Post by nauset2034 on Mar 13, 2009 16:53:42 GMT -4
Got this off the North Beach Forum
RSR 1276
03-13-2009 04:22 PM ET (US)
I'm somewhat with you, Noah, but NOT when it comes to South Beach. All that some Chatham natives want is access during a little of the off-season. For Chatham's little sliver of North Beach I'd advocate a total ban to anything but daytripper town residents and a less stringent approach to deeded campowners. Unlikely scenario for sure. I am one of the lucky few that honed his driving skills on Monomoy... never saw ANY out-of-town vehicles there, mainly because there was no reliable access for vehicles before construction of the d**e was allowed (purely for monetary reasons, by the way). It was beautiful. No birds got run over, no coyotes were shot, no gulls were poisoned. Nine miles of gleaming sand and surf. Enter the U S Gov't. Sayonara Monomoy. Was that a hostile land-grab? No one has ever explained to me how Chatham let that happen. I'm listening.
When and if Middle Beach re-connects to the mainland, I'd go for the same approach as for North Beach. I recall several decades when North Beach was lined with campers. Made a heck of a summertime radar target, but was totally ugly and took away from the desired privacy of beach-goers that arrived by other means. (feet, boats) We lost Monomoy forever, Orleans has tried to pave parts of their beach with "hardening" (talk about screwing up nature!), and Middle Beach is out of commission. And by the way, that little section of North Beach that was given to Chatham many years ago by George Bearse has its own skeletons. Around the time that the CCNS was trying to take over the backside, (late 1950's-early 1960's) ownership issues arose for those campowners that had pieces of paper with Mr. Bearse's name on them. The folks were deemed to be squatters, not deeded property owners. (Makes me wonder about the validity of George's gift) Therein lies the basis for what was to be an eventual systematic removal of undeeded camps in Chatham. The prevailing thought then was that for the most people to get enjoyment from the beaches there should be as small a population of camps and campers as possible. What happened? It all went astray when a few legal beagles snookered CCNS into allowing some of the undeeded camps to be saved, albeit "temporarily". So, still too many people with too many flexible rules.
RSR 1276
03-13-2009 04:22 PM ET (US)
I'm somewhat with you, Noah, but NOT when it comes to South Beach. All that some Chatham natives want is access during a little of the off-season. For Chatham's little sliver of North Beach I'd advocate a total ban to anything but daytripper town residents and a less stringent approach to deeded campowners. Unlikely scenario for sure. I am one of the lucky few that honed his driving skills on Monomoy... never saw ANY out-of-town vehicles there, mainly because there was no reliable access for vehicles before construction of the d**e was allowed (purely for monetary reasons, by the way). It was beautiful. No birds got run over, no coyotes were shot, no gulls were poisoned. Nine miles of gleaming sand and surf. Enter the U S Gov't. Sayonara Monomoy. Was that a hostile land-grab? No one has ever explained to me how Chatham let that happen. I'm listening.
When and if Middle Beach re-connects to the mainland, I'd go for the same approach as for North Beach. I recall several decades when North Beach was lined with campers. Made a heck of a summertime radar target, but was totally ugly and took away from the desired privacy of beach-goers that arrived by other means. (feet, boats) We lost Monomoy forever, Orleans has tried to pave parts of their beach with "hardening" (talk about screwing up nature!), and Middle Beach is out of commission. And by the way, that little section of North Beach that was given to Chatham many years ago by George Bearse has its own skeletons. Around the time that the CCNS was trying to take over the backside, (late 1950's-early 1960's) ownership issues arose for those campowners that had pieces of paper with Mr. Bearse's name on them. The folks were deemed to be squatters, not deeded property owners. (Makes me wonder about the validity of George's gift) Therein lies the basis for what was to be an eventual systematic removal of undeeded camps in Chatham. The prevailing thought then was that for the most people to get enjoyment from the beaches there should be as small a population of camps and campers as possible. What happened? It all went astray when a few legal beagles snookered CCNS into allowing some of the undeeded camps to be saved, albeit "temporarily". So, still too many people with too many flexible rules.