I have written a post about the optics of the ongoing differences among both the factions within the GOP and the conservative movement, but also the left and the Democrats.

In that post I discussed how the way we present our points of view, can and will affect how those points are received by those we seek and need to convert to our way of seeing things, or at least encourage them to listen to us and our views on how to solve the pressing issues of the day.

I may have written the wrong post first, however, I will now attempt to discuss what happens when we actually attempt to have a dialog.

On several of my recent post, it has been demonstrated what happens when people hear ideas that they see as being diametrically opposed to their own. Including the fore mentioned post titled, “Optics”.  People were so caught up in the issue that I used as an example, that they were unable, or unwilling to see the true message of the post. This was again demonstrated when I wrote a post about an issue that has always caused people on both sides of the issue to become both emotional and irrational.

The problem that we are having in the world today in solving the larger problems facing our society, is not a lack of good ideas and hard-working people to put them into motion, no, the problem is that far too many people are too busy talking, and unwilling to listen. In other words there is no real dialog.

The first step to solving any problem that involves a large number of people is coming to a conclusion on how best to serve the needs of the many. (No that was not a Star Trek reference.)

In too many cases people on either side of an issue are unwilling to first listen to the other side, before they condemn that other side to being wrong at best, and if not just wrong, they will accuse them of all sort of conspiratorial and personal motives for putting forth the views that they do. In the minds of some people there is never the possibility that there can actually be two different points of view, and that possibly both sides could be right, but coming from two different places to arrive at the same destination.

The reason some people cannot come to this conclusion is that they  have decided that by simply being  a member of a certain political party, or for holding a differing view on a separate issue, then these people cannot be trusted or believed on any issue or topic. And I have to admit that sometimes that is the case. There are ideologues. I am one myself to a certain extent. I believe the things I believe. I am convinced that I am correct in my beliefs. I hold true to my values and principles, and will not compromise them.

However, I have learned that there is a difference between compromising principles, and finding a compromise to solving a problem. The two our not inseparable.

This is what is currently holding back both the GOP and the conservative movement. There are far too many people on both sides of any debate, who are unwilling to find that compromise to a problem, because they see that as compromising their principles and values.

This is not a characteristic of the GOP only, there is a good deal of it within the liberal movement and the Democrat party. The difference being, that within the Democrat party, the more reasonable  faction has been beaten down to the point of silence by a more radicalized faction.  They have done this by labeling anyone who steps outside of the prescribed rhetoric and talking points as  being crazy, or racist, or homophobic, or any number of other things that will frighten the more reasonable members into silence. The discussion within their party has come to a near stand still, with a certain faction running the party through fear tactics. The more radicalized faction of the Democrat Party is now seen as the voice and the face of that party. It is felt that if you want to deal with the Democrat Party, then you must appease that faction that hold the more radical views on issues.  This makes it hard for the Republicans to make any compromise simply because any deal with any Democrat, on any issue will be seen as dealing with that element within the Democrat Party.

We in the Republican Party are going through the growing pains of the same type of movement. When the TEA movement came on the scene, it was seen as a grass-roots movement that  was able to motivate large numbers of people to become involved, and that is exactly what it did. The problem for the GOP is the same as for the Democrat Party. How to first deal with creating a dialog within your own party? So as to be able to have a dialog with the opposition.

The Republican Party is struggling right now to find its identity. Who it is, and what it will be.  The national GOP has announced that it will be seeking new ways to deliver the conservative message. The Delaware state GOP has echoed this message. The problem, both the national, and state party leadership will face is that many of the rank and file voters and the activist among them, will not understand the need, and will equate this with compromising on principles.  The more reasonable Republicans will see the need, the more radicalized will scream that the party is moving left.

As I said, the Republican Party has the same problem that the Democrats have, in the GOP, the TEA movement and its splinter groups here in Delaware such as the 9/12 Delaware Patriots, have taken to shouting down any view-point that is not lockstep with their own. They have done such a great job at being the loudest voice, if not the most informed voice, that they have become the voice and the face of the Republican Party here in Delaware, and are painted as such across the nation. Again, the more radicalized element of a party seems to be the true voice of the party, so the opposition cannot or will not be seen as compromising with that element, for fear of losing the base and majority of the reasonable members of their own party. So I ask the question once again, how does the GOP first find a way to bring the differing factions within the party together and have a dialog, so that we can then have a reasonable dialog with the opposition.

With marquee members of the GOP, like Rand Paul and Sarah Palin even recognizing that the party must change its tactics and its delivery style of messaging, will the rank and file members see and understand the need?

Let us look first at the idea of changing the hardline stance on immigration by the GOP.  In the past any compromise has been seen as amnesty. It is a pretty good bet that now that the party leadership of the GOP is calling for some new form of reform, that a large number of rank and file members will label this as amnesty.  This will happen with little or no understanding of what the reform will actually look like, it will happen long before any real roadmap is drawn up. It will happen without any attempt at a dialog.

We in this nation are deteriorating into smaller and smaller sub factions of ideology, unwilling to honestly debate ideas, let alone work to find compromise. The very word compromise has taken on a negative meaning to some. To speak of compromise is to open yourself up to ridicule and accusations of being a sellout.  The real problem for the parties, is that as they segregate themselves into these small sub factions, they lose their ability to win elections, then they lose the ability to govern, for if you cannot win, you cannot govern. The they lose the ability to lead, for if you cannot win, you cannot govern, and you cannot lead. And if you cannot lead, you are doomed to follow.

Currently in Delaware, the Democrats are in control of the government for the most part. This has been possible, both because they have bullied their members into submission, and because the Delaware GOP has been lazy and weak. It has allowed a sub faction to work at its overthrow. I have to admit that I played my part in this, though I did not see the end results of my efforts, and I honestly never intended to push anyone else out of the party. But that is where we are, we are weak because certain factions within the party refuse to have even a dialog with the rest of the party, they seek to shut the other factions out completely. This is true on both, or multiple side of any issue.  There are more moderate members that will not recognize the need to hear and listen to the social conservatives, there are the constitutional conservatives that will listen to no one on any issue that does not agree with them on their hot button issues. There are social liberals within the GOP that label the more conservative in the party as crazy and will not seek compromise.

The bottom line is, until we learn to stop shouting at each other within the party, and work together, we are doomed to never win, never govern, never lead. We will be doomed to simply follow.

Well, with the news of the court decision that stated that Delaware sheriffs do not have law enforcement powers, it would seem as if the pressure and frustration may be building for Sussex County Sheriff, Jeff Christopher.

With the announcement of the loss in Delaware’s  Superior Court coming just yesterday, this morning, Sheriff Christopher was on the Dan Gaffney show on Delaware 105.9 to give his opinion of the court’s ruling.

Not surprising, the Sheriff seemed a little on edge, even though when asked what he felt about the decision, he said that it was what, “we had predicted”. Is that the royal “we” I wonder?

This “interview”, and I use the word loosely, since at one point I thought that Dan had left the room to go to the bathroom, since the Sheriff was allowed to talk uninterrupted for at least five minutes it seems, but anyway, this interview only got stranger as it went on.

Of course we got a good dose of the sheriff attacking this court, and the court system in general, which is what many expected in the case of a loss for the sheriff.  We of course got another round of the talking points that the sheriff can now recite forward and backwards.

We heard once again about how all around the nation, sheriffs have the power to arrest, except here in Delaware. As an aside, Dan Gaffney at one point in his show, read a quote from Ken Currie, Mr. Currie is a 9/12 Patriot and a GOP R D committee chairperson, in the quote Mr. Currie stated his displeasure in the fact that Delaware was so out of step with the rest of the states across the nation. I find this to be an odd statement from a member of a group that is so strongly in favor of decentralized government, yet in this case he would seem to want to follow the herd and do as the other states would do. I wonder if he would feel the same about gun control and gay marriage?

But back to the sheriff. The discussion took on a bizarre tone at the 5:15 mark in the interview. This is when the sheriff out of the blue mentioned my name when talking about Sen. Chris Coons. It was at this point he also referenced “gas chambers”.  But this wasn’t the end, at the 7:11 point he again used my name completely out of the blue, stating that I should hope that I was never charged with murder in Delaware. It would seem as if I am living rent free in the sheriff’s head.  For full disclosure, I had called into Dan’s show on the topic prior to the sheriff coming on. I guess he heard my opinion of the case, and had me on the brain.

I have to wonder if at the 9:22 mark, if he was again addressing me when he said, with derision, “because they live in America, they can open their mouth and voice their opinion of which, basically they form by someone else’s opinion instead of looking into the situation themselves they borrow someone else’s opinion”.  Let me assure the sheriff and all who read this, I form my own opinions, and since I do live in America, I do have the right to open my mouth and voice it. When you listen to this part, tell me? Does it seem as if the sheriff wishes it weren’t the case?

It was at the 12:35 mark that the sheriff said that he would keep fighting, and if he couldn’t win, he would, “take his family and move out of this God forsaken place”.  Well sheriff, some of us don’t believe this is a God forsaken place.

Speaking of God, the sheriff felt the need to mention his Christianity, and or Christ six times. Now I too am a Christian, and I am very willing to witness my savior, but we have seen this type of talk before from public figures and how it ends. Surely the sheriff does not believe that being a Christian is the sole qualification for being an elected official? One should be concerned when elected officials take such pains to point out their faith.

One last thing that jumped out to me in this, was when Dan asked how Sheriff Christopher was funding his law suit. The sheriff spoke of keeping the people informed and when they knew the facts, as he sees them, then people would want to open their pockets and help. The he spoke of how people can call him at the sheriff’s office to talk about how they can help, and that his cell phone is constantly ringing.  Surely the sheriff is not raising legal funds while he is supposed to be doing the people’s business? I must have misunderstood. Surely this would not be happening on the county’s phones and while he was in the county offices? I must have misunderstood.

But here is a link to Delaware 105.9 and the pod cast of the entire “interview”. You make you own decision on how the sheriff came across during the segment.

Sussex Sheriff Christopher Reacts Strongly to Superior Court Ruling Against Him

The following is a link to the decision handed down today in regards to the law suit of  Sussex County Sheriff, Jeff Christopher.  You can read the entire thing, or simply jump to the bottom where the judge says,     “This Court declares and holds that a sheriff in Delaware shall not be involved in law enforcement and shall not act in any capacity as a police officer or peace officer. This decision moots the Sheriff’s complaints that the County has not properly funded his office and attempts to meddle in his business. IT IS SO ORDERED.”     After all the rest is merely a rehash of the argument that the sheriff has been making all along.  I wouldn’t be me, if I didn’t point out that this decision is directly in line with the argument I have made all along against the sheriff’s view of the issue. Of course this may not be the end of the issue, Sheriff Christopher is well within his rights to take this to a higher court if he so wishes. Personally I think it would be a waste of time and tax payer dollars to do so just to receive the same judgment, but that is a decision that the Sheriff will have to make. Will he put the well being of the people ahead of his own wishes? We will have to wait and see.

http://delaware1059.com/story.php?id=2207

Currently there is legislation making its way through the Delaware Legislature, Senate Bill 19, that would repeal the death sentence in the state of Delaware.

Of  course this bill has drawn a great amount of attention, both from the public and the media.  There are, of course, arguments on both sides of this hotly debated issue.  And emotions run high.

In most cases involving justice, we would expect that one would want to keep emotions as far away from the decisions as possible. However, it is not realistic to say,  in the case of the death penalty, that this is possible.

When we talk of the verdicts in these cases, we should expect that the decisions are made by people who are not emotionally involved in the cases, this is why, it is said that justice is blind. The jury is vetted by both the prosecution, and the defense, in order to ensure that the jury is as impartial as  possible.  Judges are selected based on their ability to be as impartial as possible as well. All of this, in the hope, that the defendant will receive the fairest trail possible.

But in the case of whether or not the death penalty should be an option for punishing certain crimes, well in that case we are talking about the view point of the society, and with that, comes all of the benefits and flaws that live within us all.

Now of course there are those who feel that the death penalty is inhumane, that it is actually more humane to lock a person in a cell that is the size of a small outdoor shed for twenty two, to twenty three hours a day, than it is to end their life for the crime they committed.

You may have already guessed that I am not one of those people. In truth, for some of the crimes that result in a death sentence, to end the life of the criminal only once, may be too lenient.

Those who oppose the death penalty will also tell us that  the death penalty is not a deterrent to future crimes, and I would agree with that. Personally I don’t believe that any punishment is ever a deterrent to any crime, not for those who will actually commit  the crimes.  For example, we have laws that punish people for stealing, yet we still have people who steal, not once, but multiple times. Even after serving time for these crimes, we have repeat offenders. We have laws against rape, against child molestation, and again these people repeat their crimes many times over.

Even as we toughen our laws, our crime rates go up. So, do I believe that the death penalty will deter anyone from killing or raping? No.

However, the death penalty is a solution. It solves the problem that society has with a proven killer. If a person is convicted of a crime that results in the death penalty, and has exhausted the appeals process, and the sentence is carried out, then society will never have to fear that this person will ever kill again. Now as I said, this will not deter another person from committing a murder or other crimes that carry the death penalty, but it does solve one problem.

Right here in America, on a daily basis I would imagine, we put down rabid animals, and mad dogs, that have attacked people, children, and even other animals. We do it humanely, and we do it because we recognize that once an animal has experienced this act, that the likelihood of them doing it again is high.  Is it really so different when a person has experienced the act of killing? We know that a large number of people who kill, will kill again if not stopped. Is it so outrageous to treat these people who act like mad dogs, like mad dogs? To put them down, humanely, so as to protect the rest of society from them?

Now of course, again those who oppose the death penalty will tell us that locking them away for life will protect society. But will it?

First off, they will still be a danger to those they come into contact with while in prison. Other inmates that are in for lesser crimes, and let us not forget how many death row inmates end up killing or injuring prison guards. So to say that life in prison, without parole, will protect society, is false in my view. It may protect those who would leave them there to rot and never think of them again, but many are still at risk from these desperate people.

A larger concern with the repealing of the death sentence, is that along with it comes the commuting of sentences that have already been handed down. SB 19 would not only repeal the death penalty in the state of Delaware, but would also commute those of the seventeen people currently on death row. That would mean that the state legislature would take upon itself, the power to overturn the decision of a duly appointed jury. In my opinion this violates the separation of powers between the courts and the legislative branches.

Along with this fear of the overreach of the legislative branch, comes the fear of future overreach based on this precedent.  If the legislative branch can overturn the decision of the jury from a death sentence to life without parole, what is to stop a future legislature from changing life without parole, to allowing some of these criminals to be paroled?  After all, there are some who already feel that life without parole is also inhumane. If that where to happen, the false sense of security that life in prison affords us on the outside, would evaporate.

Some have made the argument that keeping a prisoner in prison for life is actually less expensive than putting them to death. That seems unlikely to me, but I am little concerned with the cost either way. This is an issue that I feel goes beyond our usual fiscal concerns. So I will neither argue one way or the other based on cost.

I will now make my argument for keeping the death penalty in the state of Delaware. Not based on my emotions, since I have been blessed to have never lost a loved one, or a close friend to a capital crime. Not based on economics, because as I just said, I feel this goes beyond those concerns.

No, I will attempt to make my case based on my view of justice. I know that some will not share this view, others  will  feel that I do not go far enough in my defense of the death penalty, and say that I am weak for not appealing to the most base emotions of the human animal, hatred!

Let me start by reminding people of the image of Lady Justice. We have all seen some representation of her. A slender, blindfolded woman holding a set of balance scales.

I have described earlier the meaning of the blindfold, it represents that justice sees no color, no race, no creed, no gender, no class. That justice is based on the facts of the case and the moral decisions of the society. At least that is the intended act of justice.

The balance scales,  in my view, are what is important in this discussion of whether to keep or repeal the death penalty.  The scales represent on the one side, the crime, and on the other side the punishment. So we are shown that for justice to truly be just, the punishment must be equal to the crime. I am not talking about scripture here, because not all within our society share the Judeo-Christian values of many who support the death penalty. I am talking about a punishment that is equal to the crime committed.  I feel that based upon this idea of a balanced justice, that the death penalty falls squarely within the Eighth Amendment where it says; “Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.”.  For if the punishment is equal to the crime as decided by society, then how can it be deemed cruel or unusual?

Let us look at some of the seventeen men on death row in Delaware, currently there are no women awaiting execution in Delaware.

Of the seventeen, all have been convicted of murder in the first degree.  Ten are African-American, the other seven are listed as white, though three of those would appear to be of Hispanic heritage. I know that some who are in favor of repealing the death penalty also argue that their is a disproportionate number of minorities on death row, personally I believe that we should ask ourselves why a disproportionate number of minorities are committing capital crimes.

Of the seventeen, four were convicted on two counts of murder in the first degree.

First we have Luis G. Cabrera, 44 years old,

Facts of the Crime:

On January 21, 1996, a pedestrian discovered the bodies of Brandon Saunders and Vaughn Rowe in a wooded area of Rockford Park. The victims appeared to have been killed and then dragged to the location in the woods, where they were covered in a maroon bed sheet. Both victims had been shot in the back of the head. Rowe had also been beaten.

Cabrera was sentenced to death on March 14, 2002.

Two people shot execution style, one beaten and then the bodies are hidden, showing that he knew right from wrong.

Next, James E. Cooke Jr., 43 years old,

Summary of Offense:

On May 1, 2005, James E. Cooke, Jr., 34, broke into the apartment of University of Delaware student, Lindsey Bonistall, 20; he proceeded to rape and strangle her to death, then he put her body in the bathtub. In an attempt to throw off the police detectives, Cooke scrawled white-supremacist graffiti on the walls of Lindsey’s apartment before setting it on fire in an attempt to cover up the crime. Cooke used a blue magic-marker to write “KKK” in several places near the front door of Lindsey Bonistall’s Towne Court apartment.

Raped and strangled an innocent girl in her dorm room and then attempted to mislead investigators, again showing knowledge of right and wrong.

Michael R. Manley, 39 years old,

Murder for hire, shot and killed one witness in a trial and was ready to kill another. Was sentenced 2/03/2006. The victim was shot five times in the back.

Adam W. Norcross, 43 years old,

Facts of the Crime:

On November 4, 1996, Norcross and co-defendant Ralph E. Swan broke into the home of and shot to death Kenton resident Kenneth Warren.

Norcross was sentenced to death on October 3, 2001.

Home invasion has to be one of the most frightening crimes imaginable, and then to kill the person as well.

Norcross” co-defendant Ralph E. Swan, 42 years old,

Sentenced to death 10/03/2001

I have no intention of going through the entire seventeen, but as you can see, the men on death row are there due to acts of great violence and a total lack of respect for human life.

My final example however holds a great deal of emotion for those of us in  Sussex County,  Derrick J. Powell, 26 years old,
 On Sept. 1, 2009,  Georgetown Patrolman Chad Spicer is shot and killed during a traffic stop in town. Spicer’s partner, Shawn Brittingham, is hit in the neck by a bullet fragment. Authorities later say driver Christopher Reeves jumped out and ran, and passenger Derrick Powell fired a single shot from the back seat of the car, striking Spicer in the face.

Officer Spicer left behind his parents and a young daughter who will now grow up without her father, all because Mr. Powell had no regard for human life and was willing to kill anyone who got in his way.

I call on our Delaware legislators to think long and hard on this issue of repealing the death penalty. To consider two important points.

First of all, to retro-actively overturn the sentences handed down by duly appointed courts and juries is an infringement upon our judicial system by the legislative branch and sets a serious precedent.

Secondly, I would encourage the law-makers to think about that set of balance scales that Lady Justice holds, about how in our system of justice the punishment must weigh even with the crime, this does not mean merely that the punishment must not be too harsh, or cruel, but that the punishment must not be too lenient. For if it is too lenient, then where is the justice for the victims and their families left behind.

Some will say that to take a life as justice for taking a life is barbarous. That life in prison without parole will protect society. But is that a balanced justice?  Can the families of the victims of these men come and visit the victims once a week? Can the victims read a book, exercise, eat, drink? Can they watch a movie?

I will close by once again pointing out that the death penalty is not a deterrent, but it is a solution.  We have a duty to protect ourselves from the mad dogs of the world, and we owe a balanced justice to the victims of these violent and senseless act.

This is the continuing saga of the Fisker Automotive Company’s attempt to grow its American line of electric plug-in cars. It seems to some, myself included, that it may never happen, or at least not on the scale that we have been led to believe is possible.

This story is especially important to  Delaware tax payers, since our Governor, Jack Markell has managed to get the tax payers on the hook for subsidizing Fisker’s promise of building cars here in the First State. Though up till now, not a single car has been produced in Delaware, and it doesn’t seem likely that any ever will be. Even though the state has spent millions, and promised millions more, somewhere in the neighborhood of $21 Million in all, along with the federal government promising even more as well.

It was announced today that the co-founder and executive chairman of Fisker Automotive, Henrik Fisker, will be leaving the company, due to what was described as  “several major disagreements” about business decisions.

This comes on the heels of another ground shaking announcement in February that the Zhejiang Geely Holding Group of China had made a bid of $200 million to $300 million to acquire a majority stake in Fisker Automotive.  This is the same group that bought Volvo for $18 Billion.

This post is titled Pt. 2 because I wrote an article of the same title not so long ago, describing how the Fisker deal with the federal government and the state of Delaware came into being, it also described the venture capital company that was in charge of raising capital for the venture. The article described how these venture capital companies often set up the deal to look attractive to private investors, by having other companies invest first, and also government funding makes the deal look as if it comes with some sort of guarantee.

Often these deals are little more than a pyramid scheme, where the first investors are the first to be paid off and the last investors, or the last sucker in, get stuck holding an empty bag. And in the case of the government funding, well the tax payers pay the money and no one gets paid if the venture goes broke. And in this case the venture capital company was one named, Advanced Equities, and they had an amazing track record for failure, even though our governor and his administration failed to notice this.

Wait! Instead of me going over this all over again, just go and read the original post, here is a link and I will wait right here until you get back. http://www.delawareright.com/markells-fisker-folly-fraud-or-failure/

Okay! That didn’t take very long, you must be a fast reader.

So now that you know how the pay off goes in these types of deals, and since it looks like the end is near for any chance of Fisker ever building cars in Delaware, it would look to me as if Mr. Fisker is bailing while he can, and taking his golden parachute and leaving.

I am sure we will be hearing more of this as the days pass, we will hear that the plant at Boxwood Road near Wilmington  will never see a single Fisker roll off the line, and that the millions spent to entice the company to come to Delaware is just so much wasted money.

The tax payers of Delaware were just another sucker sold a bill of goods, and Jack Markell was the salesman.  Thanks Governor.

This post is a call to action for Delaware legislators  in general, and Sussex County legislators specifically.  This is to address the ongoing problem at the Indian River Inlet Bridge.

I find it hard to believe that anyone living in Delaware doesn’t know the recent history of the bridge that now crosses the Indian River Inlet. The current bridge is actually the fifth bridge to span the inlet. The first three were built in 1934, 1938 and 1952, the fourth bridge was built in 1965 which was replaced by the current bridge when it was opened in January of 2012.

The original plan to replace the previous bridge was to have been an arch bridge, that would have been the longest in the world.  However that plan, due to poor planning and management was projected to go over the original budget off $200 million, by $50 million. This was before any real construction had begun. The arch bridge never got any further than the approach ramps on either side of the inlet, and then only to the point of  piling up massive amounts of rocks and dirt. It was at this point that the pile of dirt known as the south side approach ramp began to settle unevenly and it was determined that the foundation was completely unstable and would not support the weight needed to finish the bridge.

This was in 2004, when  it was decided to completely abandon the arch design, meaning that all of the prep work up until this point was completely wasted. It has been estimated that the cost of this wasted work was somewhere around $20 million. The citizens still have never gotten a satisfactory answer as to who dropped the ball on this complete failure of planning and design, and the tax payers are the ones to pay the bill.

In 2008 the current bridge was put out for bid for a design- build project and was awarded to Skanska, a multi national construction and development company based in Sweden. Construction began in 2008 with a final cost of $150 million.

So that brings us up to date on the history of the bridges over the Indian River Inlet, but it really has little to do with this post, other than to point out that, with the start and stop of the 2004 bridge that never was, of $20 million, and the final bridge at a cost of $150 million, for a total of $170 million, that we the tax payers of Delaware have paid quite the cost to keep the north/ south passage of Rt. 1 open, and yet?

And yet, we still have failed to maintain that passage. Rt. 1 is an official evacuation route for natural disasters and any other reason that large numbers of people must be moved north or south. Not to mention jus the day-to-day traffic that travels that route.

The reason that this vital evacuation route is so unreliable is because, even though we have spent $170 millions dollars on the bridge, we have wasted unknown amounts of  tax dollars on replacing the sand dunes on the north side of the bridge,  that continue to washout every time we experience a storm of any significance.

We have wasted state tax dollars, federal tax dollars, most likely county tax dollars, all in an attempt to replace and maintain the dunes that separate the Atlantic Ocean from Rt. 1. And what have we gotten for this unending expenditure of tax dollars? Not much!

I believe that it is time that we recognize that the current strategy of the never-ending cycle of  the ocean breaching the dunes, then we replace the dunes, then the ocean again breaches the dunes, and we again replace the dunes. I believe it is time to build something more substantial, we need to build a sea wall in this area of the dunes that continues to washout.

There are most likely several ways to do this, first of all we could have used the steel and concrete that was removed from the old bridge to build up the dunes, then we could have covered that with sand and beach grass. This was actually suggested and was ignored, and the steel and concrete have been removed, to be recycled. One might ask, wouldn’t using the material for the dunes, also have been a form of recycling?

But honestly, in my opinion this would have been only a slightly better way to re-enforce the dunes and to protect Rt. 1. I don’t really think it would have lasted much longer than plain sand. I am no engineer, but most likely the sand would have washed away from the building material, only to once again need to be replaced, again costing tax payers more tax dollars.

In my opinion we need a more permanent solution. I envision something along the lines of a sea wall constructed along the fairly short distance of dunes that continually washout. This is not hard to figure out since it is the same short section of the dunes that washout every time we have a storm of any significance.

Again, I am not an engineer, but I would think we could start by driving long steel re-enforced concrete pylons as a foundation and an anchoring system. Much like the pylons that were used at the new Rudder Town project. On top of this we could then build a concrete wall high enough to protect the dunes on the side between the wall and Rt. 1, and to keep the ocean from completely breeching.

Of course there would be a cost to doing this, but it would be a one time cost as opposed to the on going cost of constantly replacing the dunes as we do now.

It makes no sense to continue to throw good money after bad. It makes no sense to spend $150 million +,  to build a show piece bridge that becomes useless every time there is a storm.

Which brings me to the title of this post. Every time the ocean breaches the dunes, the spokesman for Del DOT, Jim Westoff,  makes the announcement that Rt.1  is closed due to the fact that the ocean has once again broken through the dunes, but “the bridge is fine”. So we replaced a failing bridge so that we could maintain the vitally important evacuation route, only to have the route shut down, due to the fact that we chose to protect it with what one might see as being more nature friendly options, rather than doing what is needed to actually protect it.

As we discuss the budget once again, one can only imagine what pet projects will receive funding, such as needle programs. One need not wonder whether there will once again be funding for beach replenishment, surely there will be. Of course we will again seek federal funding for beach replenishment. So I call on our elected officials to actually take action that would, in the end save the tax payers money. I call on them to seek a solution to this ongoing problem, so that when Jim Westoff come on the air to tell us that the “bridge is fine”, that he can also tell us that the dunes are intact and Rt. 1 is open.