Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

This storm may point out the proper use of eminent domain

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 Mon Aug-29-05 08:21 AM
Original message
This storm may point out the proper use of eminent domain
Edited on Mon Aug-29-05 08:23 AM by SoCalDem
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
jackster Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-29-05 08:23 AM
Response to Original message
1. that's EXACTLY what SHOULD happen...
however as an example, what is happening along Florida's panhandle as a result of Hurricane Dennis is that the storm wiped out the fishing and oyster industry to a great degree. Now developers are swooping in and trying to buy up all the land for McMansions and luxury condo's.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SoCalDem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-29-05 06:24 PM
Response to Reply #1
10. That's what vultures always do..
They swoop in and take advantage of the misery of others.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Verve Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-29-05 08:23 AM
Response to Original message
2. What an expensive lawsuit mess that would become!
But, I agree with you!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SoCalDem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-29-05 08:26 AM
Response to Reply #2
4. If SCOTUS said it's ok to seize homes for "public benefit"
I don't know of anything that would benefit THESE "public areas" more..To be free of massive damage and potential loss of life every time a major storm comes along is certainly a public benefit.. Even more so, than a new walmart:)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Verve Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-30-05 09:40 AM
Response to Reply #4
11. I agree with you. But all these rich home owners would use every
last dime to fight the government. It could be done, but not without a huge political and judicial fight.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Patiod Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-29-05 08:25 AM
Response to Original message
3. Yeah, and you'll pry those deeds out of their cold dead hands
Edited on Mon Aug-29-05 08:25 AM by Patiod
Years ago, I dated a guy with a beachfront house on the Jersey shore.

At that time, New Jersey was trying to pass legislation that would not allow anyone to rebuild if their house was more than 50% destroyed by storm damage. He and the other owners of beachfront property throughout the state banded together, and from what I understand, the bill was defeated, and the building right up against the (disappearing, eroding) beaches continues to run amok.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SoCalDem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-29-05 08:36 AM
Response to Reply #3
7. Construction techniques and excessive building eventually
destroys the beaches.. It's sad to see sand being trucked TO a beach..Rich folks build their "cottage", then build seawalls and breakwaters to protect THEIR patch of sand, and in the process set off a frenzy of OTHERS doing the same.. They cnage the whole dynamic of the beach they claim to love, and without "enhancement" , the beach disappears..

It's NUTS
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Patiod Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-29-05 10:29 AM
Response to Reply #7
8. This guy also worked hard to get "beach replenishment" done
at much cost to the taxpayers.

The ocean keeps taking sand from the beaches in Ocean City and Avalon, and putting it down in Wildwood (it's a hellacious long walk to the ocean now, because the beach has become enormous with all the sand from the towns up the coast)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SoCalDem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-29-05 10:48 AM
Response to Reply #8
9. They do that our here too, and aerial shots of "then and now"
show just how much beachfront has been lost since the building spree started.. they end up ruining the reason they wanted to live there.:shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ramapo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-30-05 09:48 AM
Response to Reply #8
12. And we pay to rebuild
Flood insurance is often welfare for the rich. I'm for a one-time buyout when a home is destroyed by flooding. If you rebuild, then you're 100% liable for the consequences.

Here in NJ, construction on the barrier islands has run amok. New homes sell for millions. In some places, the island (LBI for example) is only a few blocks wide.

The whole NJ coastline is screwed up with some beaches, like Wildwood, growing huge while others shrink, all because of the inappropriate construction of groins and jettys.

Millions and millions are spent on beach replenishment, all to protect investments. It's a monumental folly.

NJ hasn't had a very serious coastal storm in decades. It is another disaster waiting to happen although at least it doesn't have the population density of New Orleans.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DemBones DemBones Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-29-05 08:27 AM
Response to Original message
5. Yeah, you're right. Ironically, the levees that
Edited on Mon Aug-29-05 08:27 AM by DemBones DemBones
keep the Mississippi from flooding NOLA also keep silt from depositing offshore in the marshes and barrier islands, giving NOLA less protection from hurricanes.

Damned if you do and damned if you don't.

:shrug:

I'm originally from Florida and the number of buildings along the beaches now is ridiculous. You can drive for miles along the coast without seeing any water, thanks to all the beachfront condos and hotels. Money should not be allowed to buy up scenery that way.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SoCalDem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-29-05 08:29 AM
Response to Reply #5
6. Florida in the 60's..
You could drive along the water, pull off and scamper down the embankment and take a dip..almost anywhere away from Miami, Ft.Lauderdale..There were little pull-off areas, and paths down to the beach..:cry:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Sat Apr 20th 2024, 07:40 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 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