Skip to main content

View Diary: The retreat away from the US coastline is beginning (243 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Make flood insurance unavailable in areas (12+ / 0-)

    subject to 10 or 50 year floods (I can't recall what the floodmaps currently show, but I think they're 100 year).  And publicize that it's not available, making private insurance the only option (which the insurance companies will only provide for a very high cost).

    For those stuck because of the current situation they're in - they live there and now are unable to get insurance - we could have some payment to get them to move.  However, I'd recommend against full payment.  That would be too expensive given how waterfront properties are amongst the currently most desirable (read, expensive) ones.  Set the payment at what it would take to buy a similar size/condition home that's not in the flood plain.  Sure it wouldn't have the views, access to water, whatever, but it would be cheaper for the government to put people there and demolish the waterfront homes than to buy the waterfront homes at the price they sold for right before Sandy (or wherever).  And yes, I do realize a place like New York City has tens of thousands of homes in the flood plain for Sandy or a similar storm.  That's tens of billions of dollars to relocate folks, but this should be cheaper than paying people for their current home values and then just letting them continue to live there.

    •  Once the flood insurance (and backstops) go (4+ / 0-)

      The "desirability of" (and cost to recompense) those properties will go way down.

      Make sure everyone's vote counts: Verified Voting

      by sacrelicious on Wed Jan 30, 2013 at 11:19:55 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  makes sense, but in the immediate aftermath (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      of future floods/hurricanes, politicians will always step in to appropriate money no matter what kinds of warnings and disclaimers were issued before.  

      You can talk tough today, when the weather is clear, but when the next storm hits, there's just too much upside for politicians not to whip out the checkbook.  If it's an election year, doubly so.

      You can google FEMA spending and find graphs that show beyond a shaddow of any doubt that FEMA's spending is cyclical, and follows the presidential election cycle.  Every 4 years we have a spate of "federal disaster declarations."

      Oregon:'s cold. But it's a damp cold.

      by Keith930 on Wed Jan 30, 2013 at 05:06:29 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  People are recommending this? For real? (0+ / 0-)

      This reminds me of Post Katrina when the folks in the Midwest were saying no need to rebuild New Orleans since its in a high risk hurricane area.

      Ummmmm, decisions are easy if you just ignore reality. Colorado Tim, you use oil? Steel? Food? Coffee? Anything imported? How do you think it gets to this country and up to your high and mighty mountains? Give you one guess, and a hint, the altitude is zero and it needs people.

      Kill off the port cities, bean brain? Heck, just put the port cities at high altitude muntain tops, don't see any problem there.

      For one day I wish you can get what you are hoping for, the people who get your goods into the country to be screwed. It's not just a matter of heart, its second grade common sense to not screw over your low altitude countrymen.

      •  Eggowar, I lived for over a year on the Staten (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Deward Hastings, ModerateJosh

        Island coast smack in the way of the 14 foot storm surge that came ashore with Sandy.  I've spoken to friends who had floodwaters come to the edge of their property which was zone C (it flooded first A, then B, then some areas of C) and I've been back to look at the reconstruction efforts since then.  One hurricane was on track to hit NY when I lived there but it went a different direction.  I've also lived on Padre Island - a barrier island in Texas, lived through a hurricane in Houston, and lived in San Francisco where I worked for the SBA office helping put the Bay Area back together again after the Loma Prieta earthquake.  One of my responsibilities was flood mapping for which homes were going to need federal flood insurance and which didn't.  You don't get to call me out.

        I didn't say to kill off the port cities - making up words to put into my mouth is unbecoming.  I do favor not insuring people against willfully doing something that puts them in harm's way when maps, science and reasoned thought says that it's a money-loser.  Especially people who have expensive properties on coasts where their actions help to erode Mother Nature's natural protections against damage, like eroding dunes, dredging out channels to help water flow inland and getting rid of mangrove swamps just to open up the coast for development.

        I didn't say to end insurance for all without any kind of carrot to help them move.  I didn't say to abandon people, which is what you seem to imply.  I do understand how goods move and are imported.  I never ever said to get rid of infrastructure like ports, rail lines and roads that are in low-lying areas.  I just advocated moving out the residential areas so people aren't flooded out and lives are lost.  

        If you go back and read (and comprehend) what I wrote, I talked about moving people out who are in zones more likely to be flooded than every 100 years.  Well, enough protesting - if you understand my position, this will be enough.  If not, if you want to keep people in harm's way and keep paying over and over again for that, we're just going to disagree.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site