Kiawah controversy: Marketing tool or subsidy?Bill in Congress would allow reduced insurance rates on new beachfront homes By Tony Bartelme (Contact)
The Post and Courier
Wednesday, August 13, 2008
Sandwiched between the resort islands of Kiawah and Seabrook, a teardrop-shaped spit of sand and marsh marks the entrance to Capt. Sam's Inlet. 
Alan Hawes Over the eons, wind, tides and storms have shaped the spit at the southwestern end of Kiawah Island near the county's Beachwalker Park. Island developers want to build 50 homes and a half-mile concrete revetment to prevent the Kiawah River from turning the spit into an island. It's one of the area's most spectacular undeveloped beaches, and because it's next to the county's Beachwalker Park, it's the only beach you can drive to without passing through Kiawah's guard gates. It's also the subject of a high-stakes debate over whether the federal government should subsidize people for living in places where water and land sometimes trade places. Right now, the land by Capt. Sam's Inlet is in a special zone where the federal government is prohibited from spending money on roads, beach renourishment and government-backed flood insurance. Because of this designation, future homeowners must buy flood insurance through a private company, and such policies can cost tens of thousands of dollars a year. At the request of the land's owners, Kiawah Development Partners, U.S. Rep. Henry Brown recently introduced a bill that would remove the area from this protected zone. The bill notes that developers could build hundreds of homes there, but plan to do many fewer and thus would increase the land's "ecological health and habitat value." Conservation groups are crying foul, calling Brown's bill an insurance perk for wealthy homeowners at the expense of taxpayers and wildlife. "Why should we pay for someone else's risky development?" said Nancy Vinson, a project manager with the Coastal Conservation League. "They're just doing this so they can sell the land more easily and make more money." Shifting sands South Carolina's poet laureate, Marjory Wentworth, calls barrier islands "restless ribbons of sand." Geologically speaking, they are in constant motion, pushed and pulled by tides, winds and storms. Inlets are particularly vulnerable to erosion, and can change shape in a single storm. Barrier islands also are often exceptionally beautiful places where people want to visit and live, and during the 1970s and '80s Congress grew concerned that government spending on roads and federal flood insurance had encouraged too many to live in these vulnerable areas, and that taxpayers would have to pick up the tab for hurricane damage and beach renourishment projects. So in 1982 Congress created the John H. Chafee Coastal Barrier Resources System to discourage development in particularly fragile coastal areas. 
The Post and Courier Land inside this system, about 3 million acres from Maine to Texas, is ineligible for federal money or subsidies, though privately owned tracts, such as the land by Capt. Sam's Inlet on Kiawah, still may be developed. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service describes the program as a "unique free-market approach" to conservation that so far has saved taxpayers more than $1.3 billion. Between 1988 and 1999, South Carolina law was much tougher than the federal laws, preventing any development on Capt. Sam's Inlet, which is formed by the Kiawah River as it flows into the ocean. That changed in 1999 when the state moved the area's setback, an invisible line in the sand that says where development can and can't go. The change made it possible for the land's owner, Kiawah Development Partners, to build. But the land was still in the federal Coastal Barrier Resources System, a significant drawback from a marketing and development standpoint. Inside the zone, an owner of a beach home with $900,000 in coverage and a $50,000 deductible would have to shell out about $40,000 a year, said Allison Dean Love, executive director of the South Carolina Insurance News Service. Outside the zone, an owner who qualifies for federally subsidized flood insurance might pay $1,600 a year, or 25 times less. (The average flood policy in Charleston County is $578 a year, she said.) Watchdog
Are you ticked off by people who illegally use handicap placards? Want to know which restaurants are making you sick or which gas stations have bad pumps? Removing land from the Coastal Barrier Resources System literally takes an act of Congress, so Kiawah Development Partners recently asked Brown and U.S. Sen. Lindsey Graham to change the land's protected status. "It's about equality," said Leonard L. Long Jr., executive vice president of Kiawah Development Partners. Future homeowners on Capt. Sam's Inlet should qualify for federal flood insurance just like other homeowners on Kiawah. He added that Kiawah Development Partners plans to build fewer than 50 homes on 20 acres of the 120-acre spit. The rest of the land will be protected by an easement given to the Kiawah Nature Conservancy. "While some might prefer to have this land remain undeveloped, that's not an option," Long said. "These lands will be developed, albeit in a careful way that is emblematic of Kiawah." Pros and cons On June 26, Brown introduced a bill that would remove about 84 acres from the Coastal Barrier Resources System, mostly along Capt. Sam's Inlet. The bill would add 25 acres of high ground farther inland, including a spot where the Kiawah Island Parkway cuts through, and 153 acres of marsh. Additional InformationHR 6389 Text of bill U.S. Rep. Henry Brown recently introduced that would alter the Coastal Barrier Resources System and enable future homeowners on part of Kiawah to qualify for federal flood insurance. HR 6389 Background This background document describes the intentions of Kiawah Development Partners for the property. Enhanced aerial photo of Capt. Sam's Inlet Shows the sand spit, and proposed exclusion zones, that is the subject of Brown's bill. Kiawah River bulkhead Permit application describes what Kiawah developers would like to do to stop erosion from eating into the beach. The bill said the developers could build as many as 504 dwelling units on the spit by Capt. Sam's Inlet, but "have indicated a willingness on a voluntary basis to reduce substantially these entitlements and, as a result, reduce allowable density." This development approach will "increase the ecological health and habitat value" of the inlet area, Brown's bill said. Brown's district office referred questions to the Town of Kiawah, which issued a press statement saying it supports Brown's bill. Conservationists question the bill's logic. "I think people will be alarmed by this," said Vinson of the Coastal Conservation League. "It's an important area that should be left as is." Vinson said she also was concerned about Kiawah's plans to build a 2,783-foot concrete revetment on the Kiawah River side of the spit to control erosion. Kiawah recently submitted permit applications to the state Department of Health and Environmental Control. "Looking at an aerial photo, it looks like it's designed to prevent the spit from being cut off from the next storm," she said. "You talk about fairness? What's unfair is that (future) homeowners will eventually see this area erode, and then they'll start crying for sandbags and sea walls, just like on the Isle of Palms." Long gets agitated when he hears comments that his company's development plans will harm the area's ecology. He said the Town of Kiawah and Kiawah Development Partners have a long history of promoting conservation and preserving endangered wildlife, and that the county park's 50,000 visitors have more of an impact than 50 likely part-time homeowners. Long said the revetment on the Kiawah River is needed because the river is eating into the island's banks. The structure would slope into the river and be made from concrete donuts with holes that allow plant growth and create a more natural look. "We're going way beyond the pale to be extra sensitive," he said, adding that Vinson's "flamethrower statements are so unfortunate." Unusual modification Orrin Pilkey, a geologist and emeritus professor at Duke University, has studied the South Carolina coast for years, and he described plans to build on Capt. Sam's Inlet as "a crazy proposal." Pilkey said the inlet is constantly in flux. "In this moment in time, with our understanding of the coming sea-level rise, anything that takes away the dynamics of our islands and increases beachfront development is madness." It's relatively rare for Congress to modify the Coastal Barrier Resources System. During the past 26 years Congress made minor changes to three areas in South Carolina, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service records show. One was near a government property in Myrtle Beach that removed three buildings from the zone, another clarified a mapping issue and a third modified the boundary near Huntington Beach, removing several structures on a property's edge. Pilkey said he would be shocked if Congress agreed to make such a dramatic change to the Coastal Barrier Resources System on Kiawah, given that attempts elsewhere went nowhere. "They've tried to do that in North Topsail Beach (near Wilmington, N.C.), which is crowded with buildings, but they've failed." Reach Tony Bartelme at 937-5554 or tbartelme@postandcourier.com. |
Article tools |
|
Notice about comments: Charleston.net is pleased to offer readers the ability to comment on stories. We expect our readers to engage in lively, yet civil discourse. Charleston.net does not edit user submitted statements and we cannot promise that readers will not occasionally find offensive or inaccurate comments posted in the comments area. Responsibility for the statements posted lies with the person submitting the comment, not charleston.net. If you find a comment that is objectionable, please click "suggest removal" and we will review it for possible removal. Please be reminded, however, that in accordance with our Terms of Use and federal law, we are under no obligation to remove any third party comments posted on our website. Full terms and conditions can be read here. |
Comments
This article has 59 comment(s)
Posted by iceman1978 on August 13, 2008 at 1:19 a.m. (Suggest removal)
You don't fill in every piece of available land just because it's there. That strip of land will be the first area to flood when the next storm hits. At least by having wetland areas as a barrier between the islands and mainland it will absorb some of the hurricanes energy. Read your history and look at what they did in Galveston before the great hurricane that killed over 1/2 the town and destroyed 3/4 of the buildings. In Galveston, prior to the 1900 storm, they actually tore down sand dunes to fill in low lying areas further inland on the island. Also, they developed every inch that could be developed. And they paid dearly for it.
Think of how much our population has grown just since Hugo hit. Daniel Island, Kiawah, Mount Pleasant, Ravanel, etc all had substantially lower populations. I understand the need for lower insurance rates. Coastal real estate and the protection of beaches are a vital part of our economy and that has to be taken into consideration. The hotels, restaurants and golf courses bring in money by the billions and we would be in trouble without it. I'd like to have lower rates as well being that I'm less than 3 miles from Folly Beach but not if it means letting developers fill in even more land.
Posted by Tulane75 on August 13, 2008 at 1:41 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Is Congressman Brown's bill submitted because this land is no longer considered a particularly fragile coastal area or despite this fact?
What, then, is the purpose of the 1982 law?
Posted by eatmorecollards on August 13, 2008 at 2:51 a.m. (Suggest removal)
These inlets act as relief valves as the tide ebbs and flows. During peaceful weather they are calm beautiful places. However, during storms they open up and allow the built up water to flow in and then back. Taking away the ability of the inlets to do this will only cause other areas to erode and anything built there will be damaged. Its absolute lunacy to allow developers to put structures in these areas for the purpose of profit,that will have to be repaired at tax payer expense later down the road. To make a insurance company have to insure something at a lower rate will only pass on the expense to other customers when huge payouts are required. Our politicians need to get out of bed with the,"anything for profit crowd".
Posted by moonpie on August 13, 2008 at 6:21 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Tell Henry "special interest" Brown no!
This pristine pc of beach needs to be left alone. Just because developers want to build on it doesn't mean they should build on it. Did we not lear anything from Dunes West? I would be surprised OCRM would allow construction there.
Posted by rmsems on August 13, 2008 at 6:31 a.m. (Suggest removal)
The greedy developer and all people moving there, building there, buying there, should sign a waiver that they have to take care of their own losses that they cannot get money for beach re-nourishment etc. The reason for affordable flood insurance is so that piece of land can be parceled and sold as home sites to build on and then the government i.e. taxpayer should come up with money, if they flood. Private insurers know why they are charging, what they are charging. I wonder how much money is changing hands to pull this one through. There are too many taking bribes.
Posted by scienceguy on August 13, 2008 at 6:38 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Everyone seems to be missing the point. The question is not whether folks will be allowed to build there. The question is whether the rest of us should be required to subsidize their flood insurance now and subsidize rebuilding their homes and renourishing their beach in the future.
Government subsidies are probably here to stay, but this looks like another "bridge to nowhere."
Posted by carolinadude on August 13, 2008 at 6:43 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I agree. Brown needs to go. He's simply in and out of bed w/the various monied special interest. HE'S REALLY DONE NOTHING FOR "WE THE PEOPLE" EXCEPT TRY TO SHIFT MORE BURDEN OUR WAY AS HE DOES IN THIS INSTANCE! Henry, It's past time for you to retire. Do us a favor and just come home to argue with the forest service about your "CONTROLLED BURNS".
Posted by carolinadude on August 13, 2008 at 6:52 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Scienceguy,
You're "right on"! Have a nice day!
Posted by ln1959 on August 13, 2008 at 7:54 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I remember this lady saying that "If she can afford to buy a SUV (She had a H2), then gas price should not be a problem for her".
I say if you can afford to buy a Million Dollar home, why should you worry about how much your insurance cost. If you buy on the water, you know that you chance for flooding is higher, so thats the chance you take.
Middle class citizens should not have to subsidize rich folks enjoyment.
Posted by GeecheeGuy on August 13, 2008 at 7:59 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Don't forget this is the same family that leveled the dunes on the IoP. This is outrageous and should not be approved.
Posted by LocalHero on August 13, 2008 at 8:06 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Transparent pandering to special interest. If anyone ever had any questions about Henry Brown's integrity this should answer them. He's just another crooked politician.
Scienceguy, it's the same point. The way to keep people from building there is to not subsidize their insurance. Yes, we shouldn't be asked to subsidize idiotic building practices like this AND they shouldn't be building there for environmental reasons either. Nobody would build there without insurance and nobody would pay $40,000/year for that insurance (with it's $50,000 deductible, lol). For Christ's sake, the insurance rates alone tell us what a stupid idea it is to build there!
Henry can be contacted via:
http://brown.house.gov/Contact/index.htm...
though he probably doesn't care what we think...
Posted by theronce on August 13, 2008 at 8:15 a.m. (Suggest removal)
This little piece of land is temporary, folks. Do not build there. Do not make it easier for anyone to build there. Please save us from professional politicians.
Posted by bigwhip on August 13, 2008 at 8:41 a.m. (Suggest removal)
This is an absolute travesty. Brown should be ashamed of this move to aid and abet further erosion of our pristine natural shoreline. Kiawah Partners, an offshoot of the Beach Company, just can't get enough.....greed, greed, greed. Vote Brown out and Ketner in.
Posted by majorjohnson on August 13, 2008 at 8:53 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I don't care if people build their houses there, but let them buy their own insurance like I do. Why the heck should I have to pay my insurance and theirs too? Federal flood insurance has just resulted in people living where they shouldn't live and wouldn't live if they had to pay the real cost of insuring their property.
Posted by iceman1978 on August 13, 2008 at 9:13 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Gadsden, I like Edisto Beach. Pawley's is also nice. We used to go there and Garden City when I was a kid. Folly Beach is still my favorite though.
Posted by Lovely_One on August 13, 2008 at 9:14 a.m. (Suggest removal)
This is a prime example of the government not protecting we the people from unnecessary spending. I am going to echo what others have said and ask, "Why should we have to pay for someone else's stupidity?" If they want to build on this potential death trap let them foot the bill to insure it. We gotta love our elected officials. Money truly does rule the world!
Posted by katielu on August 13, 2008 at 9:20 a.m. (Suggest removal)
This is the most ridiculous thing i've heard all week. don't people learn anything from what happens to the coastline after storms like Hugo? I fail to understand why Charleston County residents should be expected to help subsidize insurance for the people who want to implement this crazy scheme to make more money through overdevelopment. Henry Brown should be ashamed of himself for promoting development on a SPIT, which is much more geologically unstable than an actual barrier island. And a revetment to control erosion? please. look at what's been happening on the Isle of Palms. this should be a no-brainer for Congress.
Posted by JustJennings on August 13, 2008 at 9:29 a.m. (Suggest removal)
This is just another case of the poor and middle class paying for the luxurious lifestyle of the wealthy while getting no benefit. We need to protect what is left of our coastline from wreckless development. If individuals want to build there, taxpayers should not be subsidizing it while other citizens go homeless or live in poverty.
Posted by zoomru on August 13, 2008 at 9:35 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Henry..........
You RAVENEL'er..... !!
STOP PORKING !! You ..SIR need to focus on ENERGY !! If these people want to build on their LAND...its their "Little RED WAGON !"
Henry ..you need to find a way to get more people and tourists to the beach with OUT them having to drive their CARS there !! You need to be PLANNING ..NOW for 15 years or more down the ROAD !! These developers can AFFORD to do what they want and the people who buy will be able to afford the cost ..SO stop Porking at OUR expense. Its a fine time to be doing this NOW ...that it is right before YOUR ..re-election campaign in November !!
YOU DON"T ..FOOL US !~ ! STOP VOTE ..PIMPING !! How much of your campaign cash is coming from ...WHERE ?? WE WANT TO KNOW !!
Posted by hightide on August 13, 2008 at 9:45 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I agree with ln1959
"I say if you can afford to buy a Million Dollar home, why should you worry about how much your insurance cost. If you buy on the water, you know that you chance for flooding is higher, so thats the chance you take."
If you're rich enough for the home, you're rich enough for the ridiculous insurance required.
The Republican Work-Whore is just doing what he does best. What a shame people keep voting idiots like him back into office.
Posted by hightide on August 13, 2008 at 9:47 a.m. (Suggest removal)
And BTW, I've emailed Mr. Brown before, and if I remember right, I got an automated response saying, basically, that he doesn't do email. So those of you emailing him, expect a letter a few weeks down the road... saying the same old BS that any politician will say when you disagree with them on something they are going to push no matter what.
Posted by katielu on August 13, 2008 at 10:15 a.m. (Suggest removal)
orrin pilkey is the man. i wish he were our congressman.
Posted by Luke99982 on August 13, 2008 at 10:18 a.m. (Suggest removal)
With Brown, it's all about the money.
Look at all the compaign $$$ he gets from oil companies. Those folks on Kiawah forget that he also wants to build oil rigs off their shoreline.
Brown is a disaster for SC. Wake up people.
Posted by KidYendor on August 13, 2008 at 10:19 a.m. (Suggest removal)
If Brown is a conservative Republican then we are really going to be in trouble if a liberal is elected President. The government should not build new beach roads, should not provide beach renourishment, and should not provide special interest flood insurance. Nancy Vinson is correct. The only thing more embarrassing than having Brown as my "conservative" Congressman is flatulence while on a date.
Posted by iceman1978 on August 13, 2008 at 10:21 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Gadsden, Thanks. My grandmother used to go to Fripp Island. I haven't been to Hunting Island yet but I hear that it's a good surf spot.
Posted by SmooveB on August 13, 2008 at 10:44 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I agree that just because land is there, it doesn't need to be built upon. However, I'd have a lot less of a problem if private property is developed, but not covered by public reinsurance.
BTW, whatever happened to little, human-scaled beach shacks, that if they went away in a storm, c'est la vie? I remember my grandparents' old place: no A/C, roll up the rugs three times a summer to sweep out the sand, and once after a storm there were crabs and a fish in the front room. Kewl to a little kid. Now it's all unending McMansions on the dunes, with the regular joes covering the folly.
Posted by thedarkpolitician on August 13, 2008 at 10:49 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Here we go again. All the conservationists trying to tell people what to do with their land. If you want to "protect" it so much then why don't you buy it.
Posted by SangareeCrew on August 13, 2008 at 10:58 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I don't think the taxpayers need to subsidise flood insurance for mansions. I also think that building on this little "spit" of land is crazy and would be much, much better if left alone.
Personally, I like Folly the best.......that's where I will always spend my summer free time.
Posted by guidedbystewart on August 13, 2008 at 11:08 a.m. (Suggest removal)
This is an abomination! This is just idiotic in very aspect. First, if you idiotic enough to be irresponsible enough to build in such an environmental fragile area, then you should be responsible for it when an inevitable storm or erosion takes your house away. Period! This is another case of special interest, where the republicans cater to there rich friends. Sounds like political corruption to me.
Also, it is ironic the retarded neocons on this site have yet to comment on this issue, here is looking at you RW and tripsa!
Posted by guidedbystewart on August 13, 2008 at 11:11 a.m. (Suggest removal)
This is an abomination! This is just idiotic in every aspect. First, if you are idiotic enough to be irresponsible enough to build in such an environmentally fragile area, you should be responsible for it when an inevitable storm or erosion takes your house away. Period! This is another case of special interest, where the republicans cater to there rich friends. Sounds like political corruption to me.
Also, it is ironic the retarded neocons on this site have yet to comment on this issue, here is looking at you RW and tripsa!
sorry, too many proof reading mistakes...
Posted by mlittle212 on August 13, 2008 at 11:26 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Where does the shame end Henry Brown?? You are a pig feeding at the trough.
Posted by thedarkpolitician on August 13, 2008 at 11:30 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Listen, I agree that I do not think that we should have to pay for those who choose to build on these areas. This however does not add up to political corruption of Republicans. The Republicans have done far much more for the economic prosperity of South Carolina (particularly Brown and the First District) than Democrats. I suppose instead of tax cuts for homeowners, you would have us give extra welfare out to people who are too lazy to get a job? Again, while I don't agree with the idea of this particular bill, those who immediately sum it up to political back dealings of Conservatives are just wrong. Liberals will have this country broke even faster.
Posted by bigwhip on August 13, 2008 at 11:32 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Hey Darkp, those of your ilk live in a very strange world. If they own it they can do what they want with their dirt.....that went out of style some years back. I guess you would have no problem with somebody building a Burger King next to your home simply because they own the dirt. Brown has to introduce a bill to change a law that offered something for the many to satisfy a special interest. Get a life.
Posted by MarshWren on August 13, 2008 at 11:46 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Has Henry Brown sold his soul to the devil! (Again) I was raised a Goldwater Republican, I believe in the free market still, but thanks to Brown and his Republican comrades I only vote Libertarian. This “pork” will hurt the taxpayer and the piping plover.
Posted by guidedbystewart on August 13, 2008 at 11:50 a.m. (Suggest removal)
thedarkpolitian....
Nope, you are wrong, I not for giving out government handouts but then again the republicans like to spin it that way. It one of the biggest political fallacies that the Republican Party claims to be the party of fiscal responsibility, but they are not! The thing is that the republicans like to line the pockets of the wealthy and call it trickle down economics, what a load of bull. I am not buying it and policies such as this that exposes such corruption, only if more American in this area would see it for what it is…
Posted by UrGatorbait on August 13, 2008 at 12:05 p.m. (Suggest removal)
"In the end, the money will win...it always does."
Yep
"Everyone seems to be missing the point. The question is not whether folks will be allowed to build there. The question is whether the rest of us should be required to subsidize their flood insurance now and subsidize rebuilding their homes and renourishing their beach in the future.
Government subsidies are probably here to stay, but this looks like another "bridge to nowhere."
Highly concur well said. Write Mr. Brown and let him know. I am. Subsidizing the wealthy who can afford to live there. What a racket.
Posted by thedarkpolitician on August 13, 2008 at 12:19 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Bigwhip-
I think you must have an ax to grind with we Conservatives. While you may see this one instance as serving special interest, it seems you have forgotten about Brown's exemplary record for constituent service in the area of economics. He has received numerous awards for his fight for the middle class and to cut gas prices, and he has been named "Friend of the Tax Payer". He has also done many things to improve the economic status of SC. Point blank, he and his fellow Republicans have done more to help the middle class of America than any Democrat.
Posted by eatmorecollards on August 13, 2008 at 12:21 p.m. (Suggest removal)
If the powers to be think that more waterfront property in Charleston County would improve the economy. Bring in the corps or engineers and dredge out some of these hundreds of drainage ditches that feed into the various waterways to support boat traffic. Use the dredge spoil to fill in low areas that do nothing but breed mosquitoes. This would only help drainage and actually improve the ecosystem. The city golf course would be a perfect place to start. There is several places there where a inland marina could be placed. Sheltered from the elements it would bring in millions. Do a little planing sometimes and don't allow building in areas that will cost everyone down the road.
Posted by thedarkpolitician on August 13, 2008 at 12:29 p.m. (Suggest removal)
guided-
you claim that Republicans are not the party of fiscal responsibility, but why is it that they historically (especially Brown) fight for tax cuts for middle class citizens and Democrats historically raised them on the Middle and lower class. Democrats just try to mask them by giving these "stimulus" payments, which is just an excuse to raise taxes later. You might want to look at your facts before running your mouth like a typical liberal. And you are right, If only America could see the corruption and lies.....of the Democratic party, Ms. Pelosi, and Obama when it comes to economics.
Posted by scienceguy on August 13, 2008 at 12:35 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I can see where this is headed--into a Fifth Amendement "takings" argument. So, as a progressive--not a liberal Tripsa--let me state my view, though it may not be the view of all progressives.
Let them build whatever they want on whatever they own. But, let's not be duped into paying for their roads, their power lines, their flood insurance, their property taxes, or their beach renoursihment. Let's not be duped into feeling sorry for them when Hurricane Unknown come blowing acroos from Africa and sucks their McMansions out to sea.
Above all, let's not be duped into purchasing this property at inflated prices for a public beach or wildlife santuary that may not be here next year.
The insurance underwriters have already determined that building here is a bad risk, so let's heed their word.
Posted by JF on August 13, 2008 at 12:54 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Terrible peice of legislation. It seems the Beach Company and KDP always wins. I bet you won't here a peep out of the Mayor Joe advocating Capt Sams Inlet be left alone as a pristine area, usually he goes along with the Beach Company projects. They don't care about the environment, but they want to be seen as being Green and environmentally conscious. I pray this piece of legislation fails! If you want to build in risky places don't ask the taxpayers to subsidize the insurance!!
Posted by thedarkpolitician on August 13, 2008 at 1 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Archy,
First let me say that your play on words is almost as laughable as your parties stance on taxes. "Lets give free money to lazy people (welfare), and then tax the middle class to pay for it and a bunch of other useless social programs." If you really want to explain why Democrats will have to raise taxes because of the deficit and debt then you need to place the blame on the real culprit which is your Democratic Congress (none of whom warrant any respect at all), not President Bush. And as far as your accusation about defaulting on loans, you must mean like all those people who cant pay their mortgages who you party now wants us to bail out. Bravo on yet another epic failure.
Posted by scienceguy on August 13, 2008 at 1:18 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Tripsa:
One of the problems with labels is both that meanings change and acts have to be considered in the context of the Zeitgeist. For example, "gay" meant something different to my grandparents and my parents than it does to me and something altogether to my children. And, when viewed in the context of his day and compared to what other world leaders are advocating Wilson's policies were advanced. When considered in the context of today's world...not so much.
At any rate, I do not want to get into a theoretical political debate about "Who's worse, the Fascists or the Communists?"--I am interested in solutions that work for all of us. Blowing sand on the beach at Kiawah sometime in the future does not appear to be a good way to raise the literacy rate.
Posted by bigwhip on August 13, 2008 at 1:45 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Darkp - my comments have nothing to do with Demos/Repubs; its not about this great civil war we have going on in our country between the Dems & Repubs. My comments are directed at a very poor and self serving piece of legislation by Brown. With all the spending being done by the Repubs, methinks there are no conservatives left in the Repubs cadre. BTW, this civil war has losers....it is "we the people".
Posted by guidedbystewart on August 13, 2008 at 2:15 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Darky,
Lowering taxes and increasing spending is not what I call being fiscally responsible. Eventually someone has got to pay for it , this is why any republican administration has run up a substantial budget deficit in the past couple of years. Sooner or later, someone going to have to pay, and then, they are paying on the interest and getting less bang for their buck. Yep, that sound like fiscal responsibility to me.
Posted by boxercurl on August 13, 2008 at 2:23 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I worked on Kiawah for 10 years...don't you people know we are just the common folk that do everything for them because they are so much better than us. Don't get me wrong some are very nice people but most have more money than sense anyway!
Posted by mkris on August 13, 2008 at 3:37 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Please ... republicans and conservatives are all the same.
Developers only drop a largeshIit in the backyard and let the communities clean it up after they made thier money.
Posted by PalmettoDP on August 13, 2008 at 3:42 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Building on a spit of land near an inlet seems foolish to me, but if people want to do it, more power to them - just don't expect taxpayers to pick up your insurance tab.
Posted by Neponset on August 13, 2008 at 5:07 p.m. (Suggest removal)
1. Looking at the picture, it looks like a very dynamic spit of land, I am wondering, if the deed gets done and a lot of large houses are built, will this change the dynamics (I am thinking wind/aero) of this area result in perhaps the building up of the back side and resulting in scouring (erosion) of the Seabrook side, to say nothing of beach erosion).
2. I have voted for fat boy, but won’t again.
Posted by Tulane75 on August 13, 2008 at 5:47 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I have to commend DarkPolitician for shifting the discussion from the merits of the legislation promoted by Congressman Brown to any number of general political arguments that have nothing to do with the Brown's bill.
It reminded me of that scene in Animal House in which OTTER defended the Deltas:
OTTER: Ladies and gentlemen, I'll be brief. The issue here is not whether we broke a few rules, or took a few liberties with our female party guests - we did.
[winks at Dean Wormer]
OTTER: But you can't hold a whole fraternity responsible for the behavior of a few, sick twisted individuals. For if you do, then shouldn't we blame the whole fraternity system? And if the whole fraternity system is guilty, then isn't this an indictment of our educational institutions in general? I put it to you, Greg - isn't this an indictment of our entire American society? Well, you can do whatever you want to us, but we're not going to sit here and listen to you badmouth the United States of America. Gentlemen!
[Leads the Deltas out of the hearing, all humming the Star-Spangled Banner]
Posted by shoelaces on August 13, 2008 at 6:50 p.m. (Suggest removal)
PLEASE tell me this is NOT "Sandy Point" or anywhere near it....I am always afraid developers will run down the beach where the boaters hang out.
Development sucks!!!
Posted by shoelaces on August 13, 2008 at 7:01 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I haven't read any comments as it is late. But I can't imagine anyone really believing that any sea wall, revat's or rocks on top or sheeting, "donuts" allowing growth, or any other made up erosion abatement will EVER work!!!!
It's a damn crying shame that we are losing the things that make the lowcountry beautiful and NOBODY cares to preserve this beauty.
I'll bet Kiawah Resort could make tons of money in the long run if they kept "green spaces" and charged people for touring this rich ecosystem.
Development is inevitable. Development brings money. Development brings congestion.
Development brings more "NO WAKE" zones and screws up life for the locals who spend their money here.
Posted by iluvscarolina on August 13, 2008 at 7:03 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Buddy Darby, Leonard Long, and Townsend Clarkson need to stop and think about what they are doing! Enough is enough! You have Kiawah, Oak Plantation,Mullett Hall on Johns Island, Doonbeg, and now St. Kitt. Leave some land empty. It certainly won't hurt your wallets to back off. Buddy-instead of spending hundreds of dollars to eat at your fancy Kiawah Club, try eating like most of people from Charleston-at regular places like Chili's and Outback-places that don't cost $100 per person.
Posted by Reader on August 13, 2008 at 8:14 p.m. (Suggest removal)
DarkP wrote, "Here we go again. All the conservationists trying to tell people what to do with their land. If you want to 'protect' it so much then why don't you buy it."
That is NOT what everyone is writing about. Several people have unambiguously said the opposite. If the owner wants to develop the land, be my guest. But, don't ask for the general public to underwrite the development.
The owner even said this: "'While some might prefer to have this land remain undeveloped, that's not an option,' Long said. 'These lands will be developed, albeit in a careful way that is emblematic of Kiawah.'" If that is true, and the development of the land is truly inevitable, then why bother changing the law?
Posted by rollo on August 13, 2008 at 8:14 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I say again, barrier islands are sandbars. Confiscating taxpayers money to insure development on a sandbar is the ultimate in gov't corruption.
Anyone who has the resources to build on one of these beautiful beaches has my full support and best wishes, but they own the consequences.
Posted by mkris on August 13, 2008 at 8:22 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Does anyone know how much they paid congressman Brown for this bill?
Posted by scienceguy on August 13, 2008 at 9:15 p.m. (Suggest removal)
agggh Tripsa, just when I begin to like you...
Bill Clinton was never convicted of perjury, the Democrats left us with a zillion dollar surplus, Al Gore won the Nobel, an Oscar, and the popular vote, 911 happened on Bush's watch, and the Dems have to get control of the White House before we will know if their policies will lead us to Peace and Prosperity.
That having been said, Reader summed it up nicely. Let's let Mr. Long do what he wants with his money and his property and let us do what we want with ours--which is not pay for his flood insurance.
Posted by methomas on August 14, 2008 at 8:16 a.m. (Suggest removal)
How arrogant and ignorant of the KDP senior leadership to assume that the fragile and important ecosystem at Capt Sam's inlet "will be developed". Fortunately this ephemeral coastal barrier is protected by major federal legislation, from the stupidity wrought by human attempts to tame the oceans. The notion of homes and associated infrastructure being built on this land that shifts with each tide, ignores the long and sad history of such endeavors along the entire East coast of the United states. Mr. Long should pay a visit to the outer banks of Cape Cod, Martha's Vineyard and Nantucket, Block Island, and coastal New Jersey, for numerous examples of failed attempts to "develop" the coast.
Posted by wjhamilton3 on August 14, 2008 at 8:42 a.m. (Suggest removal)
30 Years ago the State bought Capers Island so it would never be developed. I believe it cost 20 million dollars. Since then, we've haven't had to build any bridges to it, we haven't had to subsidize flood insurance for structures on it. It just sits there with full public access by boat and some small park facilities. It erodes, moves around and nobody really is bothered by it. The beach, whereever it is, is still there.
That was a good decision by state government, funded by tax dollars which makes perfect sense.