(08-16-2021 04:59 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote: So is your ignorance. Two can play the ******* game.
In this thread we've been talking about risk of natural disasters, not just coastal flooding. This started with George's comment on risk subsidizing. Buyouts and managed retreats from, as you said, "hazardous areas" (which is more encompassing than just coastal areas, mind you), is a strategy to manage more than just sea level rise.
So no, not apples to oranges.
Yes, but onl;y YOU look stupid doing it
If I wanted to talk about Meyerland, I would have said something about Meyerland... just as I did in my second response. In my first, I responded to a single comment about coastal areas. It seems you don't think I am allowed to respond unless I go back and read your entire premise and respond to all of them??
ANd yes... STILL Apples:Oranges. You responded to OO's comment about coastal areas with a comment about Galveston and other coastal areas.... so you clearly know what he was speaking about and also what I was speaking about. You tHEN 'moved the goal posts' to NON-coastal areas like Meyerland. The specific 'solution' for Meyerland may be ENTIRELY different from the specific 'solution' for coastal areas.
Hint... People aren't 'paying up' for Meyerland due to its beach views.
Don't embarass yourself further
Quote:Quote:2) Flooding of Meyerland etc is at least partly a function of government functions like dams and decisions to open or close them, bayous, roads and building permits... or to let some areas flood to protect others. Entirely?? Of course not... but again, apples:Oranges. The conversation I spoke of was referring to shoreline properties.
So let's say you are talking about just shoreline (it wasn't clear - see above), it's still not apples to oranges.
Hmmm... so responding to someone saying 'pack camp and move 200 feet back from the shore' isn't clear to you that I am speaking about shoreline?? WOW.
Quote:The point is that people often move to an area where their risk for X is Y, and then it eventually becomes Z for issues that are out of their control. Let's say someone bought that beach front property in 1970 - their risk for repeated flooding has almost certainly increased from when the property was purchased, and it's not their fault.
People who today decide to make a purchase in a high risk coastal area, especially beach front, are WELL informed of their risk, especially from climate change and sea level rise. I would agree with you that those people are really not great candidates for buyouts or government assistance (to George's initial point - we should not be subsidizing them.
Coastal areas have been wiped out throughout history. The risk of them is obvious... as is the allure. The government should not be indemnifying people from risk.... especially in that the homeowner gets all of the upside if that 'risk' (part of the reason beach properties are so pretty is that nature reclaims them every so often) turns out to be a home run.
Fault?? I have friends burned out in California. It wasn't their fault. They aren't being bought out... They had some insurance. If they didn't, they lost everything. There are a few grants for those people, but most of them are just moving. They had no choice. They get some charity and assistance, but that is all.... unless they sue those who 'caused' the fires.
Quote:3) as to your repeatedly ignorant and petty 'have you been to Galveston' sort of questions... I'm 100% certain I'm more familiar with Texas beachfront property than are you. What I can tell you is that a 1/4 acre lot with a 600SF POS house a few hundred feet back from the beach isn't a multi-million dollar property, but it is two to three times the cost per SF of a similar home in Houston. If it's actually beachfront, its even MORE.
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.
[/quote]
I said nothing about mega-donors to the Democratic party. You said it to me. SO what 'person' were you speaking to?? THAT is what is ignorant. You repeatedly assigning comments from one person to another...or reading a comment as if it is related to someone else's UNRELATED comment.
Perhaps you should take your blinders off and realize that I can support a comment that I quote and say I support, and not care about or even have read every other comment someone may have made.
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. Having grown up in a coastal community, I'll tell you first hand that you have the entire spectrum of socio-economic status living there, and expecting some of them to be able to get up and move without proper compensation isn't realistic, ESPECIALLY for those in the lower/middle end.
Once again, I said nothing about mega-donors, so I'm not off base at all... but YOU clearly are. I also said nothing about SF vs Galveston. Off base again.
All I spoke to was 'strike camp and move 200 ft back from the shore' rather than buying people out, which was your response.
I KNOW you're misguided because you're assigning comments to me I never even remotely alluded to.
Quote:I mean, if we want people to leave at-risk areas of the coast, we have to incentive both them leaving AND people not moving in, in their place.
1) Where did I say I want people to leave these areas?? I just said, take your chances. Live where you choose to live. If the government is PUTTING people there, then the government can simply decide NOT to put them there tomorrow... so they WON'T be moving in, in their place, UNLESS they are making their own decisions with their own money. If they aren't informed that the government has pulled out of 'beachfront project #16' and that is why this lot is available, that's likely a disclosure issue for their realtor.
2) If the risk of not being able to access your property in 5 or 10 or 20 years isn't incentive enough for someone to leave, then caveat emptor. I see ZERO reason to incentivize someone CAPABLE of moving to move. If they want to stay, then stay. The only people I'm concerned about is those who are living (or working) there because that is where they're MADE to live by the government. They don't have a choice. The government can make different decisions for those people.
(08-16-2021 11:10 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: Quote: (08-16-2021 11:10 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: So what is the point you're trying to make? That people will try to game the system?
Of course, but that doesn't mean the problem should be ignored, minimized, and not addressed.
Which once again has nothing to do with anything I said.... just a means of dismissing someone as if they said something silly when they demonstrably did not.
In the most obvious example, I support OO's comment about 'striking camp and moving 200ft inland like our ancestors'.... essentially adapting to climate change as opposed to trying to fight it. This is a perfect example of me quite obviously NOT ignoring, minimizing or failing at addressing the issue as you try and move the goal posts and speak with condescension. I simply disagree that the government should be 'bailing out' people who made intentional decisions to live in water front property and now find themselves in a position to perhaps lose money on that investment.
And it continues - this is far more than people choosing to invest in water front property. It's why I keep asking if people have been to Galveston! If all you're saying is "I support manage retreat, but not for a certain subset of the population," then alright. But that's not at all how that comes across.
You're right that OO's comment about moving the tribe is a solution worth adopting, yet all I see is you fighting the actual solution... Maybe I'm missing something?
Yes, you're clearly missing something. I've been quite clear. Those who have DECIDED to buy this property can do as they choose. The best advice for them is to move 200 feet back. The way the government does this is to adopt new building codes... where you can't build new properties within 200 feet of where they are now. They can also not provide building permits for improvements etc etc etc. That's what they've done everywhere before. In Surfside, you USED to be able to build on 8 foot stilts.... Then 12.... now its 16. There are two houses that are actually in the surf. People can't touch them.
I've also been clear about 'subsets' of the population.
All the government has to do is stop offering subsidies for certain addresses. Maybe give people a year or three notice. If its a government PROJECT, they should plan to move people from 'that' project to a new one, at least 200 feet back from the shore within the next 5-10 years, whatever the projection is.
What I'm saying is, we don't need to be PAYING people who CHOSE to live there. We also don't need to be INCENTIVIZING people who are on full assistance to move. We as a population choose not to invest there and you live where we invest. Yes its sad to lose a community, but its happening whether or not we incentivize you. Communities have been swallowed by the earth for centuries.
Quote:Quote:In the simplest example, how about we do what they have done in Meyerland and required all new construction or remodels be lifted?? That is done through building codes and lots of people are doing or have done it... almost ALL without 'bail outs'.
I'm sick and tired of 'the government printing money' being the solution for every time someone might lose money. That should only be done if the government is the primary CAUSE of the issue, and not one of perhaps dozens of them,
It's not the solution for every time someone might lose money, I think you should read more about climate adaptation and mitigation. There are plenty of strategies that cities and states have been employing to try and proactively make more resilient communities.
But since we likely have communities that exist in an area that won't be habitable in the future, how else do you expect people to move the village back 200 ft inland? Not everyone that needs to move can afford that kind of uprooting. Heck, we've already seen that happen in the US on the Louisiana coast.
I think you should stop thinking you know what I have and have not read. Just because I don't agree with something doesn't mean I haven't read it. We're not discussing what can or could be done... we're discussing 'what is best'. Most of the strategies you speak about, I do not favor. I think I'm making that pretty clear.
Maybe before you say 'its not the solution for every time someone might lose money' you might revisit every economic disaster we've faced in the last few decades. You might read up more on Paris accords to see what happens to the money. Yes, people game the system. Almost always the politicians who write the rules and make the plans... for their own benefit.
In terms of who can afford what....
There are people today paying 1.5 times what a house is worth who may have trouble in a few years. People in the 1980's in Houston did the same thing. Lots of people lost lots of money. Was it their fault?? No... but it's what happens. Lots of people declared bankruptcy etc etc etc. Some just walked away from their homes. It happens.
As to what someone can afford... can they afford to live under water?? The government (or better, how about all of these 'green' advocates) can help them with some moving costs... grants, matching funds etc etc... maybe they simply encourage new landlords to provide moving assistance, especially if it is part of some assistance package. If they're moving from Government Housing #16 to Government housing #232, the government can help them move as part of the government's move from the old to new project. I just don't want people being 'bought out for reasons like 'losing their neighborhood'. Plenty of people have lost their neighborhood due to a calamity and nobody paid them for their loss.
/
Before it is blamed on Climate Change
![[Image: E88bj6CXIAMmjX4?format=jpg&name=small]](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/E88bj6CXIAMmjX4?format=jpg&name=small)