So, I took a road trip today. Something I have not done in a while; to visit a client. And, as I’ve written often, this sort of “adventure” presents me with cogitation time. But, today, I did not develop a new product or service. (Darn it! That would have been nice.) Instead, I considered the current state of affairs. It hit me with a start how inconsistent I have been recently- and how inconsistent many of my friends have been.
You see, for many a Fall and Spring, I have been up in arms. Pretty much, each year, the Mississippi River floods, and the same cities and regions become inundated with water. So, we (OK, the US Government and the Corps of Engineers) rebuild the levees and raise those heights, so that the next 100 year flood (that seems to come annually) won’t recreate the devastation at hand.
I wondered why the city or town was not forced to move. To higher elevation, so that it would not be repeatedly flooded. Or, to “post bond” so that when and if it does flood, it does not drain our country’s coffers.
I was reminded of the not-so-politically correct (ok, devastatingly incorrect) statements of Sam Kinison. At the “We Are the World” concert, with my two young daughters in tow, Sam proclaimed a fairly funny routine. He was observing that here we are trying to help these poor folks in the Horn of Africa, who were suffering from devastating hunger. To which he replied… Move! It’s a f…..g desert! Of course, you are starving.
And, now to my realization… Why are we rebuilding these vacation homes (more than 90% fit this description) on the North Carolina shores? Should we not move these homes on the Jersey Shore? Of course, that means we must recognize that global warming is true, that our water levels are rising and these waterfront properties are doomed to flood again and again over the coming decades (years?).
I know this sounds callous. But, given the proclamations of the North Carolina and New Jersey governors that our deficits are killing America, don’t they think we all need to consider the ramifications of spending billions of dollars to rebuild these homes that will require the same assistance in the near future?
Let’s have that discussion now.
Oy, did I have a long discussion about this with one of my friends. After many an hour discussing their take on the science of it (they were on the I don’t think it’s happening side) I finally broke down and said, “Ok look, I live in Ohio, and when I was growing up we had snow from November (usually) to about March. We had a solid winter. Now, it’s December or January and the trees are bare, but the grass is green. The climate is changing, whether you ascribe that change to something man has done, or the fact that the earth is not a stagnant thing but a dynamic ever changing planet…We either need to embrace that understanding and adapt to those things that ARE happening around us OR sit back and watch as millions of dollars in property and priceless lives are lost. In my very limited understanding, smarts, and wisdom, the choice seem obvious. Great post Dr. A!
Lisa Brandel recently posted..Dragonfly In Blue by Lisa Brandel
You notice I did not bother to go into the reasons WHY the water level is rising. Whether man made or the result of entropy, the science is clear. This is to be flooded and under water within X years. Do you want to build an Atlantis? Or stick with Metropolis?
In Canada, we occasionally have heard about how many people collect employment insurance much of the year in certain places, such as Newfoundland (the typical example, but I am sure there are others). Apparently, there just are not enough jobs there, so people elsewhere have to subsidise them. To which I always say, “If you want to eat, you follow the buffalo.” But apparently, instead of hunting down the buffalo, some people expect others to do it for them, then send them the meat.
David Leonhardt recently posted..The Festival of Frugality gets Happy!
I think Canada has (had) a policy that they wanted Newfoundland populated, David. Given that policy, there are ramifications for the state. Now, if they decide(d) that this is no longer viable, they should offer to move them back to whence they came and solve that problem. Sounds harsh- but…
It is a difficult question really. I think that the solution is to have a better long-term view of how you want the cities to develop, etc…maybe they should not allow any more houses to be built in the affected area to start with!
MuMuGB recently posted..To Speak Or Not To Speak
You are right about that, Muriel. I seem to recall that there were few homes in one of the villages pillaged by Sandy in New Jersey, when I was growing up. Because of flooding problems. Some bright guy decided that there was money to be made and built on that land…and now, we have the problem.
It also reminds me of the markers found in Japan that said- don’t build below these lines- because the Tsunami is going to get you. They built there. And, they got hit…
It has always baffled me why the people who get flooded out along the Mississippi rebuild in the same spot, but for some reason I had not transferred that same wonder to the coast. Maybe it’s because I would love to live along the coast and that has blinded me to the reality of the effect of the weather there on houses. (I am relatively sure this will never be a decision I have to make though.) I guess it’s easy to reason toward what you want, even if it is unreasonable.
Bonnie Anderson recently posted..“One Day You’ll Miss This…”
And, Bonnie, the question may also ride on the example I provided Ann Mullen…
If the house is NOT totaled- how does one handle the damage and still have funds to leave- and not be liable for the mortgage.
What can I say, Roy? You have said it so eloquently. I would move. If I lived along the San Andreas fault, it would be my fault if my house fell in a crack.
Ann Mullen recently posted..Senior Care Information–Learning about Lewy Body Dementia
I tried to consider what I would do. I have not lived in the NY Metropolitan area for a while now. But, I think the real issue is what happens if there is only 30K (boy, is that NOT fair to say only) damage to your house- and that means you have 300K into it- and a mortgage of 400K. Now, what would you do??????
Difficult topic. Considering the coast and low lying cities like New Orleans many areas would become abandoned and turn into a “bad lands” of sorts if rebuilding was prevented. However, I do believe that those who want to rebuild in risky areas need to bear the financial burden.
Carolina HeartStrings recently posted..WORDLESS WEDNESDAY
I understand that issue well, Alessa. That is exactly the problem that obtains in Detroit, now- which is trying desperately to shrink its boundaries so it can provide adequate services to its citizens and not bleed cash.