Laserfiche WebLink
DEC 19 1994 BOOK 59 P,aGE 2 <br />87 <br />Mr. Zorc continued that if we were really solving the <br />problem, it would be a different matter. He repeated that he <br />supports the sand pumping 100% and he is not indifferent to the <br />private owners position, but he really felt that we need a beach <br />management plan now. Mr. Zorc felt that if the Commission and <br />the Council approve this position today, it is mainly because of <br />private property owners concerns, and he believed that our share <br />would really be 85% because we are paying federal taxes also. <br />For Beach Renourishment <br />Bill Priestly stated he was in favor of what was happening <br />today because of the positive approach. He pointed out that <br />people settled in this area because of the water and beaches, <br />and the County without our beaches would be like Orlando without <br />Mickey Mouse. He also pointed out that even though his house is <br />not on the ocean, its value increases because of the beaches, <br />and his business also benefits through tourism. He felt that it <br />is much less expensive to pay for sacrificial sand, as it was <br />referred to at one time, rather than to pay for the lost <br />business and buildings. In response to Mr. Zorc's remark about <br />accepting federal money, he felt that if we don't, some other <br />shoreline community certainly will. Much clapping followed. <br />Against Beach Renourishment <br />George Bachman, 501 Camelia Lane, stressed that since this <br />was not declared a disaster area, he felt that we should get the <br />money first and then do the work because when a man buys -a <br />house, he gets a mortgage first. <br />For Beach Renourishment <br />Ron Rideman of the Downtown Merchants and Business <br />Association, stated that after personally polling the downtown <br />merchants, he found their opinions were heavily weighted in <br />favor of the project, and there was only one dissenting opinion. <br />65 <br />