These houses have been in this state for at least 7 years. The sand is not coming back! They were incoming producing properties for out of towners. No one has ever lived in them. These people do not have the right to block public access on our beaches and compromise the houses around them. I see the damage they cause everytime the wind blows,I live behind them and fear for my home I LIVE IN ! Many people lost in investments recently all over the country,their 30 years of collecting ocean front rent has more than paid for them, it is pure greed and lack of concern for local residents.
Yet another Pearl of Wisdom from a local. The above was a comment posted on Bob Muller's blog in response to this great post by our former mayor: What Next for South Nags Head? Bob's post echos the sentiments of several (but not the majority of) Nags Head and Dare County residents. Realizing the current (not some future, westward relocated beach) oceanfront is our primary revenue source, many of us support beach nourishment projects. At the same time, lacking the political will and funds to conduct such an undertaking, many homes are now located on the beach proper and obstruct the public beach as well as posing a hazard to surrounding homes. And continued use of sandbags increases erosional effects on adjacent (usually to the south) properties. Thus, Bob and I agree on the need to remove these structure once they have reached an obvious point of "no return".
Apparently, Pearl agrees with us also. But her tone and approach is different. In her quote above, I have highlighted in bold two specific comments I find disturbing and all-to-common in the soft underbelly of local residents. The first is the pejorative use of the term "out of towners", as if they are some breed of uncaring, useless people who don't "belong" in our community. The second is Pearl's use of the term "greed".
The former phrase depicts our community as a hostile place. These homes supply a significant portion of our tax base, including not only property taxes but occupancy taxes. The guests housed there generate revenues for local businesses and more sales, entertainment and other taxes to local coffers. As Pearl points out, no one lives in these houses most of the year. Pearl thinks this is mostly a bad thing, I suspect. In fact, its a good thing. All those taxes paid support our local government services, including schools. Yet none of these owners impact those services; their kids aren't in our schools and the owners never utilize our social services.Yet they pay for all the above and do so without the right to vote on the taxes they pay.
As to the latter comment, "greed" is highly overused, even by talking heads on cable news with M.A. and Ph.D behind their names. "Pearl" has no idea how much, if any, money these people have made from these "investments". Pearl doesn't know whether they have a sentimental attachment to these houses. Many are filled with personal items, paintings, even personal choices of furniture. Many of them have housed generations of the same family ownership who come here in the off-season to enjoy our area in the fall, celebrate Thanksgiving and Christmas, and revisit our community in the spring.
Sadly, I hear the same comments all to often about our seasonal visitors, a/k/a "the tourists".
And, while there were many comments similar to Pearl's supporting Bob's overall post, it seems no coincidence that my curmudgeonly friend Ray chose Pearl's gem to feature in his blog. Ray--too much Grinch at this time of year is bad for the soul :)......
Bah humbug Ray, and can we please put another coal on the fire??? It's cold. But no more gas on the fire....