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.
If I had to guess, his post reads more like the homes and communities for some of these places that were flooded were fairly spread out and a bit isolated which is somewhat true in comparison to parts of NYC. I don't think he was saying Houston itself is isolated.
That being said, I don't think the isolation was a huge issue, though the beach development was. It's more like lack of updated infrastructure and really poor (no) planning partially as a result of fighting against regulation on development. One of the reasons why they started releasing water downstream from a reservoir early on in the midst of the worst rains was because they had allowed developers to build communities too close to those reservoirs. As the reservoirs' basins built up, the water away from the dam started encroaching on some of those communities and they ended up between a rock and a hard place where they either let that build up continue and so the communities close to the reservoir flood or instead they release some water from the dam and exacerbate the flooding downstream (though the water would spread over a wider area).
They ended up choosing the latter, but it was unreasonable that development was allowed such that that was a choice in the first place. Not only that, but this was a potential issue that was known well and long prior to Harvey but no steps were taken to mitigate it and no zoning was forced in place to prevent people from building so close.
Developers/realtors also opted to overturn and oppose any rules that very explicitly detailed in advertisement of new developments that homes were in flood zones (which are large chunks of the city) so there was likely a good portion of people who didn't purchase insurance as they bought blissfully unaware. The obvious rationale being that it'd be bad for developers and realtors and therefore bad for business.
One thing to think about in contrast is how with a storm as severe as Sandy, Staten Island was battered but still had a lot of things that worked fairly well. Probably the most prescient work that the city had done was the Staten Island Bluebelts which were started in the early 90s with work continuing for decades which were both ecologically great and a massively useful "release" valve of sorts for drainage control for a lot of good while spending in the reasonable lower millions. Even prior to Sandy and the sharper focus that was forced by it, NYC was among the few cities in the US that took disaster preparedness in terms of inclement weather fairly seriously (not serious enough, but very serious for a US municipality).
Texas is now saying they need armt least 125 billion in federal funding. Texas rural hospitals were in horribke fiscal shape before the storm. Now they have been devastated. Texas will now sign on to the medicaid expansion to cover the massive medical costs of the storm.
Has anyone heard from the former NYC residents that relocated to Houston? I recall a lady who had a flat in the Bronx near the botanical gardens once but she sold it to move to Texas. I think it was to Houston. I can't remember her name because I haven't seen her post on here in a while. I do hope she's doing alright.
I remember Houston. I lived there as a kid from the ages of 7 - 10. I remember the tropical storms and the rain for two weeks or more that would flood even the good neighborhoods. At that time we lived a few blocks from the basketball player Hakeem Olajuwon. I remember days waiting for the school bus when the fog was so thick you couldn't see your hand in front of your face. We had a definite chance to move back there this summer and recalling the floods and the dense fog was one big concern of mine on our list. It's a regular occurrence. Not a once the one a while storm like Sandy. Glad we didn't pick it.
Last edited by Merrily Gather; 09-04-2017 at 08:17 PM..
Status:
"Let this year be over..."
(set 16 days ago)
Location: Where my bills arrive
19,219 posts, read 17,075,134 times
Reputation: 15537
Quote:
Originally Posted by bluedog2
No, I agree that there is overdevelopment everywhere but around here generally not in swamps.
The difference is that that whole area is a swamp... literally.
To comment on part of your post: There is plenty of development in areas that should not have been developed from the sandbar communities of NY & NJ to the flood prone areas of NJ. Less than perfect locations are developed in every major city for Houston it happened to be swamps but what the difference from the salt marsh flood plains in the NY metro?
How about "U.S. to Texas: Get F**ked!" and "U.S. to Florida: Get Stuffed."
All these "independent conservative types" in Texas and the anti-socialist, anti Castroites, who are the first with their hands out.
Independent conservatives buy insurance on their property and don't need to beg when adversity strikes, especially when they have to beg from us New York Communists.
Last edited by Kefir King; 09-09-2017 at 03:41 PM..
Texas and Florida both have strong economies (especially Texas), and are #2 and #3 in population. You wouldn't like the results if either left the union.
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.
