Rebuilding Florida…again

[TexasTiger 12,949]

Are there places so subject to disaster that we don’t continue to rebuild? Are there places federal flood insurance should no longer be available due to the risk? Even if this was done, however, hurricanes lead to flooding in places not in a flood plane. This question isn’t exclusive to Florida.
 

What should be invested in sea walls? Flood control? Is this the responsibility of the federal government or state? Municipalities?

It seems to me we are in a cyclical process where we keep courting disaster. Perhaps there are some beautiful, but risky locations that should become government owned parks— enjoyed by all, but not repeatedly requiring billions to rebuild. 
 

Thoughts?

[icanthearyou 4,463]

The structures built on the coast are essentially uninsurable.  We are all subsidizing the individuals who own these properties. 

[SaltyTiger 7,816]

59 minutes ago, TexasTiger said:

Perhaps there are some beautiful, but risky locations that should become government owned parks— enjoyed by all, but not repeatedly requiring billions to rebuild. 

Bingo. Some things in the world need no “improving”.  Amazing the amount of damage we have done to coastal eco systems in a relatively short period of time. 

[AU9377 4,967]

7 hours ago, TexasTiger said:

Are there places so subject to disaster that we don’t continue to rebuild? Are there places federal flood insurance should no longer be available due to the risk? Even if this was done, however, hurricanes lead to flooding in places not in a flood plane. This question isn’t exclusive to Florida.
 

What should be invested in sea walls? Flood control? Is this the responsibility of the federal government or state? Municipalities?

It seems to me we are in a cyclical process where we keep courting disaster. Perhaps there are some beautiful, but risky locations that should become government owned parks— enjoyed by all, but not repeatedly requiring billions to rebuild. 
 

Thoughts?

Vacation properties built on beaches and high risk areas can be insured.  We should have a real conversation about allowing high density residential areas to be built in some areas that are known to be disasters waiting to happen.  Florida is a difficult state to discuss, because much of it is prone to flooding, even in normal weather events.

[TexasTiger 12,949]

15 minutes ago, AU9377 said:

Vacation properties built on beaches and high risk areas can be insured.  We should have a real conversation about allowing high density residential areas to be built in some areas that are known to be disasters waiting to happen.  Florida is a difficult state to discuss, because much of it is prone to flooding, even in normal weather events.

They may get private insurance, but should federal flood insurance be available everywhere?

[SaltyTiger 7,816]

3 hours ago, TexasTiger said:

They may get private insurance, but should federal flood insurance be available everywhere?

Are you asking if it should or should not be available in high risk areas. Numbers of people never realize flood is not covered in the home owners. Good article on the lack of it. From experience uninsured property burdens all.

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/09/29/climate/hurricane-ian-flood-insurance.html

The low takeup rates for federal flood insurance in the areas hit by Hurricane Ian mean it will take longer for those communities to rebuild, imperiling their economies and prolonging the suffering, experts said.

 

[icanthearyou 4,463]

16 hours ago, AU9377 said:

Vacation properties built on beaches and high risk areas can be insured.

I think that is a highly debatable assertion.

[CoffeeTiger 5,133]

more and more insurance companies are pulling coverage out of these high risk flood areas cause the risk of storms/hurricanes are so high and cause such catastrophic damage that they don't see the upside even if they charge high premiums. 

[AU9377 4,967]

3 hours ago, icanthearyou said:

I think that is a highly debatable assertion.

It is expensive.  I guess my point was more that there is a difference between vacation/resort properties and residential neighborhoods.

[AU9377 4,967]

19 hours ago, TexasTiger said:

They may get private insurance, but should federal flood insurance be available everywhere?

That is a fair question.  I'm not certain how I feel about it, but my gut instinct is to say probably not.

[autigeremt 6,643]

The area where Ian hit hadn’t received that kind of strike in over 100 years. If we did this based on recent events you’d pretty much shut down over half of Florida, a big portion of Louisiana and sections of Mississippi, Alabama and the Carolinas. What about areas where large scale forest fires erupt, earthquake prone areas and tornado alley? 

[homersapien 11,388]

On 10/3/2022 at 10:35 AM, icanthearyou said:

I think that is a highly debatable assertion.

Barrier islands are mobile - they move overtime.  Always have, always will - no matter how much "beach nourishment" you do.

They absorb much of the force of a hurricane, which is exactly why they are called "barrier" islands.

[homersapien 11,388]

22 hours ago, autigeremt said:

The area where Ian hit hadn’t received that kind of strike in over 100 years. If we did this based on recent events you’d pretty much shut down over half of Florida, a big portion of Louisiana and sections of Mississippi, Alabama and the Carolinas. What about areas where large scale forest fires erupt, earthquake prone areas and tornado alley? 

I suggest we should be considering the future instead of the past.  There's absolutely no reason to think such a storm won't occur in the next 10 years, much less hundred.  And thanks to AGW, such storms are bound to increase in severity if not frequency.

If people insist on living on the shoreline, fine. But we shouldn't subsidize their insurance.

[autigeremt 6,643]

15 hours ago, homersapien said:

I suggest we should be considering the future instead of the past.  There's absolutely no reason to think such a storm won't occur in the next 10 years, much less hundred.  And thanks to AGW, such storms are bound to increase in severity if not frequency.

If people insist on living on the shoreline, fine. But we shouldn't subsidize their insurance.

When it comes to weather and natural occurrences you had better look into the past. That's how it works. 

[homersapien 11,388]

22 minutes ago, autigeremt said:

When it comes to weather and natural occurrences you had better look into the past. That's how it works. 

Not with global warming/climate change.  Do you accept the globe is warming or not?

Hurricanes - all storms - will be more powerful in the future than in the past because of that extra energy that warming represents.

[keywest 138]

On 10/3/2022 at 10:35 AM, icanthearyou said:

I think that is a highly debatable assertion.

Frightening how you love posting about issues you have ZERO knowledge and complete always wrong. BOTH residential and commercial property in Florida along all coastlines and islands are 100% insurable for both "home owners" and "Flood". 

[keywest 138]

20 hours ago, homersapien said:

Not with global warming/climate change.  Do you accept the globe is warming or not?

Hurricanes - all storms - will be more powerful in the future than in the past because of that extra energy that warming represents.

Weather has changed since the beginning of time but "evil man" has never  been the cause! One of the many looney leftist "Weather Cult" insertions after Katrina, was there would be a high number of strong Cat 4 and Cat 5's (the numbers actually dramatically lowered) every single year in the Gulf but as with all the "predictions" became completely false. How can you believe such nonsense when every single statement and prediction has been completely wrong?

1. At the first Earth Day, the "Weather Cult" was COMPLETELY certain "evil man" was causing "Global Cooling", then came "Global Warming" and now the non-committal "Climate Change", which is it?

2. The "Weather Cult" has made 42 major completely 100% WRONG prediction in the last 50 years! If it is undeniably real, why has ALL 42 prediction been 100% wrong? 

3. The co-founder of Green Peace admitted many years ago that their data/research was fabricated because they could NEVER obtain the data they WANTED for their ideological driven quest to prove "Global Colling"/"Global Warming"/"Climate Change" existed. Ask yourself why is all "Weather Cult" research results today still contain directly/indirectly Green Peace data that is admitted fraudulent? 

[autigeremt 6,643]

On 10/5/2022 at 1:15 PM, homersapien said:

Not with global warming/climate change.  Do you accept the globe is warming or not?

Hurricanes - all storms - will be more powerful in the future than in the past because of that extra energy that warming represents.

Currently the globe is warming looking at historical data.  There was a time when the planet was much warmer, it cooled, and now it's warming again. 

[icanthearyou 4,463]

1 hour ago, autigeremt said:

Currently the globe is warming looking at historical data.  There was a time when the planet was much warmer, it cooled, and now it's warming again. 

The new definition of "political science".

[icanthearyou 4,463]

5 hours ago, keywest said:

Frightening how you love posting about issues you have ZERO knowledge and complete always wrong. BOTH residential and commercial property in Florida along all coastlines and islands are 100% insurable for both "home owners" and "Flood". 

Simply not true.  The premiums will not cover the costs.  This is why so many insurance companies have pulled out of Florida.  This is why Florida has an insurance pool.

We are all subsidizing the owners of coastal properties in Florida.  Interesting to see you argue for "socialism".

[homersapien 11,388]

On 10/3/2022 at 2:01 PM, AU9377 said:

It is expensive.  I guess my point was more that there is a difference between vacation/resort properties and residential neighborhoods.

The former should be considered disposable and built accordingly.

[autigeremt 6,643]

39 minutes ago, icanthearyou said:

The new definition of "political science".

Facts are science driven in this case. 

[homersapien 11,388]

2 hours ago, autigeremt said:

Currently the globe is warming looking at historical data.  There was a time when the planet was much warmer, it cooled, and now it's warming again. 

You are confusing the geologic time time scale with the time scale of human existence. (The Anthropocene)

As far as our future is concerned, geological time is totally irrelevant.  We won't be evolving out of this problem nor is there any reason to think it will reverse itself naturally in time for it to be relevant to Homo sapiens.

 

 

[icanthearyou 4,463]

1 minute ago, autigeremt said:

Facts are science driven in this case. 

That is an absolute lie.

[autigeremt 6,643]

Just now, icanthearyou said:

That is an absolute lie.

Oh really? You mean to tell me that Global Warming is a lie?????