For as long as I can remember beach replenishment has been an issue on Long Beach Island (and other barrier Islands). Every fall and winter storms batter the coast and take a bite out of the beaches, or worse. In recent years there has been quite a bit of debate on the Island, as oceanfront homeowners in some towns (Long Beach Township, Harvey Cedars, etc) have been approached by their towns and Army Corp of Engineers to not just expand the beaches but also add to the dunes that are in front of most of these homes. In theory this beach expansion both protects the Island and the homes (especially the oceanfront ones) from nasty storms while ensuring that the Islands greatest attraction - the beach - sticks around for the following summer. The issue isn’t as cut-and-dry as it may seem for a few reasons.

One, many oceanfront homeowners contend (correctly, it seems) that adding substantially to the dunes blocks their views from lower levels of their home and reduces the value of their home because of it. There are property rights, market value, views, and the belief held by many that these projects simply don’t work all in the mix. Some have been reluctant or unwilling to sign the easement to allow the Army Corp of Engineers onto their property to make the changes. This has gotten nasty, with some towns threatening to condemn the land and use eminent domain laws to capture the dunes. There have been multiple lawsuits. One was settled this week. Here is the link to the article in the Star Ledger.

I have to admit that I’ve always been in the highly skeptical camp when it come to Army Corp of Engineers projects on the Island. Certainly I am no expert, and if I were lucky enough to own an oceanfront I would consider this carefully. The irony, and challenge, is that both sides of the argument can site the same examples as evidence of why their right. Just last winter, after millions were spent on many local beaches in the fall to replenish them, vast chunks of beach were completely gone in Harvey Cedars and Long Beach Township. It was a serious problem and it does pose legitimate risks to Islanders. The beach and dunes are the only thing protecting homes and the people in them from the power of the ocean.

Are these storms evidence that more beach replenishment is needed or that no amount of it can stop mother nature? Both sides of the argument can point to the same erosion as evidence to bolster their argument.

What bothers me in these issues is the apparent lack of civility shown by the town and some of the homeowners. If you read the article I linked to, you know that Harvey Cedars initially offered homeowners $300 for the rights to their property to build larger dunes. Many people sued. This week one homeowner settled for $150,000, after initially being awarded nearly $500,000 in court (the town appealed). I don’t know the laws, precedent, etc., but a few things really jump out at me.

$300 to $480,000 (the initial court award) is quite a leap. How do two supposedly logical institutions, evaluating the same situation, come to such different conclusions about value and rights?

I suspect that, from the town’s perspective, the $300 was a token payment and that the homeowners should have relented for the better good (town’s perspective), as many did. I also get that, from a practical perspective, a town with an operating budget of $3m can’t go around paying very many $150,000 settlements before it has a substantial problem.

What bothers me is the zero sum game approach taken by all parties involved. The town acts as if there is no value at all in views of the ocean and little disruption in having workers in their resident’s front lawn for months at a time. They offer $300 and guilt people endlessly that don’t accept.

At the same time the homeowners act as if their suffering is far greater than it fairly is. I am staunchly in favor of property rights and I think the homeowners were unfairly being bullied - but I don’t think $480,000 is even close to appropriate, and $150,000 seems crazy to me too.

Both sides, rather than being fair and honest and civilized, act instead as if there is absolutely no merit to the other parties’ argument. It can only be one way or the other. It is either $300 or $480,000 worth of value. I suspect that lawyers would say this is how it “has” to be, and that you can’t concede anything in an argument such as this. Perhaps they are right legally. But this wrong.

The towns should have made a fair and reasonable offer from the start while stating that they realized the issues for the homeowners were fair. I am just making up a number - but my guess is that $20,000 per home would end up being far less than they will ultimately pay in legal fees and settlements. I am sure that some people may still have sued, but I bet a lot less. People don’t like to be treated like fools, and, to me, the town treated these people - their taxpayers - as fools. Moving forward are they ever likely to get someone to agree to $300 again? Would you? If you were one of the folks that thought the town was in the right and took the $300 how would you feel now? If your neighbor was just awarded $150,000 of taxpayer money how would that feel? Nobody wins in these situations because everyone is made to feel the fool. Why not just act reasonably from the start?