Re-nourishment: Another perspective
To the editor:
The debate over beach re-nourishment continues, seemingly ad infinitum. Every week, one or the other, or all of the usual slate of opponents pens more or less the same thinly paraphrased objections about how re-nourishment is the worst thing that could happen to the Beach, more hateful even than the ten plagues.
I endorsed the project a couple years ago and still think one form or another of it should take place. Whereas I understand that the folks who actually live on the beach have the ultimate veto (and so they should) by refusing to sign easements, I’ve often wondered how it would go if put to a vote by all the island residents. I always look on the bright side by thinking that if the re-nourishment doesn’t happen, sooner or later my property on the bay side of the Boulevard will become beachfront. I’ll probably be too old to care by then, though.
A couple of things make me wonder if the folks who are so violently opposed to the project have really thought their position through clearly. The primary objection seems to be that widening the beach will attract more tourists to the island. When will they figure out that the Beach is, has been and will continue to be a tourist island? Have any of them counted the number of empty stores? Do they think the town can survive without the tourists?
The other part is that the most vigorous opponents don’t even live in the section of the beach designated to be re-nourished. Has the possibility occurred to any of them that the same number or even more tourists will continue to come? And if the beach remains as narrow and crowded as it is in some of the more touristy parts, the tourists will migrate south to those areas right in front of where these folks live? Wouldn’t it be better from their point of view to widen the designated areas and keep “those people” away from their front yards?
Maybe they should be a little more careful about what they wish for.
Jay Light
Fort Myers Beach