Buyouts erode city’s credibility

The city of Galveston and people who influence its polices on West End issues have developed a credibility problem.

They’ve done so by putting special interests above the public’s interest and, more glaringly, above simple, honest logical consistency.

When the city began contemplating buying beach houses with federal Hazard Mitigation Program dollars, proponents made three arguments.

• The houses were substantially damaged.

• The public would own and could use the land once the substantially damaged houses were gone.

• The houses should be bought because they were on, or very near to and one day would be on, the public beach.

None of the arguments was true.

Many of the houses were not substantially damaged. Some owners bragged about how little damage their property sustained. Speculators are willing to risk the cost of moving some houses on the prospect they can sold at a profit.

The public will not really own the land, not all of it any way, because the city has agreed to surrender the public’s right to appease the Pirates’ Beach homeowners association. The land there can only be used for open space.

The worst example of policy based on convenient, shifting rationale was the third argument, however.

When the city applied for the $20 million thus far dedicated to the buyout program, more than 100 houses were on the public beach. Then the Texas General Land Office moved seaward the line separating private land from public beach. Far fewer houses were on the beach, but advocates argued all the buyouts should go forward because the houses still were near the public beach. The foundation of that argument was that the beach would erode, moving nearer to the houses. All it would take is time, or one good storm, to put the houses on the public beach.

They argued also the property owners deserved a public bailout because the city might not be able to provide them with roads, sewer and water lines if erosion moved the public beach too close.

Now the question has changed, and the city and influential West Enders are predicting the beaches will go in the opposite direction.

The new question is how close to the water should developers be allowed to build.

Council members Elizabeth Beeton and Susan Fennewald argue the line should be relatively farther from the water, because the beaches will erode.

But the city staff, others on the council and the West Enders who supported the buyouts are now arguing that we should count on the beaches not eroding.

They claim that reconstruction projects will keep erosion at bay for the short term, and technology surely will intervene in the long term.

They argue the city can afford to invest in roads, sewer and water lines very near the public beach.

Maybe technology will achieve in the next couple of years what has eluded a fix for past 10 years, or decades, but one thing is certain:

You cannot form public policy around contradictory predictions about the future, just by picking the one most convenient to the narrow issue at hand and keep any credibility.