Chamber holds firm: “No beaches, no business”
Russ Lay »
Gambling on beach nourishment means hedging the bet.
Rob Morris »
“No beaches, no business” is how Outer Banks Chamber Chairman Paul Tine opened a recent sit-down with Chamber President John Bone and the Voice’s Russ Lay and Rob Morris.
Tine and the Chamber sparked a mini-firestorm in February when its board released a resolution supporting beach nourishment in Dare County and the Nags Head project in particular. Tine followed the resolution with a strongly worded letter urging local municipalities to put aside a “what’s in it for me” attitude and find ways to work together.
Tine’s opening remarks signal that the Chamber is standing firm in the face of negative feedback from some of its members and will continue to support beach nourishment in Dare County. Bone said that wide beaches aren’t “just about people; it’s the dollars they bring.”
“Once you put a (widened) beach out there, it becomes public beach, usable for more people,” Bone said.
When asked if there was a solid economic argument the Chamber could use to demonstrate the costs of nourishment compared to revenues saved, Tine noted such measurements were “difficult.”
Tine cited as examples not only the occupancy, property and sales taxes collected, but the discretionary income tourists spend. Confronted with statements from the Park Service and other sources citing increased tourism in the face of constant erosion, Bone responded that there was really no reliable method to measure how many visitors come to the beach each year.
Bone pointed to declining occupancy tax, meals tax and gross retail sales numbers as possible indicators that the state of the beaches was starting to have an effect. More to the point, Bone queried, “How do you quantify the ‘one and done’ visitor?” a reference to the tourist who comes here for the first time, doesn’t like the condition of the beaches and never returns.
Bone and Tine addressed Nags Head’s situation not only from a strict nourishment standpoint, but as a public relations problem for the entire region. Both noted that many visitors refer generically to the Outer Banks as ‘Nags Head’ which could result in bad press about beach conditions there being construed as affecting the entire area.
We also asked the Chamber leaders if publicizing nourishment woes was not, in reality, creating a self-fulfilling prophecy. Tine said the tactic “required a fine line in balancing the two” but concluded that publicity was needed to bring attention to the problem locally. Also, both pointed to the Internet and online discussion groups as ways potential visitors were already aware of erosion issues in Nags Head.
Tine concluded by stating the Chamber had “opened the lines of communication” and “we’ve offered to hold meetings . . . talk about the issue. The more people involved the better answer you are going to get. We’re at a decision point again about what we’re going to do. It’s not always an ‘either-or’ question, but how can we best address the question.”
While retreat may be one option for management of the oceanfront, it’s not a word the Chamber is ready to embrace where sand on the beach is concerned.
Related stories:
Beach Sandstorm
Old summer home is now a nuisance
Chamber urges town unity
See what people are saying:
Join the discussion:
RDS says:
No beaches, no business? What? It’s like a nursery rhyme.
John, Paul, tourism revenue GREW last year, even during the worst recession in modern history. How can you not acknowledge that?
And like Oakes, they won’t acknowledge the risk.
They could actually do more harm than good here. This thing could be an environmental disaster that, instead of producing incremental revenue, has a chance to TOTALLY destroy tourism in Nags Head.
The very nourishment project, if incompatible (again), could be the thing that causes “No Beaches, No Business.”
When you have a good thing going, or a good hand, which we have now even with the economy in the tank, you ride it out. You play the hand you have.
Ray says:
RDS has made excellent points. Does anyone remember the large ads placed in the newspaper by business groups during the sand tax fiasco that read, “Come Watch Our Beaches Wash Away”? It was self-defeating and quickly pulled.
Fact is, just like the ORV issue down on Hatteras Island, strong-willed proponents of both issues have not handled themselves well in getting their points across.
Hatteras Island wants to blame their entire bad economy on the ORV issue and the Chamber, etc. wants everyone to believe the sky is falling on our beaches.
Bone/Tine speak of “wider beaches” via nourishment. I wonder if they realize the 4 million cu.yds of sand will only result in about 50-75 ft. of wider beach; less than the amount of sand covered by a strong lunar high tide.
Jay says:
Allowing houses to sit within 100 feet of the high tide line is the problem. Remove these nuisance structures and the beach will be as wide as it was intended to be. Even at $50K a pop it’s still financially much more prudent.
And who comes here to go to a public access in Nags Head anyway? NO ONE.
People are aware of the erosion in SOUTH Nags Head not all of Dare County.
Red says:
RDS – toursim revenue GREW last year? Where do you get your information? Collectons on both meals and occupancy were down last year with occupancy collections off over six million dollars! How do you acknowledge that?
RDS says:
Using the Visitors Bureau numbers, we were up 1.9% overall despite recession. Lodging was off 1.6%, but meals were up (see Muller’s blog):
Link to Visitors Bureau
Ray says:
I don’t know where you get your tax facts, Red…but, I think you’d better check again..
Red says:
RDS,
You have pulled 2008 numbers – try looking at 2009… Both meals and lodging were off.
Ray,
I pulled them off of the visitors bureau website!
Rob Morris says:
Maybe this will help:
Dare County tax numbers
Bob O says:
OK, so we can all acknowledge the facts – occupancy was off by 1/2%. Is that all because of erosion issues? No, but I think the risk, (and there is always risk, RDS, and I do understand that) is greater by not taking action.
Really, you’re trying to have the argument both ways – on the one hand, you argue the sand will just wash away, and the other, that it will ruin the beach by staying there.
Go to South Nags Head, start at Comfort Inn and walk south about a half a mile. Four large structures, with sandbags in front of them or soon to have sandbags in front of them. That’s the biggest threat I see, is a beach lined with sandbags for half a mile or more, and the ocean keeps coming.
Someone made an interesting analogy this week to me about the snow that ski resorts make over the course of the winter. I mean, it just melts, right? So why do they do it? If you lengthen the time perspective, isn’t that our situation?
Louise says:
I’ve been coming to OBX since 1970. We now live here. Every year, a new group of houses were taken down by Mother Nature. But OBX and tourism have survived. The Chamber acts like this is a new phenomenon and are preaching doom and gloom. The sagging economy is nation-wide, not just affecting OBX. Chamber needs to get real.
Butch Stone says:
Retreat… is the coward thing to do!!!
It will cost us in the long run
Take care of the beaches and the people will come
The beaches are our income…
RDS says:
Thanks, I’m not sure I agree with trying to have it both ways. I’m looking for any scenario where it tips to a point where I feel, “Hey, this is starting to make some sense.” Maybe this can help.
1. If there were a case made where this showed financial sense, ie., the return was high, P&L projections strong etc. Challenge for your staff: Even if we did spend 36 mil, we are not likely even to gain revenue seeing as those homes are already full. Possible research: Maybe you have numbers from other beaches that show some kind of spike in other spending after the dredges left?
2. Or if the cost was low relevant to our bank account, and we didn’t impose on neighbor towns, and future ability to replenish that account was clear. But we’re putting all our capital at risk for a situation that is not as dire (when it comes to revenue trends) as originally pitched. Possible approach: be willing to negotiate, put something in, OBAR, money where its mouth is? …not have project 100% financed by neighbors who have their own problems besides having to take on financial risk for NH.
3. Or there were some record of nourishment success here where the Labrador current meets the Gulf Stream? Possible new approach, where is contractor in all this? Do they have evidence of success? Are there similar success stories on current-scoured coastlines?
The homework for proponents might be to try to present solutions to those questions other than the fallback, “Trust me, I know better than you. No beach no business. Repeat jingle here.”
And on the making of snow, I believe the resorts make their own snow, it is part of their individual operating expense and it in no way comes from public funds.
Which is really the bottom line: if Nags Head can find a way to do this within its means, it’s really no one else’s business.
Sir, you wouldn’t let me walk in your office and buy your most expensive listing for no money down on a 0% loan financed by Village Realty. (BTW, I’d also want you to forego your commission for 10 years. And also for five years, you get no commission on rentals, that goes to pay my mortgage too.) You’d laugh at me, especially when you saw my 1040.
Brian Grffith says:
The ski resort analogy is a complete joke. There’s absolutely no similarity between pumping millions of cubic yards of sand on a beach and a ski resort making snow…unless, of course, you think the state should pay a private ski resort millions of dollars to put snow on private property during a warm/dry winter, and then be allowed to charge the public a ridiculous amount of money to use it.
A better analogy is that of forest fires and strip mines, in which more of the latter prevent more of the former.
Think about it!
Bobby says:
Yea, while the market and economy are recovering our community has almost twice the national unemployment numbers even after so many have fled to find work elsewhere. That’s right, all we have is our building tradesmen, tourism and beaches! I don’t know if BN will work, but it is the only action the NC lawmakers currently allow us. It would be interesting to know how many that oppose/support preserving our beaches still work and depend on the local economy, who is retired and who just opposes change of any kind and will stand tall with that position no matter what?
Andy says:
If the Chamber is so concerned, they can start by using profits from their businesses, and the Realtors can use their money to re-nourish the beaches in front of these private homes.
GB says:
I work as a real estate agent (sales and weekly rentals) and I am opposed to beach nourishment and raising taxes. Rather than take 1% of the rental revenue stream for all of Dare County and give it to an out-of-town dredge contractor who will provide no local jobs, I feel strongly leaving that 1% with the owners so that they can paint, remodel, upgrade, pay their mortage, etc is better for folks who live and work here and for the rental homes that are the key to our economy.
Alan says:
To Bobby, that’s a good question. They poll the Chamber and OBAR. How about polling Surfrider? Audobon? PTA? Homeowners Associations? Others?
Ray Midgette always calls for a sampling of the general public, but the proponents never answer.
The only general samples we have are those last two election votes. Think it’s changed?
I would go by the will of the majority if the majority speaks. (And if our Commissioners choose to represent the will that they were elected to serve.)
But if we get into another situation where the elected officials think they know better and will not serve the majority, we have become no better than Ahmadinejad or Hussein when they deem themselves above the vote.
Bobby says:
GB, I doubt very seriously if the 1% would compete and prevent all that you stated, noble as it sounds. That money will still be spent. In fact get this done and out of the news and rental owners may once again be able to raise their rental income appropriately instead of continuing at stagnant rates or constant negotiating in the peak season. Improving our community would have a domino of positive affects. And a Realtor against beach preservation (or an active business owner) is just absurd to me. Change is inevitable, we have a choice to make it positive or negative. I believe we will have a united business movement promoting beach preservation. We will know in a very short time.
Ray says:
I find it VERY INTERESTING that the poll results thus far over on http://www.eyeondare.blogspot.com match almost exactly the percentages from the two previous elections.
IMO it all goes to show people here want no part of beach nourishment.
RDS says:
Bobby, Ray, it was also interesting that only 70% of realtors support BN in general. I would have thought that number to be much higher. GB is not alone.
And on the issue of declining rental receipts, with the massive discounts given last year and the “last minute” shoppers, I’m told that each house’s average yield dropped slightly. Thus, the occupancy revenue decline of .5% overall.
Our occupancy numbers (heads on pillows) were very high, it was just that we captured less revenue, slightly, from each rental transaction.
This of course, for anyone familiar with lodging, has to do with a glut of homes on the market. Discounting is natural in that rental market. It’s a buyer’s market, so owners scramble to put heads on their pillows.
Oakes talked about reaching buildout, and that is actually a good thing. You want more demand than inventory in any business. This, and only this, allows you to increase rates again.
Right now we have the opposite, so it would be unlikely that the yield comes back up until we reach that magical balance point of supply/demand they taught the first day of economics.
It could be argued that if we took down homes, that would strengthen your yield much quicker and more consistently than keeping outdated inventory on our market.
Selena K says:
RDS said: “Maybe you have numbers from other beaches that show some kind of spike in other spending after the dredges left?”
While I agree with his/her sentiment, a scary thought is that the dredges aren’t going to leave! (if I understand the process correctly, which I might not…)
Everyone comparing our hopeful BN success to that in Va Beach/Sandbridge is forgetting that dredging and bulldozing is constant after the first load of ocean sand is dumped–right? Won’t BN be an ongoing, constant thing, not just a one-time effort?
I believe that it must be an on-going process, according to a Va Beach resident who told me the work is constantly happening, even now.
Once it begins, by necessity we might never be without constant heavy equipment somewhere on our beach.
Selena K says:
Re: Alan’s comment–PLEASE don’t poll Audubon! While I believe they’d be against BN, they are also against us ever stepping one toe on any beach, anywhere, ever…in the whole country!
Peter Griffin says:
RDS makes some valid points, but I have to take exception when he/she says “…if Nags Head can find a way to do this within its means, it’s really no one else’s business.”
Actually, it’s everyone’s business because, as every NC beach community seems to forget, the beach doesn’t belong to them. It belongs to everyone.
According to the NC Constitution, “it shall be the policy of this State to conserve and protect its lands and waters for all its citizenry…and in every other appropriate way to preserve as a part of the common heritage of this State its forests, wetlands, estuaries, beaches, historical sites, openlands, and places of beauty.”
The public trust beach is a valuable resource entrusted to the state for care and management for all (including future generations of North Carolinians)…not beach towns and certainly NOT a handful of oceanfront property owners.
GB says:
Bobby, we see taxes differently. Right now I have questions about how the 12.75% that is already taken from each owner and visitor is spent and increasing the tax is going in the wrong direction. A “united business front” for an expensive and controversial subject that 4 out of 5 voters are against is very questionable to say the least.
There are serious risks to the proposal that have not been fully explored.
If not for the dialog here and in other meetings, and for folks willing to stand up for what they believe is for the good of the community on both sides of the issue, the “united business front” would push this bad idea and tax increase right on through. Sorry to be difficult, but I care way too much about our collective future to let this slip by unnoticed.
The risk of incompatible sand is large. I am sure that every nourishment project has done a compatibility study. I will also bet that each of those studies said that there would be no problem and that the sand was a good match. Two of the five projects mentioned on the Nags Head site have had serious issues Link here. Link here.
The unintended consequences of such a massive engineering project have been discussed very little. What if the large deposition of sand in NH increases erosion in KDH or elsewhere? What if the project causes Oregon inlet to fill in even faster either because of the deposition of sand in NH or the removal of sand from the offshore bar? I don’t know if these things will occur, but I have seen very little evidence that these questions have been seriously studied.
The risk to the visitor experience is also great. Here is a trip advisor that comes up about Myrtle Beach beach nourishment, which has also been touted as a success: “If the Beach is still under construction by the property you are interested in staying at – when you plan to go due to delays – make sure you can arrange a refund from hotel” “Visitors from prior periods of beach re-nourishment report that the overall beach and sand quality is very low right after a re-nourishment project. The sand tends to be darker and have a slight odor to it. There is of course no predicting what the sand and beach will be like this year — but it is something to consider in your planning.” Quoted directly from the online article.
The risk to our image is also great. Our beaches are the best in the country because they are natural and have a wilderness feel and quality that may or may not be appreciated by everyone. We are a community that is adjacent to one of the largest wilderness areas on the planet. Dumping artificial sand at the gateway to this treasure is not compatible with the experience that we should strive to offer. Others say that they like Va Beach or other nourished beaches. To each their own, but many of our visitors and I prefer a natural beach with native sand.
I may have lost some folks on the last point, but the financial risk is significant and has been discussed already at length. Here I will add that if we borrow money to put 36 mil into the first nourishment project that comes up without considering other opportunities to address the problem and without a comprehensive plan or even a guarantee that the affected owners will assess themselves to maintain the investment down the road, we have the same odds of success as a 2006 speculator looking to make a quick buck on a flip.
Finally, the environmental impacts of repeatedly pumping an immense amount of sand off a bar and onto a beach will be significant and I am concerned about the direct and long-term negative effects that this will have on recreational and commercial fishing.
I agree with you that change is inevitable, and that is why I strongly oppose a project that intends to protect the status quo at an economic and environmental cost that we cannot afford.
Steve Zissou says:
Nags Head has paid its coastal engineering consultant $124,655 between July and December 2009. Looks like oceanfront property owners aren’t the only ones who benefit from beach nourishment.
barbara says:
GB, very nicely said. I agree with everything, I have also asked several times how they are going to address Bn to guests and rental customers. No one, from Realtors or commissioners has spoken about that. Remember all the people who complained in Sandbridge and demanded refunds? And because of the weather, it will most likely take place during rental seasons too. Good job! You need to run for commissoner!
RDS says:
Selena, Peter, Alan, Brian, Ray, Louise, Bob, Bill Murray et al and etc…, thank you for the extraordinary dialogue above.
This is so far beyond the level we seem to get at the “hearings.” I hope everyone’s keeping up.
Thanks.
RDS says:
& GB, you da man too, sorry. Loved this:
“We are a community that is adjacent to one of the largest wilderness areas on the planet. Dumping artificial sand at the gateway to this treasure is not compatible with the experience that we should strive to offer. Others say that they like Va Beach or other nourished beaches. To each their own, but many of our visitors and I prefer a natural beach with native sand.”
Russell says:
“And so castles made of sand melts into the sea,eventually – Jimi Hendrix 1967
Bobby says:
As long as there is a beach RDS….the missing quotient! Our visitors want a beach period. Natural beaches….who defines that and what crystal ball do you have at your disposal that disputes the study’s findings? The one thing that GB and I are bothered with is what is to keep the sand from flowing into Oregon Inlet? As is probably one of the main reasons we have the problem we do and the expense of dredging OI all the time. All posts are greatly appreciated and make me really study and think about our problems. Thanks whether we agree or not I appreciate the lively but respectful interaction and insights!
GB says:
Thanks RDS and everyone else including Bob and Paul and others who don’t always agree. It’s a team effort and we will all be here for a long time together.
Selena K says:
I agree too–this has actually made me more politically aware and brought me out of my general apathy for gov’t affairs. Our state and nat’l Realtor orgs, NCAR and NAR constantly hound us to donate and/or become active, but I have always hated mixing business with politics.
Now it is inevitable. We must speak our minds rationally and intelligently for our elected officials to hear us!
This is something we just can’t afford to ignore.
And GB’s provided links contain some of the original reasons I was turned off to BN way back when.
The rentals might suffer in the short term; we shall wait and see whether they will be helped in the long run.
BN is coming, y’all. Be prepared.
Steve Zissou says:
RDS: I see you’re on to me. That’s impressive.
– Posted from HoHoKam Park
RDS says:
Life Aquatic,
Well played, Carl, hope the Cubs are contenders all the way into May this year. BTW, seeing as you have some of that total consciousness going you can see the future and help me win my pool on how long the nourishment lasts. I’m betting two storms, but I really could use an exact date….?
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.