Samsara?

[Rob]

Ed,

If you are truly interested, please educate yourself on how a beach eco-system works, that is beyond the scope of the focus of Negril.com. There are many great places to find out about it on the internet, please google it.

But to put it simply, this has to do with nature and how a seashore is in a constant state of change. It never stays the same from day to day, year to year. During rough seas, entire areas of sand on a beach can be essentially pulled out to sea only to be brought back within the days and weeks afterwards. The beach sand is not lost never to return. All the sand is still there, and it returns as nature intends it to return. That is how the nature of a beach works.

The picture I took yesterday showing the beach that you claim is not there will look different today, tomorrow and the next day as it will next week, next month and next year. Such is the nature of any coastal area.

If Legends took down a sign to save it from being washed out to sea, that is an economic decision. Saving the sign prevents it from being rebuilt. The same thing is done at properties on both the beach and the cliffs. During rough seas the properties will pull back anything they don't want washed out to sea further back on the property, be it a beach or cliff location.

If Legends chose not to put the sign back up after the beach restored itself, that is also an economic decision. Perhaps they didn't think it was necessary and the expense of saving it wasn't worth the effort.

But your opinion is misinforming people. It is misinforming to make claims that "what beach remains is just flooded during the day" and "Legends lost its beach many years ago" when the beach is clearly visible to all those in Negril today and is not being flooded every day. It may have been that way during your vacation stay, but that does not make it true everyday. To claim it is not accurate and not helping anyone.

As for the neon light reference to a 2009 post addressed to Negril vets and what they missed most, I have no idea what this adds to the discussion other than to prove that there was a sign removed, which no one disputes.

I am sure some of those "old timers" would probably complain about the new traffic lights, medians and sidewalks being built, but if there is one thing constant in life it is change...

[captaind]

Ed,

I worked on that beach at Cosmo's and Sands Club for eight years from 79 - 86

I watched the sand come and go. That beach is supported by the morass and balances the pressure of the sea with the flow of fresh water coming from the hills.

It's always in a state of flux.

It's not the beach I first saw in 1969 but it's still there and a certain ways still the same.

You know if you don't like it you don't have to come.

Myself, I live in the hills

[ed kennedy]

If Legends took down a sign to save it from being washed out to sea, that is an economic decision. Saving the sign prevents it from being rebuilt. The same thing is done at properties on both the beach and the cliffs. During rough seas the properties will pull back anything they don't want washed out to sea further back on the property, be it a beach or cliff location.

Rob....why can you simply acknowledge that for the past ten years, at least, the beach is definitively smaller than when it opened....

And as for the word "flooded" I speak of people, not water.

You constantly explain away any valid observations that are not Irie as they say......perhaps this is a business decision on your part; perhaps even samsara saw he was being clobbered on there and asked for your help(if you wanted to keep him as a sponsor).

The bottom line is: walk past Legends on a beach day and it is crowded, VERY crowded; with very little beach to enjoy...period

[Rob]

If Legends took down a sign to save it from being washed out to sea, that is an economic decision. Saving the sign prevents it from being rebuilt. The same thing is done at properties on both the beach and the cliffs. During rough seas the properties will pull back anything they don't want washed out to sea further back on the property, be it a beach or cliff location.

Rob....why can you simply acknowledge that for the past ten years, at least, the beach is definitively smaller than when it opened....

And as for the word "flooded" I speak of people, not water.

You constantly explain away any valid observations that are not Irie as they say......perhaps this is a business decision on your part; perhaps even samsara saw he was being clobbered on there and asked for your help(if you wanted to keep him as a sponsor).

The bottom line is: walk past Legends on a beach day and it is crowded, VERY crowded; with very little beach to enjoy...period

Ed,

Give me a break man! After all those posts you have made, you finally state that you meant Legends is flooded by "people"? Well if that wasn't a rather misleading statement that could have been corrected in your first reply but wasn't.

And I do remember the day Legends opened, I was there back in 1997 and took a picture of the beach.

As with any concrete structure on any beach, I personally think they tend to build them too close to the sea line. The sea seems to not like concrete structures in its way. The sea wants to roll in and roll out naturally and any concrete structure inhibits that desire.

Over the years, the beach did expand for a while, then receded for a while, and it has been repeating that same pattern since the day it opened.

Here are two pictures the first one taken the day Legends opened in 1997:


and then the one I took yesterday.


Although they are taken at different angles, I cannot say with any great certainty that the beach is substantially bigger in the 1997 photo or substantially smaller in the 2013 photo. There is the high water line which seems to be nearly in the same area, although it seems to be at a somewhat steeper angle in the 97 photo, and the new Legends sign wasn't even there in the 1997 photo, but now sits before the concrete dining area which is not visible in the 2013 photo.

And before you say I edited the photo back in 1997, you can check it yourself on the WayBack Machine at archives.org - search for any date in 1997 after May.

The bottom line is that you admit that Legends is crowded, very crowded. That would tell me that they must be doing something right. If it is as bad as you claim, why would people simply not walk over to Tamboo or Kuyaba which are right next door?

[Papa Georgie]

The tale of the tape !

[ed kennedy]

sorry Rob...something missing from the photos...the neon sign...you KNOW the sign was there yet it does not show....what happened to the sign in your photo.......

and papa bear.......trust me...saw the sign many many times....where is it in pic #1.....interesting

[Papa Georgie]

Hey,

We stayed at Kuyaba/Sea Gem when Legends was being built. The beach was small then!
We stayed a year later and the Legends guests were encroaching on the Kuyaba beach.

Fact is, the reef is decaying, the owners have built to close to the beach, the entire Negril beach is in jeopardy.
We've walked the beach since 1992, last year we didn't because there were so many places where you had to "go inland".

Painting the roses red.

[Rob]

Ed,

There was no neon sign there in 1997. It wasn't installed until years later... me thinks you are confusing your trips...

[Rob]

Hey,

We stayed at Kuyaba/Sea Gem when Legends was being built. The beach was small then!
We stayed a year later and the Legends guests were encroaching on the Kuyaba beach....

Exactly - the beach at Legends was small even when it was being built. I have been walking the beach since 1985 and the heavy storms of the mid 2000's really took their toll on the reef and the beach. But this past couple years of no serious storm activity has started improving many places that seemed to and "inland" route....

[ed kennedy]

with all the time you have spent researching this matter today, I have to believe you could come up with a photo of the sign which would clearly show how much smaller the beach has become...