Can't find what you are looking for? Use the navigation menu at the top of each page of this site, or go to the site index page.

Return to Conservation Committee page

 

 

Hon. Jeff Collier, Mayor

City of Dauphin Island

Dauphin Island, Alabama 36528

Dear Mayor Collier:

We are concerned about the severe adverse effects from the proposals to build high-rise condominiums on the beachfront at Dauphin Island and, while this may result in gain for a certain few developers, it appears they will have many adverse effects on the public in general and on the natural assets of the Island. Our experience is that the height of condominiums, to correct the adverse affects listed below, should be limited to three or four stories in height, which would be the equivalent of tree height or one story more. And, it should be noted that most of the buildings on the beachfront before the hurricanes were limited to two stories in height. High-rises would have the following adverse affects:

1. Adverse Effects on Attractions of Island and Other Property Values -- Gulf Shores has, in effect, "ruined" its beachfront in most places by the erection of high-rise condominiums. In the process, it has destroyed endangered seaoats and much wildlife habitat, all of which are attractions for which people come to the Gulf. We would hate to see Dauphin Island do the same thing. Thus, we urge you and the rest of the council to take action to avoid it. Having high-rise condominiums obviously affects adversely the surrounding property. Those whose lands must face the Gulf from behind them clearly will have lost much value. Adjacent properties that have such high-rises overbearing on their sides would suffer likewise, and we believe this would be reflected in property values of all the surrounding areas.

Some of the vacant property toward the West End is in public hands and is used as the small amount of public beach that the City has for its use and others in Mobile County. However, when it is next door to a high-rise condominium, it is not as attractive -- and that means there has been a loss of value to the general public!

The few owners might contend any regulations would interfere with their property rights. But, their high-rises would interfere with the property rights of others and the public. In addition, it should be noted that the values of their properties are due in no small part to expenditures made by the public for road access, beach nourishment, waste disposal, water supply and many others. Thus, they inherently have obligations, in equity and of stewardship, to preserve the public assets of the Island.

Dauphin Island has remained over the years a scenic barrier island, and that has been its No. l attraction. To allow a certain few developers to destroy that attraction would not be cost-effective and would, in addition, be very unfair to the many other residents and also the many tourists who visit the Island.

2. Adverse Effects on Migratory Birds -- One of the big attractions of Dauphin Island is its refuge for neotropical migratory land birds that migrate to and from the Island across the Gulf of Mexico. Many of these species are now of special concern because of their decreasing numbers -- some have lost 50% of their population over the last thirty years. The Audubon Sanctuary at the east end is not the only place for landfall of these migratory birds -- many after a rough passage will try to land anywhere! However, it is known that high-rises are a hazard to migratory birds. They act much like light houses. There are instances, in other coastal locations, where some species have even been killed when arriving on the beachfront at a height of several stories.

The plight of these birds is sufficiently well-known that a consortium of government agencies and non-government organizations, led by the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the U. S. Forest Service, is actively pursuing means to protect the habitat of these species not only where they nest and winter but also where they migrate. Consequently, Dauphin Island needs to cooperate with the efforts of all those agencies and organizations.

You also know the studies that show how much business birds bring to a barrier island like Dauphin Island. It has been estimated that visitors spend around $7 million annually on Dauphin Island to witness these bird migrations. The visitors come from many states and a great many come from out-of-state, thus showing that Dauphin Island is a prime attraction. Therefore, you would not wish to impair the attractions that draw these numbers of visitors and this amount of money, which goes to all the different kinds of businesses on the Island. That would not be cost-effective and would prefer a few people over the many businessmen who net revenues from the Island’s attractions.

3. Need to Comply with Existing State Law Protecting Wildlife -- The State has established a so-called Coastal Construction Control Line that extends along the Baldwin and Mobile County coastlines, including Dauphin Island. Under cases interpreting that provision, it has been held that when a parcel intersects the line, it is required that development on all parts of the property comply with the Coastal Area Management Program (CAMP) regulations, and those regulations include the requirement that "uses of the subject property will be undertaken so as to preserve existing wildlife and wildlife habitats to the maximum extent practicable." (Emphasis supplied.) This is under the decision of the Alabama courts in Bates Motel v. ADEM, reported in 596 Southern Reporter, 2nd Series, at page 924 and decided this decade, which involved coastal property near the City of Gulf Shores. It would seem obvious, therefore, that, without some reduction in the number of persons occupying a parcel (which is increased by high-rises) and particularly the number accessing and using the adjacent beach habitat, the necessary permission should not be granted to construct such high-rises. And, of course, the greater the height, the greater the impact on the wildlife habitat (including the seaoats) of that same area.

4. Adverse Impact on Public Treasury and Other Insurance Resources -- To the extent developers of high-rises on the Gulf of Mexico can obtain taxpayer-subsidized flood insurance, the adverse impact on public insurance resources and -- ultimately the federal treasury -- would be increased by the number of dwelling units contained on a parcel. It is well-known that there have been great damages from wave and wind action on Dauphin Island, particularly as one moves toward the West End. Consequently, increasing the number of dwellings through increasing the height -- or increasing the coverage of the property -- will ultimately adversely affect the public taxpayers. To the extent insurance is provided by private companies, there would be similar adverse effects on its public stockholders (although that is not as serious from the public standpoint because they elected to become stockholders, whereas the general taxpayers did not elect to subsidize beachfront developments).

We believe that the foregoing reasons -- and there may well be others -- are ample grounds for taking all necessary action to restrict construction that is too dense, and especially high-rise condominiums exceeding three or four stories in height, on the open beaches of Dauphin Island. Because of the effects on the overall attractiveness of the Island, the wildlife habitat and the public treasury, such actions would appear to be in the best interests of the public taxpayers.

For those same reasons, that recommendation is also concurred in by the Alabama Audubon Council, Alabama Ornithological Society and Alabama Environmental Council, which have an aggregate membership of over 10,000 persons living in Alabama and surrounding states and each of which organizations is very concerned with protection of our coastal resources, and especially the natural assets of Dauphin Island. In addition, we believe the Friends of the Dauphin Island Audubon Sanctuary would have similar views. We, therefore, sincerely urge you, the other members of the council and other officials of Dauphin Island to do what you can to prevent these adverse effects to the Island, its tourist attractions and its natural resources. Please make these comments available to the boards and others that have responsibilities over this matter.

Sincerely yours,

Robert R. Reid, Jr.,

for the above three organizations

RRR/lah