Are we missing the point?

[Hawkmoon]

A couple of years ago New Orleans, a coastal city built largely BELOW sea level, was decimated by a storm. What are we doing? Rebuilding it.

Now Galveston, Texas, a city built on a barrier island just a few feet higher than *NORMAL* sea level, has been decimated by a storm. What are we doing? I just read an article about all the repair crews rushing in to rebuild the infrastructure.

FOR WHAT? So the next storm can do even more damage? Why the heck is the government even THINKING about allowing any reconstruction on Galveston Island? It should be bulldozed, all the man-made "stuff" on it removed, and it should be left to be what it is ... a barrier island.

Sheesh!

[MicroBalrog]

So you're saying the Dutch should bulldoze most of the Netherlands?

[HankB]

I disagree.

As I stated in another thread, once .gov pays out the full value of a home/business that's been destroyed in someplace like the below-sea-level parts of NOLA or on a barrier island, then that property is FOREVER inelegible for taxpayer-funded flood insurance.

Own land there? Well, you've been paid off once; build there again, and you assume 100% of the risk.

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

So you're saying the Dutch should bulldoze most of the Netherlands?

Last I heard they don't have hurricane problems the Netherlands.

[Leatherneck]

As I stated in another thread, once .gov pays out the full value of a home/business that's been destroyed in someplace like the below-sea-level parts of NOLA or on a barrier island, then that property is FOREVER inelegible for taxpayer-funded flood insurance.

Own land there? Well, you've been paid off once; build there again, and you assume 100% of the risk.

Excellent policy, Hank.

TC

[drewtam]

As I stated in another thread, once .gov pays out the full value of a home/business that's been destroyed in someplace like the below-sea-level parts of NOLA or on a barrier island, then that property is FOREVER inelegible for taxpayer-funded flood insurance.

Own land there? Well, you've been paid off once; build there again, and you assume 100% of the risk.

I've heard the Federal Flood Ins program is completely self funded. Also, don't forget that these programs are drops in the bucket compared to the primary budget busters:
SS
Medicare+Medicaid
DoD
Health and Human Resources
Interests on debt

These other issues are insignificant by comparison. Can't take your eye off the ball.

[MicroBalrog]

I agree with HankB, but also with Drewtam.

More importatnly, I think there's a difference between Hank's position and the OP's.

I think that while we should not offer Federal funding to these projects, private investments to reclaim land from the sea or settle the sea surface itself are an honorable and noble endeavour and they should be continued.

[Standing Wolf]

Some people learn from others' mistakes.
Some people learn from their own mistakes.
Some people repeat mistakes.

[K Frame]

"Last I heard they don't have hurricane problems the Netherlands."

No, they don't have hurricanes.

But you really need to read up on some of the North Sea storms that have caused massive flooding, destruction, and death in the Netherlands over the years.

The most famous, of course, is the 1953 flood. Nearly 2,000 dead in the Netherlands when a combination of things caused the perfect storm.

[Sindawe]

As I stated in another thread, once .gov pays out the full value of a home/business that's been destroyed in someplace like the below-sea-level parts of NOLA or on a barrier island, then that property is FOREVER inelegible for taxpayer-funded flood insurance.

If Federal Flood Insurance is fully self funded, fine.  If not, why should the rest of us who are wise enough to not build/buy in flood plain/storm surge zone compensate others for their folly?  Such only encourages others to do that same, then whine when the inevitable happens.

[roo_ster]

The fed flood ins is only part of the cost.

Providing SHTF services to folks who built in flood plains/on the cost/whatever are not free.

[Firethorn]

So you're saying the Dutch should bulldoze most of the Netherlands?

Last I heard they don't have hurricane problems the Netherlands.

They DO have storms just about as bad though.  By the same token though, they actually go through the effort to build an effective dike system.  Best in the world.

It works for a relatively small and rich country.  Here in the USA we have enough land that we shouldn't NEED to go through the expense to build there.  Or if we do, it should be because the economics are such that it's worth rebuilding there every so often.

For example, beach businesses should be able to function quite profitably there, such that rebuilding every decade or so is just another business expense.  For any 'homes' placed there, hurrican proof them like crazy.  Something like one of those concrete dome homes built on top of stilts or an artificial hill.  Worst case - we've built up the barrier island a bit, so it stops a bit more from hitting the main coast.

As the population is strictly seasonal/tourist, evacuating is expensive but not a big deal.

[quote-MicroBalrog]I think that while we should not offer Federal funding to these projects, private investments to reclaim land from the sea or settle the sea surface itself are an honorable and noble endeavour and they should be continued.[/quote]

Basically my point.  Charge for any rescues made after the manditory evacuation notice.

[Jamisjockey]

As I stated in another thread, once .gov pays out the full value of a home/business that's been destroyed in someplace like the below-sea-level parts of NOLA or on a barrier island, then that property is FOREVER inelegible for taxpayer-funded flood insurance.

Own land there? Well, you've been paid off once; build there again, and you assume 100% of the risk.

I've heard the Federal Flood Ins program is completely self funded. Also, don't forget that these programs are drops in the bucket compared to the primary budget busters:
SS
Medicare+Medicaid
DoD
Health and Human Resources
Interests on debt

These other issues are insignificant by comparison. Can't take your eye off the ball.

When its talk of millions and billions, its never a drop in the bucket.  They just want us to think that so they can keep sticking us with nickel-and-diming.


The reason we have to rebuild to some degree on the coast is the oil and gas infrastructure for the wells in the gulf.  However, to rebuild before we fix the levees is madness.  And to rebuild on barrier islands is ludicris

[MechAg94]

The worst areas in Galveston are not behind the sea wall.  It is out on the South end of the island where there was no sea wall.  There were lots of rent houses and other developments out there.  Seriously, you just had a hurricane roll over a city of over 4 million people.  What did you expect? 

These days, no matter where a hurricane hits, it is going to devastate housing at the shore.  There are too many people with money who like houses on the coast.  IMO, you would be better served pushing for better and tighter building standards for home as well as utility infrastructure so they don't have to keep rebuilding.  

Also, next time an earthquake hits out West, I assume we will see these same comments?  

[Antibubba]

Also, next time an earthquake hits out West, I assume we will see these same comments?  

Building code in California is very strict about quakeproofing, and retrofitting is a common sight--even here in Sac, where we don't have seismic problems.

Then again, anything above 8.0 is going to be bring death and destruction.

[taurusowner]

NOLA at least, though I'm not sure about Galveston, was built as a port.  It still sees a vast percentage of the imports that come into this country.  They city is what sprung about around the port to serve the people who work there.  You can't really get rid of the city of NOLA without losing it's value as a port either.