For Or Against Seawalls

If they keep saying something often enough, will people believe them?

The small group of extremists opposing sea walls (i.e. threatening to destroy private property) keep saying that sea walls decrease the beaches, and even the press believes them!  Every study in the world says that sea walls do not decrease the beaches.  Over 90% of sand comes from rivers (or, if dammed or blocked, human sand replenishment).

Retaining walls are part of civilization and are allowed everywhere to protect property.  And what sense does it make that a seawall can't be constructed until there is "imminent danger" to a residence?  What difference does it make if the seawall is five, ten, fifteen, or 30 feet out from a building?

By not allowing seawalls "until imminent danger", the value of the properties along the bluffs will significantly decrease when there is no room for people to walk along the bluff.  This would mean the loss of hundreds of millions of dollars of property value and therefore tax income for the City!

On the south half of Solana Beach, the bluffs are owned by the properties.  By not allowing seawalls "until imminent danger", the state is actually taking property away from the owners as the bluffs fall onto the beach and become state property!

The benefits of retaining walls to the public and the City:

1.  Seawalls protect the public from falling bluffs.
2.  The property owners pay for seawalls.
3.  The city receives a large amount of taxes from the property value, residents, and visitors of the bluff properties. 

Sea-Level Rise (SLR)

Oh goody - a new acronym for extremists to throw around and strike fear (kind of got tired of hearing about "armouring the bluffs" anyway)!  If you buy into Global Warming (which is debatable), then it follows that maybe you think that "SLR" will destroy all of our beaches.

(Revised 8/31/10)

Tags:  Solana Beach, seawalls, sea walls

For any comments on this, please e-mail oursolanabeach@jumpingdolphins.com