[TheForge] Is anyone on-line ? OT:

[Bruce .]

Pete,

The problem with that is that these barrier islands are inherently
NON-permanent, and any construction on them attempts to make them
permanent.  It's a situation that should never have been allowed to
develop, but was because of money and politics.

I don't believe for a minute that my ideas will be implemented, but I
may start fighting against the use of public money for beach
replenishment (as distinct from the laudable construction and
maintenance of dunes).

If individual rescuers wish to risk themselves saving fools, that's up
to them.  But I don't care to finance it, or its consequences.

On Wed, Nov 7, 2012 at 2:15 PM, Peter Fels & Phoebe Palmer
<artgawk at thegrid.net> wrote:
> Hi Bruce:
> I sure agree that using tax payer $ for this is wrong and disproportionately benefits the wealthy in an essentially futile pursuit.
> Politically, the engineers will be ignored because of political pull and campaign contributions speak to them louder than reason.
> I think if someone wants to build in an imperiled location, that's their right...but....
> # 1, the tax payers  formally wash their hands of related obligations, and any rescue ops would be on a volunteer basis or privately funded.
> 2. They have to post notice in big red letters all over the front pages of the deed, escrow and any ads in the event of an attempted resale.
> 3. Folks are welcome to take on the engineering challenge of building in that sort of places, or to build sacrificial buildings if they so desire...it's supposed to be a free country.
>
> Were i wealthy, i would happily pursue my 40 year old dream of building a stainless steel, bronze and reinforced concrete, submersible dwelling, rooted deep into bedrock, on a rocky Pacific beach. I almost got to try without the wealth part.
> "Sometimes a great notion"

-- 
Bruce
NJ