attempts to maximize land value and profits. The neighborhood features postage-stamp sized lots, creating four, five, even six rows of houses between the beach and Old Oregon Inlet Road.
Under current standards, this type of density between the ocean and the main road would not be allowed. Lots today typically are platted to run from the oceanfront to either N.C. 12 or Old Oregon Inlet Road in the northern beach areas. Given the density and small lot size, homes cannot retreat by simply resituating them on the parcel.
Risk aside, there is an economic cost to the area, an impact beach nourishment proponents seek to halt by literally drawing a line in the sand.
At least two dozen homes are now on the nuisance list
There are at least two dozen houses on the town’s nuisance list. Nuisance status is the last step in a process that begins with condemnation. Many homes rebound from municipal condemnation as repairs are made. But a nuisance home is deemed to be beyond redemption. The town will seek its removal, and the owners will often resist. Legal battles are not uncommon. Moore’s properties have been the subject of discussions with the town attorney.
This aerial image shows the beach at Proteus Court in 1986. The row of houses to the left and the road behind them are gone.
The loss of revenue to the county and town governments begins well before the property is washed out.
According to Brad Creef, Dare County’s chief real property appraiser, each December he and Greta Skeen, the county assessor, survey oceanfront homes that appear on Nags Head’s condemnation list. They note any loss of land to the ocean, and if the loss is deemed permanent, the tax valuation of the home is reduced.
In Moore’s case, the assessment as late as 2005 was $495,500. In 2006 it was reduced to $418,300, and in 2007 a more dramatic decline was recorded when the value was reduced to $288,795. Today the lot is classified as a “washout” and carries no tax value.
At its peak valuation, the 1,352-square-foot Proteus house generated $1,262 in county properly tax revenue and $730 in town tax. At that value, the property tax loss over 10 years would be $19,920.
In its last rental year, the home grossed $37,575, which generated an estimated $4,800 in occupancy and other taxes — split between state and local governments. The 10-year year tax loss would now be $70,000. If a property management firm was involved, about $4,000 would be earned by a locally based business. That doesn’t count the money Moore would pay local contractors for repairs and maintenance.
Nuisance homes represent millions in losses
All told, the homes on the nuisance list account for $6.36 million of lost tax valuations, $26,000 in annual local property taxes according to Nags Head Town Manager Cliff Ogburn. Add to those figures $720,000 (assuming $30,000 per house) in gross rents and $91,800 in occupancy and other taxes. Over a decade, this tallies to over $1.1 million in lost taxes and $7.2 million in gross rental receipts. These totals do not include the dollars and sales taxes spent by the renters while on vacation here.
Comfort Inn South
Moving slightly north, the potential impact on tax revenues increases. The already threatened Comfort Inn South contributes $27,000 in annual property taxes and significantly more in occupancy and sales tax. Even the modest Dolphin Inn accounts for $10,000 in property tax collections.
The latest oceanfront house on Proteus has already lost most of its driveway
Meanwhile, the “newest” oceanfront home on E. Proteus has a current tax value $327,000. But the ocean continues to grind west and has already taken away a big piece of the driveway.
See what people are saying:
Join the discussion:
Joe Murphy says:
Good job Russ. This is the first piece of information that I have seen that actually “does the math” and helps explain the financial effects of what is going on in South Nags Head.
Butch Stone says:
Thank you for the detailed article showing the uninformed and narrow-minded people the actual loss.
Is it possible that beach nourishment is necessary?
Do you think they will get it??
Greg says:
This article sounds like it is against beach nourishment. The 36 million dollar beach nourishment project will have to last 30 years for this to make financial sense.
According to your math, the town of Nags Head wants to spend $36,000,000 to save $1,100,000 in lost tax revenue over the next decade?
The people who used to rent these houses have already made their reservations in other houses so that revenue is not lost.
Sandbar Joey says:
You write of the 25 homes:
“Over a decade, this tallies to over $1.1 million in lost taxes”
So we’re going to SPEND 36 million to PROTECT 1.1 million? Or to protect 2 million or 3 million from the homes in total? (the vacation dollars people people spend will still be spent even though they stay elsewhere)
I have never seen a better argument against nourishment than this article, thanks Russ.
RDS says:
I see this the other way than Butch or Joe. This guy bought properties that were endangered, gambling that the county would pump sand for him, and he’d score big.
Plus, all those homes only contribute a million bucks to the tax base every 10 years? What a scam! Who’d spend tens of millions to save 40 year old homes that only chip in that little! This makes me even more against the nourishing issue.
Russ Lay says:
Note: While the article is not pro or anti-nourishment, it needs to be pointed out that the project is not restricted to the area covered by the 24 homes on the nuisance list. It runs from Whalebone to the Park Service border. One would think that is stipulated. We can supply all the numbers if desired by our readers. It will take some time, but can be accomplished.
Annette says:
Russ,
Good article. It is unfortunate that some do not see the cumulative effect over time as we lose more and more properties that are a part of the tax base. The homes today that are “safe” are the condemned cottages of next year, or the following year, etc. The cumulative effect over the next 10 years are not just these two dozen cottages, but the ones in two, three or four rows back. The island is shrinking/eroding from both sides . . . when SNH, Whalebone Junction, etc. are gone, they are gone forever and with it the tax revenues.
RDS says:
Thanks for the clarification Russ. Perhaps a way to balance this is to add a sidebar on the number of additional rental homes constantly being put on the market throughout Nags Head.
We are growing much faster than shrinking. Even if we did lose a few rows as Annette pointed out, there is no “cumulative effect.”
The numbers are steady: we’ve been slowly losing a house here and there for decades, but the tax and tourism revenue grows consistently.
GB says:
While we are considering numbers, we should also consider the chilling effect of a potential occupancy tax increase across all of Dare County. Fewer guest dollars spent here and less money spent by owners on maintenance and upgrades are some of the more immediate impacts. This will be felt county wide, and will have a significant impact on local businesses.
It should also be noted that according to the Dare County website, Moore bought the property at 119 E Proteus in May of 2002 for $210,000 and owns other properties in South Nags Head as well. The 2002 sales price is a better indicator of prior value than the series of inflated tax values referenced above.
Butch Stone says:
The bad name that this gives the Outer Banks is one of the main things. People also forget how many people and families come to these 24 homes and spend money here, sometimes as many as three families per home. This is income the homes also bring in. Sooner or later it will take more then 24 homes. More tax income will be lost. Your taxes will have to go up!!
RDS says:
Very interesting GB.
By the math, if he rented for as little as 3k per week/12 per summer, he may have already grossed around $288,000 just in summer rental receipts since ’03, and it could be much more. And he only payed 210k?
That is an incredible payoff for a property, and then if they pump sand, it would double or triple in value overnight?
Greg says:
Lost Revenue?
The sand they want to pump on the beach is actually a mixture of sand, silt and broken seashells.
After the sand and silt wash away the broken shells will be left behind.
If we end up with a beach that the vacationers cannot walk on barefoot because of the broken shells, how many of them will come back? The most common thread among OBX beach users is the soft sand we have.
We could be risking the entire tourism business if the beach nourishment project has this unintended consequence.
Brian Grffith says:
Like property values, tax revenues by themselves don’t tell the whole story. You also need to look at what these values (if they truly represent the oceanfront) mean to the town and county.
Take the Proteus, for example. The story says the Proteus – at its peak valuation of $495,000 – generated $1,262 in county property tax revenue and $730 in town tax. These figures, however, represent 0.0028% and 0.0163% of all property tax revenue collected by the County and town respectively last year. Pretty insignificant numbers.
A thousand similarly-valued beachfront houses with a total assessed value of $495 million ($495,000 x 1000)
would, therefore, represent 2.8% and 16.3% of all property tax revenue collected. Again, small potatoes in the bigger picture.
The message is that, while the assessed value of and tax revenue generated by “threatened” beachfront properties in Dare County may seem huge, it’s not…in terms of the bigger picture.
Selena K says:
A few observations:
- Surrounding rental property owners will regain weeks of occupancy that they lost during the last building boom. Rental owners from Corolla to Hatteras Village complained ever since the boom about lost rental income due to the influx of new competition;
- Distressed-property owners bought in those areas expecting to rake in huge profits assuming nourishment would come and enlarge their properties.
…Which is probably the biggest “rub” we locals are feeling–that these people assumed they were gonna make out like bandits on our dime.
There is a reason it is called “investing.”
If your portfolio tanks you don’t assume every other investor in the market will bail you out!
The only thing I do feel sorry for distressed owners about is if they bought with representation and their agent told them “don’t worry about it.”
Regardless, these buyers were supposedly savvy investors who should have known the risks–those with eyesight, anyway. And from quick research I see that some distressed OF owners bought from unassisted sellers in deals with no apparent representation…because they were “saving money” and “getting better deals” that way!
Fish says:
Butch, won’t those people just stay somewhere else? Like they’ve done with the homes we’ve lost previously?
Fish says:
I believe if someone is going to vacation here, they come here. They don’t get married to a certain house and if that’s gone, they completely abandon their vacation. The money still comes in.
And maybe the bad name we get is letting these old rundown houses sit out so long. Nags Head officials might be hurting their own image and not even realizing it. Maybe if they were more proactive with the removals, the owners would stop thinking they can string this out so long and drag the entire town image in the process.
Butch Stone says:
to RDS
This is the only reason you don’t want to do beach nourishment. It is not because taking care of the beach will benefit all the people that live here. It is because you don’t want to put sand in someone’s back yard at your cost.
But if you don’t, it will cost you much more in the long run!!!
P.S. To all of the mathematicians: You have forgotten to take in that almost every house that is rented has two or three families that save all year, come here to spend money here, going out to eat, gas, T shirts etc. and when they leave in a week, the next family does the same..and they will not come back if the beach is bad.
RDS says:
No sir, not the only reason. There are several reasons I believe Beach Nourishment is not the right solution here.
The numbers just don’t add up for me: old homes that are likely doomed due to rot anyway, the huge cost, that we don’t “lose” any vacation dollars (the renters stay elsewhere).
It’s ROI 101 for me. If the ‘Banks was my business, those homes are a loss, rip them out now just like replacing old inventory in my car rental fleet.
It’s not worth investing every cent of my operating capital, plus taking out a loan, to buy very risky nourishment insurance for what amounts to maybe a tenth of a percent(?-less than that probably) of my overall cash flow.
Any financial planner might look at it the same way, sir.
From a business standpoint, the sooner you take the negative-performing assets off your books the better.
Gary says:
The only potential revenue loss is the property tax. The occupancy taxes will still be generated, just at different houses. To my knowledge, we are never at 100% occupancy, so give up on this argument.
Butch Stone says:
to RDS and Gary
Did yall forget about the hotels that are ready to fall in the ocean too. How about Comfort Inn? There are many more on the verge. Look at Kitty Hawk oceanfront!! Just keep on fighting and you will lose a lot more than 24 homes and the people that rent them. The reputation of the Outer Banks is in the hands of Beach Refurbishing..
It will work here!!
Greg says:
Lost tax revenue?
The Nags Head annual budget is just over $15,000,000. Can someone explain to me how it makes financial sense to spend 250% of the annual budget on one temporary project in one small part of the town.
Virginia Beach is repeatedly used as an example of successful beach nourishment. VB nourishes their beach every year? The OBX doesn’t generate enough revenue to support this type of strategy.
Selena says:
The awful-looking beaches in SNH are harming the sales in the rest of the SNH community right now. This past Saturday I showed three homes on the west side of OOI Rd. to serious buyers, one of which they loved.
But the terrible state of the existing beach and washout houses where they would have their beach access turned them off completely. Sad. So that’s $4,000 right there that the county lost in potential transfer tax.
Why can’t the Town clean up what is there now to stop the total turn-off? Why aren’t the owners in all of SNH pushing the Town for a clean-up/removal of the current eyesores now instead of waiting and waiting for BN to come? Are they hoping the new sand will just cover up the existing mess?
If BN occurs, who is to say those OF owners will fix/remodel/update their broken-down houses? My guess is they will instead immediately sell the lots, which would then become (probably) buildable. Again–a huge ROI.
Right now, almost none of those existing lots can be rebuilt on if 50% or more of the dwellings on them burned down.
Fish says:
Selena’s got a point. Nags Board will sit on this and argue about it for years + fight to get permits . . . etc. and etc. on and on.
They could pull those bad houses this week, knock down the rotten old hotels, and have a nice beach again by Memorial Day . . .
Butch Stone says:
to Greg
the 1% tax will be added to the renters tax to make it 13.75% and it wont cost you a thing!!
Whats the problem???
Nags Head Comedy Troup says:
Dare County playing the part of HERBERT’S FATHER in Monty Python and the Holy Grail:
__________________
Listen, lad. I’ve built this kingdom up from nothing. When I started here, all there was was swamp.
All the kings said I was daft to build a castle in a swamp, but I built it all the same, just to show ‘em. It sank into the swamp.
So, I built a second one. That sank into the swamp.
So I built a third one. That burned down, fell over, then sank into the swamp.
But the fourth one stayed up. An’ that’s what your gonna get, lad — the strongest castle in these islands.
Russ Lay says:
Point of Order: We are in the process of working on an article about what it takes to move a house off the public trust beach as well as the problems with other eyesores in south Nags Head. Early research indicates this is not a simple thing as many suggest, but stay tuned until we get the facts nailed down. BTW, these comments give us great ideas for stories based upon what you folks want/need to know. Keep ‘em coming!!
Uncle KB says:
Butch…Isn’t Nags Head also asking for a 1% county wide sales tax increase???
Bob O says:
Good discussion! If I may respond to a couple of posts, starting with Uncle KB – Sales tax is dead.
RDS, the past 20 years have seen enormous growth, but as we near buildout, that growth has slowed, and nearly halted the past couple of years. I agree wholeheartedly that we need to look at this as a business decision, but make sure we use the right timeframe, because the towns and the county hope to be in business a long time – no exit strategy here.
GB, when the occupancy tax was increased in September of 2002, the gross collection rose by 3.45% in 03/04, 4.52% in 04/05,9.17% in 05/06, and 13.19% in 06/07. You never know which straw will break the camel’s back, but a 1% increase seemed to have little effect on rental demand in the past.
Greg, Nags Head did core sampling through the offshore borrow area. A sample is at Town Hall, in the library. See for yourself whether it’s compatible. The core samples indicate very good sand quality – we are much more fortunate in this area than southern NC.
Fish and Selena, we’re being aggressive with the removal of homes that are on the public beach, but it’s a legal process, and like many legal processes, it seems to take forever. We can’t just take the chainsaw to someone’s home, that’s not the way America works. That private property thing also constrains us on cleaning up west of the home – we pick up the stuff to the east, but not the stuff that is west of the house, still considered private until the court says otherwise. The homes that are being declared nuisances will not be rebuilt, even in the case of nourishment.
It’s not the property taxes that these homes pay to the county and the town that make them critical to goverment budgets (although homes that are oceanfront and in South Nags Head represent 42% of the 3 billion dollar tax base, and that is $1,260,000,000). It’s the revenue they generate in occupancy and sales taxes.
Total occupancy tax revenue was $206,546,900 in 2000/2001. It rose to $287,677,600 in 2005/2006, and $342,313,600 in 2008/2009. Nags Head generates about 25% of this revenue, or about $85,500,000. 13.75% of this money, or $11,767,030 is the tax revenue going to the state, the county and the towns. I think most folks would agree that the lion’s share of this money is collected on or near the oceanfront.
So the business decision is either to protect that revenue stream, or watch it disappear over time. Compared to the tax base, and the revenue stream, the cost of protection seems more reasonable. And the key to the occupancy tax as a vehicle, is that most local folks don’t pay it at all.
Bob O
Butch Stone says:
to Uncle KB
I don’t think they will pass a countywide sales tax.
So they want a one penny tax added to the renters tax and they want oceanfront homeowners to pay $100.00 per ocean footage, a 50-foot lot would be $5,000.00 over 5 years. I don’t think this is the fair thing to do since the beach belongs to everyone and everyone benefits from it, but if this is the only way it will work, I don’t think oceanfront owners will mind.
KDS says:
For Mr. Oakes, good reply, the thing is you say “protect that revenue stream, or watch it disappear over time.”
There is absolutely no evidence that would occur. Kitty Hawk lost homes, you’ve lost homes, but you admit the growth is consistently positive. And Gary made a good point you didn’t address, we are not at 100% occupancy ever, so those O and ST dollars will still come in no matter where the people stay.
This feels like when I have a desperate salesman come in to pitch me on an insurance policy with the hint that if I don’t take it, financial devastation is just around the corner. Neither you nor he seems to be able to point to quantifiable numbers that this is the case.
-KDS
Striper Club says:
I could have my numbers off, the 100 per foot nets 5 million, the additional tax nets 3 million per year split 5 ways, which makes 8 million.
Then they have about 6 million in the fund, so this project still needs 22 million from WHERE?
Yeah, I want a new boat bad, I just can’t afford it. Three painful words: Cant. Afford. It.
Bob O says:
Striper,
When you bought a home, did you save until you had all the cash to buy? Or did you save a down payment, then borrow the rest, and pay over a longer period of time?
The 1% was collected to address shoreline management. So I think you spend it where the need is urgent. When your kids go to college, do you make the oldest one wait until you’ve got enough savings to pay for the younger child’s education? Or do you pay for them in the order that they are ready to go?
We charge the highest rates in the summer, and there are plenty of weeks that are at 100% – ok, not last year, but there will be this year, and there have been in the past years. That’s one reason people built more homes — the demand was strong. But oceanfront always commands the highest rates, earning the most for the owner and the local governments.
We have very little new construction, and very few vacnt lots to build upon. I worry about hitting the top of that curve, and starting into a downward spiral. (Gross occupancy was lower in 2008/2009 by 1/2%, the first decline in recnt history).
I believe we can continue to grow our gross rents, at a slower, more sustainable pace, if we reinvest in the beach.
GB says:
Welcome back, Bob. We all enjoy the points you bring to the discussion. Your most recent post makes two bold assumptions, and there are flaws in both.
The first assumption is that the proposed project will work, that the sand will stay on the beach, and that the erosion will effectively stop for a period of 9 or more years. This is a very risky gamble. Some experts say that nourished sand erodes two or three times faster than native sand. (http://www.brynmawr.edu/geology/geomorph/beachnourishmentinfo.html, http://www.csc.noaa.gov/beachnourishment/html/human/dialog/series1a.htm) Erosion rates in the target area are extremely high. Even with nourishment, houses will continue to fall in (“hurting our image” which I don’t buy, and losing tax base) unless you can stop the erosion completely, which will not happen.
While projects in VB and other areas are successful, in VB they have a different set of factors that contribute to their success http://gsa.confex.com/gsa/2001SE/finalprogram/abstract_4262.htm –more money, lower natural erosion rates, an annual nourishment program, offshore underwater breakwaters, and a shorter stretch of beach to nourish.
The second assumption is that the government will be a better steward of our revenue than individual owners. If an owner wants to spend 1% of their revenue on this project or any other, then that should be their choice. But to require every owner countywide to equally chip in to fix isolated problems in known problem areas is not the proper function of government.
Dare County has a successful tourism economy because of the people and the individual decisions that they have made. Builders and investors have built fine homes; restaurant owners have created unique and affordable places to eat; entrepreneurs have created successful attractions. The result is an affordable family vacation destination.
Our success is not due to the extra 1% occupancy and meals tax collected by the visitors bureau, or the 1% occupancy currently allocated to shoreline mitigation, or the 3% occupancy tax that funds the local government operations. Some of the services that local government provides are necessary, but we do not need to expand these roles. This is no way meant to minimize the intent and efforts of all of the individuals who volunteer and work for the various local governments.
Keep the taxes low, transparent, and in the hands of individual investors and the revenue streams for all of us will continue to grow.
so. shores says:
Mr. Oakes, of course you send your kids to college, to one you can afford. And when you buy a house, you don’t buy one that you cannot make payments on, afford to eat each day, or afford insurance.
Obviously, no bank or lender would loan you the money for this project. And that may be behind the effort to raid everyone’s collective beach fund.
Your town has a 15 mil budget, why not offer some of that money? Too risky? Why not a higher local tax on realtors or shopping or transfer tax or parking? How about selling off some town-owned property to pay for it? Too much personal risk?
I have to say I side with the lady who felt that this is a local project, the cries that “everyone benefits” are false, and your town is not exactly being a very conscientious neighbor. The longer this goes on the more I think the harsh feelings might last a while.
Striper Club says:
Old saying though, Mr. Oakes:
“Never buy a boat on credit, it’ll sink the next day.”
I think the same could be said for sand.
Greg says:
I get confused when I see the town of Nags Head sending out mixed signals.
On one hand South Nags Head is being called a disaster area, etc. Meanwhile, permits were issued by the town and two new oceanfront mansions were built in South Nags Head in the 12 months. Which is it? A disaster area or a safe place to build?
@Bob O
By any chance were those core samples of compatible sand drilled by an independent third party or were they provided by the company looking to get the $36,000,000 contract?
The core samples from the dredging of the Manteo channel were supposed to be compatible sand, but they ended up pumping mud on the beach.
Bob O says:
Please, GB, don’t put words in my mouth – I get in enough trouble with my own words ; ).
I think my assumption is more that retreat takes us to a very definite ending at some point in the future. It’s not so much that I’m positive that nourishment will work in every situation, but that retreat, carried to its inevitable end, is a losing strategy. That leaves me with nourishment as the best option. And it’s incorrect that all of the target area has an extremely high erosion rate. This project is anchored with 5 miles of fairly moderate rates, about 2 feet per year. And the length of the project enhances the chances of success. Each beach and nourishment project is different, and the positive factors for this project are the length (with the square relationship between length and lifespan) and the great quality and quantity of the sand.
Now the second assumption you put in my mouth really tasted bad. I don’t for a minute believe the government is a better steward than the individual. I do think that there are projects that are larger than the capacity of the individual, or the local government. That’s why the gov’t has the responsibility for national defense and education, and the space program. As a whole, we can accomplish big projects with cooperation that we can’t do as individuals. I believe this is one of those project. Rather than each individual owner doing beach pushes on their 50 feet when their structure is imminently threatened, just moving sand to a different spot in the system, we have a chance to add sand to the system on a scale that can make a difference. That is what these funds were collected for since 2002. It’s time to put them to work on the beach instead of in the bank.
GB says:
Bob- I know what you mean about getting in trouble and do not mean to put words into your mouth. I apologize if I have done so and it’s only in the spirit of thoroughly discussing the issues and the 36 million dollar question. Like you, I am committed to a debate that is civil and informed and may the best ideas win. It would have been better to say that many pro-nourish arguments are based on the two assumptions mentioned above.
To discuss the assumptions some more….
To the counter point about feasibility, I propose that we will end up at the same point in high risk areas (southern part of SNH) whether or not we retreat peacefully and responsibly, nourish or continue on our current path of retreat by default. The proposed plan will not stop erosion in these areas. So if we are going to end up at the same point anyway, why not accept it and allocate our resources in the best way possible-compensate individual owners for some of their loss, redevelop better infrastructure and diversify our economy in low risk areas that aren’t rapidly eroding.
Regarding the tax, I am glad that we agree in principle on the concept of individual vs. govt. control of fiscal resources. I also agree that there are some worthy and necessary functions of government. However, locally (countywide) funded beach nourishment is not one of those necessary functions. If the oceanfront owners in Nags Head agree to an assessment, then go for it. If the town of Nags Head wants to spend their own financial resources, then much of your opposition disappears. But the proposal in front of us is taking more money from every owner in Dare who rents weekly with local officials deciding for them when and where the money will be spent. Not only is this unfair to the owners who have not been asked, it will also affect the amount of money that enters our local economy in rental house upgrades, repairs, repaints etc vs. money spent on sand that will be washed away. This tax, unlike education programs and national defense, is not being put in front of the people who are paying the tax for approval. The push to rush this through a legislative short session without voter approval, even a semblance of consensus, or a longterm plan is not being done in the spirit of cooperation that we need to effectively mitigate the problems we face together.
In the spirit of finding common ground, if you can find a way to do the Nags Head project without a tax increase, much of your opposition will go away. Use the existing funds–even part of the other towns’ share, just please don’t increase everyone’s taxes. Let’s work on solutions that will work long-term. Nourishment may be a part of the solution in some areas, but retreat will be part of the final outcome whether we like it or not. There are other solutions that we should be pursuing together as well.
Mico says:
anyone watch the news tonight?
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3032619/#35919637
duh
duh-mb
Mico says:
Investor Buyout
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3032619/#35918805
Selena K says:
Good eye, Mico! Very timely. Just wish they had said where that project was being filmed. Both University guys were from NC but the project could’ve been in a different state. Anyone know?
Selena K says:
And you know what? BN is happening. It will come. It’s a done deal.
The Town is testing every gov’t angle to pay for it first and when those attempts all fail the Town will proceed with BN using some kind of municipal bonds or similar means of financing. I don’t know how or if such bonds ultimately affect the constituency. Do they?
But that would let the people who are pro-BN (like Butch and them who have an immediate stake) invest in such bonds. Those who are anti-BN do not have to invest.
We might as well put the debate to rest, think positively and sit back accepting it.
And pray they’re doing the right thing and that it works in the long run.
Fish says:
SURFERS DEAL A BLOW TO A BEACH DREDGING PROJECT:
In ruling against the project, the administrative law judge who heard the case, Robert E. Meale, criticized its potential environmental effects and denounced as “worthless” some of the engineering behind it.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/09/science/earth/09surfers.html
Bob O says:
The MSNBC piece was in Kure Beach, NC I believe. There is some irony in contrasting the media response to the Red River flooding and the “fleecing” tag applied to Kure Beach.
Happy Barracuda says:
Do not feel alone Northern Dare County. The residents of Hatteras Island are facing the same erosion problems, except ours is from the ocean and sound.
It seems after every storm the official attitude is ” Well, it’s a good thing that is over and will never happen again”.
Brian says:
Out of curiosity, are the homes that are now beachfront homes increasing in valuation?
Donna says:
Whoever turned down that beach nourishment is really not thinking about the future of the Outer Banks. I own on the Outer Banks, but we are not permanent residents, so we cannot vote on anything that is done on the Outer Banks. We pay taxes in Kill Devil Hills, which are not cheap, and we have fought the northeasters for quite a while. These past three years have been the worse we have seen since we bought our place in 1998. We lost a lot of beach and sand fence each year. We have a dune push in the Spring, but it is gone by November of that year. We all need to work together to preserve our beach and our homes from the erosion problem as much as possible now and in the future. I wish more people would think about their property and their preserving of nature and the beach.
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
Beach Renter says:
What ever became of 119 East Proteus Court? Is it still standing after Hurricant Irene?