A $500,000 sand dune collapsed in days after being erected, and residents are looking for help to protect their homes
On the border with New Hampshire and Massachusetts – about 35 miles north of Boston – is Salisbury, a coastal town and popular summer destination for tourists. But for those who live in the town year round, especially those who live on the coastline, life’s not a beach.
Last month, after a series of storms battered the area, local citizens came together to take the necessary steps to protect their homes. Volunteer organization Salisbury Beach Citizens for Change raised more than $500,000 to erect a 15,000-ton sand dune – a formidable barrier that would hopefully protect at least 15 beach houses from destruction.
Or so they thought. The sand dune was completed after one month in early March, but just three days later, the dune – and nearly half a million dollars – was wiped away.
The tragic incident made the project a laughingstock to some and angered others.
I feel bad that these homeowners are basically facing a complete loss of their properties, but I’m more than a little miffed that they expect the state to save their homes because the beach next door is a “public beach.” I’m pretty sure the public beach ends where their properties begin and the state has no duty to keep the ocean off their property.
I bet a sea wall or jetty of large boulders would help, but I imagine the residents would complain about the unsightly walls/boulders and want to have their cake and eat it too by proposing some ridiculously expensive or difficult solution funded by the taxpayers that only benefits the residents of these 15 homes. This one idea already cost $33k per home and lasted 3 days.
Massachusetts beach law is complicated due to dating back before the American revolution. Most states allow private ownership to the high water line, but Massachusetts allows private ownership all the way to the low water line. So it doesn’t really make sense for the government to maintain their private property.
Now, if they want to cede the beach to the state, I think the state would be happy to build something more permanent. Hopefully also something that would improve the ecosystem.
Personally I think the state should take the beach and tell them to fuck off somewhere that’s not going to be building houses in fragile ecosystems.
The state will not allow a seawall to be built.
For good reasons. Besides being a huge ongoing expense, they frequently end up amplifying the erosion, and would almost certainly degrade the public beaches adjacent to these houses.