Re Sunday front page article on group questioning beach renourishment:
The article reported a representative of the Coastal Conservation League challenged the wisdom of beach renourishment. It was mentioned that a single study in Southern California raised the issue that there may not be as much bird food (worms) in the sand used to replenish a beach there as there were before, and that in Myrtle Beach, “realistic alternatives” to beach renourishment were not talked about.
No “realistic alternatives” were offered except advice that building codes should be changed to prevent homes and businesses from being rebuilt in the same place after a hurricane. No alternatives were mentioned which could replace a major portion of the $18 billion tourism is estimated to contribute to the South Carolina economy, or how the lost jobs from the tourism sector would be replaced in the Grand Strand area.
Unfortunately, some groups toss around their ideas about other peoples’ homes and businesses very casually; if you are going to mention “realistic alternatives,” list them, and explain their impact, particularly on the economy, employment opportunities and property values. Just being against something is not enough.
Jim Christian, Georgetown