It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Rebuilding after Sandy

page: 1
2

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 1 2012 @ 07:54 AM
link   
Maybe it is time to look at the fact that this new world climate may make it necessary not to rebuild homes in the same place again. Why should a person rebuild their house in a dangerous place. This practice has been going on for a while and it is irrational. Safety should be an issue addressed by zoning boards in these cases. If there was only damage in this particular storm and it isn't predicted to be the norm in the future, that is a different case. Our government is paying a lot for this and it is being spread out to people who don't take unnecessary risks.

Building a park that is built to withstand these forces or buildings like small restaurants could still be built in these areas. I can't see a park like the one on Jersey Shore too close to the sea either. Put cemented in park benches and small trees near the ocean along with bike paths and walking paths. Roads and parking lots aren't bad, I am just talking about peoples houses.

Now that these areas are destroyed is the time to do this. They rebuilt Louisiana cities in the same place, it is only a matter of time before the same thing happens again. This was a stupid practice. Homeowner Insurance policies most times have a clause in them that they only pay full replacement cost if rebuilt in the same place. This is also a flawed approach to things. Why rebuild in an area that is completely destroyed and will probably be destroyed again.




posted on Nov, 1 2012 @ 08:54 AM
link   
Wouldn't it be nice if we could let Mother Nature reclaim these areas for awhile? These tourist areas would be all the better for it in the long run. However, people just see the value in the waterfront property and the profits that roll in. For all the talk about "going green" it would be pleasant to see something other than the short-sighted profit-minded agenda. On the other hand, these areas do provide a significant amount of jobs. Tough situation in that respect. You made some good points, S&F for you my friend.
edit on 1-11-2012 by TheOtter because: Correcting autocorrect!



posted on Nov, 1 2012 @ 09:04 AM
link   
reply to post by TheOtter
 


If small waterfront restaurants and a big park was in these area, the tax base may be higher and this would create great social activities and opportunities for small businesses to get started. I am just talking about residential properties. Strict codes should be enforced to make sure these buildings are strong and care should be taken to make cleanup after a storm easy. Don't create a situation by putting difficult and expensive to maintain structures in these areas. Make it so a front end loader can clean the roads and trails. Plant trees and plants in these areas. Leave longer sand beaches. Don't allow highly toxic chemicals to be stored in big quantities in these areas. Using common sense is the clue.



posted on Nov, 1 2012 @ 10:08 AM
link   
I completely agree, and I never did understand why we keep putting homes and businesses in the same place that they were destroyed in a flood. I think I remember that Bill Clinton, after a flood, decided to purchase the flooded land and relocate the town that flooded. At first people were not that happy, but I remember that it worked out well in the long run, because the area was near the Mississippi river and it flooded again, and people were happy they did not lose their homes.

We should put parks in areas that may flood, and not homes or businesses. I live near a large river, and our park is right on the river. When it floods, there is nothing that can really be damaged, as there is just a bathroom, tables and some grass.


edit on 1-11-2012 by PacificBlue because: sp



posted on Nov, 1 2012 @ 10:18 AM
link   
I have to agree. I like to consider it common sense.

It's a heavy burden on the whole country to constantly rebuild in disaster prone areas. I can appreciate and support the odd "hundred year" storm that suprises people and wipes out neighborhoods and towns. What i am losing patience with is the people that have built and rebuilt in the same place 2-3 or more times. It's fine if you want to take the responsibility and foot the bill. That is on you.

However, if every time your house of straw gets blown down you run to Uncle Sam for disaster relief, there has to be a line drawn. I saw a clip on a disaster show not long ago about a family that has had their house taken 4 times. I think there is a point of insanity that has been crossed here. If they and their insurance companies are footing the bill, that is fine...sort of. But, if they are expecting or needing FEMA or other federal and state assistance to continuously rebuild, they need to be cut off at some point.

I'd say....the first time is a given. If you choose to rebuild on the same foundation and give it another go, you have to sign a waiver that you will not expect the Gov to spend your neighbors tax dollars to facilitate your insanity. Fair is fair.



posted on Nov, 1 2012 @ 10:27 AM
link   
reply to post by Jeremiah65
 


The problem is that even the insurance companies spread the costs amongst others that are not in that high risk of an area. Say the Insurance company spreads costs between all people living around a river but only one part of the river overflows it's banks on a regular basis. The people living in that high risk area are raising rates for everyone on the river and make claims over and over again. I am not impressed with our countries use of "for the good of the people" either when it only benefits a small and select group of people.



posted on Nov, 1 2012 @ 10:44 AM
link   
reply to post by rickymouse
 


That is true. Insurance rates for a given area is based on the volume and value of previous claims. I am all for people living for where they choose to live, but I am not for having to participate in the cost of their rebuilding time and time again...either directly (jacked up insurance costs) or indirectly (my tax dollars going to FEMA disaster assistance).

I don't mean to sound cold hearted here. I just think it is wrong to expect someone else to contribute to the rebuilding of your summer beach house/condo. I can't afford to do those things or have one of those, why should my tax dollars subsidize you so that you can?

If you have the resources or the skills to endlessly rebuild so you can keep your hobby house/status symbol...great for you. Just don't expect me to get watery eyed when the ocean claims it the 3rd or 4th time.

Are there going to be exceptions? You bet...like the tornado zones of the Midwest...we need farmers, we don't need beach front vacation resorts and condos. Am I a little jaded? You bet!
edit on 11/1/2012 by Jeremiah65 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 1 2012 @ 11:50 AM
link   
reply to post by rickymouse
 


That would eliminate practically every location on the planet. Disasters happen.. rebuilding honestly isn't that big of a deal, it's a natural cycle. It's actually incredibly beneficial .. think of all those old decrepit 100 year old houses that were wiped off the map, to be rebuilt new, stronger, smarter and more efficient homes. Infrastructure will be better etc. It's a natural cycle and a healthy one.



posted on Nov, 1 2012 @ 12:19 PM
link   
The problem is that there is no where that is "safe" to build cities and houses.

Usually, cities have developed along oceans and rivers. You've got access to transportation and food (fish)

There certainly seem to be some areas that are prone to devastation on a somewhat regular basis. I think that insurance for flooding from big weather events should be limited to say once in every 15-20 years. If you live in an area that gets wiped out 3 years out of ten, you should have to bear the cost of rebuilding , not the government.



posted on Nov, 1 2012 @ 01:09 PM
link   
It's going to cost these cities, states, and the Federal government billions of dollars to rebuild these low lying areas and it may all be washed out again next year. This is not a rational thing to do. I can't see these people rebuilding back in the same place, I am sure that some who had their homes destroyed also think they will move somewhere up the hill. Take the money and run. Many people who did not evacuate got wiser. They learned that the place they live in is not safe for a while. Those who evacuated did not get this personal view of things as they unfolded. I am sure the ones who evacuated will be more apt to rebuild. We are supposed to learn from everything we do. We are supposed to learn from our mistakes. To ignore this warning that mother nature has given us is unwise, especially since many people who have studied weather all their lives are noticing a repeating pattern. This is the new world for a while at least. Maybe in a few years things may get better, hopefully they won't get worse.



posted on Nov, 1 2012 @ 01:21 PM
link   
reply to post by rickymouse
 


Ah, I think I understand your vision better now. When I read your post, my mind was picturing things like the Atlantic City casinos, hotels, boardwalk and the photos of the amusement park on the beach somewhere in New Jersey. What you've described sounds lovely. I don't think we can get thousands of snarky Jersians behind it though



posted on Nov, 1 2012 @ 01:27 PM
link   
Sounds good....on paper. But, the reality is...we're talking about people's livelihoods. This isn't like Katrina. It's 10 times worse, and that's an understatement.



posted on Nov, 1 2012 @ 01:28 PM
link   
Keep an eye on who gets what contract. Thats if it ever gets that far.



posted on Nov, 1 2012 @ 01:29 PM
link   
one things for sure.

Climate change denyers are wrong.
To even politicize this issue is ludicrous to begin with. We all share this planet for cryin out loud.

My neighborhood is like a 3rd world country right now. Areas which have never recieved flooding in their history, are flooded.

So go ahead naysayers. Continue to say we got homes in the wrong area. Continue to doubt climate change. Only a matter of time before its in your house too.


 
Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com
 



posted on Nov, 1 2012 @ 02:14 PM
link   
reply to post by TheOtter
 


It's also relatively cheap. What is wrong with having a big city park next to the ocean with concession stands, small restaurants overlooking the ocean, a skateboard park, etc. There could even be some skating rinks/wading pools for the geese to poop in


I'm try to say that the cities should buy the land and lease some to people wanting to start small restaurants. Put poured concrete walls on these restaurants with poured concrete ceilings. A regular roof can be put over the concrete ceiling for decoration purposes. They will make good bomb shelters also. Sliding steel shutters can go over the windows. We usually have some advanced warning. I could build something that could stand a direct hit by a huge tornado if I wanted to. Many people can.
edit on 1-11-2012 by rickymouse because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 1 2012 @ 03:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by spinalremain
one things for sure.

Climate change denyers are wrong.
To even politicize this issue is ludicrous to begin with. We all share this planet for cryin out loud.

My neighborhood is like a 3rd world country right now. Areas which have never recieved flooding in their history, are flooded.

So go ahead naysayers. Continue to say we got homes in the wrong area. Continue to doubt climate change. Only a matter of time before its in your house too.


 
Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com
 




Hmm I think you need to realize that most people believe the climate is changing. The point of argument is whether humans make a significant impact or not.




top topics



 
2

log in

join