After years of studying this plan and its several previous incarnations, we've found the right answer to be maddeningly elusive. That is not a comfortable conclusion for us to draw, but we're siding with the camp that says the responsible decision is to do the unpopular thing. We are very wary of the beach-fill portion of the project, which includes adding millions of cubic yards of sand to the beach in order to boost its elevation and create a de facto sea wall, but the value of the project as a whole mitigates the risk involved in such a major undertaking.
It's not an endorsement we're comfortable making, and the Army Corps has done precious little to earn our trust. This isn't about Katrina so much as it is about the project's chief, Joseph Vietri, and his team at the Army Corps, who have introduced Long Beach to heretofore unknown lows of bureaucratic arrogance. Thoughtful questions from the public have been met with eye rolls and dismissive answers. Empty threats and hyperbole are sprinkled throughout those responses.
This may be the way scientists speak to one another, but it doesn't wash when they come asking the public for millions of tax dollars.
We share the Surfrider Foundation's concerns about the project. The side effects and unintended consequences make it a gamble at best. But we believe that doing nothing is riskier. The beach is more than a line item in the city's budget; the beach is the city. Every unpleasant tale about how expensive and short life on Long Island can be is mitigated by the simple experience of living within walking distance of the Atlantic. This city is the envy of inlanders everywhere.
Would this project preserve or destroy us? We don't know for sure, and neither do the surfers or the "environmentalists" - nor, we bet, does Mr. Vietri. Over the years we've heard from representatives of communities who claim the Army Corps ruined their beaches. But just as credible is the silence coming from other communities the Army Corps has worked with successfully. Satisfied customer rarely agitate. Meanwhile, the corps' plan comes with a warranty, while doing nothing gets us nothing.
The project will not protect the barrier island against flooding from Reynolds Channel. It will only do what it is designed to do, but we believe it will do it well. We feel safe in predicting that the economic hit to the city will be negligible. We support surfing as a lifestyle and believe surfers are an important part of the beach experience, but we can't condone halting a project of this importance based on their arguments alone. We believe the restaurants and bars that depend on the beach will see little or no impact, since Long Beach will remain one of the region's most popular summer destinations. This project should protect this resort town for the next generation.
In fact, much of the project looks terrific. The dunes under the boardwalk are a great idea - in fact, we wonder why nobody thought of them sooner. Similarly, the offers of rehabilitated groins and a new synthetic deck for the boardwalk are too good to pass up, since the city's current financial situation makes a home-grown infrastructure project on this scale impossible, at least for the next decade.
The decision is now in the hands of the five members of the City Council, who will finally put the issue to rest May 4 at a special meeting at City Hall. The council is sworn to protect the lives and property - in that order - of the citizens of Long Beach. The beach will still be there when the Army Corps is done but, we're told, there will be some 18 hours added to the city's evacuation time in case of a major storm. Look no further for a bottom line.
It is the nature of Long Beach politics that at any point in time three council members are within two years of running for re-election. We hope votes are cast May 4 in the public's best interest, not to play to its basest fears. The politically safe vote would be cast against this project. The courageous, and right, vote is for it.
