The Unanswered
20 Critical Questions, Most Remain Unanswered
- If this is about nourishment funding for the front beach, post-storm and scheduled, why is the town aggressively attempting to acquire perpetual, non-ending, easements for the federal wall structure, which will be non-traversable, punishable by federal law, from all or most beachfront owners? If the effort was made, we would see that there are several sensible ways to raise nourishment funds. Did anyone ever consider asking the folks that use the beach the most, our tourists, to help out? It's likely that our vacationing renters would have no problem contributing to the fundraising to preserve their piece of paradise. A total beach land grab or land-lock makes no sense and is pure government overreach.
- Can the town guarantee beachfront owners and renters perpetual direct access to the beach from their property? No. Even if you have property that doesn't intersect with the PEL, you will still be landlocked from accessing the beach and ocean. The current town council may allow the construction of a 24-26' tall, 30-40' long (spanning?) humpback bridge but at any time, a council or the Corps can decide it needs to be removed and you will have no choice because you have given up control of your land. See Sullivan's Island
- What extent of the beach and ocean views from homes will be lost? Ground level and possibly the first floor. Will depend mostly on building codes, when your home was built.
- Has a robust economic study been performed to look at the effects on this project on our local businesses? How many repeat vacation renters will Edisto lose and what would be the local and county economic ripple-effect impact from this?
- How does the town propose to come up funds for the 35% match? 50% match for future nourishments? 50% was never mentioned during the two public meeting presentations.
- Why is the side beach getting the same wall treatment as the front beach? When is the last time floodwater was past the current natural dune? 1975? Does it demand re-nourishment as the front beach demands? No, in fact, it accretes or grows approximately an inch per year. And recently, Irma washed nourishment sand from the front beach to the south end of the side beach and is slowly being smoothed northbound increasing beach width.
- If it's only as strong as its weakest link, why do we not have plans for Big Bay/Docksite Road "reach"? Isn't that where most flood waters enter the island?
- If beachfront owners are allowed by all required authorities to build humpback crossover bridges to access the beach, since we no longer control or own the property, does this mean the general public has access to the bridges from the ocean side? Who owns the bridge?
- Currently, beachfront home occupants can view beach activities, such as unlawful behavior. How will they be able to help report those activities if they can't see over the wall?
- Who maintains the dune/berm/wall if it is over-vegetated? Overgrowth can attract wildlife not very compatible with humans, especially the little ones. We already see that the town doesn't or can't maintain the dune drift fencing they installed about a year ago. "VOLUNTEERS NEEDED"
- Up to what size storm will this wall be able to absorb? The "Big One"?
- Even though it has been said by the town that the protection from this project will increase home values, which they say is sufficient compensation for the easement, how do they know this? How much value can beachfront property owners expect to actually lose in the property devaluation from signing over the easement because of never having guaranteed direct beach access? Will property owners who sign over their easement ever have a clean title? In researching previous preliminary drafts performed by the Corps, it becomes obvious that the "Big Chop" in value that beachfront owners will initially feel--due to the loss of beach access and views resulting from the perpetual easement given to the town from owners--was never factored into the Corps study on economic effects. Yet, they are the agency that is requiring the language, such as perpetual, to be included in the easement contract written up by the town. Please note that we are forced to examine previously performed drafts by the Corps because the town has refused to allow the public to examine any current documents or drafts, citing that "the agreement is exempt under SC Code 30-4-40(a)(5) until the final contract is executed." So, what properties, exactly, will rise in value? Second, Third row? Definitely NOT the front row.
- Given that Edisto Beach generates around 40% of total county tax revenue (plus en-route traffic sales), how much revenue will Colleton County lose because of beachfront property devaluations, not including the potential long-term domino local economy effects?
- Why is this wall the only option to secure front beach re-nourishment?
- Once a walkover bridge is built, who decides whether these crossover bridges can stay or go? Are they allowed perpetually? Who pays for these $70k+ bridges? Can the bridges be built from treated lumber or will it be required to be eco-friendly lumber?
- If beachfront owners build a humpback bridge and they rent their home, how can they stay in compliance with the ADA? Many properties don't have room for a wheelchair ramp that long.
- Why, as it has been said, if the town must have all 187 beachfront easements in order to start this project, which has not happened, why is the town continuing to spend large sums of money, just around $900,000 for easement prep and survey, to start this project as if they already have the possession of the easements or know that they will get all 187 easements signed over? Why not send out new letters and contracts now and get current, more accurate responses before spending a million in tax payer monies?
- It the wall fails in a storm too large for it to handle, who is responsible for repairs from damage to homes? Not the government, local or federal, both, which in a way, are creating a false sense of security or faux "insurance" for owners and occupants by touting this project as protection to existing structures.
- Since there would be even more sand to be blown in onto properties during storms, sand that is assumed property of the local and federal government, are they liable for any structural and landscape damages that occur from this? After all, this is a sacrificial dune, is it not?
- Why are the current powers-that-be, the public servants of "EDISLOW" moving so quickly and quietly on the biggest, most impactful decisions Edisto Beach has ever faced? Is there something the public aren't privy to or are they just not educated sufficiently?
