St. Simons Island and impact of Biggert Waters Flood Insurance Reform Act of 2012

[perryrip]

Savannah Life,

I think it is healthy to look at anything coming out of the scientific community with suspect eyes. It was the same scientific community that was predicting the coming ice age back in the early 70s that are now forecasting our inevitable submersion by our oceans due to global warming. I do think the fact that sea levels are rising is pretty clear, it's the solutions that are being offered that lack common sense. The US can implement any number of draconian measures in an attempt to "stem the rising tide" (at the expense of our economic health) but anything we do is merely offset by the exploding industrialization of the third world countries like India, China (yes a third world that owns us), Russia, etc. To think those countries will play along with our noble intentions is very naive. Yes we should actively continue exploration and development of alternative energy sources but the fact remains that fossil fuels are hands down the most efficient and cost effective energy sources available to us for the next half century (or longer). We need to look at our climate cycles in the time span of centuries and not decades.

perryrip

[SavannahLife]

perryrip, agree with all this. To claim temperatures are not rising though is... well it's arguing with a thermometer, and with thousands pictures over the last century of snow on mountains and lake ice, etc, is what it is. When we can agree on the background facts then we can have get down to business on what's realistic etc. Yes good to question but at some point we can stop asking if the world is flat. Agree with you on China & Russia. That's going to be tough. All I can say is let's try and leave a better world for our kids and grandchildren.

[perryrip]

Savannah Life,

I too want to leave a better world for my children to inherit, but I don't think the options being pushed are viable or a solution to the problem. I've heard too many folks claim "we have to do something" and then latch on to anything that's offered. We could easily continue on with fossil fuels and "enforce" our current environmental legislation. The problem is not so much the fossil fuels as that lack of enforcement. If you look at the BP fiasco, it comes down to that failure of government oversight which could have prevented that whole episode.

perryrip

[SavannahLife]

perry honestly I give up on climate change. No matter what we do it won't matter, China, Russia and India will vastly outweigh some piddly offshore windmills. I like the idea of investing R&D in green energy but by no means do i think it will solve all or even really any problems at least any time soon. Nuclear would probably be more effective anyway, if done right. I completely agree with you it seems like people latch on to the newest thing whatever it is. I think that's just the human condition... The search for the silver bullet. You know? I don't advocate doing anything, just leaving current wetland buffers in place. They were removed but should be restored. Flood insurance rates were resynchronized with the reality of rising sea levels and as long as we use sound science to calculate risk and rates that's fine, too.

I care about preserving our land in Georgia. Wetlands, state parks, state forests. They are being bulldozed and between that and a sea of suburbia across the southeast with litter on every road and ugly strip malls making every town basically the same.. there is one thing that distinguishes us here in Georgia. Incredible natural resources. Our beaches and islands are without question the best in the eastern US. We are like the complete opposite of South carolina. Their beaches like Myrtle Beach... well might as well pull up in a Walmart parking lot, dump a bucket of sand on the pavement and stick your feet in a kiddie pool. About the same view! But different strokes for different folks I suppose. That is my personal view I will not judge anyone from wanting to go to SC, maybe they are there to peoplewatch, but I personally will fight tooth and nail to preserve what we have here in Georgia. So we can have places to take our families, majestic places, like Cumberland Island.

Flood insurance standards by extension will help conserve what remaining unspoiled shoreline we have here from the spread of McMansions like St Simons. Buffer zones not only protect existing houses and protect wetlands from erosion runoff but it keeps density down and keeps the GA coast less densely developed.

And, It's actually the free market at work. Honestly I'd prefer to just eliminate the National Flood Insurance Program, which is a government program. It's a handout to those that live on the coast. If you want a house in a flood zone PAY FOR IT. Stop asking for a handout from others to help you on your premiums. Why should someone in Atlanta have to pay for your vacation home flood insurance in St Simons? It's all about risk. Sea levels are rising. Which means the risk of flooding farther inland is increasing. Why should taxpayers keep subsidizing an evergrowing financial burden on us as claims costs continue racking up?

[perryrip]

Savannah Life,

I think there is a big misunderstanding about the changes in flood insurance. Tossing the Federal subsidy out the window doesn't only effect the wealthy and folks that want to live on the coast. It effects folks everywhere that live in floodplains. With the new remapping of the FEMA flood maps (still pending issue) there will be many more homes included in floodplains that were not previously in floodplains. Atlanta is a good example. With all of the development, areas that weren't in floodplains now are due to construction and development that has significantly impacted the "normal" runoff and watershed. What about all of the middle and low income folks in floodplain areas that will have their rents raised because landlords have to pay significantly higher flood insurance premiums? The Biggert-Waters Act was poorly thought out and the overall impacts were not fully considered as stated by the proponents of the legislation once they received some intense feedback from constituents they didn't realize they were hurting. Shirley Waters thought she was sticking it to the "rich" folks but lacked the wisdom to see the far reaching consequences of her (their) ill conceived legislation.
I too have a problem with my tax dollars subsidizing a millionaires flood insurance premiums, but legislation has to be written smartly and consider all of the ramifications. Perhaps means testing who gets subsidized, prorate subsidies, waiver property owners that rent properties to select income levels, etc. etc. I have a hard time visualizing elected representatives ignoring the plight of property owners that can't afford unsubsidized flood insurance next time a Sandy wreaks havoc up the Eastern seaboard. Yes the flood insurance fund is bankrupt, but so is Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid. I don't see them throwing those out the window. It's going to take some well thought and well written legislation coupled with fiscal responsibility to get us out of this mess. I don't see that happening with the Washington we now have.

perrryip

[SavannahLife]

great post perry. I did not know that. I guess the common-sense thing would be just to grandfather in existing developments, if they are residential. Maybe set an income threshold of less than 1 million a year income for threshold to qualify for grandfathering. Seems like an easy problem to solve. And yes good point about inland floodplains and rivers too. I think we are getting a very productive conversation here!