Good article in the Boston Globe about the new cut.

http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles/2007/06/04/gap_in_chatham_beach_widens/

Should they ask tax payers for funds to fill it back with sand? What do you think?

DZ

Sounds like an expensive, no guarentee way of temporarily fixing something that will eventually happen again. There's a lot of millionaires down there though so I'm sure something will get done. God forbid Daddy's third home get washed away! He'd have to rebuild the 10sq foot summer home somewhere else.

I think there should be no private property within a mile of the seashore. Sooner or later we will be asked to pay for saving it all and not allowed to use it.
Of course if I owned some my answer would be different.

Personally I don't it should be funded by tax payers. I someone got the idea from NJ and what they do with beach replenishment. ( we are getting screwed down there too) :af:

It's mother nature let it be.

As one who owns oceanfront property, I am opposed to all human intervention to impede nature. If one wishes to build a home, fine the risk is theirs.

I have seen firsthand how human intervention has caused negative unintended consequences. The breakwater in PTown forever changed the flow of sand around the inside of the cape to N. Truro. Sea walls caused more erosion than without them... and more.

As a boy I went to sailing camp on Pleasant Bay and we used to sail inside the protection of the barrier beach all the way to the sound and Monomoy. Then the 87 or 89 storm (I forget) broke through in front of the light. If memory serves me, I've read that in the early 1900's it was like that only to fill in over time.

Let it be. Those with property should know and bear the risk themselves. They certainly don't share the increase in their porperty value with the taxpayers.

As one who owns oceanfront property, I am opposed to all human intervention to impede nature. If one wishes to build a home, fine the risk is theirs.

I have seen firsthand how human intervention has caused negative unintended consequences. The breakwater in PTown forever changed the flow of sand around the inside of the cape to N. Truro. Sea walls caused more erosion than without them... and more.

As a boy I went to sailing camp on Pleasant Bay and we used to sail inside the protection of the barrier beach all the way to the sound and Monomoy. Then the 87 or 89 storm (I forget) broke through in front of the light. If memory serves me, I've read that in the early 1900's it was like that only to fill in over time.

Let it be. Those with property should know and bear the risk themselves. They certainly don't share the increase in their porperty value with the taxpayers.


I agree wholeheartedly. But lets face it, Cape Codders like you are a dying breed. The new Cape Codder is getting more and more politcal clout as their numbers grow. They're moving to the Cape from areas when man has been trying to stem the tide from washing away million dollar homes for decades. I don't recall any big hue and cry to fill the 87 breach. I don't think anyone gave it a second's serious consideration.

If you look at it from a geological point of view, 2 cant stay open there; not enough tide flow etc.. my guess is it will close during the next prolonged period of SW wind, calm, long period swells and neap tides... this Easterly will probably help keep it open, but the long period swells and sw wind after, might help close it up..

No they should not spend tax money to fill it in. Yes they should give permits to build sea walls to those who want them.

My guess is all the sand money can buy will not stop that gap from continuing to grow.

No they should not spend tax money to fill it in. Yes they should give permits to build sea walls to those who want them.

My guess is all the sand money can buy will not stop that gap from continuing to grow.

Take a look at the lot of good it did for Nantucket.
Sea ate the retaining walls no problem.

No they should not spend tax money to fill it in. Yes they should give permits to build sea walls to those who want them..

Absolutely not.
You start putting a hard line in the sand, and bad things happen. Even IF the seawall/bulkhead/revetment lasts, the beach in front of it will continue to retreat, in most cases more rapidly than before. hard structures are bad, and the creation of new hard structures is illegal in RI.

One of the two inlets will close, since there isnt enough tidal flow to keep 2 open.

There was alot of water flowing through there this afternoon. I don't see how you stop nature. The current is ripping so fast I don't know how you get the sand to stay. I will say the amount of eel grass just north of the breach is amazing. I don't remeber the grass there in dec/jan like it is now. I was in 4 feet of water and had to come off a plane b/c the grass was getting caught in the prop.

Only a million to fill it in,,,, That figure is waaaaay to low,,,, Sounds like some wealthy people trying to exploit the taxpayers for their own personal interests......

Someone should just face the facts that they own a home on the water and they may end up losing it,,,, It is unfortunate but that is reality,,,,

I agree wholeheartedly. But lets face it, Cape Codders like you are a dying breed. The new Cape Codder is getting more and more politcal clout as their numbers grow. They're moving to the Cape from areas when man has been trying to stem the tide from washing away million dollar homes for decades. I don't recall any big hue and cry to fill the 87 breach. I don't think anyone gave it a second's serious consideration.

mike, in fact there was some cry from some folks who were directly affected by that breach at that time. i read a book awhile back called 'Storm Surge', all about that break, and a history of how those beaches work. in the book, the author tells how one homeowner paid 30K for sand to be dumped in front of his house in order to keep the sea back. haha..funny story because this guy thought he could control nature. 2 weeks later, another Nor'easter came through and took all of that sand away!

anyone who thinks they can control nature is clueless. seawalls and jettys only make the problems worse. they both disrupt the natural flow of sand. i don't expect people to stop building sea walls and jettys, but if you live on the coast, you have no sympathy from me. if you build on the coast and then want the gov't to bail your butt out, you've got another thing coming. sell your house and move inland.

This is a natural event that occurs and re-occurs and will occur again. Anyone stupid enough to think that they can change a process that has shaped and re-shaped the land form of Cape Cod is shoveling sh!t against the tide. Trophy home owners who built million plus dollar homes were naieve in not considering the risk envolved in water front home ownership. Well too bad for them No self respecting ship Captain or native Cape Codder in the days past of old Cape Cod would have dared do that, mansions were for Main street. On the beach is too fraught with hazards and one should never tempt fate or Mother Nature.

Money wasted and south Village camp owners need to think about boat ownership.

The old timers built well back from the beaches. They knew. All they built near the beach were fish shacks or a shed to stow their gear. Those shacks and sheds were expendable. There homes were not. My house in N Truro is working on 200 years old and is one of three originals on the hill. They are maybe 700 feet back from the bluff. Of course the bluff is crowded with trophy homes and the owners are building sand retaining fences like crazy while screaming global warming. Global this, a northeaster will erode the beach, a steady southwest wind will build it. Has for centuries. Maybe you shoulda looked into this before you invested megabucks into your ugly arsed house designed by Frank Lloyd Wrong. What are you gonna do? If you have bucks folks think you're smart....well maybe...maybe not...

This is a natural event that occurs and re-occurs and will occur again. Anyone stupid enough to think that they can change a process that has shaped and re-shaped the land form of Cape Cod is shoveling sh!t against the tide. Trophy home owners who built million plus dollar homes were naieve in not considering the risk envolved in water front home ownership. Well too bad for them No self respecting ship Captain or native Cape Codder in the days past of old Cape Cod would have dared do that, mansions were for Main street. On the beach is too fraught with hazards and one should never tempt fate or Mother Nature.

Money wasted and south Village camp owners need to think about boat ownership.

Right On the Money Steve..

I will say, I think that south (second) village camp owners, should think of boat ownership for now.. and the fact that the 87 cut will prolly fill and connect to south beach..perhaps the Camp Owners, and the Chatham Board of Selectmen ought to think of setting it up for a point of access, and sell beach stickers, once the land bridge is complete :D..
Yeah.. I'm dreaming... but dreaming big :D

NO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[QUOTE=clambelly;498195], want the gov't to bail your butt out, (QUOTE]

In this country, at least in theory, it's of the people, for the people and by the people. Don't forget to remind your representative of that. Our goverment, community, fellow americans, etc. should in theory help us all with things that we cannot handle by ourselves. I think good examples are schools, defense and transportation. A bad example is making bad decisions on where to build and expecting the rest of the people to save your investment. We seem to have no problem restricting floodplain development but have a hard time restricting development in coastal regions. Of course it's mostly the lower economic spectrum that ends up in floodplains. Now a nice house on the beach....
Just follow the money
I should'nt complain I build high end second homes for a living. Hard to believe some people need a two million dollar home for two weeks a year. Sort of like $100 plugs

perhaps the Camp Owners, and the Chatham Board of Selectmen ought to think of setting it up for a point of access, and sell beach stickers, once the land bridge is complete :D..
Yeah.. I'm dreaming... but dreaming big :D

NOW YOU'RE TALKING!!!:jump:

I think if you grant a permit to build the house on the waterfront , you should also grant a permit to build a wall if the structure gets threatened.

i would be totally in favor of no building private property within some distance of the waterfront.

i always thought that in this time of supposed enlightenment about environmental issues and access , that all waterfront property should eventually become part of a public land bank. No more building on the aterfront and any house that gets sold would have to be sold to the state for fair market value. A property could be handed down within a family for zero dollars but if any money is to change change hands , the property must be sold to the state. In 200 years , there would be a belt of publicly owned land along all the shorelines with free access to all people.

i think RI made some huge mistakes in the last 10 years not buying and turning into state parks the property at rocky point and quonset point. those where once in a lifetime oppurtunities that they let slip by.

its a nice dream. I think maybe in the year 3007 , people might actually be enlightened and something like this could happen.

Mistakes aside...

in RI, (not speaking for mass)
the set-back distance to build now is 30x the annual erosion rate + 25ft of set back. Alot of lots are unbuildable because of that.

Again, building a wall or other structure is a terrible idea. good for the house behind it, but it cuts off the sediment supply to areas down drift of the longshore sediment transport, and can increase local erosion due to edge effects where the structure ends... Not to mention you just put a hard line in the sand, where the shoreline can no longer migrate landward as it is supposed to. given some time/erosion, the front of a seawall that was once passable is now impassable, as it is underwater at low tide and high-tide... think about the revetment at the East end of S.K Town beach in Matunuck.

As much as your beltway of land is a great idea, it is unfortunetly unrealistic. Given the cost of land along the waterfront, conservation groups and governments have a hard-time outbidding private landowners, and dont want to get into the lawsuits that result from taking the property.

What difference does it make, you can't stop the ocean. Ask the army core of engineers who designed the levy system down in New Orleans. In 50 years, after the periphery ice shelves slide and melt off Antarctica, Chatham will be underwater anyway.