Wild Dunes sandstorm settledBy Bo Petersen (Contact)
The Post and Courier
Wednesday, February 13, 2008
ISLE OF PALMS — Wild Dunes beachfront property owners and the state on Tuesday settled a stalemate over removing sandbags in front their properties on the severely eroding beach. 
Mic Smith Sandbags being used to save the condo complex Ocean Club in Wild Dunes are seen Tuesday. The owners of six condominium complexes and two other properties agreed to a consent order with S.C. Ocean and Coastal Resource Management, ending a two-month standoff with the agency. Property owners agreed to pay at least $1 million toward beach renournishment and a modest fine. But they can keep large sandbags in place until the beach is renourished, a move that's expected this spring. Owners will pay a fine of $34,000. Had they not agreed to the settlement, the owners could have been fined hundreds of thousands of dollars. And OCRM avoided lengthy court hearings and rulings that could have weakened beachfront regulations. The owners also agreed to maintain the bags and then remove them once the renourishment takes place. No sand can be piled on top of the existing bags. Two properties also were fined $12,750 for placing the larger bags before they had been approved by OCRM. Wild Dunes issue at a glanceTHE ISSUE: S.C. Ocean and Coastal Resource Management found six condominium complexes and two other properties in violation of state coastal regulations for not removing thousands of sandbags by a November 2007 deadline. The owners say the bags are vital to protect the properties until a beach renourishment can take place this spring. THE SETTLEMENT: In a consent order agreed to Tuesday, the state fined the owners $34,000, but allowed the sandbags to stay. The order also committed the properties to pay at least $1 million toward the renourishment project. Two individual properties also were fined $12,750 for placing large sandbags before they had been approved by OCRM. WHAT'S NEXT: On Thursday, the S.C. Health and Environmental Control board hears the owners' appeal of an OCRM violation order potentially fining owners $1,000 per day retroactive to June 1, 2007, and until all bags are cleaned up from all beaches and marshes. The Wild Dunes Community Association, of which the owners are members, and the Wild Dunes Resort are expected to pay a total of $5.8 million of the $9.7 million price tag for the renourishment if they approve a community association plan in a ballot that has been mailed out. The ballot deadline is Feb. 28. "We're not happy about having to pay any fines at all, but we are very pleased we will be able to protect our properties until we can get the long-term beach renourishment," said Beth Colley, property manager for Ocean Club, the largest of the properties and among those most threatened by beach erosion that's now cutting under the structure. "It's a settlement. A minimal fee certainly makes it worthwhile," she said. The bigger, costlier battle still goes on over who's responsible for environmental damage caused by tens of thousands of smaller sandbags that washed away in storm tides in the winter and spring of 2007, when OCRM restricted owners to using those bags. Dan Burger, OCRM communications director, called it the most realistic solution to resolve a situation that could have dragged on through the court for years. "It puts the property owners on a clear and realistic path toward compliance, which is what a consent order is supposed to do. It forces the owners to take an active role in long-term maintenance of the beach as well as the repair. Most importantly, it preserves the integrity of our coastal regulations," he said. A court ruling in the dispute could have been decisive in the long-running legal battle over how much the agency can restrict private property along public beaches, an environmental attorney has said. On Thursday, the S.C. Health and Environmental Control board will hear the appeal of an OCRM violation order issued last spring that notified property owners they could be fined $1,000 per day retroactive to June 1, 2007, until all bags are cleaned up from all beaches and marshes. Reach Bo Petersen at 745-5852 or bpetersen@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 23 comment(s)
Posted by mac0cm4 on February 13, 2008 at 6:39 a.m. (Suggest removal)
So when do we all get the keys to the condos we helped save?
Posted by yeahright on February 13, 2008 at 7:01 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I'm glad they've gotten this settled so that they may get on to more important things, like attempting to alter the course of nature with my tax dollars.
That's sarcasm if you haven't had your coffee yet...
Posted by 2dogs1bear on February 13, 2008 at 7:15 a.m. (Suggest removal)
"With high earners you're not going to see a lot of pullback. It's the incremental spending that we worry about."
This from today's top story.
Guess we're not supposed to bleat as loud whilst we're being fleeced.
Posted by dustym59 on February 13, 2008 at 7:39 a.m. (Suggest removal)
mac0cm4 ...I can only stay every other month...so if u would leave my key under the mat...it would be appreciated.
Posted by theronce on February 13, 2008 at 7:43 a.m. (Suggest removal)
We may as well close the doors of OCRM. The property owners have agreed to do something in the future after lying and disobeying an order in the past. They have a track record that indicates that they cannot be trusted. My government makes me sick. You cannot hold back the ocean without great expense, and you should not spend any money for these morons who bought into this. All of the people who caved into this are so gutless. Wild Dunes is smirking all the way to the bank.
Posted by oldglory on February 13, 2008 at 8:32 a.m. (Suggest removal)
What???
That's a pretty slick sentence: "The Wild Dunes Community Association, of which the owners are members, and the Wild Dunes Resort are expected to pay a total of $5.8 million of the $9.7 million price tag for the renourishment if they approve a community association plan in a ballot that has been mailed out."
True, the implication is there, but P&C, why not specifically spell out who will be paying the remainder of the settlement? We want all to understand this article, you know. Don't want to rile the poor/middleclass who pay taxes, perhaps?
How many of our county and state officials live there?
Surely this is related to that man who took down all those magnificent trees (including encroaching on a neighbor's), claiming he was going to shelter deer, etc. He wound up not having to pay the entire judgment against him.
And then we are supposed to understand why Berkeley County powers-that-be agreed to take out an ARM loan.
I'll say one thing about SC--sure does like to take care of those that have and sloughs off those that don't.
Posted by besttm on February 13, 2008 at 8:44 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I can't believe that my tax dollars are going to pay for beach renourishment...again...because some idiot thought it would be a good idea to build a multimillion dollar building on sand fifty feet from the Atlantic Ocean! This just makes me sick to my stomach. I would like to know if there is anyone out there in the whole wide world that has ever seen the ocean NOT IN MOTION! We will be having this same conversation in another five years or less and I reckon the tax payers who will never, ever see any of these buildings or properties or beach in any form other than photographs unless they are willing to spend ungodly amounts of money for a weeks stay.
Isn't it in the bible that a fool builds his house upon the sand? I'm tired of having to pay for the mistakes of people that have absolutely no common sense what so ever.
Posted by theronce on February 13, 2008 at 9:08 a.m. (Suggest removal)
This is our rightful rewards for putting up with this. We willingly place ourselves into indentured servitude to "our" government and those that both directly fill and eat at its larder. How does it go?...we have met the enemy and it is us?
Posted by crankyyankee on February 13, 2008 at 9:13 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I can't beleive they are giving my tax dollars to welfare mammas with six and seven kids. I can't believe they are pouring more of my tax dollars into public education, I can't beleive they are actually building a string bean museum with my tax dollars. You stand a better chance of turning back the sea then stopping the endless gimme's from the I want's. Beach front restoration is the least of your problems! Re-elect all of them, you deserve it!
Posted by jsteph10 on February 13, 2008 at 10:15 a.m. (Suggest removal)
The fact that this is a private community that will receive tax dollars to fix the beach does make me a little uneasy. But, this settlement is also helping to protect the tax base.
The majority of homes behind the gates are not primary residences, and are taxed at the 6% assessment ratio. If those homes are lost, so are the millions of dollars that are paid in taxes.
Posted by yeahright on February 13, 2008 at 10:22 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Lose millions in tax base, don't pay millions in a futile effort to stop erosion, break even. Works for me.
Posted by skyguy51 on February 13, 2008 at 10:52 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I guess the South Carolina taxpayers should feel lucky they are ONLY getting stuck with a $3.9 million dollar tab to fix a self-inflicted problem of a few fools.
Posted by clemson91 on February 13, 2008 at 11:14 a.m. (Suggest removal)
jsteph10,
Charleston County receives the property tax, not the State of SC. The state receives $0 in property tax from these condos. So, if you want to justify this expenditure from a tax standpoint, perhaps the county should be paying the $3,900,000.00 and not the state.
Posted by AHLeland on February 13, 2008 at 11:17 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I would like to see a provision in any settlement that makes it clear that OCRM will not be responsible for future beach renourishment in private communities. If the Wild Dunes Community Association is made to understand that the next time they will be paying the whole tab, perhaps they could increase regime fees and grow reserve funds for projects like this.
Posted by crankyyankee on February 13, 2008 at 12:21 p.m. (Suggest removal)
South Carolina's education system is self inflicted and yes the administrators are fools! The beach will be fixed long before the education system is. I'd rather see the tax money tossed to sea, then pay for teachers lawsuites because the black administrators and black students are treating the white teachers with racial prejudice. For crying out loud we are the only school didtrict in the Country to be found guilty of reverse discrimination. What say you minorities? Just my $.02.
Posted by dogdoc1 on February 13, 2008 at 12:55 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Due to OCRM and DHEC handing out dock permits to all that apply, the increased boat traffic behind my house has led to significant erosion of my property. Who is going to pay to renourish that?
Posted by AHLeland on February 13, 2008 at 4:13 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Yet another hazard of waterfront living, dogdoc1. It's unfortunate that people are unable to comprehend "No Wake" signs. Unless you live in the waterway. Then I have no pity because that's like building on an interstate and expecting people to slow down passing your house.
Posted by AHLeland on February 13, 2008 at 4:14 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I meant "on" not "in" the waterway.
Posted by jsteph10 on February 13, 2008 at 4:15 p.m. (Suggest removal)
clemson, did not think about it that way, but the fact remains that the county relies on these taxes. These properties wash into the ocean and the rest of us are going to pick up the deficit.
Posted by Test2007 on February 13, 2008 at 4:59 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I understand what everyone was saying, except for crankyyankee. Are you on the wrong board?
Posted by rollo on February 13, 2008 at 9:50 p.m. (Suggest removal)
"..in front their properties.."
Way to go Bo!! show the world what a SC education looks like!!!
Posted by rollo on February 13, 2008 at 10 p.m. (Suggest removal)
HA HA!
AlGore thinks sea levels are rising because the glaciers are melting!??
Heck, we're trying to fill the ocean with sand!
This is all foolishness!
Posted by rollo on February 13, 2008 at 10:12 p.m. (Suggest removal)
We can no more stop the oceans' deconstruction of a sandbar than we can stop the advance or the recession of the tide.