CSNbbs

Well it says here on Zillow that Galveston home prices have dropped 2.1 percent over the last year and are forecast to go down another 1.5 percent next year, whereas in Houston they have risen 4.8 percent over the last year, and are forecast to go up another 2.4 percent over the next year.

https://www.zillow.com/galveston-tx/home-values/

I'm not going to look through all the coastal towns but that's a start.

(09-20-2019 06:34 PM)Fort Bend Owl Wrote: [ -> ]Well it says here on Zillow that Galveston home prices have dropped 2.1 percent over the last year and are forecast to go down another 1.5 percent next year, whereas in Houston they have risen 4.8 percent over the last year, and are forecast to go up another 2.4 percent over the next year.

https://www.zillow.com/galveston-tx/home-values/

I'm not going to look through all the coastal towns but that's a start.

Is the that demonstrably due to rising sea levels?

I am sure that if we compared town A to town B, we would find some differences. Say, Phoenix and Kansas City? Minneapolis and St. Paul? Dallas and Fort Worth?

I guess the lakeside houses in Chicago are being abandoned. And those beachside mansions in Santa Monica.

Of course, FBO has demonstrated the difference between the climate change this time and the thousands of times it changed before. Now we have considerable financial investment in seaside facilities. So it is just money after all.

Well here's a more detailed analysis

https://www.apnews.com/8c6f573bd67e4067881d82048181de3d

Shows evidence both yes and no so the answer for now is a definitive maybe

Personally if you want to make money off climate change, invest in electric vehicles would be my advice. Amazon just bought 100,000 electric delivery vans, which makes me wonder what they're going to do with the 20,000 or so gas-running delivery vehicles they've purchased within the last year.

Every time I go to Amsterdam, I come away thinking, "Why wasn't Houston built like that?"

Galveston has its own issues. Number 1 is drugs. Number 2 is ground subsidence. Number 3 is beach front erosion on the west end. None of those have a lot to do with rising sea levels or anything at all really.

(09-20-2019 07:40 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote: [ -> ]Every time I go to Amsterdam, I come away thinking, "Why wasn't Houston built like that?"

IMO, because of local conservative politics.

The Dutch are pragmatic and willing to pay taxes to provide flood defense.

And really, you shouldn’t be looking at Amsterdam for inspiration, but rather the maeslantkering, and the delta works as a whole. The Dutch said they wanted to reduce their risk of flooding and did it.

(09-20-2019 08:29 PM)flash3200 Wrote: [ -> ]Galveston has its own issues. Number 1 is drugs. Number 2 is ground subsidence. Number 3 is beach front erosion on the west end. None of those have a lot to do with rising sea levels or anything at all really.

Erosion is definitely correlated to ocean tides - what do you think erodes the beaches?

(09-21-2019 02:07 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]

(09-20-2019 08:29 PM)flash3200 Wrote: [ -> ]Galveston has its own issues. Number 1 is drugs. Number 2 is ground subsidence. Number 3 is beach front erosion on the west end. None of those have a lot to do with rising sea levels or anything at all really.

Erosion is definitely correlated to ocean tides - what do you think erodes the beaches?

I have read that the location of the Texas City dike and the repositioning of how the brazos empties into the gulf are primary reasons that the west end of galveston is seeing signficant erosion. Of course the east end is building beach where there is a giant eddy behind the texas city dike.

(09-21-2019 02:01 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]

(09-20-2019 07:40 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote: [ -> ]Every time I go to Amsterdam, I come away thinking, "Why wasn't Houston built like that?"

IMO, because of local conservative politics.
The Dutch are pragmatic and willing to pay taxes to provide flood defense.
And really, you shouldn’t be looking at Amsterdam for inspiration, but rather the maeslantkering, and the delta works as a whole. The Dutch said they wanted to reduce their risk of flooding and did it.

One, local politics aren't THAT conservative. Two, to do Amsterdam in Houston would have required starting a long time before any recent politics. The cost would be absolutely prohibitive today. But if Houston had a network of navigable canals connecting the bayou structure that exists, it would be a very different--and IMO more livable--city.

As far as the Maeslantkering, it is an impressive structure, but my understanding is that it is more to protect against storm surge from the sea. Houston is far enough inland, and far enough above sea level, that the threat is more from above--rain--than from the sea. Maybe something like that would help some more coastal cities. But you really need the system of canals and huge pumps like in Amsterdam, or to a lesser extent Rotterdam, to move water out from behind the barrier. Otherwise the barrier does as much or more harm by blocking drainage as it does good by blocking ingress.

New Orleans has an interesting feature, the Bonnet Carre spillway, designed to move water from the Mississippi to Lake Pontchartrain. That has saved flooding in the city on multiple occasions when the threat came from upstream. But obviously it was little help during Katrina.

This is one area where my basic libertarianism comes into conflict with practicality. Houston needs a lot more done in the areas of drainage and regional mobility (and light rail is not the solution to the latter, but I am somewhat intrigued by this proposed fast bus system). I guess I actually don't have a problem with the social democrat (as opposed to socialist) approach, where government does things but finds ways for users to pay for it instead of taxes.

(09-20-2019 07:30 PM)Fort Bend Owl Wrote: [ -> ]Well here's a more detailed analysis

https://www.apnews.com/8c6f573bd67e4067881d82048181de3d

Shows evidence both yes and no so the answer for now is a definitive maybe

Personally if you want to make money off climate change, invest in electric vehicles would be my advice. Amazon just bought 100,000 electric delivery vans, which makes me wonder what they're going to do with the 20,000 or so gas-running delivery vehicles they've purchased within the last year.

That link is not a 'more detailed analysis' --- it is a series of vignettes.

And, there is a massive and significant difference between 'climate change affecting property values' and 'people's perceptions of climate change affecting property values' that that series of vignettes (and you for that matter) dont seem to discern between.

Example:

In 1996 and 1999 I was involved in the sale of the same software company. Call the value of 1996 sale as X; the 1999 sale was .85X, with better margins, revenue, and market penetration of the product. The reason was Y2k certification. The software continued glitch free through that 'massive cause for alarm'. The difference in sales price wasnt 'Y2k', the difference was the outside perception of the Y2K issue.

(09-21-2019 02:07 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]

(09-20-2019 08:29 PM)flash3200 Wrote: [ -> ]Galveston has its own issues. Number 1 is drugs. Number 2 is ground subsidence. Number 3 is beach front erosion on the west end. None of those have a lot to do with rising sea levels or anything at all really.

Erosion is definitely correlated to ocean tides - what do you think erodes the beaches?

As flash noted, the direction of emptying causeways in the area has a massive influence.

As does subsidence.

Take the effects of the Mississippi and the Atchafalaya on the lower portion of Lousiana for example. The effect of dredging and maintaining the Mississippi deep channel is the primary reason for erosion in the east delta.

(09-20-2019 07:40 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote: [ -> ]Every time I go to Amsterdam, I come away thinking, "Why wasn't Houston built like that?"

In my twenties and thirties I used to think the same way after travel to Amsterdam; perhaps not for the same reasons though.

I guess this means property values in Kansas are rising, as we all clamor to get somewhere safe.

(09-21-2019 08:04 AM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ]

(09-20-2019 07:40 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote: [ -> ]Every time I go to Amsterdam, I come away thinking, "Why wasn't Houston built like that?"

In my twenties and thirties I used to think the same way after travel to Amsterdam; perhaps not for the same reasons though.

I've had those thoughts too.

When my son was in junior high, I went with him on an educational tour of Europe, one of those deals were they organize a tour for about 30 students and a few parents. The principal and her husband came along, with their two young grandkids. In Amsterdam, they took a walk through the red-light district. At one establishment, the doorman tried very persuasively to get Jack to enter. He finally said, "Can't you see I'm here with my wife and two grandkids?" The doorman replied, "No problem, we have family plans."

(09-21-2019 09:12 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]I guess this means property values in Kansas are rising, as we all clamor to get somewhere safe.

Never mind. I see that Kansas is under flash flood watch. I guess Waterworld was prophetic.

Parts of Houston have dropped upwards of 10 ft due to subsidence, but in the same time frame (~100 years), ocean levels have risen by 6 inches. Both of these trends have been well documented for decades and will obviously continue, so hard to feel bad for people investing in real estate in low lying areas. In any case, local geological dynamics are causing a much bigger impact on Galveston and other gulf coast areas than global warming, but dont let facts get in the way of a good story.

(09-21-2019 08:01 AM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ]

(09-21-2019 02:07 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]

(09-20-2019 08:29 PM)flash3200 Wrote: [ -> ]Galveston has its own issues. Number 1 is drugs. Number 2 is ground subsidence. Number 3 is beach front erosion on the west end. None of those have a lot to do with rising sea levels or anything at all really.

Erosion is definitely correlated to ocean tides - what do you think erodes the beaches?

As flash noted, the direction of emptying causeways in the area has a massive influence.

As does subsidence.

Take the effects of the Mississippi and the Atchafalaya on the lower portion of Lousiana for example. The effect of dredging and maintaining the Mississippi deep channel is the primary reason for erosion in the east delta.

For sure - the changes in sediment deposition due to management choices of rivers that empty into a delta have major a major influence on replenishment (or lack there of) of the delta lands.

But to say erosion doesn’t have anything to do with rising sea levels is incorrect.

(09-21-2019 10:15 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]

(09-21-2019 08:01 AM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ]

(09-21-2019 02:07 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]

(09-20-2019 08:29 PM)flash3200 Wrote: [ -> ]Galveston has its own issues. Number 1 is drugs. Number 2 is ground subsidence. Number 3 is beach front erosion on the west end. None of those have a lot to do with rising sea levels or anything at all really.

Erosion is definitely correlated to ocean tides - what do you think erodes the beaches?

As flash noted, the direction of emptying causeways in the area has a massive influence.

As does subsidence.

Take the effects of the Mississippi and the Atchafalaya on the lower portion of Lousiana for example. The effect of dredging and maintaining the Mississippi deep channel is the primary reason for erosion in the east delta.

For sure - the changes in sediment deposition due to management choices of rivers that empty into a delta have major a major influence on replenishment (or lack there of) of the delta lands.

But to say erosion doesn’t have anything to do with rising sea levels is incorrect.

I dont think anyone *has* said that extreme case, lad.

What is incorrect is for you to attribute the comment 'erosion doesn’t have *anything* to do with rising sea levels' to anyone's argument here, as you just did. And if you didnt mean to attribute that to anyone or any comment here, you just did a classic strawman with your comment there.

(09-21-2019 09:52 AM)flash3200 Wrote: [ -> ]Parts of Houston have dropped upwards of 10 ft due to subsidence, but in the same time frame (~100 years), ocean levels have risen by 6 inches. Both of these trends have been well documented for decades and will obviously continue, so hard to feel bad for people investing in real estate in low lying areas. In any case, local geological dynamics are causing a much bigger impact on Galveston and other gulf coast areas than global warming, but dont let facts get in the way of a good story.

Completely agree about not having a ton of sympathy for people who continue to rebuild in flood-prone areas. Saw that a portion of Canada is changing their flood insurance program so that there is a fairly low cap on a payout, and after that cap is hit the homeowner has a choice - sell to the government for $250k or get your home repaired, but forfeit any future assistance for rebuilding. We have houses in Houston that have received far more than their value in federal flood insurance funds because they repeatedly flood.

But not sure I agree that our local subsidence issues are a bigger concern with regards to flooding or storm surge (our biggest water-related issues). Any research that points in that direction? I’ve seen plenty of research investigating land use changes, channelization of bayous, and changes in rain fall amounts due to climate change causing flooding issues, so I feel pretty comfortable saying that the facts are there to support the notion that climate change if making flooding worse in the Houston area.