Long article about poor development choices and Sandy

[Speedy]

Duh.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/12...d=webmail3

The surge flattened whole communities on New Jersey's barrier islands, causing untold billions in damage, and topped seawalls in lower Manhattan and throughout the metropolitan area, plunging millions into darkness. It also claimed lives, especially on Staten Island, where 21 people drowned during the storm.

Given the size and power of the storm, much of the damage from the surge was inevitable. But perhaps not all. Some of the damage along low-lying coastal areas was the result of years of poor land-use decisions and the more immediate neglect of emergency preparations as Sandy gathered force, according to experts and a review of government data and independent studies.

Authorities in New York and New Jersey simply allowed heavy development of at-risk coastal areas to continue largely unabated in recent decades, even as the potential for a massive storm surge in the region became increasingly clear.

In the end, a pell-mell, decades-long rush to throw up housing and businesses along fragile and vulnerable coastlines trumped commonsense concerns about the wisdom of placing hundreds of thousands of closely huddled people in the path of potential cataclysms.

[the_poochies]

Much of the NJ coast was developed before WWII. Many of the homes are former summer bungalows resting on cinder blocks. They were never built to withstand hurricanes.

[DRR]

It's easy to say "duh" in hindsight. It's difficult, arguably impossible, to both plan for, and allocate resources for, every possible outcome.

[cbelt3]

DRR wrote:
It's easy to say "duh" in hindsight. It's difficult, arguably impossible, to both plan for, and allocate resources for, every possible outcome.

I'll diffidently disagree. You'll find that people in those areas argued AGAINST all that low lying permanent home development even before WWII, and were overruled by greedy bureaucrats eager to reap increased tax revenues and other benefits.

And when you say 'possible outcome' you really should have said "Probable Outcome":

Personal Story:

My father grew up on Long Island. The color movie film you see in various programs of the 1938 hurricane that devastated Long Island was taken by my grandmother.. in one shot you see my grandfather, his brother in law, and my then 7 year old father helping with rescue and recovery operations.

After the hurricane, my grandfather worked very hard to try to disallow development and construction on low lying areas along the Atlantic shore. He attended meetings, hired lawyers, even sued the town. He made himself quite the nuisance.

But was rebuffed for the reasons noted above.


Fools build on flood plains, 'dry' riverbeds, and along coastal shores within reach of Mother Nature. Complete Freaking MORONS allow them to build there in exchange for money.

[threeprong]

Real estate developers are notorious for buying legal representation for city meetings, "persuading " councilmen and other tactics.

Somewhere, there's an entity that represents real estate developers in the area and I guarantee they were greatly responsible for any weakened laws governing real estate development in the area.

This is issue is rampant in many large metro areas.

3P

[Speedy]

threeprong wrote:
Real estate developers are notorious for buying legal representation for city meetings, "persuading " councilmen and other tactics.

Somewhere, there's an entity that represents real estate developers in the area and I guarantee they were greatly responsible for any weakened laws governing real estate development in the area.

This is issue is rampant in many large metro areas.

3P

^ THIS

[Mr Downtown]

Just keep in mind that, since 1992, local governments cannot prevent landowners from building on their property. Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council, 505 U.S. 1003 (1992)

[decay]

wasn't there a Sunday School song about the wise man & where he built his house?

[davester]

Cbelt has it exactly right. Unscrupulous developers and politicians allowed development in inappropriate areas to obtain short term cash gains. The same thing happens in floodplains all along the Mississippi and other major US rivers. The last chapter of every Geology 101 textbook always has a discussion of this problem. Land that is completely worthless due to well understood major flood risk gets bought up by developers, political pressure is applied to allow development and obtain subsidies for flood insurance from the government (i.e. everybody else pays to subsidize developer profits), then homes that are doomed to destruction are built.

These kinds of events are completely forseeable. Same old, same old.

[DRR]

cbelt3 wrote:
[quote=DRR]
It's easy to say "duh" in hindsight. It's difficult, arguably impossible, to both plan for, and allocate resources for, every possible outcome.

I'll diffidently disagree. You'll find that people in those areas argued AGAINST all that low lying permanent home development even before WWII, and were overruled by greedy bureaucrats eager to reap increased tax revenues and other benefits.

And when you say 'possible outcome' you really should have said "Probable Outcome":
In that case answer me two questions please.

1) When was the last time flooding occurred in the area at near Sandy-levels, (9.15 feet above high tide) and

2) Why bother rebuilding any other area after a natural disaster? NO will get hit with another hurricane eventually, and it much of it is being rebuilt still below sea level. A big quake will eventually hit both Northern and Southern California. The upper Mississippi will flood. These are all "probable." So with that logic - why bother.

Honest questions.