Galveston city officials are confident in the safety of the island’s buildings, despite the city’s lack of mandatory structural inspections.

Emma Collins: 409-683-5230; or on Twitter @_mccain_emma_.


Recommended for you

(6) comments

Susan Fennewald

Tax dollars should not go to protecting this and other buildings which were built too close to the water. In the "old" days, this building would be deemed to be on the beach and need to be removed.

We cannot stop erosion (though having dunes would certainly slow it down). An endless amount of public money could be dumped into the water protecting buildings that were built too close to the beach. We should NOT have public funding of private beach.

Peggy Rapp

Susan- your thinking is backwards. When Riviera I, Riviera II and West Beach Grand were built in the early 1990's, there was a huge beach - so much beach that each of the buildings had pools and spas on the beach side of the buildings. The buildings were built back as far as possible and still allow for parking.

The owners are not expecting tax dollars to protect their buildings. They are expecting tax dollars to maintain and protect the beach for all of the citizens of Texas. If the State had performed as they were required to do, the buildings would not be experiencing erosion. The building owners have spent hundreds of thousands of dollars protecting their buildings and they are most thankful that the City and their forward-thinking Councilperson, Marie Robb, have stepped up to help the HOAs work through the regulations required. In addition, your comment about the "old" days and the state taking the buildings makes me believe that you do not care about the owners in the building or the large amount of tax dollars that are collected each year. As a former city council person yourself, I would think that you can see the broader picture.

Please do not continue to make untrue statements that the owners are expecting tax dollars to pay to protect their buildings - again, it is the other way around, they are expecting tax dollars to pay to maintain and protect the beaches !!

Susan Fennewald

The concrete of the Riviera looks good in the picture. As a non-expert, I'd say it looks nothing like the crumbling concrete shown in pictures of the Florida condo concrete before the collapse, but I'm glad they're keeping an eye on it.

Ted Gillis

I remember in the mid 60's a whole row of beaches house stood out in the water, near Crystal Beach. One by one they eventually came down, either by nature's elements or neglect. Also several of the buried concrete cisterns from these structures were visible at low tide years later. Yes Susan in the old days that's exactly what happened.

As a side note, most users of Galveston's Babe's Beach today, think it is named for some type of bathing beauty, not for a former statesman who championed for access to public beaches for all, not just the privileged few.

Bill Broussard

Peggy. “ The owners are not expecting tax dollars to protect their buildings. They are expecting tax dollars to maintain and protect the beach for all of the citizens of Texas. ”

Fair enough and a sentence I can support. Just have the owners enroll the west end homeowner organizations to provide a disclosure to the state that those simple, unproductive but privately owned empty lots that constitute what used to be homes are subject to a rolling easement like the state claims and everybody can jump in the bandwagon of preserving the beach. If you recall, state massive renourishment was called off after Ike cause homeowners claimed the vacated plots were still owned hence old atom destruction of water front homes were now essentially a privately owned beach. I think a signed release is in order before we spend much money. With a release, I’m 100% behind you

By the way, if you want proof that HOA’s think the remaining beach is private, all you have to do is look at the past behavior of your lauded councilwoman to see that 8-10 years ago when last in council she tried to pass a bill in Austin that said-in preparation for the Ike dike, the State agrees to king term leases with payment to the owners for use of their private beach to construct the barrier. You don’t lease land from the public, Peggy. Get the release and everybody wins and we all go back to the good old days where the state helped us out

Bill Broussard

Btw Peggy it’s the question of who actually owns the beach that has the Poretto and Maceo families insist no sand renourishing should touch their beaches cause they do not want the state to claim ownership of their private beaches at some point. The arguments for and against come from both north and south directions

Welcome to the discussion.

Real Names required. No pseudonyms or partial names allowed. Stand behind what you post.
Keep it Clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd, racist or sexually-oriented language.
Don't Threaten. Threats of harming another person will not be tolerated.
Be Truthful. Don't knowingly lie about anyone or anything.
Be Nice. No racism, sexism or any sort of -ism that is degrading to another person.
Be Proactive. Use the 'Report' link on each comment to let us know of abusive posts.

Thank you for reading!

Please log in, or sign up for a new account and purchase a subscription to read or post comments.