Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 27

Thread: Is it always smart to rebuild storm areas?

  1. #1
    Senior Member flowerseverywhere's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    1,983

    Is it always smart to rebuild storm areas?

    In the news you see people and even the president vowing "we will rebuild and be stronger than ever."

    Whether or not you you believe in Global Warming, it seems like that might not always be the best case. Many areas of the Keys have no electricity, water or sewer a week later, and in future hurricanes, no matter how strong they build the houses they will likely suffer much devastation after a hurricane. Houston has revealed many problems with building houses on prior drainage basins. Here in Florida, they are warning some rivers continue to rise a week after Irma passed and those on the banks are being evacuated as our normal PM thundershowers routine continues to dump rain. The outer banks of the Carolinas, Malibu Coast, areas hit by Hurricane Sandy. So many places that are subject to severe flooding, beach erosion and structure destruction perhaps it is time to rethink the structure of our vulnerable cities.

    Sea ear levels are higher than what they were. Miami always has raised some streets.

    http://www.bbc.com/future/story/2017...sea-level-rise

    if Irma had a direct hit there as predicted can you even imagine? St Augustine, which largely has been out of,the news has had problems from Irma as well as Jacksonville and other cities including Charlestown
    http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer...hurricane.html

    what is the solution? People live here, work here and uprooting is very difficult. St Augustine is the nations oldest city and families have lived there for generations.

  2. #2
    Senior Member bae's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Offshore
    Posts
    6,706
    St. Augustine. Our oldest city. That's so cute...

  3. #3
    Senior Member flowerseverywhere's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    1,983
    Quote Originally Posted by bae View Post
    St. Augustine. Our oldest city. That's so cute...
    smithsonian is wrong? Not sure what you mean

    http://www.smithsonianmag.com/travel...ida-180956434/

  4. #4
    Senior Member bae's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Offshore
    Posts
    6,706
    Ever been to Acoma? I've spent months up at Sky City....

  5. #5
    Senior Member iris lilies's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Posts
    11,081
    I love St. Augustine. And it is the oldest city by the Culture that matters, dominant Europeans. So there.

    And now I will pick apart another item in OP's post (poor OP!) and it is that most climatologists have not made correlation between hurricanes and global warming. This is surprising to me, but something I learned from the editorial below from the ultra liberal St. Louis Post Dispatch editorial board in which they skewer Rish Limbaugh. This fact is not their main point, but it was containted in the editorial.

    http://www.stltoday.com/opinion/edit...604c3c54b.html


    which says



    "...In fact, most serious climate scientists acknowledge little linkage between climate change and hurricanes in the past century. The National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration, in dry, technical language and numbers — science — concludes that correlation with today’s weather is difficult. NOAA scientists do say that global warming will contribute to greater weather extremes and that future hurricanes are likely “to be more intense globally and have higher rainfall rates than present-day hurricanes.”

    I repeat, i was very surprised to learn this, assuming the Post Dispatch is correct.

    Of course, that doesnt negate rising sea levels as a problem, as OP points out.

    But no, it isn't "smart" to rebuild storm areas, always and everywhere.
    Last edited by iris lilies; 9-16-17 at 10:20am.

  6. #6
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    3,065
    Quote Originally Posted by bae View Post
    Ever been to Acoma? I've spent months up at Sky City....
    Archaeology Bae?
    Ever been to a settlement that shows how many times man has lived on the edge of water and as water levels rise (as they have over time), evidence of man living there gets covered up?

    Of course build stronger can be done:
    http://domeofahome.com/dome-information/hurricane/ (rethink the structure)
    And in places like New Orleans, they changed the height homes had to be built at. (but so many people expected FEMA to be the checkbook)
    They don't have to build up the roads, they only do so because of how car crazy we are.
    In parts of Florida, I expect paddle boats are common, while in other parts of the world:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Venice

    As to infrastructure, man has been living on the water for centuries and existing on this planet through disasters. At what point do you say you can't fix what others think (personal responsibility) and realize this culling of a population wouldn't be a drop of much in world population?

  7. #7
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    1,428
    Quote Originally Posted by flowerseverywhere View Post
    what is the solution? People live here, work here and uprooting is very difficult.

    My husband and I were having the same conversation. Many, many people that I know do not have the resources or wherewithal to move. Money, job, leaving family and social networks, the will to move, leaving generational communities, etc. I used us as an example. We could afford to move but could my husband find another job at 57 years of age, not easy. We do not want to establish ourselves in a new community. Our families are here. Facts and common sense may say move but many other factors come into play and say stay and put up with whatever comes our way. Many things outweigh the smart solution.

  8. #8
    Senior Member Williamsmith's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Location
    Penns Woods
    Posts
    2,260
    Each individual must make their own decision regarding the future of their lives. We are not talking making it a mission of the federal government to force the abandonment of entire cities and their infrastructure here. Are we?

    We have an arm of the government responsible for enabling the recovery of a region impacted by a catastrophic incident. Everyone knows FEMA and from what I read here and other places some people think FEMA is just a check issuer.

    FEMA has five stated missions.

    Prevention (terrorism), protection (terrorism and natural disasters), mitigation (lessening the impact of catastrophic incidents), response (meeting basic human needs and minimize loss of life and property damage) and recovery ( economic, health, cultural and infrastructure).

    What it says is all communities are part of what makes us U.S. Along with the charitable activities of private citizens and non profits.....rebuilding every community becomes a mission for all of us and strengthens our bond.

    I can see applying good common sense to zoning and future building as natural response to mitigate future exposure. But I sense the flavor of....you put yourself in that position ....don't look for me to help. I think that wrongly disregards the history of this nation, why certain urban populations were built near ports and river transportation.

    The same arguement could be made regarding terrorism and the existence of densely populated cities. We would certainly be less exposed to acts like the World Trade Center if we spread the population out and avoided skyscrapers and urban development....anywhere.

    So for me...an attack on any of us ....is an attack on all. To the extent that in catastrophic incidents reflection on mitigation is reasonable....I will agree. When we start talking about whose fault it is before even the recovery process has barely begun.....I think that's not consistent with the people we are.

  9. #9
    Senior Member SteveinMN's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Saint Paul, Minnesota
    Posts
    4,239
    Quote Originally Posted by goldensmom View Post
    We could afford to move but could my husband find another job at 57 years of age, not easy. We do not want to establish ourselves in a new community. Our families are here.
    But does that require (re)building in place? Granted, hurricanes cause more widespread damage than tornadoes or floods. But most Americans are not threatened by hurricanes; they deal with tornadoes or floods and wildfires. Even moving to the other side of town/an urban area can reduce the threat of devastation in many kinds of natural disasters. For people who cannot/don't want to consider relocating, that's not that far away from jobs, family and friends, etc.

    But I'm fine with people who get flooded out every year and who choose to rebuild in place -- so long as they're not doing it on my dime. There are numbers of properties in Minnesota and the border states perilously close to rivers which flood during every spring thaw; insurers finally are getting smart and refusing to insure them, which means lenders won't issue mortgages on them either. I understand not wanting to leave where one has roots and I understand the economic issues it presents to sell property that is worth less without an occupyable structure on it. But at some point nature and economics have to -- umm, trump -- where we live.

    IMHO the crowd that insists drug tests for welfare recipients is a good thing would do well to apply similar standards to other forms of public subsidy, like why all of us pay to protect homes along coastlines/riverbanks which routinely flood or which are perched in the middle of forests or in areas prone to sinkholes, earthquakes, etc. It's all welfare; the only difference is which socioeconomic class the recipient is in.
    If Americans expended even a fraction of the energy on civic engagement that we spend on consumer ideology, our democracy would be much healthier. Can you imagine people camping out to vote? -- Charles Roberts, Amherst, Mass., Nov. 25, 2006

  10. #10
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    SoCal
    Posts
    6,421
    But does that require (re)building in place? Granted, hurricanes cause more widespread damage than tornadoes or floods. But most Americans are not threatened by hurricanes; they deal with tornadoes or floods and wildfires. Even moving to the other side of town/an urban area can reduce the threat of devastation in many kinds of natural disasters. For people who cannot/don't want to consider relocating, that's not that far away from jobs, family and friends, etc.
    +1 is rebuilding in a flood plain really necessary? Rebuilding right up against the forest if there have been fires? I don't think so.
    If you want something to get done, ask a busy person. If you want them to have a nervous breakdown that is.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •