[TheForge] Is anyone on-line ? OT:

[Bruce .]

You're missing my point.  If we redefine by law that it is illegal to
construct ANYTHING on beachfront land where the previous construction
was washed away by a storm, then the value of that land will NOT be
high.  OTOH, if someone with money to waste wants to buy the (former)
building lot and NOT build on it, more power to him.  Maybe he'll go
there and set up a tent for a summer vacation.  I would have no
problem with that.  It's permanent construction that's the problem.

The real issue is that the shoreline currently is a constant drain on
the taxpayers.  When politicians finally get that through their thick
skulls, things might begin to change.

Nearly 30 years ago, I attended a presentation by hydrological
engineers, well attended by the public, including politicians.  The
presentation clearly showed that hard barriers like sea walls were
counterproductive because they act like a node on a vibrating string,
and therefore must BE a node (immovable) lest they be destroyed by
wave action.  (This is only wave action, mind you -- never mind storm
surge.)  They were specifically addressing the sea wall in the Sea
Bright and Monmouth Beach, pointing out that it was an exercise in
futility.  (Not everybody knows that that sea wall was constructed by
and for the RR that used to run along there.  The RR dumped thousands
of tons of rock to protect the tracks.  Protecting the houses was
irrelevant to them.  Blocks of houses had already washed away!)

After the scientists and engineers spoke, the politicians had their
say.  To a man, they proclaimed that NJ would never abandon the
residents on the shore, and would REBUILD the sea wall (that had just
been explained to be ineffective).

I was one of the first speakers after the politicians.  I immediately
reiterated what the engineers had said, and, speaking as a taxpayer,
told the politicians where they could shove their sea wall.  I was a
little politer than that, but not much.  I got a round of applause
from the people in the audience.

The taxpayers understand the issue.  It's our "leaders" who don't.

On Wed, Nov 7, 2012 at 9:52 AM, Andrew Vida <osan at netlabs.net> wrote:
>
>
> On 11/6/2012 1:29 PM, Bruce . wrote:
>> Not BAIL out, BUY out.
>
> That IS a bail out.  By definition.  The land will almost always be
> worth more than anyone could justify giving in taxpayer funds.  People
> have short memories and, I am sorry to say, often dumber than posts.
> They insist on living in such places, which is OK by me, but when Mom
> comes and bites them I see no cause for raping the taxpayers to bail
> them out.  They knew the risks, or should have, went ahead and got
> hammered.  Too bad.
>
>> Pay them what the LAND is worth.
>
> Uh huh, and who assesses value?  The only just arbiter is the market.
> There will always be someone who will buy such land at a price I
> probably would not.  That high bidder, therefore, should be able to
> acquire the land over someone such as myself.
>
> Another problem I see is the state forcing sale, which violates the
> principles of private property.  Bad juju.  Very bad.
>
>
>> What's strip
>> of sand worth if you can't build on it (part of the deal)?
>
> The state has no moral authority to prevent someone from building on
> privately owned land.  Such a ban distorts the market and cannot be
> justified on any valid moral basis.
>
>
>> Yes, it
>> will cost money, but it will save money
>
> Save money?  Whose money, precisely?
>
>  > and lives
>
> Not the state's business.  If people want to live in dangerous places,
> it is their right to do so.  By your implied reasoning, the state may
> ban bungee jumping, skiing, hang gliding, ice-hockey, and so on down the
> entire list of potentially dangerous activities.  It is not the state's
> role to save lives under circumstances of voluntary action of this sort.
>   People pays their money and takes their chance.
>
>> -- some of those
>> lives being the first responders who won't have to go in there to save
>> the damn fools who try to ride out the storms.
>
> Nobody is twisting their arms to do those jobs. You reasoning fails most
> catastrophically.
>
>
>>  If they ever empty the
>> barrier islands of buildings, they can let nature take its course.
>
> Bull.  Because when the barriers are washed away in the normal course of
> time, then the shoreline becomes threatened again and then what?  Buy
> out THOSE properties?  Uh huh... and so on into the mists of infinity.
> Want to live by the sea?  Assume the risks.  Don't like the risks, buy
> insurance.  Don't want to buy insurance, live with the risks or move.
> The choices are pretty simple and to ask others to pay for the failed
> choices of others is immoral.
> ______________________________________________________________
> TheForge mailing list
> Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/theforge
> Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
> Post: mailto:TheForge at mailman.qth.net
>
> TheForge mail list group photo site is
> http://www.photoworks.com
> Login: blacksmithblacksmith at hotmail.com
> Password: anvil
>
> This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
> Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html



-- 
Bruce
NJ