Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
"But the decisions ahead come down to nature and numbers, to density, economics and geology. Our relationship to the water can’t stay the same, and at the same time the city is not worth saving if it sacrifices its principles and humanity.
So the real test post-Sandy will be negotiating between the two."
Beautifully written and he asks some very difficult questions.
Sorry, article lost all credibility with "overhauling the city’s sewage and storm water system, which spews toxic waste into rivers whenever a couple of inches of rain fall because the sea levels have already risen so much." Sea levels have nothing to do with why combined sewers dump raw sewage into rivers when it rains.
I mostly refuse to read NY Times opinion pieces, but the idea that "re-building" must be considered before we proceed is interesting and worth thinking about.
I can attest that many of the bungalows in certain parts of SI that were destroyed should not be rebuilt. To go even further, there's an entire section of New Dorp Beach which should not be rebuilt as densely as it had been before the storm. According to a recent article in the Staten Island Advance, current laws may not allow it. How to compensate current owners who will not be allowed to re-build is the question, unless of course some enterprising contractors decide to combine multiple lots for the purpose of rebuilding to modern codes.
I've also been interested in the concept that land which naturally is supposed to be wetland which for centuries acted as a sponge for flooding should be returned to its natural state for this purpose. As we just saw, nature will reclaim this land when it wants anyway, whether we like it or not.
Interesting article, this paragraph in particular stood out:
Quote:
This sort of conversation is a third rail of American politics, so it’s no wonder all presidents promise to rebuild and stick taxpayers with the tab. That billions of dollars may end up being spent to protect businesses in Lower Manhattan while old, working-class communities on the waterfronts of Queens, Brooklyn and Staten Island most likely won’t get the same protection flies in the face of ideas about social justice, and about New York City, with its open-armed self-image as a capital of diversity.
On one hand, I think it's sort of the natural disaster version of the mortgage meltdown fiasco where big companies get bail outs and the individual mortgage holder isn't helped very much. But in a literal sense, businesses downtown can shut and evacuate more easily than residences in Zone A can. Though of course, downtown has gotten increasingly residential over the last decade.
Like Katrina,
The best idea is NOT to rebuild in areas guaranteed to flood again and result in huge taxpayer expenses. But as long as developers control the politicians the endless cycle of rebuilding again "bigger and better" in the same places is inevitable. The best idea will NEVER be implemented.
New York will forget Sandy by next year while the Rockaways and Staten Island get more and more stick frame houses covered in vinyl even closer to the beach.
The author of the article made it sound like there was some common sense behind this process of rebuilding besides making a quick buck: there AIN'T.
As an interim "solution" I think a wise choice is to get rid of all government subsidized flood insurance, PERIOD. If developers want to build in flood prone areas and people want to buy there, let them...but let THEM assume all costs of devastation, and I mean ALL costs. Somebody who goes without private insurance on his beach home should get one thing and one thing only when it is destroyed: the learning of a valuable lesson.
If insurers refuse to cover them at any costs, that should be as much of a warning as a missing roof.
Perhaps all developers should be forced to include a prepaid 20 year private insurance package on anything they sell. If they find it adds $400K to the cost of a $500K house they will see fast that it doesn't sell...and they won't do it again.
Only the market will solve this problem, not any high flown prose from opinion pieces in the Times.
Last edited by Kefir King; 11-21-2012 at 06:35 AM..
As an interim "solution" I think a wise choice is to get rid of all government subsidized flood insurance, PERIOD. If developers want to build in flood prone areas and people want to buy there, let them...but let THEM assume all costs of devastation, and I mean ALL costs.
Absolutely. If rich fools want to build houses on the beach and rebuild every time they flood, that's fine with me. Keeps the construction industry humming at the expense of rich fools, which is a win all around. Non-rich fools presumably would be unable to get insurance (and thus a mortgage) and therefore would be saved from themselves.
I mostly refuse to read NY Times opinion pieces, but the idea that "re-building" must be considered before we proceed is interesting and worth thinking about.
I can attest that many of the bungalows in certain parts of SI that were destroyed should not be rebuilt. To go even further, there's an entire section of New Dorp Beach which should not be rebuilt as densely as it had been before the storm. According to a recent article in the Staten Island Advance, current laws may not allow it. How to compensate current owners who will not be allowed to re-build is the question, unless of course some enterprising contractors decide to combine multiple lots for the purpose of rebuilding to modern codes.
I've also been interested in the concept that land which naturally is supposed to be wetland which for centuries acted as a sponge for flooding should be returned to its natural state for this purpose. As we just saw, nature will reclaim this land when it wants anyway, whether we like it or not.
Midland beach has more bungalows than New Dorp beach. The immediate streest off of Cedar grove ave are mostly Bunglaows that if ae red tagged won't be replaced.
I had stated on several occasions that we have a chance to rebuild midland beach, & midland ave into a real nice community. Areas will have to be leveled & raised. That was when I thought an estimated 75% of the area would have to be torn down. As it stands right now that is no where near the case.
One thing to take into consideration is that us homeowners in these affected areas will see our home vaules drop like rocks.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
