NEWS . Philly Blunt

Boards of Contention

Why would Ocean City befoul nature?

Published: Jun 27, 2007

First came the scents of cotton candy and french fries which, blended with salt air, created the world's finest nasal cocktail. Nearby, in the ocean, aspiring surfers listened to their teachers' instructions before promptly flailing off their boards into the knee-high waves. (An entertaining sight.)

But it wasn't until a Skee-Ball spun out of my Mack and Manco slice-stained fingers and into the 4,000-point hole, that the major revelation materialized: Boardwalks may be the best damn things in the world. They're transcendent tourist attractions offering something good for everybody. Which explains why what's been going on in Ocean City these days is so troubling.

Namely, Ocean City Council's 4-3 decision on June 15 to replace the decking between Ninth and 10th streets with a tropical hardwood that many say is leading to the decimation of the Brazilian rainforest. (And shortening humanity's life expectancy.) Now, O.C. is the type of place where the clerk's office displays "Summertime Air Pollution and What You Can Do About It" and "Pet Waste Pollutes Our Waters" brochures. So why would a resort beholden to nature for every dime in its piggybank make what seems to be greed-fueled decision? Even Councilman Scott Ping can't explain.

WILD WOOD: Ocean City environmentalists say the owner of Wonderland Pier pushed for the ipe buy.

WILD WOOD: Ocean City environmentalists say the owner of Wonderland Pier pushed for the ipe buy.

Photo By: Brian Hickey

(CLICK IMAGE FOR LARGER VERSION)

"This was probably one of the easiest things we've ever had to vote on, a slam dunk," said Ping, one of the three who just said no to ipe (pronounced e-pay) wood. "One of the greatest things contributing to this [climate-change] problem is the deforestation of the rainforests; they're the lungs of the world. Why would we contribute to what we know is a problem to save a couple bucks on a couple decks on the boardwalk? It makes little sense to me."

It wouldn't have made much sense to me either except that I covered Ocean City for the Press of Atlantic City in April 1997 when I wrote an article headlined, "O.C. Environmental Group Wants Ban on Use of Rainforest Wood." Then, the city faced a similar decision since many of its yellow-pine boards were on the back end of their estimated 15-to-25-year life expectancy. A month later, they passed a resolution that let "this City Council go on record that it will no longer purchase tropical rainforest hardwood ... and recommends to future governing bodies that they investigate all the ramifications of [doing so] before changing the policy."

The issue lay dormant until this January when the new city fathers — just one of the seven councilmembers were there in 1997 — started to investigate those ramifications. They found that, with maintenance and other expenses, it costs $1 million less a block to use ipe. This, according to research done by George "I wasn't hired to be a weatherman, to follow a barometer" Savastano, the city's planning and engineering director who, a decade ago, was the biggest local ipe proponent. Today, local environmentalists like Georgina Shanley think Savastano was on a mission to push it through because he lost in '97.

Shanley, who still rails at Council meetings, ponders calling for boycotts and protests on the boardwalk, brings up big-time political contributor and Wonderland owner Roy Gillian who was quoted as saying, "It would be neat if the city could float a bond and just re-deck the whole boardwalk in certified tropical hardwood." Seems Gillian, who swore that he was "going to win this time," likes how rainforest wood feels when he rides his bike on it. Classy.

Having been led to a "certified hardwood" that some laud as a way to monitor deforestation practices — although nearly 100 international environmentalists signed a October 2006 letter citing a faulty process — Mayor Sal Perillo likened signing the $1.4 million ipe contract to "making an environmentally responsible decision." Sorry Sal, but it's actually a shortsighted call and a blown opportunity to take a much-needed stand.

City officials will close entire beaches down if they learn that endangered birds are hatching. And locals stop on highways to help endangered turtles get to the other side. How then, as the Rainforest Relief's Tim Keating told me on the boardwalk, can they sign off on a purchase that will result in the clearing out wide swaths of rainforest that are home to "thousands of species that haven't even been discovered yet."

They can't. Because what they're doing is the epitome of greedy hypocrisy.

Regardless, the purchase order has been signed, so the trees will soon come down for a winter trip to Jersey. Council President Jack Thomas says things aren't nearly over, though.

"The entire boardwalk will have to be replaced in the next 15 to 20 years. We'll be doing a block a year," predicted Thomas, who switched his vote at the last minute and went against ipe. "And every block will be a battle."

Wonder if the battle will end before the Walk becomes nothing more than an artificial reef that only snorkelers can enjoy.

(hickey@citypaper.net)

 

Comments

When it comes to trees, I'm pro-choice. I believe you have the right to decimate forestry and clear cut your property the way Democrat candidate John Edwards did to his North Carolina estate (the biggest in his county, which is odd for a Democrat who believes in wealth equality, hmmm).

With so many African American babies victimized by the evil of abortion, I just don't have time to worry about trees. Despite hundreds of years of constant development, only 5% of the U.S. landmass is inhabited by people. And even that trend is reversing. Loggers are intimidated and extorted by eco-terrorists to such an extent that they plant 10 trees for every 1 cut down. We have more oxygen than we could ever breath and it's only going to increase. On the other hand, anywhere from 18 to 30 million babies who were black have perished since the Supreme Court's profane act of judicial activism and legislation from the bench in the Roe v. Wade atrocity. Unlike trees, these African American babies will NOT be replaced! Maybe that's the reason why many white liberals love abortion in the first place.
by save african american babies first on June 30th 2007 8:49 AM

While I can understand the need to protect African American babies in a non-abortion context, the point here isn't uninhabited portions of the United States, but tracts of the Brazilian rainforest being cleared out to make a product that can easily be made out of other woods like black locust. I'm not quite sure if we have "more oxygen than we can ever breath, and it's only going to increase," though.
Sorry, just can't make this an abortion issue, aabf.
by hickey on July 2nd 2007 10:13 AM



Also In This Week's News Section

The Bell Curve
Director's Cut
by Doron Taussig

Philly on the Potomac:
Pork Bellies
by Paul Fain

Political Notebook:
Indie Incentives
by Mary F. Patel

 
 
ADVERTISEMENT