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.
I'm kinda divided on this one, because people are disgusting in large amounts, but at the same time I hate the idea of wealthy jerks being able to protect their land value in ways that poor people are never able to. Gated communities are sociopathic.
But the idea of selling ALL public land is insane... the last thing we need is corporations using the Great Lakes as a dumping ground for mine tailings, which is happening in Northern Ontario-- crystal clear bodies of drinkable water, full of life-- used as garbage dumps for toxic substances that won't clear for centuries, and nobody cares because the only people who live up there are poor/First Nations. When they get Minamata disease again or something similar, the government will just pay them off-- and they're cheap. I honestly think that libertarians would have us all paying someone for the right to breathe their air.
Ideally, all valuable land would be protected and maintained publicly with harsh penalties for littering or otherwise defiling the site, but of course this isn't realistic.
Location: Georgia, on the Florida line, right above Tallahassee
10,471 posts, read 15,831,906 times
Reputation: 6438
....will turn their "otherwise private spot" into a public beach.
lets replace that with words that mean the same thing
....will turn the public beach that the public doesn't have access to and that the public is paying massive amounts of cash to renew into a public beach.
Thank you. Government should not own land. So called "public beaches" and "public parks" should be transferred to private interests immediately to do with as they please.
Do you know how much natural gas is in Yellowstone? What better place to make glass than at the Great Sand Dunes? How many profitable buildings could be built in NYC's Central Park?
Sarcasm noted.
Government should own only the land its administrative buildings are on.
The second paragraph of your post is a fine strawman.
We see this all the time out here too. People put up no hunting signs on public property or build on empty public ground at the beach. Over a hundred people that squatted on land at the beach had to tear it down when they widened the boardwalk. What a bunch of noise that caused.
I once researched oceanfront property use. For most of the last couple of centuries the land was considered public or just not worth, due to storm flooding, owning. Some people built fishing or vacation shacks of little value for their own recreation. These really were cheap shacks generally built above smack storm waves that just barely kept the rain off and the wind out. If a storm returned then to kindling wood nothing was lost and the owners just rebuilt the shacks. No great loss.
Since then the real estate community found a way to own the beach front property and resell it at their profit while minimizing the risk to the new owners. When the owners wanted a loan to build the banks, not being as foolish, demanded flood or storm insurance. After a couple of incidences like the elimination of the City of Galveston to a hurricane in the 1920's the insurance companies started to charge realistic rates. After the Mississippi River Floods the companies realized they could not afford to insure flood or storm prone areas at any cost. The Congress was bamboozled into having the Federal government become the insurer and now everyone, including those of us living high and dry, are subsidizing all the folks that are benefiting from underpriced home insurance and over valued houses.
I may be a liberal but I am not a fool and see no reason for private speculators to have their real risks eliminated by a misguided policy. Let the insurance companies determine the price of sufficient insurance.
FWIW - Building a protective structure or replenishing a beach with sand is pure folly. Sand is easily moved by any waves that reach it and beaches are the most temporary of shorelines. What a foolish waste of money.
lol, I hope not. you will be right back on the bandwagon once you want to go to a beach and you can't get in because you don't own any mega dollar property
I think the homeowners are in the wrong, but I can understand their concern of going from a relatively quiet and private area to a possibly very busy and loud area.
I think Tinman's point about fair market value of hurricane insurance is sound if they want to whine.
If they want it to be private then they should shoulder the entire cost of hurricane damage and erosion.
They can't have it both ways.
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.
