Viewpoint: Beach tourism is expensive

http://www.pnj.com/story/opinion/2015/12/29/viewpoint-beach-tourism-expensive/78038922/

The author of this piece, Ms. Barbara Albrecht, is a personal friend and former coworker. She joined the environmental consulting firm where I worked in November of 1998, and was with us until March of 2006.

She holds a BS in Marine Biology from UWF, and is involved in local environmental issues.

Interesting piece, but the writer pointedly fails to mention the close to $300 million a year in economic impact tourism brings to the greater Pensacola area.  (So even if $20 million were spent every single year on renourishment of Pensacola Beach, it would still be a wise financial investment, not "expensive" at all.)  Everyone who agrees with the writer should be asked whether or not they'd be willing to pay the estimated additional $1,000 a year in county ad valorem taxes on each and every property that would likely result from the loss of our tourism industry.

According to a survey performed in recent years by UWF's Haas Center for Business Research and Economic Development, for the most part people don't visit here for our downtown or other attractions-- they come for the beauty and the beaches.   Everyone who can afford it wants to stay on the island and play on the beach.  One could say if there weren't a line of hotels and houses no one would notice any erosion of the beachfront, but the point is people want hotels and houses to stay in, and they want them to be on or walking distance to the beach.  We have no choice but to keep pumping sand, until someone comes up with a better idea that will actually work.

And hey, it's all going to be underwater in another 100 years anyway, so why not dance while the band's still playing?  That may sound cynical; I guess it shows the level of faith I have in humanity's ability to turn things around anytime soon, Paris Accord or not.

The point was that the beach is more than just money......

But, the physical movement of millions of tons of renourishment sand on to the shore disrupts the offshore benthic community for many years. This ultimately depresses the offshore fishery.

Beach renourishment should not be mistaken as ecological restoration.

Hallmarkgard wrote:[b]The point was that the beach is more than just money......

And of course that's absolutely true, Hallmark.  But I'm talking about the reality of what we have going on here and now.  It can't easily be ignored.   The writer indicated (at least the headline did) that tourism is expensive.  Maybe "costly to the environment" might've been a better lead-in for her.

RealLindaL wrote:Interesting piece, but the writer pointedly fails to mention the close to $300 million a year in economic impact tourism brings to the greater Pensacola area.  (So even if $20 million were spent every single year on renourishment of Pensacola Beach, it would still be a wise financial investment, not "expensive" at all.)  Everyone who agrees with the writer should be asked whether or not they'd be willing to pay the estimated additional $1,000 a year in county ad valorem taxes on each and every property that would likely result from the loss of our tourism industry.
...
.

You are assuming that $300 million (minus $30 million or whatever in beach renourishment) goes into the pocketbooks of local people.  

Not the case if you ask me.  It lines the pockets of wealthy people & corporations, many of whom do not even live in the Pensacola area & contribute nothing to the local economy.   Are our tax rates any lower than some inland county?


Ask yourself ... what kind of good paying jobs with good benefits and job security for local residents does beach tourism provide?

City & County time & efforts would be better expended attracting industries that will provide long term good paying jobs with good paying benefits ... not so much on supporting tourism that provides only minimum wage jobs with minimum benefits.    Let tourism pay for/take care of itself.

What kind of good paying jobs with good benefits for local residents does all that tourism money go to?


The owners of business who make great profit, the grocery stores, the liquor stores, the service industry, all who do not directly pay for beach replenishment. On NB leaseholders pay fifty percent.....PB.....grants which all taxpayers pay......the cost of putting new sand on the beaches should be borne by the owners of those living on Santa Rosa Island with a permanent special service area which the majority is paid by the owners on the beach. I do not care if the majority of the taxes collected on NB and PB are applied to beach replenishment, but the vast majority should be paid by owners on the beach, just like the folks in East Milton who want a new sewer system should pay for the same(at least the majority of the cost) and not have everybody else paying for the same. Tourism dollars are important, but arguing that everybody should pay for the direct benefit of a few is a non sequitur. As long as the vast majority of replenishment is paid by leaseholders on the islands, it is fair.

2seaoat wrote:What kind of good paying jobs with good benefits for local residents does all that tourism money go to?


The owners of business who make great profit, the grocery stores, the liquor stores, the service industry, all who do not directly pay for beach replenishment.  

Uuuuuh, yeah.   grocery stores, liquor stores, and the service industry.

Those are all great jobs.    


When I lived on Navarre Beach I could have cared less if they re-nourished the beach .... I lived soundside anyway.   I'm not a big fan of hanging out on the beach sand anyway .... it's just a place to launch my fishing kayak to me.

I disagree private property owners on the island should have to pay more for beach renourishment than anyone else.   Commercial property owners .... yes.  But private property owners, no (unless they were stupid enough to buy a place that will eventually collapse without renourishment.)  

All this beach re-nourishment is for is the tourists, so let them pay for it.   If I wanna go sit in the sand & enjoy the sound of the ocean .... I'll go to the National Seashore anyway .... where they don't re-nourish the beach.

Lease holders paying the large end of renourishment only tightens their argument for "owning" the beach and putting up signs that say private no trespassing as they do here in Okaloosa county. Pisses me off. No one owns the beach. I also know that not all beach dwellers have this mind set. The ones who do piss me off. A beach is not private.

SheWrites wrote:Lease holders paying the large end of renourishment only tightens their argument for "owning" the beach and putting up signs that say private no trespassing as they do here in Okaloosa county.  Pisses me off.  No one owns the beach.  I also know that not all beach dwellers have this mind set.  The ones who do piss me off.  A beach is not private.  

Surf fishing in Navarre once early in the morning & this lady comes out on the beach & tells me I need to move along 'cause they have rented the beach fronting house for a week and this part of the beach is theirs.  

My response was:

As I recall she said she was from Iowa, or somewhere in the midwest.

I did 't even bother to explain or argue with her ... I just told her to "call a cop" and she stalked off. (Always wondered if she actually did?)

SheWrites wrote:Lease holders paying the large end of renourishment only tightens their argument for "owning" the beach and putting up signs that say private no trespassing as they do here in Okaloosa county.  Pisses me off.  No one owns the beach.  I also know that not all beach dwellers have this mind set.  The ones who do piss me off.  A beach is not private.  

Not even close but a classic case of spreading misinformation. Instead this is a myth that has served the interests who wish to demonize the residents of Pensacola Beach for decades.  For the record, the public areas of the island accessible to the public are clearly identified as such, e.g., Casino Beach, Chicken Bone, etc.  If you enter the beach through one of these public access points you can walk endlessly in either direction without violating the privacy rights of leaseholders.  What you cannot do is cross a residents' property to access the public beach areas.  While residents do not hold fee simple ownership they do hold legal documentation (lease agreement) that gives them domain over that parcel.  I would agree that it is simply a game of semantics but in a very real sense they do, in fact, own their portion of the beach . . . . . . it is all about how one accesses it that matters.

Agree. The beach is public, but that does not give somebody the right to cross through somebody's back yard to get to the beach. On Navarre, every 400 to 1000 feet there are public access to the beach. The beach has and will always remain public.

2seaoat wrote:Agree.  The beach is public, but that does not give somebody the right to cross through somebody's back yard to get to the beach.  On Navarre, every 400 to 1000 feet there are public access to the beach.   The beach has and will always remain public.

And I agree . . . . . access points are numerous and the beach will remain open to the public in perpetuity.

knothead wrote: And I agree . . . . . access points are numerous and the beach will remain open to the public in perpetuity.

Yes, the access points are indeed numerous on Pensacola Beach, including, among others, dune crossovers just about every fourth house in the east end neighborhoods, and public accessways in the commercial core district.

And what makes the beachfront here more secure in terms of public use than beaches in other locales such as Perdido Key and Destin is the simple fact that here, in the vast majority of cases, the leaseholders' lot lines  - whether commercial or residential properties - are defined by specific measurements, rather than the seaward lot lines' being vaguely defined by "the mean high water line" or some such, as exists elsewhere.  

That will not change if and when the leaseholders obtain fee simple title, and in fact the federal legislation providing for the legality of such title conveyance, now moving through Congress, is an even greater protection than currently exists against any potential loss of public use because it provides that:

"The County [Escambia] and Santa Rosa County, Florida, shall preserve the areas of the non-Federal land conveyed under this section that, as of the date of enactment of this Act, are dedicated for conservation, preservation, public recreation, access, and public parking, in accordance with resolutions adopted by the Board of County Commissioners of the County or Santa Rosa County, Florida, respectively."  

(The resolutions referred to are already in place in the respective counties, and the above provision would effectively render those resolutions a provision of federal law.)

EmeraldGhost wrote:All this beach re-nourishment is for is the tourists, so let them pay for it.   If I wanna go sit in the sand & enjoy the sound of the ocean .... I'll go to the National Seashore anyway .... where they don't re-nourish the beach.

Fine for you, Emerald, but not everyone wants to go all the way out to GINS.  And while renourishment absolutely does protect tourism as an important economic engine here*, it's most certainly not just for the visitors.   Walk Pensacola Beach, for instance, from Casino Beach to the east end of Ariola Drive on a busy summer day and ask people you meet whether they're locals or tourists  I'm thinking you may be surprised.  Or just observe the vehicles parked along the roadway and in the parking lots -- you'll see many, many local area plates.  Whether Breezers or north county residents -- both Escambia and Santa Rosa -- we regularly see lots and lots of locals out here enjoying the beach and/or surfing the waves.

*Look, people, I agree that more needs to be done in our area to generate higher paying jobs (and to educate the locals to be able to fill them), but allowing one of the two existing main economic engines (tourism and the military) to be decimated by loss of the beachfront is not going to help one bit to generate new economic development here.   Guess what attracts many of the new businesses of all types and their people to this area in the first place?

RealLindaL wrote:

EmeraldGhost wrote:All this beach re-nourishment is for is the tourists, so let them pay for it.   If I wanna go sit in the sand & enjoy the sound of the ocean .... I'll go to the National Seashore anyway .... where they don't re-nourish the beach.

Fine for you, Emerald, but not everyone wants to go all the way out to GINS.  And while renourishment absolutely does protect tourism as an important economic engine here*, it's most certainly not just for the visitors.   Walk Pensacola Beach, for instance, from Casino Beach to the east end of Ariola Drive on a busy summer day and ask people you meet whether they're locals or tourists  I'm thinking you may be surprised.  Or just observe the vehicles parked along the roadway and in the parking lots -- you'll see many, many local area plates.  Whether Breezers or north county residents -- both Escambia and Santa Rosa -- we regularly see lots and lots of locals out here enjoying the beach and/or surfing the waves.

*Look, people, I agree that more needs to be done in our area to generate higher paying jobs (and to educate the locals to be able to fill them), but allowing one of the two existing main economic engines (tourism and the military) to be decimated by loss of the beachfront is not going to help one bit to generate new economic development here.   Guess what attracts many of the new businesses of all types and their people to this area in the first place?

The "economic development" you speak of does not do much for the vast majority of people who live in the area in terms of good jobs with good benefits with job security. So who is it benefiting primarily? A very small minority of business owners ... and it'd be interesting to see an analysis of how much of those profits stay in the community?

knothead wrote:

2seaoat wrote:Agree.  The beach is public, but that does not give somebody the right to cross through somebody's back yard to get to the beach.  On Navarre, every 400 to 1000 feet there are public access to the beach.   The beach has and will always remain public.

And I agree . . . . . access points are numerous and the beach will remain open to the public in perpetuity.

Access points - beach crossovers in Okaloosa County get you to a strip of beach where the high water comes on your beach blanket. And you're greeted with NO TRESPASSING to the east and west of the boardwalk. Parking allows for 8 to 12 cars.

It's not worth it. The beach dwellers have won.

I'm perfectly happy going to the state park on the beach or the beautiful bayous.

The East end of Navarre Beach has public restrooms, showers and multiple crossovers with ample parking. It is full all the time. The tourist come for the beach. There never was a problem with the public having access to the beach in Navarre Beach, and the only issue that is always a topic is beach tents which are put up. The west end is suffering erosion because of the very buildings which block the free migration of sand. As long as the leaseholders pay at least half of the replenishment costs, I reluctantly go along because those buildings are part of what brings tourists. If there was an easy way to get rid of 90% of the buildings on the beach without hurting anybody, I would vote for the same, but that is a pipe dream because the cow left the barn and now it is doing the best we can do with what we have.

2seaoat wrote:The East end of Navarre Beach has public restrooms, showers and multiple crossovers with ample parking.   It is full all the time.  The tourist come for the beach.  There never was a problem with the public having access to the beach in Navarre Beach, and the only issue that is always a topic is beach tents which are put up.   The west end is suffering erosion because of the very buildings which block the free migration of sand.  As long as the leaseholders pay at least half of the replenishment costs, I reluctantly go along because those buildings are part of what brings tourists.  If there was an easy way to get rid of 90% of the buildings on the beach without hurting anybody, I would vote for the same, but that is a pipe dream because the cow left the barn and now it is doing the best we can do with what we have.

I agree.

I'd be fine if they let everything south of the 399 (Gulf Blvd) wash into the gulf & reestablish dunes in their place.   I only go there to fish.

(btw ... anybody know if it's true a lot of Navarre Beach property is owned by proxies of Ted Turner? That's what I heard when I lived there.)

He might have interest in the newer buildings, but ten years ago there were no rumors of the same. I doubt there is any development bigger than the Holiday Inn, but there was a property across from the Holiday Inn which was going to develop, but it fell through.....that would be my bet if he was investing in Navarre. Last big development parcel on the island.

EmeraldGhost wrote:The "economic development" you speak of does not do much for the vast majority of people who live in the area in terms of good jobs with good benefits with job security.   So who is it benefiting primarily?  A very small minority of business owners ... and it'd be interesting to see an analysis of how much of those profits stay in the community?

Don't know what economic development you speak of, Emerald. I referred to "new economic development" that is needed in the area but hasn't happened yet.  How can you criticize the lack of benefits of businesses that don't even exist here yet?  I must be missing something.

SheWrites wrote:Access points - beach crossovers in Okaloosa County get you to a strip of beach where the high water comes on your beach blanket.  And you're greeted with NO TRESPASSING to the east and west of the boardwalk.  Parking allows for 8 to 12 cars.  

It's not worth it.  The beach dwellers have won.  

I'm perfectly happy going to the state park on the beach or the beautiful bayous.

That's a rotten shame, SW, and obviously resulted from the way the island was laid out in the first place, back whenever -- with seaward lot lines defined by the mean high water line.  As previously indicated, on Santa Rosa Island -- at least as to the vast majority of properties on Pensacola Beach, those lot lines are measured and defined, and leave the dune berms and beach open to the public regardless of who ends up owning the abutting  properties (whether the county or the residents).  

Sea, do you happen to know if this is the case on Navarre Beach?  What does the Gulf-front lot description typically look like?  Is the seaward line defined by measurement, or by the mean high water line?  I hope the former.  Have always meant to look into this but haven't ever gotten around to it. Easier to ask you!  Ha.

The platted lot lines are well behind the traditional dunes on Navarre Beach. There has never been an issue with the public getting to the beach on Navarre Beach because the County has done an excellent job developing parking, crossovers, and the entire eastern beach for public access. The problem develops when the erosion takes ground away and on the Western end of Navarre at national park line there is little beach remaining which makes the houses seem like they are blocking access. It is an issue of erosion, not design which clearly has always allowed the public access to the beach. The National Seashore has 13 miles of unobstructed access. I do not understand people saying the public does not have access to the beach on NB or PB.

Thanks very much for the clarification, Sea.  That sounds very much like the situation  here on Pensacola Beach.  

I don't understand it, either,  but some folks have always wanted to complain about a problem that doesn't exist (or, as Knot indicated, to simply demonize PBeach residents in any way possible).  I can recall back on the old pnj.com community forums, people like surf and others would moan about no parking and no access.  What a crock!   I think PB and NB have more parking (and FREE at that), and more public access in general, than most other beaches in this entire nation.

Heck, some of those people on the forum thought that Ariola Drive was restricted - that it was all private, with parking exclusively for the leaseholders or their renters.  More baloney.  I clearly recall informing them that parking was allowed on one side of the road (currently the south side - can't do both sides as it restricts emergency vehicle access) and that, as long as they avoided blocking people's driveway entrances,  public access walkways and/or emergency accesses, they could park the entire length of that Gulf front road from Avenida 10 all the way to 23.  That's in addition to all the other many public parking areas on this beach.  

Over the years since, the increasing population pressure coupled with the discovery of all that same parking on PBeach during the years when the GINS roads were closed after Ivan, has resulted in many if not most parking areas' (including Ariola Drive) being jammed up on busy beach weekends.  So I guess the word got out, but you'll still find those who just don't want to believe it.  Or something.  Maybe they'd just rather complain.  It's a mystery to me.

Maybe they should try visiting Long Island, NY or Naples, FL if they want to see the definition of restricted access.   It sure doesn't apply here!

For those of us who grew up with nothing on the beach but a few cinder block houses, the change is real - gradual, explosions of growth after Opal, and continued growth with the Levin's on Pensacola Beach and Portofino. Thankful for the National Seashore where one can actually enjoy wide open spaces the way it used to be.

So the talk of "renourishment" is not one with which I'll ever fall in line. Were it not for the building on the beach "renourishment" would not be an issue.

But this is an old woe I've laid aside. No beef with anyone. Changes have been made and there is no turning back. Like I said, I do the state parks and national seashore areas. I've not been on Pensacola Beach since I returned to Florida. Too congested for me.

Too congested for me.


I agree, but if you get a chance go to the far eastern portion of NB and you will find ample parking and quiet isolation. My wife and I go there like we first did in 1970 when we would hike to the east end. We like the quiet. Since I have been ill we can not hike too far but they have put an artificial reef on the east end and it is amazing to watch the fish and wildlife. If you love the beach, there are still plenty of great spots thanks to leadership which set aside with great wisdom the national seashore and the east end of NB. Few things beat a quiet afternoon on the beach.