(08-16-2021 03:33 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Liberal politicians are focusing more and more on mitigating climate change (both in resiliency and carbon reduction), not because some cabal of no-named liberal overlords are telling them to, but because of how many people recognize they will be affected by climate change and they are making their collective voices heard.

How does John Kerry fit that paradigm in his 'fly anywhere by family G5' approach?

(08-17-2021 10:01 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Maybe if we met in person we would be able to have more productive conversations, ...

I've long felt the same way -- but AtEase called me "creepy" and OwlJacket called me "threatening". Strange people.

(08-17-2021 10:49 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  [quote='RiceLad15' pid='17559220' dateline='1629146025']
Liberal politicians are focusing more and more on mitigating climate change (both in resiliency and carbon reduction), not because some cabal of no-named liberal overlords are telling them to, ...

1. "Mitigating" - this exemplifies my gripe that none of the actions of the liberal politicians are aimed at SOLVING the problem(s), just at slowing it. That's why so many policies are couched in terms like "a 50% reduction in the rate of bad stuff by the year 2035".

2. "cabal of no-named liberal overlords" - First of all, they have names. Just look at the donor lists of any progressive Democrat, starting at the top with the biggest donors. Many, maybe most, will have "climate change" as a top priority. Second, they are not a cabal. You act like I said they are a secret society. I guess this is just another example of you putting words in my mouth. Third, I don't understand your use of the word "overlords". This isn't Doctor Who. I used the words movers and shakers - generally descriptive of the people who things done their way in any group, including big money donors. For example, Soros is mover/shaker. Joe Blow is not.

(08-17-2021 10:54 AM)georgewebb Wrote:  

(08-17-2021 10:01 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Maybe if we met in person we would be able to have more productive conversations, ...

I've long felt the same way -- but AtEase called me "creepy" and OwlJacket called me "threatening". Strange people.

Never met AtEase, but I have met OwlJacket and Ham. I found Ham to be much less creepy (actually, not at all creepy) than OJ, and not at all threatening.

I do agree with the premise of better discussions in person, but it isn't ever going to happen with me, due to physical infirmities and other considerations. So for now, I shall have to content myself with explaining myself over and over.

(08-17-2021 10:01 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Disengaging now due to the really unnecessary personal attacks. Maybe if we met in person we would be able to have more productive conversations, as we really do talk past each other frequently and misinterpret what the other says, all the time.

Sorry you felt the need to make this so personal and call me stupid and embarrassing.

WE don't misinterpret each other. YOU misrepresent ME.... repeatedly. My first comments on this were clear where I agreed with OO and where I disagreed with you. You decided that as I said I agreed with SOMETHING that he said, that I must agree with EVERYTHING he had said, even if I hadn't quoted it. You repeatedly spoke as if I didn't know what I was talking about...

I find that incredibly personal and insulting and respond in kind.

You use words like
'I think you're misguided when you say...' (and then you go on to claim I said things I clearly didn't say... in THIS case, comparing SF to Galveston and Dem Mega-Donors)

or that

(My perspective) ignores that hazards are changing and evolving.

The first is obvious. Since I clearly didn't do what you claim, this is not discussing something in good faith. As such, it deserves some condescention.

Second, No it doesn't ignore that. It just doesn't care/make it the governments business to fix. You take your chances, you reap the benefits OR the downside.

My position is quite simple. Don't indemnify people who have upside potential from downside risk. Waterfront property may not be nice and may not be owned by wealthy people, but they could own nicer and/or cheaper and in THIS case, less risky property if it were somewhere else. I look at a 250k 900sf run down beach house as being VASTLY more expensive than the identical house on S. Wayside... or Cut and Shoot.

Your premise is that we somehow or for some reason need to make people move.... and because we're making them move, we need to pay for it. I disagree.

but please pay attention.

I disagree that we need to MAKE them (private owners) move. I suggest that if we buy in to the premise presented that we cancel (or significantly modify) any new building permits in 'at risk' areas... and let the markets do what they do.

If a government wants to make a plan (just using an example) to eliminate all public housing or subsidies for housing in specific areas, no problem. You may have 3-5 years to actually move people.... or for them to decide to move themselves. If this runs rents down in areas and others CHOOSE to move there with their own money and they are informed, no problem. Take the risk, reap the results.

(08-17-2021 11:17 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(08-17-2021 10:01 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Disengaging now due to the really unnecessary personal attacks. Maybe if we met in person we would be able to have more productive conversations, as we really do talk past each other frequently and misinterpret what the other says, all the time.

Sorry you felt the need to make this so personal and call me stupid and embarrassing.

WE don't misinterpret each other. YOU misrepresent ME.... repeatedly. My first comments on this were clear where I agreed with OO and where I disagreed with you. You decided that as I said I agreed with SOMETHING that he said, that I must agree with EVERYTHING he had said, even if I hadn't quoted it. You repeatedly spoke as if I didn't know what I was talking about...

I find that incredibly personal and insulting and respond in kind.

You use words like
'I think you're misguided when you say...' (and then you go on to claim I said things I clearly didn't say... in THIS case, comparing SF to Galveston and Dem Mega-Donors)

or that

(My perspective) ignores that hazards are changing and evolving.

The first is obvious. Since I clearly didn't do what you claim, this is not discussing something in good faith. As such, it deserves some condescention.

Second, No it doesn't ignore that. It just doesn't care/make it the governments business to fix. You take your chances, you reap the benefits OR the downside.

My position is quite simple. Don't indemnify people who have upside potential from downside risk. Waterfront property may not be nice and may not be owned by wealthy people, but they could own nicer and/or cheaper and in THIS case, less risky property if it were somewhere else. I look at a 250k 900sf run down beach house as being VASTLY more expensive than the identical house on S. Wayside... or Cut and Shoot.

Your premise is that we somehow or for some reason need to make people move.... and because we're making them move, we need to pay for it. I disagree.

but please pay attention.

I disagree that we need to MAKE them (private owners) move. I suggest that if we buy in to the premise presented that we cancel (or significantly modify) any new building permits in 'at risk' areas... and let the markets do what they do.

If a government wants to make a plan (just using an example) to eliminate all public housing or subsidies for housing in specific areas, no problem. You may have 3-5 years to actually move people.... or for them to decide to move themselves. If this runs rents down in areas and others CHOOSE to move there with their own money and they are informed, no problem. Take the risk, reap the results.

This is a PERFECT example of how you DO misinterpret me.

I said this: I'm sorry you find it petty or ignorant, but when the focus is continually on mega-donors to the Democratic party, it seems like that person doesn't actually know what coastal communities look like.

Why do you think I was referring to you when I said "THAT PERSON"????

(08-17-2021 11:28 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  This is a PERFECT example of how you DO misinterpret me.

I said this: I'm sorry you find it petty or ignorant, but when the focus is continually on mega-donors to the Democratic party, it seems like that person doesn't actually know what coastal communities look like.

Why do you think I was referring to you when I said "THAT PERSON"????

That was post #36. In Post #30, you asked the same question of me... chastising me for agreeing with his premise on (specifically) beach front properties.

And then with coastal issues, you seem to only focus on beach front properties, which ignores all of the other non-beach front property that has similar issues. As I asked OO before, have you been to Galveston before? It's not all multi-million dollar waterfront homes.

Since I was only responding to his comments about moving 200 feet from the coast... you brought up something I never mentioned. You moved the goal posts on me. It doesn't matter to me if it is an ocean front mega mansion or its a 600sf dilapidated shack. MOVE or SWIM!! ADAPT.

I'd also note that in post #36 you ALSO said....

Quote:I think you're misguided on this idea that, even if a properties SF is more expensive in Galveston (or any other coastal community) that it somehow negates my point - which is that lower and middle income people live in these communities, and it's not just a bunch of Dem mega-donors.

Since you said YOU and were quoting me, I believe you meant ME. As I didn't say anything about SF vs Galveston, you are calling ME 'misguided' for a belief I clearly never expressed.

Telling someone who lives close to the coast to move 200 feet away from the shore is a euphemism for 'adapt'. I shouldn't have to address each and every possible need for every person in order to have the belief that it isn't the government's job to solve these problems for everyone. The problem with YOUR solution is that it requires just that. THOUSANDS of specific plans to help every single person from every single possible situation during a period where (as you admit) the situation is in constant flux.

(08-17-2021 11:58 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(08-17-2021 11:28 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  This is a PERFECT example of how you DO misinterpret me.

I said this: I'm sorry you find it petty or ignorant, but when the focus is continually on mega-donors to the Democratic party, it seems like that person doesn't actually know what coastal communities look like.

Why do you think I was referring to you when I said "THAT PERSON"????

That was post #36. In Post #30, you asked the same question of me... chastising me for agreeing with his premise on (specifically) beach front properties.

And then with coastal issues, you seem to only focus on beach front properties, which ignores all of the other non-beach front property that has similar issues. As I asked OO before, have you been to Galveston before? It's not all multi-million dollar waterfront homes.

Since I was only responding to his comments about moving 200 feet from the coast... you brought up something I never mentioned. You moved the goal posts on me. It doesn't matter to me if it is an ocean front mega mansion or its a 600sf dilapidated shack. MOVE or SWIM!! ADAPT.

I'd also note that in post #36 you ALSO said....

Quote:I think you're misguided on this idea that, even if a properties SF is more expensive in Galveston (or any other coastal community) that it somehow negates my point - which is that lower and middle income people live in these communities, and it's not just a bunch of Dem mega-donors.

Since you said YOU and were quoting me, I believe you meant ME. As I didn't say anything about SF vs Galveston, you are calling ME 'misguided' for a belief I clearly never expressed.

Telling someone who lives close to the coast to move 200 feet away from the shore is a euphemism for 'adapt'. I shouldn't have to address each and every possible need for every person in order to have the belief that it isn't the government's job to solve these problems for everyone. The problem with YOUR solution is that it requires just that. THOUSANDS of specific plans to help every single person from every single possible situation during a period where (as you admit) the situation is in constant flux.

Another PERFECT example.

That SF = square footage!

It was a typo and should have read "even if a property's SF is more expensive in Galveston (or any other coastal community) that it somehow negates my point"

I mistakenly typed the plural, and not the possesive.

So yes, continue to tell me how there aren't misinterpretations on your end, when you confuse SF for San Francisco, instead of square footage (even though you had typed 600 SF in the post I was responding to).

I'm done going back and forth on content. Just admit you also have some blame in this, instead of showing an impressive amount of hubris.

(08-17-2021 12:02 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Another PERFECT example.

That SF = square footage!

It was a typo and should have read "even if a property's SF is more expensive in Galveston (or any other coastal community) that it somehow negates my point"

I mistakenly typed the plural, and not the possesive.

So yes, continue to tell me how there aren't misinterpretations on your end, when you confuse SF for San Francisco, instead of square footage (even though you had typed 600 SF in the post I was responding to).

I'm done going back and forth on content. Just admit you also have some blame in this, instead of showing an impressive amount of hubris.

Jesus... so you make 15 mistakes/misrepresentations of me... and I make ONE, halfway through, and based DIRECTLY on your (admitted) mistake and I have to share the blame for the miscommunication??

ESPECIALLY in that the only reason SF matters is because its a proxy for 'cost'. 600sf in Galveston is 2-3 times as expensive as a few miles inland... and 10 times more expensive if waterfront.... so my premise still holds. I never said anything about mega-donors, so your premise STILL doesn't hold.

We're not talking past each other... you're just wrong and once again engaging in misrepresentation.,.. won't admit it.... and are grasping at straws.

Fine. I misunderstood your grammatically misleading explanation of your misrepresentation of my position because I didn't care enough about it to read it carefully. Since I never spoke of 'wealth', it didn't matter. It doesn't change anything, but its true.

If you chose to live in certain parts of Galveston because it was (relatively) 'cheap', it is similarly or vastly MORE cheap elsewhere nearby. (euphemistically, 200 feet further from the shore) You lose the ambiance of being so close to the beach, but GOOD NEWS, the beach is headed to you!!

MY WHOLE PREMISE was that MegaDonors or 'wealthy' people was apparently your premise with OO. I never spoke about them. All I spoke about was that coastal property IS more expensive than the same property, NOT on the coast. The people who live there have intentionally paid up (or settled for less home) in order to enjoy the other aspects of beach life... which someone choosing to live on higher ground did not enjoy. I do not feel compelled to REWARD (or indemnify) someone for the very specific and known potential for a coastal community to flood or erode.

Seriously... Moon wobble looks like it will cause 10 years of VERY high tides followed by very low ones. To think that thousands of properties won't be damaged or destroyed by such a constant flooding is just ludicrous. Should we pay to rebuild these homes every tidal change for the next decade?? I don't care if they're wealthy leftist mega donors, capitalist swine or poor people on assistance. PAY THE PRICE OF YOUR CHOICES!!

(08-17-2021 12:50 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(08-17-2021 12:02 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Another PERFECT example.

That SF = square footage!

It was a typo and should have read "even if a property's SF is more expensive in Galveston (or any other coastal community) that it somehow negates my point"

I mistakenly typed the plural, and not the possesive.

So yes, continue to tell me how there aren't misinterpretations on your end, when you confuse SF for San Francisco, instead of square footage (even though you had typed 600 SF in the post I was responding to).

I'm done going back and forth on content. Just admit you also have some blame in this, instead of showing an impressive amount of hubris.

Jesus... so you make 15 mistakes/misrepresentations of me... and I make ONE, halfway through, and based DIRECTLY on your (admitted) mistake and I have to share the blame for the miscommunication??

ESPECIALLY in that the only reason SF matters is because its a proxy for 'cost'. 600sf in Galveston is 2-3 times as expensive as a few miles inland... and 10 times more expensive if waterfront.... so my premise still holds. I never said anything about mega-donors, so your premise STILL doesn't hold.

We're not talking past each other... you're just wrong and once again engaging in misrepresentation.,.. won't admit it.... and are grasping at straws.

Fine. I misunderstood your grammatically misleading explanation of your misrepresentation of my position because I didn't care enough about it to read it carefully. Since I never spoke of 'wealth', it didn't matter. It doesn't change anything, but its true.

If you chose to live in certain parts of Galveston because it was (relatively) 'cheap', it is similarly or vastly MORE cheap elsewhere nearby. (euphemistically, 200 feet further from the shore) You lose the ambiance of being so close to the beach, but GOOD NEWS, the beach is headed to you!!

MY WHOLE PREMISE was that MegaDonors or 'wealthy' people was apparently your premise with OO. I never spoke about them. All I spoke about was that coastal property IS more expensive than the same property, NOT on the coast. The people who live there have intentionally paid up (or settled for less home) in order to enjoy the other aspects of beach life... which someone choosing to live on higher ground did not enjoy. I do not feel compelled to REWARD (or indemnify) someone for the very specific and known potential for a coastal community to flood or erode.

Seriously... Moon wobble looks like it will cause 10 years of VERY high tides followed by very low ones. To think that thousands of properties won't be damaged or destroyed by such a constant flooding is just ludicrous. Should we pay to rebuild these homes every tidal change for the next decade?? I don't care if they're wealthy leftist mega donors, capitalist swine or poor people on assistance. PAY THE PRICE OF YOUR CHOICES!!

We ARE talking past each other when you don't understand my point about Meyerland and think it's comparing apples to oranges. I used it as a good, and clear, example of how someone may have bought a property that was not significantly at risk for flooding at the time of the purchase and is now experiencing a significant increase in risk due to man-made issues outside of their control. In both instances, someone moved to an area for whatever reason with a manageable risk profile. But now, due to climate change, the built environment changing, whatever, they're being significantly affected by the change in risk.

It wasn't a moving target, it was a local example of the point I was trying to make.

Instead of thinking that maybe we don't communicate well, you double down on your hubris and insult my intelligence. Says a lot.

(08-17-2021 11:28 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  I said this: I'm sorry you find it petty or ignorant, but when the focus is continually on mega-donors to the Democratic party, it seems like that person doesn't actually know what coastal communities look like.

Did my partial list of coastal communities help you? I can expand it if you need me too.

Did you think I spent my life in the desert? Or on a mountain top?

Of course poor and/or middle class people live in seaside communities. I have family in San Diego, Tx, Baytown, and Cozumel.

Let's put it another way - When the seas level rises and the moon wobble tides hit, if it is getting a bit uncomfortable, the homeless persons roll up their bed roll and head uphill a couple of blocks. The guy with $50,000,000 worth of land and machinery that will be underwater will call his Congressman.

I guess you think politicians treat all of their constituents alike, whether they donated nothing or seven figures. I don't.

(08-17-2021 01:06 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(08-17-2021 12:50 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(08-17-2021 12:02 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Another PERFECT example.

That SF = square footage!

It was a typo and should have read "even if a property's SF is more expensive in Galveston (or any other coastal community) that it somehow negates my point"

I mistakenly typed the plural, and not the possesive.

So yes, continue to tell me how there aren't misinterpretations on your end, when you confuse SF for San Francisco, instead of square footage (even though you had typed 600 SF in the post I was responding to).

I'm done going back and forth on content. Just admit you also have some blame in this, instead of showing an impressive amount of hubris.

Jesus... so you make 15 mistakes/misrepresentations of me... and I make ONE, halfway through, and based DIRECTLY on your (admitted) mistake and I have to share the blame for the miscommunication??

ESPECIALLY in that the only reason SF matters is because its a proxy for 'cost'. 600sf in Galveston is 2-3 times as expensive as a few miles inland... and 10 times more expensive if waterfront.... so my premise still holds. I never said anything about mega-donors, so your premise STILL doesn't hold.

We're not talking past each other... you're just wrong and once again engaging in misrepresentation.,.. won't admit it.... and are grasping at straws.

Fine. I misunderstood your grammatically misleading explanation of your misrepresentation of my position because I didn't care enough about it to read it carefully. Since I never spoke of 'wealth', it didn't matter. It doesn't change anything, but its true.

If you chose to live in certain parts of Galveston because it was (relatively) 'cheap', it is similarly or vastly MORE cheap elsewhere nearby. (euphemistically, 200 feet further from the shore) You lose the ambiance of being so close to the beach, but GOOD NEWS, the beach is headed to you!!

MY WHOLE PREMISE was that MegaDonors or 'wealthy' people was apparently your premise with OO. I never spoke about them. All I spoke about was that coastal property IS more expensive than the same property, NOT on the coast. The people who live there have intentionally paid up (or settled for less home) in order to enjoy the other aspects of beach life... which someone choosing to live on higher ground did not enjoy. I do not feel compelled to REWARD (or indemnify) someone for the very specific and known potential for a coastal community to flood or erode.

Seriously... Moon wobble looks like it will cause 10 years of VERY high tides followed by very low ones. To think that thousands of properties won't be damaged or destroyed by such a constant flooding is just ludicrous. Should we pay to rebuild these homes every tidal change for the next decade?? I don't care if they're wealthy leftist mega donors, capitalist swine or poor people on assistance. PAY THE PRICE OF YOUR CHOICES!!

We ARE talking past each other when you don't understand my point about Meyerland and think it's comparing apples to oranges. I used it as a good, and clear, example of how someone may have bought a property that was not significantly at risk for flooding at the time of the purchase and is now experiencing a significant increase in risk due to man-made issues outside of their control. In both instances, someone moved to an area for whatever reason with a manageable risk profile. But now, due to climate change, the built environment changing, whatever, they're being significantly affected by the change in risk.

It wasn't a moving target, it was a local example of the point I was trying to make.

Instead of thinking that maybe we don't communicate well, you double down on your hubris and insult my intelligence. Says a lot.

Where is Meyerland? Is it like Dollywood?

(08-17-2021 01:27 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(08-17-2021 11:28 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  I said this: I'm sorry you find it petty or ignorant, but when the focus is continually on mega-donors to the Democratic party, it seems like that person doesn't actually know what coastal communities look like.

Did my partial list of coastal communities help you? I can expand it if you need me too.

Did you think I spent my life in the desert? Or on a mountain top?

Of course poor and/or middle class people live in seaside communities. I have family in San Diego, Tx, Baytown, and Cozumel.

Let's put it another way - When the seas level rises and the moon wobble tides hit, if it is getting a bit uncomfortable, the homeless persons roll up their bed roll and head uphill a couple of blocks. The guy with $50,000,000 worth of land and machinery that will be underwater will call his Congressman.

I guess you think politicians treat all of their constituents alike, whether they donated nothing or seven figures. I don't.

But there is an entire swath of people in between who will be severely impacted and don't have the $$$ necessary to manage.

It's not like a middle class family who owns their home has sufficient funds to relocate without reselling theirs. And if the situation is so bad that they need to relocate due to repetitive flooding, no one will buy their home.

Heck, even renters can face struggles, as they may not have sufficient funds to handle a long distance move or potentially find a new job in a new area.

My issue is that you seem to ignore that the issue of sea level rise will have severe impacts on lower and middle class households (i.e. people who aren't homeless or millionaires). And one of the strategies to manage sea level rise is what you talk about - managed retreat.

(08-17-2021 01:28 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(08-17-2021 01:06 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(08-17-2021 12:50 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(08-17-2021 12:02 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Another PERFECT example.

That SF = square footage!

It was a typo and should have read "even if a property's SF is more expensive in Galveston (or any other coastal community) that it somehow negates my point"

I mistakenly typed the plural, and not the possesive.

So yes, continue to tell me how there aren't misinterpretations on your end, when you confuse SF for San Francisco, instead of square footage (even though you had typed 600 SF in the post I was responding to).

I'm done going back and forth on content. Just admit you also have some blame in this, instead of showing an impressive amount of hubris.

Jesus... so you make 15 mistakes/misrepresentations of me... and I make ONE, halfway through, and based DIRECTLY on your (admitted) mistake and I have to share the blame for the miscommunication??

ESPECIALLY in that the only reason SF matters is because its a proxy for 'cost'. 600sf in Galveston is 2-3 times as expensive as a few miles inland... and 10 times more expensive if waterfront.... so my premise still holds. I never said anything about mega-donors, so your premise STILL doesn't hold.

We're not talking past each other... you're just wrong and once again engaging in misrepresentation.,.. won't admit it.... and are grasping at straws.

Fine. I misunderstood your grammatically misleading explanation of your misrepresentation of my position because I didn't care enough about it to read it carefully. Since I never spoke of 'wealth', it didn't matter. It doesn't change anything, but its true.

If you chose to live in certain parts of Galveston because it was (relatively) 'cheap', it is similarly or vastly MORE cheap elsewhere nearby. (euphemistically, 200 feet further from the shore) You lose the ambiance of being so close to the beach, but GOOD NEWS, the beach is headed to you!!

MY WHOLE PREMISE was that MegaDonors or 'wealthy' people was apparently your premise with OO. I never spoke about them. All I spoke about was that coastal property IS more expensive than the same property, NOT on the coast. The people who live there have intentionally paid up (or settled for less home) in order to enjoy the other aspects of beach life... which someone choosing to live on higher ground did not enjoy. I do not feel compelled to REWARD (or indemnify) someone for the very specific and known potential for a coastal community to flood or erode.

Seriously... Moon wobble looks like it will cause 10 years of VERY high tides followed by very low ones. To think that thousands of properties won't be damaged or destroyed by such a constant flooding is just ludicrous. Should we pay to rebuild these homes every tidal change for the next decade?? I don't care if they're wealthy leftist mega donors, capitalist swine or poor people on assistance. PAY THE PRICE OF YOUR CHOICES!!

We ARE talking past each other when you don't understand my point about Meyerland and think it's comparing apples to oranges. I used it as a good, and clear, example of how someone may have bought a property that was not significantly at risk for flooding at the time of the purchase and is now experiencing a significant increase in risk due to man-made issues outside of their control. In both instances, someone moved to an area for whatever reason with a manageable risk profile. But now, due to climate change, the built environment changing, whatever, they're being significantly affected by the change in risk.

It wasn't a moving target, it was a local example of the point I was trying to make.

Instead of thinking that maybe we don't communicate well, you double down on your hubris and insult my intelligence. Says a lot.

Where is Meyerland? Is it like Dollywood?

Meyerland is a neighborhood in Houston along Brays Bayou that has repeatedly suffered catastrophic flooding since the Memorial Day Flood in 2015. The following year it was hit hard during the Tax Day floods. And then the following year it was slammed by Harvey.

(08-17-2021 01:28 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(08-17-2021 01:06 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(08-17-2021 12:50 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(08-17-2021 12:02 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Another PERFECT example.

That SF = square footage!

It was a typo and should have read "even if a property's SF is more expensive in Galveston (or any other coastal community) that it somehow negates my point"

I mistakenly typed the plural, and not the possesive.

So yes, continue to tell me how there aren't misinterpretations on your end, when you confuse SF for San Francisco, instead of square footage (even though you had typed 600 SF in the post I was responding to).

I'm done going back and forth on content. Just admit you also have some blame in this, instead of showing an impressive amount of hubris.

Jesus... so you make 15 mistakes/misrepresentations of me... and I make ONE, halfway through, and based DIRECTLY on your (admitted) mistake and I have to share the blame for the miscommunication??

ESPECIALLY in that the only reason SF matters is because its a proxy for 'cost'. 600sf in Galveston is 2-3 times as expensive as a few miles inland... and 10 times more expensive if waterfront.... so my premise still holds. I never said anything about mega-donors, so your premise STILL doesn't hold.

We're not talking past each other... you're just wrong and once again engaging in misrepresentation.,.. won't admit it.... and are grasping at straws.

Fine. I misunderstood your grammatically misleading explanation of your misrepresentation of my position because I didn't care enough about it to read it carefully. Since I never spoke of 'wealth', it didn't matter. It doesn't change anything, but its true.

If you chose to live in certain parts of Galveston because it was (relatively) 'cheap', it is similarly or vastly MORE cheap elsewhere nearby. (euphemistically, 200 feet further from the shore) You lose the ambiance of being so close to the beach, but GOOD NEWS, the beach is headed to you!!

MY WHOLE PREMISE was that MegaDonors or 'wealthy' people was apparently your premise with OO. I never spoke about them. All I spoke about was that coastal property IS more expensive than the same property, NOT on the coast. The people who live there have intentionally paid up (or settled for less home) in order to enjoy the other aspects of beach life... which someone choosing to live on higher ground did not enjoy. I do not feel compelled to REWARD (or indemnify) someone for the very specific and known potential for a coastal community to flood or erode.

Seriously... Moon wobble looks like it will cause 10 years of VERY high tides followed by very low ones. To think that thousands of properties won't be damaged or destroyed by such a constant flooding is just ludicrous. Should we pay to rebuild these homes every tidal change for the next decade?? I don't care if they're wealthy leftist mega donors, capitalist swine or poor people on assistance. PAY THE PRICE OF YOUR CHOICES!!

We ARE talking past each other when you don't understand my point about Meyerland and think it's comparing apples to oranges. I used it as a good, and clear, example of how someone may have bought a property that was not significantly at risk for flooding at the time of the purchase and is now experiencing a significant increase in risk due to man-made issues outside of their control. In both instances, someone moved to an area for whatever reason with a manageable risk profile. But now, due to climate change, the built environment changing, whatever, they're being significantly affected by the change in risk.

It wasn't a moving target, it was a local example of the point I was trying to make.

Instead of thinking that maybe we don't communicate well, you double down on your hubris and insult my intelligence. Says a lot.

Where is Meyerland? Is it like Dollywood?

You attended Rice for 4 years +/- and don't know where Meyerland is even though it's less than 10 miles from campus? You really should have left the hedges every now and then.

(08-17-2021 01:55 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  It's not like a middle class family who owns their home has sufficient funds to relocate without reselling theirs. And if the situation is so bad that they need to relocate due to repetitive flooding, no one will buy their home.

Heck, even renters can face struggles, as they may not have sufficient funds to handle a long distance move or potentially find a new job in a new area.

My issue is that you seem to ignore that the issue of sea level rise will have severe impacts on lower and middle class households (i.e. people who aren't homeless or millionaires). And one of the strategies to manage sea level rise is what you talk about - managed retreat.

Managed retreat is a euphemism or generality, It's not a plan. The moment you start turning it into a plan there will be winners and losers, decided on by the government, just as always. THAT is what OO is clearly talking about... and politicians will take care of 'their people'. It doesn't matter if they are rich or poor... unless it's everyone, it won't be 'fair'. The cost to do what you propose for EVERYONE would be in the tens of trillions of dollars.

When the oil industry went bust and all of these middle class families had to sell their homes at a loss, couldn't buy a new one, renters couldn't pay to move, they had to find other jobs etc etc etc... where were these bail outs for those people? If a company shuts down in a small town or if the government cancels a pipeline or closes a base, who bails those people out?

MANY of those are direct results of government actions as opposed to global climatic issues. So the government should pay to cover global climatic issues, but not the closing of a military base or the elimination of jobs in Detroit and its impact??

(08-17-2021 02:23 PM)Tomball Owl Wrote:  

(08-17-2021 01:28 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(08-17-2021 01:06 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(08-17-2021 12:50 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(08-17-2021 12:02 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Another PERFECT example.

That SF = square footage!

It was a typo and should have read "even if a property's SF is more expensive in Galveston (or any other coastal community) that it somehow negates my point"

I mistakenly typed the plural, and not the possesive.

So yes, continue to tell me how there aren't misinterpretations on your end, when you confuse SF for San Francisco, instead of square footage (even though you had typed 600 SF in the post I was responding to).

I'm done going back and forth on content. Just admit you also have some blame in this, instead of showing an impressive amount of hubris.

Jesus... so you make 15 mistakes/misrepresentations of me... and I make ONE, halfway through, and based DIRECTLY on your (admitted) mistake and I have to share the blame for the miscommunication??

ESPECIALLY in that the only reason SF matters is because its a proxy for 'cost'. 600sf in Galveston is 2-3 times as expensive as a few miles inland... and 10 times more expensive if waterfront.... so my premise still holds. I never said anything about mega-donors, so your premise STILL doesn't hold.

We're not talking past each other... you're just wrong and once again engaging in misrepresentation.,.. won't admit it.... and are grasping at straws.

Fine. I misunderstood your grammatically misleading explanation of your misrepresentation of my position because I didn't care enough about it to read it carefully. Since I never spoke of 'wealth', it didn't matter. It doesn't change anything, but its true.

If you chose to live in certain parts of Galveston because it was (relatively) 'cheap', it is similarly or vastly MORE cheap elsewhere nearby. (euphemistically, 200 feet further from the shore) You lose the ambiance of being so close to the beach, but GOOD NEWS, the beach is headed to you!!

MY WHOLE PREMISE was that MegaDonors or 'wealthy' people was apparently your premise with OO. I never spoke about them. All I spoke about was that coastal property IS more expensive than the same property, NOT on the coast. The people who live there have intentionally paid up (or settled for less home) in order to enjoy the other aspects of beach life... which someone choosing to live on higher ground did not enjoy. I do not feel compelled to REWARD (or indemnify) someone for the very specific and known potential for a coastal community to flood or erode.

Seriously... Moon wobble looks like it will cause 10 years of VERY high tides followed by very low ones. To think that thousands of properties won't be damaged or destroyed by such a constant flooding is just ludicrous. Should we pay to rebuild these homes every tidal change for the next decade?? I don't care if they're wealthy leftist mega donors, capitalist swine or poor people on assistance. PAY THE PRICE OF YOUR CHOICES!!

We ARE talking past each other when you don't understand my point about Meyerland and think it's comparing apples to oranges. I used it as a good, and clear, example of how someone may have bought a property that was not significantly at risk for flooding at the time of the purchase and is now experiencing a significant increase in risk due to man-made issues outside of their control. In both instances, someone moved to an area for whatever reason with a manageable risk profile. But now, due to climate change, the built environment changing, whatever, they're being significantly affected by the change in risk.

It wasn't a moving target, it was a local example of the point I was trying to make.

Instead of thinking that maybe we don't communicate well, you double down on your hubris and insult my intelligence. Says a lot.

Where is Meyerland? Is it like Dollywood?

You attended Rice for 4 years +/- and don't know where Meyerland is even though it's less than 10 miles from campus? You really should have left the hedges every now and then.

9 semesters in 5 years, to be precise. Entered in the class of 67, graduated June 1, 1968. Moved back to North Texas a few weeks later, haven't hung around Houston much since then. I am sure there are a lot places I didn't know and/or don't remember in the 53+ years since I left campus. I do remember a lot of open farmland around this place called Sugar Land. Same for Tomball. I remember no traffic jams on the freeways. I remember the Shamrock Hilton, and the Rice Hotel downtown, and this newfangled baseball park called the Astrodome. Has any of that changed any in the more than half century since?

Maybe if I had left the hedges less I could have graduated on time with a better GPA, but cruising around Houston till the wee hours of the morning, I never noticed anyplace call Meyerland.

(08-17-2021 03:11 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Maybe if I had left the hedges less I could have graduated on time with a better GPA, but cruising around Houston till the wee hours of the morning, I never noticed anyplace call Meyerland.

Meyerland (at least in my mind) is basically bound by 610 on the east, Braes Bayou on the south. Beechnut on the north and IDK, Chimney Rock or maybe Hillcroft on the west?? It's just south of Bellaire.

It's essentially the SW corner of loop 610

(08-17-2021 03:27 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(08-17-2021 03:11 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Maybe if I had left the hedges less I could have graduated on time with a better GPA, but cruising around Houston till the wee hours of the morning, I never noticed anyplace call Meyerland.

Meyerland (at least in my mind) is basically bound by 610 on the east, Braes Bayou on the south. Beechnut on the north and IDK, Chimney Rock or maybe Hillcroft on the west?? It's just south of Bellaire.

It's essentially the SW corner of loop 610

Bellaire, I knew, know, and remember.


Most of that was country when I was there.

Thanks for the helpful info.

(08-17-2021 03:08 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(08-17-2021 01:55 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  It's not like a middle class family who owns their home has sufficient funds to relocate without reselling theirs. And if the situation is so bad that they need to relocate due to repetitive flooding, no one will buy their home.

Heck, even renters can face struggles, as they may not have sufficient funds to handle a long distance move or potentially find a new job in a new area.

My issue is that you seem to ignore that the issue of sea level rise will have severe impacts on lower and middle class households (i.e. people who aren't homeless or millionaires). And one of the strategies to manage sea level rise is what you talk about - managed retreat.

Managed retreat is a euphemism or generality, It's not a plan. The moment you start turning it into a plan there will be winners and losers, decided on by the government, just as always. THAT is what OO is clearly talking about... and politicians will take care of 'their people'. It doesn't matter if they are rich or poor... unless it's everyone, it won't be 'fair'. The cost to do what you propose for EVERYONE would be in the tens of trillions of dollars.

When the oil industry went bust and all of these middle class families had to sell their homes at a loss, couldn't buy a new one, renters couldn't pay to move, they had to find other jobs etc etc etc... where were these bail outs for those people? If a company shuts down in a small town or if the government cancels a pipeline or closes a base, who bails those people out?

MANY of those are direct results of government actions as opposed to global climatic issues. So the government should pay to cover global climatic issues, but not the closing of a military base or the elimination of jobs in Detroit and its impact??

Managed retreat is the term for a process. There are plans developed for specific areas - google Isle de Jean to see an example of this in action.

You bring up valid issues that need to be addressed in developing specific plans, but they are just that - issues to be addressed. Not reasons to argue against action or leaving entire communities to fend for themselves. Same to your comparison to other potential bail outs - previous inaction isn’t a valid reason, IMO, to discount and discredit potential solutions in managing impacts from climate change.

We are facing problems that are incredibly large and complex - and there is a role to be played by government, private industry, and everything in between.