[TheForge] Is anyone on-line ? OT:

[Andrew Vida]

On 11/7/2012 10:24 AM, Bruce . wrote:
> 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.

The problem with that approach is that you infringe upon the private 
property rights of people.  The so-called "state" holds no authority to 
do such a thing.  The ability through material force does not equate to 
moral authority.  Quite the opposite, in fact.

 >  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.

It is no problem at all.  People are entitled to build as they please 
upon their lands.
>
> 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.

A drain of what sort?
>
> 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).

OK, they were pandering.  Big surprise.  The people of NJ, largely 
idiots, reelect such people to office time and again.  How can one have 
too much sympathy there?  My only sympathies lie with those who would 
have things otherwise but suffer the tyranny of the majority.  Of 
course, they are also free to move to another state.
>
> 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.

And yet you were ignored, are raped yearly for outrageous taxes of every 
form, and remain in NJ.  What is one to make of this?  I would agree 
that things should not be that way, but the sad fact is that NJ, as with 
many other places, is utterly infested with stupid and corrupt people 
who elect the same raft of crooks into office every time.  They piss and 
moan but do nothing substantive to stop it.  I bet if 500K pissed off 
citizens showed up in Trenton and stood before the capitol steps with 
rifles in hand, the state would take some notice.  It is an extreme, but 
what else does one do when "the people" are ignored and violated time 
and again, decade after decade?  At what point do people say "enough"? 
Apparently at no point anymore.
>
> The taxpayers understand the issue.  It's our "leaders" who don't.

Yet the taxpayer does nothing of substance to improve his lot.  Sympathy 
requires some force beyond a point.
>