Former councilman expresses concerns about resolution on Tuesday's agenda.
The Long Beach City Council is expected to vote Tuesday on a resolution to resurrect the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' storm damage reduction proposal that a prior council unanimously rejected six years ago.
A legislative note accompanying the Dec. 4 council agenda characterizes the resolution as a first step after Hurricane Sandy to re-engage the Army Corps to revisit the project and renew discussions, planning and public input on it. The resolution states that nothing in it commits the city to fund the project, although the city would enter into “a mutually agreeable cost-sharing agreement with the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation as the local sponsor in order to construct the project.”
Follow Long Beach Patch on Facebook.
The resolution comes after U.S. Sens. Charles Schumer and Kirsten Gillibrand in November
called on the corp to expedite seven projects — all of which Congress had authorized but were never started or completed — to protect coastline communities from flooding during storms, including Staten Island, Long Beach and Montauk. The senators hope Congress will approve $500 million to $1 billion in new financing for these projects as early as this month.
In 2006, the City Council voted against a $100 million Army Corps proposal aimed at protecting Long Beach from storm damage. At the time trustees argued that the plan was too costly and failed to address potential flooding from Reynolds Channel, and a number of residents, surfers and others said that it would ruin ocean views and negatively impact wave conditions.
“ ... One of the main reasons why the project was defeated in 2006 was because the Army Corps plan did nothing to protect the city from bay flooding, which represented much of the flood damage to the city in the East End and the West End,” said Jim Hennessy, who sat on the council that turned down the Army Corps proposal.
The new resolution states about that proposal: “On May 4, 2006, the City of Long Beach unanimously defeated a resolution to authorize participation in the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Storm Damage Reduction Project for Long Beach, thus declining further participation at that time. …”
But Hennessy, who expressed concern that the city administration may look to blame the prior council for turning down the corps proposal, noted that Democrats were in the majority on that council, and right after the project was defeated he and a fellow Republican councilman, Thomas Sofield Jr.. proposed
an alternative plan.
He said that starting in 2008, under a Republican-led council, the city hired coastal engineers to start Long Beach on a new and better proposal, spearhead by Kevin Mulligan, the commissioner of public works who was fired in January.
"I hope this administration doesn't use this issue to play politics,” Hennessy said. “This is a time for all of us to work together."
Be a Follower. Explore and subscribe to Patch groups. In 2009, the city released a coastal protection study, conducted by the consulting firm Coastal Planning & Engineering Inc., which offered guidance in implementing a revised federal storm-protection program that addressed concerns about the corps proposal.
Among the Dec. 4 agenda's other items is a resolution to amend the existing agreement with Coastal Planning & Engineering to assist the city with Sandy-related damages. Sounding a note of concern about the city’s
vulnerability to future storms, the new resolution reports that beaches lost five feet of sand
elevation during Hurricane Sandy, and whereas high tide was 125 from the boardwalk prior to the storm, it is now just 25 feet.
Become a blogger today!
Get started now
Congratulations! You're the first "winner" in the Let's Turn This Hurricane Into A Political Shitsh0w!
As per the NY Times from 2006 (http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9403E1DD1731F933A2575AC0A9609C8B63) our illustrious leaders knew so much better the ACE "Mr. Hennessy and the other Republican council member, Thomas R. Sofield Jr., have proposed an alternative storm-management plan, which includes working with advisory groups like Surfrider, and the city has asked independent coastal engineers for ways to address beach protection. " They proposed working with Surfrider instead of the professionals in ACE? Say what you will about ACE, but in the future if you were going to take preventative measures to safeguard your house and the two options were suggestions from ACE and Surfrider, who would you choose? Here is a recent article (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/04/science/earth/after-hurricane-sandy-dunes-prove-they-blunt-storms.html) where a person(expert?) from ACE discusses the impact dunes had on some communities (Yes the west end dunes were destroyed, but I do not believe they were built by ACE). To sum it up, in 2006 our elected officials would have preferred to engage the surfrider organization instead of ACE. As an added note the surfrider site has been removed of its original content regarding ACE and LB (http://nyc.surfrider.org/programs_beachscape_lb.html) In all likelihood it was done pre sandy, but that would have made great reading The surfrider.org (possible one of their experts) does list "Campaign: Long Beach NY Beach Fill" as "victory" on http://nyc.surfrider.org/campaigns/victories/.
It appears Mr Hennessy has taken his ball and gone home.
I agree, residents have all worked together and have put politics aside and that's great. But this resolution is not honest, it points blame, and its not necessary. People can twist my words all they want, but the truth is the city has had a plan and we should finally implement it before another storm.
According to the NY Times article I referenced above, you are quoted as saying you proposed "working with advisory groups like Surfrider", after you voted against the proposal by the experts at ACE. Our town and its residents has suffered tremendously by this storm. At this time, now more than ever, our city needs leaders. Leaders with solutions, not leaders who espouse the suggestion of experts in their field and opt to work with advisory groups who claim your actions as 2006 a "victory". If you have solutions to our current problems or methods to possibly prevent this from occurring again, our city residents would be glad to hear them. Based on the actions and quotes from 2006 we all know that you probably not capable of that task. If all you are capable of doing is placing blame (or deflecting it as the case may be), you are not helping anyone and your resources would be better utilized by some other endeavor to help our city recover.
To those who voted it down, thanks for nothing
Despite what might be proposed and put into place we might easily see similar or worse damage. The silly arguing and back and forth seem so trivial and unnecessary at this point in time. Perhaps when your axes are all ground and sharpened you could get around to perceiving what really is a greater need. That need would be working together in order to be of greater assistence to all concerned.
"I am not going to sit back and allow our elected officials to misrepresent the truth at a time when we need the truth." WHAT?!!
We've just experienced an 8 foot surge with Sandy. In a worst case this 20 foot surge will flood the entire area as far north as Sunrise Hwy with water to roof levels of residences. There will be no moving your stuff way up high, just get contents insurance, keep records or write your stuff off as a loss. Moving you vehicle and praying always works though, just move your car far enough and pray hard enough...!!