CNN: When will we ever learn the lessons of hurricanes?

[Predicto]

Coastal communities are one thing, but there is something to be said for rethinking our practice of building homes directly on sand dunes that naturally shift and migrate.

[SWFLSkins]

This sounded like a dumb argument when used against the idea of having New Orleans, seems even dumber now.

I don't understand what your saying here. The Native Americans told the French not to build a permanant settlement there. The French with the superior engineering skills thought the savages were foolish. The rest is history, and New Orleans is never going to be the same. The Indians did live in the marshes using them for hunting and fishing all through out Florida and the Mid-Atlantic coast, they however did not have multimillion dollar mansions, Roads, permanant Bridges and Insurance. So when a storm came they moved in land. I guess the point is, The Native Americans knew more than the white man when it came to living in harmony with natures ebb and flow.

---------- Post added August-29th-2011 at 12:36 PM ----------

I do know that if I built a home from the Carolinas to Florida or the Gulf Coast, it woudl be some sort of concrete bunker like the ones they stormed on D-Day.

It may not be pretty but it will hold up against some heavy weather.

Actually you don't need to go to that extreme, and it has been done tastfully already. The probelm is cost, and even people with money don't see the value when they carry insurance that will cover them worst case scenario.

[Predicto]

More leftist CNN drivel, trashing the south and letting New York, Connecticut and New Hampshire off the hook.

This has nothing to do with "leftist." and very little to do with the South.

Hell, what does the term "leftist" even mean to you, other than "anything I disagree with at the time"?

[mcsluggo]

Coastal communities are one thing, but there is something to be said for rethinking our practice of building homes directly on sand dunes that naturally shift and migrate.

what we need to re-think is SUBSIDISING them (or the insurance for them). THey are high value/hi risk investments. or SHOULD be. instead investors want the high value, and the government to absorb/mitigate much of the risk.

the situation SHOULD be: build on the dunes if you want. Reap teh benefits while you CAN. Take the financial hit when ma nature opines that your lot choice was sub-optimal by knocking your house down.

but this is almost THE single best textbook definition of non-optimizing rentseking behavior in existence. people will ALWAYS peddle infuence in this sort of situation... and every law that has ben constructed to block subsidizing of coastal develpment has been very effectively subverted.

[Destino]

More leftist CNN drivel, trashing the south and letting New York, Connecticut and New Hampshire off the hook.

I think wind in general is leftist. I mean think about it... hurricanes hit the south hard and then when they reach Washington or any of the leftist state north of it suddenly it takes it's foot off the gas. I'm suuure that just a coincidence right? Then if you think about middle America or what the leftist call "flyover country" the tornadoes show up frequently to annihilate the place. When was the last time you saw wind destroying buildings along the left coast? Exactly... no wonder leftists are so in love with wind energy.

[PeterMP]

what we need to re-think is SUBSIDISING them (or the insurance for them). THey are high value/hi risk investments. or SHOULD be. instead investors want the high value, and the government to absorb/mitigate much of the risk.

the situation SHOULD be: build on the dunes if you want. Reap teh benefits while you CAN. Take the financial hit when ma nature opines that your lot choice was sub-optimal by knocking your house down.

but this is almost THE single best textbook definition of non-optimizing rentseking behavior in existence. people will ALWAYS peddle infuence in this sort of situation... and every law that has ben constructed to block subsidizing of coastal develpment has been very effectively subverted.

This.

If you want to build a condominium on a barrier island, that's fine by me, but don't complain to me when the beach in front of your condo is gone.

And I have no problem about essentially saying the same thing about SF.

(And some of the communities in the mid-west along different rivers are even worse than the east coast or SF).

**EDIT**

I've actually thought for a long time there should be a connection between accepting relief aid and your property. Your property gets to accept relief aid every 100 years. If you take it, you go in a database somewhere. Then no matter who owns that property, no relief aid for the next 100 years.

[War Paint]

this is one of the worst cnn articles i've ever read, and that's really saying something. this jackass is arrogantly doing a roundabout "told ya so" to the tune of "anyone who builds anything anywhere near the east coast deserves what they get." sure, let's abandon all locations on earth that periodically experience weather. or earthquakes. or tornados. or floods. hmm, that leaves what ... a bit of central pennsylvania? ugh, you can have it. give me a break. sometimes sh*t happens, and then we rebuild.

Yeah, the people of San Fran need to move because of earthquakes, the mid-west needs to be shut down because of tornadoes. The folks in Florida through the Carolinas need to be shipped somewhere lol. Let's move people out of Seattle and other parts of Washington due to Volcanoes. The jackass who wrote that article needs to be pimp slapped. Typical elitist trying to do the "shame on you sheep" routine.

[Tulane Skins Fan]

This.

If you want to build a condominium on a barrier island, that's fine by me, but don't complain to me when the beach in front of your condo is gone.

And I have no problem about essentially saying the same thing about SF.

(And some of the communities in the mid-west along different rivers are even worse than the east coast or SF).

**EDIT**

I've actually thought for a long time there should be a connection between accepting relief aid and your property. Your property gets to accept relief aid every 100 years. If you take it, you go in a database somewhere. Then no matter who owns that property, no relief aid for the next 100 years.

Where in this country is completely safe from everything all the time? And no, don't say DC or NYC because we spend BILLIONS of dollars keeping us safe from terrorists.

I wish people would realize that Americans are in some things together and we can actually accomplish a lot more if we are willing to help each other out.

[TimmySmith]

This has nothing to do with "leftist." and very little to do with the South.

Hell, what does the term "leftist" even mean to you, other than "anything I disagree with at the time"?

I used the word leftist because CNN is a left wing shill. HOWEVER, my comment was totally tongue in cheek, because the aftermath of Irene will show that the (1) north got pummeled far worse than the south and (2) the entire United States is located in floodplains, on fault lines, in fire zones, and mud slide areas so the article is pretty much moot even if the idiot who wrote did go to Duke (as pointed out by somebody).

[PeterMP]

Where in this country is completely safe from everything all the time? And no, don't say DC or NYC because we spend BILLIONS of dollars keeping us safe from terrorists.

I wish people would realize that Americans are in some things together and we can actually accomplish a lot more if we are willing to help each other out.

There is no where that is completely safe to live, but there are reasonable places to live that have lower risk. My parents live on the Eastern Shore of MD. They've never had an issue and have lived there for over 30 years. The house they live in is over 100 years old, the neighbors house even older (and these are big wooden 3 story homes). The government hasn't pumped large sums of money into their property to keep the sand in front of it from eroding.

I also think you are smart enough to differentiate between something like terrorism, which is going to go where the people do, and something like "natural disasters".

[War Paint]

Where in this country is completely safe from everything all the time? And no, don't say DC or NYC because we spend BILLIONS of dollars keeping us safe from terrorists.

I wish people would realize that Americans are in some things together and we can actually accomplish a lot more if we are willing to help each other out.

It really boggles my mind about how the word "safety" is so pushed now. Everything is about "keeping us safe" and "safety first", regardless of any sacrifices or results that may come from it. I remember being a kid and climbing on metal monkey bars. I remember playing dodge ball. I remember riding a bike with my friends. We didn't where helmets or knee pads. I see kids now wearing body armor riding a bike. Monkey bars look like a piece of plastic made by Fisher-Price. Do kids play dodge ball anymore? It's like those in charge are trying to turn all of us into poodles.

[Tulane Skins Fan]

There is no where that is completely safe to live, but there are reasonable places to live that have lower risk. My parents live on the Eastern Shore of MD. They've never had an issue and have lived there for over 30 years. The house they live in is over 100 years old, the neighbors house even older (and these are big wooden 3 story homes). The government hasn't pumped large sums of money into their property to keep the sand in front of it from eroding.

I also think you are smart enough to differentiate between something like terrorism, which is going to go where the people do, and something like "natural disasters".

To the last point first, the bottom line is that the government spends money to protect those of us in "high risk" places from terrorism that it doesn't have to spend on people from, say, Des Moines. But, Des Moines has more flooding than us and they get other benefits of a federal government.

To the first point, let's take your parents' Eastern Shore house. Despite how "reasonable" you might think it is to live there, it is less reasonable than living in a lot of places. In fact, I might say its less reasonable to live on the Eastern Shore than it is to live in Bethesda. Forget sand erosion, if a hurrican came through and tore up everything they owned, they'd probably get some federal assistance. And I don't see anything wrong with that.

Jon Stewart played the George Carlin clip recently and I just can't help but think how apropos it is to the philosphical differences we (Americans) argue about in politics these days: "did you ever notice that other people's stuff is **** and your **** is stuff."

---------- Post added August-29th-2011 at 01:11 PM ----------

It really boggles my mind about how the word "safety" is so pushed now. Everything is about "keeping us safe" and "safety first", regardless of any sacrifices or results that may come from it. I remember being a kid and climbing on metal monkey bars. I remember playing dodge ball. I remember riding a bike with my friends. We didn't where helmets or knee pads. I see kids now wearing body armor riding a bike. Monkey bars look like a piece of plastic made by Fisher-Price. Do kids play dodge ball anymore? It's like those in charge are trying to turn all of us into poodles.

I think that's a slightly different point and won't go to war with you on that one. Kids are overprotected these days. But, I don't think that's really what we're talking about.

[PeterMP]

To the last point first, the bottom line is that the government spends money to protect those of us in "high risk" places from terrorism that it doesn't have to spend on people from, say, Des Moines. But, Des Moines has more flooding than us and they get other benefits of a federal government.

But if the government and all of the associated workers shifted from DC to Des Moines, then with respect to Des Moines, they'd have to do both.

You can't shift the population in a manner that is going to allow you to not pay money for protection from terrorism. We can shift some people in a manner that would make natural disasters a lot less costly.

To the first point, let's take your parents' Eastern Shore house. Despite how "reasonable" you might think it is to live there, it is less reasonable than living in a lot of places. In fact, I might say its less reasonable to live on the Eastern Shore than it is to live in Bethesda. Forget sand erosion, if a hurrican came through and tore up everything they owned, they'd probably get some federal assistance. And I don't see anything wrong with that.

And I wouldn't have a problem if somebody did a risk analysis and decided that the value of somebody living on their property wasn't worth the costs to the federal government, and told them they'd get one pay out from the federal disaster assistance, and then there wouldn't be any more associated with that property.

[Tulane Skins Fan]

One more thing to add: the idea that the federal government rebuilds homes for hurricane victims is preposterous. All these people in the southern coastal region do pay for hurricane insurance. They PAY for it. And then when they need it, its often denied for one BS reason or another. But this is just one of a myriad of stupid "points" in this article.

[Thiebear]

If something happens once every 100 years and its a 5.8 or sustained 35-75mph winds we can survive.

If something happens once every 50 years and its 6.8 or millions of acres of fire or 140mph winds then we need to plan.

If something happens once every <10 years and its 6.8 or fire or levy related, move.

If its a Caldera at 600,000 years, make it a park and get people to visit.

[PeterMP]

http://www.csc.noaa.gov/beachnourishment/html/human/socio/scitech.htm

"Federal and state shore protection program appropriations have increased significantly over the past 50 years. Between 1950 and 1994, a total of 132 shore protection projects were authorized by congress (Robinson, 2001). Between 1950 and 1993, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers spent an average of $20.5 million per year in 1993 dollars, or approximately $25 million per year in 2001 dollars on beach nourishment (Heinz, 2000). By the late 1990s, average annual expenditures for federal shore protection increased to an average of approximately $100 billion. Total shore protection appropriations approved by Congress for FY 2002 in the 2002 Water Resources Appropriations Bill increased to $134.7 million. The growth in expenditures on shore protection is in response to increasing pressures for federal subsidies from residents and business owners living along the coast. Their argument is that shore protection benefits are distributed much more widely than just to the residents and business owners living in coastal areas (Marlow, 2000). They further contend that it would be unfair to stop federal funding because the municipalities and property owners made investments with the expectation of continuing federal support. Proponents also point out that in some cases, federal projects intended to keep coastal inlets open contribute to beach erosion (Lollar, 2002) so the federal government should bear part of the cost of beach replenishment in those cases. For these reasons, they argue, the costs should be shared between the local and non local beneficiaries. Opponents of federal spending for beach replenishment argue that its benefits accrue largely to the localities in which the projects occur (Rinehart, 1997). Therefore, they reason, state and local governments should bear the projects' entire cost, not the federal government. A second argument sometimes made against any funding of shore protection projects is that beach erosion is a relentless natural process, and projects only temporarily delay the inevitable natural shifting of beaches. Opponents contend that a better strategy would be to accept that beaches will naturally shift over time and retreat from shorelines that are receding (Bowden, 2002)."

Somebody want to tell me how that makes any sense?

[Tulane Skins Fan]

But if the government and all of the associated workers shifted from DC to Des Moines, then with respect to Des Moines, they'd have to do both.

You can't shift the population in a manner that is going to allow you to not pay money for protection from terrorism. We can shift some people in a manner that would make natural disasters a lot less costly.

And I wouldn't have a problem if somebody did a risk analysis and decided that the value of somebody living on their property wasn't worth the costs to the federal government, and told them they'd get one pay out from the federal disaster assistance, and then there wouldn't be any more associated with that property.

Well, you're asking the wrong question with the first one. Its not like we couldn't significantly limit the risks of terrorism if we changed a lot of our foreign policy. But, we don't think that's the right thing to do and so some of us take on the risk of it.

Again though, I don't know of the federal government paying for anyone to rebuild a house. Maybe I'm way off here, but I lived through Katrina and its not like no one had insurance, which they PAID for. FEMA usually delivers EMERGENCY assistance in the form of whatever needs to be done in an emergency.

This article is way overblown. Natural disasters happen. Terrorists, i.e. evil people, happen. You can't avoid everything bad in the world no matter what you do. If we are a "country," a "union," we wouldn't complain when some people who lose everything they ever owned get a trailer to live in for six months so they can get back on their feet. We should applaud that.

---------- Post added August-29th-2011 at 01:24 PM ----------

If something happens once every 100 years and its a 5.8 or sustained 35-75mph winds we can survive.

If something happens once every 50 years and its 6.8 or millions of acres of fire or 140mph winds then we need to plan.

If something happens once every <10 years and its 6.8 or fire or levy related, move.

If its a Caldera at 600,000 years, make it a park and get people to visit.

Which one of those is Irene? Which one of those is the earthquake we just had? Which one of those is Katrina (cause you referenced a levee).

---------- Post added August-29th-2011 at 01:25 PM ----------

http://www.csc.noaa.gov/beachnourishment/html/human/socio/scitech.htm

"Federal and state shore protection program appropriations have increased significantly over the past 50 years. Between 1950 and 1994, a total of 132 shore protection projects were authorized by congress (Robinson, 2001). Between 1950 and 1993, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers spent an average of $20.5 million per year in 1993 dollars, or approximately $25 million per year in 2001 dollars on beach nourishment (Heinz, 2000). By the late 1990s, average annual expenditures for federal shore protection increased to an average of approximately $100 billion. Total shore protection appropriations approved by Congress for FY 2002 in the 2002 Water Resources Appropriations Bill increased to $134.7 million. The growth in expenditures on shore protection is in response to increasing pressures for federal subsidies from residents and business owners living along the coast. Their argument is that shore protection benefits are distributed much more widely than just to the residents and business owners living in coastal areas (Marlow, 2000). They further contend that it would be unfair to stop federal funding because the municipalities and property owners made investments with the expectation of continuing federal support. Proponents also point out that in some cases, federal projects intended to keep coastal inlets open contribute to beach erosion (Lollar, 2002) so the federal government should bear part of the cost of beach replenishment in those cases. For these reasons, they argue, the costs should be shared between the local and non local beneficiaries. Opponents of federal spending for beach replenishment argue that its benefits accrue largely to the localities in which the projects occur (Rinehart, 1997). Therefore, they reason, state and local governments should bear the projects' entire cost, not the federal government. A second argument sometimes made against any funding of shore protection projects is that beach erosion is a relentless natural process, and projects only temporarily delay the inevitable natural shifting of beaches. Opponents contend that a better strategy would be to accept that beaches will naturally shift over time and retreat from shorelines that are receding (Bowden, 2002)."

Somebody want to tell me how that makes any sense?

I don't think "shore protection" has anything to do with hurricane emergency relief.

[PeterMP]

I don't think "shore protection" has anything to do with hurricane emergency relief.

They're tied together because if you stop the shore protection, you'd greatly reduce your hurricane emergency relief (assuming the people moved). If you stopped your shore protection, the people living on the barrier islands would be a lot more vulnerable to hurricanes (and need more emergency relief (if you continued to offer it)).

[Jumbo]

Better than the ho-hum dickish opinion piece on the "opinion page" from the Duke dude, is the fun look at that there lefty noise in Timmy's head (I'm happy I know ya from here well enough amigo to have figured you were being at least somewhat tongue in cheek :pfft:), and Kilmer17's solid suggestion of mountain life. It's one I employed for 8 years on a small mountain (that's what they call such hills in the Lower 48) outside Jacksonville Ore in the Rogue Valley after having some experience with it in AK where it really does work. Nice summers in the Rogue, and great river swimming.

But sadly there's almost nowhere to go where you won't be dealing with *******s of one form or another. What is lacking in sheer number of dotards and less variety as population density changes, is often countered by the notably more "colorful" (and just as intrusive one way or another) nature of the humans you will interact with in such environs.

[PeterMP]

Well, you're asking the wrong question with the first one. Its not like we couldn't significantly limit the risks of terrorism if we changed a lot of our foreign policy. But, we don't think that's the right thing to do and so some of us take on the risk of it.

And that's something people bring up all of the time, and it is something we should continue to talk about and analyze, and if there is good reason to believe that the benefits from our foreign policy don't exceed the costs and changes to our foreign policy will really reduce costs w/ respect to terrorism, we should do it.

Building high rises on barrier islands doesn't make any sense.

And it isn't really FEMA and rebuilding homes, but all of the other associated costs.

http://www.dhs.gov/xfoia/archives/gc_1157649340100.shtm

Again, there is no such thing as a completely safe place to live. But that doesn't mean it doesn't make sense to ask are the benefits of people living place X (assuming reasonable government support) do or do not out weigh the costs.

And if they don't, then to do something about it (i.e. limit government support).

**EDIT**

Oh, and it isn't just some people. The population matters. It makes a lot of sense for SOME people to live in the New Orleans area. But does it make sense for the number of people that lived there prior to Katrina to live there?

I don't honestly know.

But the risk go down if the population is smaller (e.g. you have more open space so more flood plains and less concrete so more places for water to go and less flooding of human infractruture), and less diluted benefit presumably (how many people in New Orleans had jobs that were really unique to New Orleans and had to be there because of the associated geography/geology).

[twa]

And I wouldn't have a problem if somebody did a risk analysis and decided that the value of somebody living on their property wasn't worth the costs to the federal government, and told them they'd get one pay out from the federal disaster assistance, and then there wouldn't be any more associated with that property.

We do that here to a degree,both on shoreline and flood plains

[Tulane Skins Fan]

Yes, but you aren't actually doing a risk/benefit analysis of those costs and the rewards. You are assuming that the people living on islands and in various places susceptible to natural disasters or other disasters are not taking those disasters into account already. Why are you presuming that though? People in New Orleans knew that a hurricane had the capability to do what Katrina did. People on the east coast know that they could be hit by a hurricane like Irene too.

I think the cost benefit analysis that you referenced is something much more complex than you are realizing and that its unfair to say that people aren't performing just because they are finding the benefits do in fact outweigh the costs.

[PeterMP]

I think the cost benefit analysis that you referenced is something much more complex than you are realizing and that its unfair to say that people aren't performing just because they are finding the benefits do in fact outweigh the costs.

Their costs and risks sure, but the governments? I doubt it.

Do you really believe that shore line protection alone (so not costs associated with hurricanes really) is worth a value of hundreds of millions of dollars a year so that people can build things that near the shore to the federal government?

[Tulane Skins Fan]

Their costs and risks sure, but the governments? I doubt it.

Do you really believe that shore line protection alone (so not costs associated with hurricanes really) is worth a value of hundreds of millions of dollars a year so that people can build things that near the shore to the federal government?

My honest answer is that I don't know about a shore line protection investment. When you posted that, my first thought was that it was some environmental appropriation. I don't think I know enough about what you're talking about specifically. But, I was talking about the moronic article that we shouldn't rebuild places that can get hit by hurricanes.

I will add this, again: no one takes into account the government's risks when they purchase something. Do the people in Missouri take into account the government's risks when they build in tornado alley? Why is this, hurricane zone shoreline, so awful to everyone?

[Sticksboi05]

Yes, but you aren't actually doing a risk/benefit analysis of those costs and the rewards. You are assuming that the people living on islands and in various places susceptible to natural disasters or other disasters are not taking those disasters into account already. Why are you presuming that though? People in New Orleans knew that a hurricane had the capability to do what Katrina did. People on the east coast know that they could be hit by a hurricane like Irene too.

I think the cost benefit analysis that you referenced is something much more complex than you are realizing and that its unfair to say that people aren't performing just because they are finding the benefits do in fact outweigh the costs.

Exactly. Hurricane Katrina narrowly missed occurring in 1992 when Hurricane Andrew barely missed obliterating New Orleans after re-emerging into the Gulf. Let people do what they want. Every person on the coast understands the risks. Now, is it absurd to build some mega-expensive state of the art complex in hurricane land, yes, but a beach house?