You are viewing an obsolete version of the DU website which is no longer supported by the Administrators. Visit The New DU.
Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Reply #5: Asphalt & concrete are no substitute for mangrove swamps [View All]

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU
SoCalDem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-30-05 09:08 AM
Response to Reply #3
5. Asphalt & concrete are no substitute for mangrove swamps
Edited on Tue Aug-30-05 09:09 AM by SoCalDem
and barrier islands:(


I posted this yesterday, but there was bigger news to cover.. I stand by this solution


((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((


SoCalDem (1000+ posts) Mon Aug-29-05 06:21 AM
Original message


This storm may point out the proper use of eminent domain




States should re-claim barrier islands and coastlines, and restore them to their "original" purposes.

Replant sea grass & other native plants.. let the sand distribute where it "needs" to be, instead of where merchants, developers & million-dollar "cottage" owners WANT it to be.

Barrier islands and the marshy areas around them are what PROTECTS the people near the coastlines.

When all these cities sprang up, people did not know how valuable these little strips of sand were..

A trip to "undeveloped" island or coastal areas in the world shows how coastlines are properly managed.

In Tahiti, the ONLY beach structures were small thatched huts (local people)...except for where "westerners" had built the large hotels..

The island/coastal people have lived there for thousands of years, and THEY bulid their permanent structures INLAND a bit, and use paths or trails to get through the brush and vegatation to get to the beach. they do NOT build their homes on the beach, or right next to an inlet that can flod in storms.

Most people CAN get to the water without LIVING there..The beaches can be used for day-trips or recreation without LIVING there..

Their destroyed mansions slinter into projectiles that are then flung around like matchsticks. Building stuff right where storms hit and rip them apart is a DANGER to everyones else.

The way we build coastal buildings is idiotic too.

When we lived in Panama (EXTREMELY stormy and WET all the time) we had concrete houses, elevated about 10 ft on pillars..tile everywhere, and after a storm, even when it flooded, we just used a squeegee upstairs, pushed it down the concrete/tiled stairs, and out the door.... The bamboo furniture dried out, and we were good to go, until the next storm..

wood & masonry in areas prone to flooding or wind storms is INSANE..

We all pay higher insurance premiums because of the constant re-building of these structures..


(and yes, I am also against building in fire-prone canyons out here and on our own coastlines of CA)


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC