Another Beach Bailout?
Why is U.S. funding N.J. sand replenishment?
Posted May 5, 2009 by Steve Adubato
The dunes at Harvey Cedars have been especially susceptible to erosion in recent years. Sand fences provide some help, but Mother Nature has a way of taking its course.
Photo by Mary Godleski/Associated Press.
Let me get this straight. Voters in New Jersey and across the country are sick and tired of government bailouts. We want taxes cut and we are convinced that government has become too intrusive in our lives. We want the bailouts to end and our tax dollars to be spent in a more prudent and economical fashion. Everyone agrees that government waste has to end.
Then again, if you have a home or business at the Jersey shore, you might see things a little differently, because once again New Jersey’s political leaders, particularly our Congressional delegation from Monmouth, Ocean, Cape May, and Atlantic counties, are pressing the Army Corps of Engineers and the White House’s Office of Management and Budget, to spend hundreds of millions of tax dollars to subsidize sand-replenishing projects.
The beaches at the Jersey Shore have been shrinking for years. If you are like me and you hit the Shore on a regular basis, you’ve seen it for yourself. Beach erosion causes people to have their blankets and chairs just inches away from someone they’d rather not be that close to and puts oceanfront homes and businesses at risk.
New Jersey is the national leader in federally subsidized beach projects. Our state has received about $450 million to pump sand along our coast since 1985. Federal tax dollars represent 65 percent of all the money spent replenishing sand in New Jersey. That means, if you live in Iowa or Texas, you are supporting beach erosion projects in Ocean City and Beach Haven.
It strikes me as hypocritical. What’s worse, beach erosion projects are a colossal waste of tax dollars. Every time a big storm hits, we lose another chunk of the beach. And that is the way Mother Nature intended it. Sand washes out to the sea.
Think about this. On April 15, there were huge so-called “tea parties” across the country, including right here in the over-taxed Garden State, where thousands of people got together to say, “enough is enough, no more government bailouts, no more boondoggles, and no more pet projects funded with our hard-earned tax dollars.” But I didn’t hear anyone in that irate audience or at the microphone complain about all the federal dollars from other parts of the country coming into New Jersey so that sand can be pumped on to our beaches.
Environmentalists have long said that these beach erosion projects are a sham and irresponsible on many levels. According to Dery Bennett, who heads the American Littoral Society in Sandy Hook, “The funding [for beach replenishment projects] should be more local if the towns and people in these towns want it. They could come up with a bigger share of the expense.”
That’s the way I see it. I love the Jersey shore—what’s left of it. But who are we kidding? When most folks criticize government spending and so-called bailouts, what they really mean is that they don’t want to see the government spend tax dollars on projects that do not benefit them.
In reality, when it comes to government spending, we want it both ways. What one person calls a wasteful government subsidy or welfare initiative, another calls a valuable beach-replenishment project. In fact, what’s been going on at the Jersey Shore for decades is nothing more than a massive, wasteful, and irresponsible bailout of our beaches. At deadline, the funding was the subject of intense debate in Washington. Please e-mail me at sadubato@aol.com and tell me what you think about this issue.
For more stories about: Jersey Shore, Jersey shore, beach replenishment
Comments
Beach replenishment programs
I agree with the author. I have spent 54 straight summers (or parts thereof) at Cape May Pt. and while I love the short term results of beach replenishment it is a band aid approach to a growing problem. The rising sea level will not be stopped, Jersey will always have beaches. They will just be getting alittle closer to Philadelphia. If NJ residents want to foot the bill and then tax vacationers I’m good with that. At least then I have a choice. Good luck.
Posted by: robert l. dyer, None | Jul 10, 2009 20:27:14 PM |
The Shore
Really folks. Our tax dollars are distributed all over the world on our behalf, and furthers the common interests of all Americans. I’m from New Jersey, return as often as this economy will allow and would be devastated if our beautiful shore was allowed to deteriorate.
Having been raised in New Jersey and California, and now as a homeowner in Florida, the beach is my heaven apparently. I worked for the Red Cross for many years, and served on many disaster relief operations. I’ve seen it all, from losses unforeseen and those that you have to wonder why homeowners would take such chances. This can be said about every region in the country. There are risks everywhere.
Why do I mention this? Because the author is right. We stand to lose much more by not caring for the problem correctly. Please folks, let’s put some thought into sustainable solutions and to caring for our planet and the precious beaches we so love. As a visitor to the Jersey Shore, I too would be glad to pay a little extra to see it preserved. There is nothing the Jersey Shore. And I’ve laid on beach in Venice, CA., La Selva Beach in northern CA, Panama City, Florida and Fort Myers. There is nothing like the Jersey Shore for playing in the waves, watching the boats come in, the lighthouses, and the ever so beautiful Victorian homes. It’s not just my heaven.
I would however like to say then when I was staying at a lovely B & B in Avon this last May, I was discouraged to see the growing development of multi-million dollar homes and condos. They are destroying the lovely character of the shore communities and I wouldn’t mind if a wave came along and well you get the idea. It smacks of greed and overdevelopment. It makes it look like every other overdeveloped beach, and nothing more.
Posted by: Nancy Fash, None | Jul 11, 2009 20:05:37 PM |
the beach
PLEASE SAVE!!!!
Posted by: Terry Abbruzzese, None | Jul 14, 2009 00:43:42 AM |
NJ Sand Replenishment
I have to say that this was a pretty ill-conceived article. The author should have done some more research. It is fashionable to take a stance against the government spending money foolishly but this is not the case here. This is one of the few examples where the investment is amplified in terms of creating jobs, revenue and taxes. When we look at all the recent stimulus spending that has not worked, it is easy and lazy to try to lump this in, but, sand replenishment is intelligent investment in NJ Tourism. It keeps the engine running.
Posted by: Tony Iannitelli, None | Jul 14, 2009 02:36:41 AM |
NJ Beach Bailout - WE HELP OURSELVES TOO
The author seems to have it in for the Jersey shore. What he failed to research or state in his article is that the New Jersey Statutes, Section 13:19-16-1 establishes a non-lapsing Shore Protection Fund. The monies in the fund are dedicated for use to fund shore protection and maintenance. Deposits to the fund derive from real estate transfer fees and up to $25,000,00 per year from such fees may be deposited into this fund. So NJ is helping themselves before they turn to the Government for funds to restore its beaches. To not restore the beaches would create damage to NJ Tourism, as the NJ Shore is THE place to go for vacation. NJ is not the only state that receives Government funds. On June 30, 2009, Huntington Beach was awarded $3.3 million dollars of stimulous money for Huntington Beach Wetlands Rstoration; February 2009, South Beach, Florida received $100,000 for beach restoration. Report all the facts, Mr. Abudato, especially when you write for NJ Monthly!
Posted by: Judi Davidson, None | Jul 23, 2009 15:46:57 PM |
|
|
