Ian

[mikehn]

This is a 500 year event, lets not get too carried away

 

[abdmom]

This is a 500 year event, lets not get too carried away

I think you added a couple of extra zeroes to your 5 there.

 

[dvcgirl67]

This is a 500 year event, lets not get too carried away

Well, the "500 year event" was thrown out there with respect to the flooding caused inland by Ian. The powerful hurricane part...is not a 500 year event. And the 500 year event relates purely to probability....so a 0.2% (1 in 500) chance of happening. And we're having more and more 500/1,000 year events in the U.S. in recent years. Last month there was a 1,000 year flood event in Texas (0.1% or 1 in a thousand chance of happening). Right before that we had two 1,000 year flood events in St. Louis and Kentucky. Tennessee had a 1,000 year flood event the year before. I'm sure I'm forgetting some. And so...I think we may need to update the probability on these events as we move forward.

 

[EACarlson]

Well, the "500 year event" was thrown out there with respect to the flooding caused inland by Ian. The powerful hurricane part...is not a 500 year event. And the 500 year event relates purely to probability....so a 0.2% (1 in 500) chance of happening. And we're having more and more 500/1,000 year events in the U.S. in recent years. Last month there was a 1,000 year flood event in Texas (0.1% or 1 in a thousand chance of happening). Right before that we had two 1,000 year flood events in St. Louis and Kentucky. Tennessee had a 1,000 year flood event the year before. I'm sure I'm forgetting some. And so...I think we may need to update the probability on these events as we move forward.

Or realize that we only have reliable meteorological data for at most 300 years, in reality for many places about 50. We don't know what we don't know but pretend that we do.

 

[JLTraveling]

Well, the "500 year event" was thrown out there with respect to the flooding caused inland by Ian. The powerful hurricane part...is not a 500 year event. And the 500 year event relates purely to probability....so a 0.2% (1 in 500) chance of happening. And we're having more and more 500/1,000 year events in the U.S. in recent years. Last month there was a 1,000 year flood event in Texas (0.1% or 1 in a thousand chance of happening). Right before that we had two 1,000 year flood events in St. Louis and Kentucky. Tennessee had a 1,000 year flood event the year before. I'm sure I'm forgetting some. And so...I think we may need to update the probability on these events as we move forward.

And that's an even bigger argument for not just deciding not to rebuild in certain areas. The way things are going, you'd have to just not build in pretty much any part of the country. Without getting political, isn't it possible that maybe the locations aren't the problem...climate change is?

 

[GreatLakes]

Or realize that we only have reliable meteorological data for at most 300 years, in reality for many places about 50. We don't know what we don't know but pretend that we do.

To add to this the warming Earth will change the probabilities. Storm predictions are mainly based on a combination of historic trends and weather forecasts. As climate change breaks trends "500" year storms will become much more common. The warming oceans, all other variables aside, will cause the season to last longer and the latitudes that can sustain a hurricane to creep to higher latitudes than historical models ever saw.

There are large areas of the world that will be uninhabitable in a very short window, I suspect during my child's lifetime. At the very least they will be uninsurable as the risk just can't be rationalized and if you can't get insurance to live somewhere many people won't.

 

[floridafam]

We are in Sebastian. 48 hours and counting with no power but that’s nothing compared to the Ft Myers area.

 

[HopperFan]

Maybe we should include everywhere homes are at risk for flood, fire, earthquakes, etc.?

YES! .... if we want to make sure people don't build in high risk areas that will include most of dense California on the Pacific Plate and North American Plate. So no more San Diego, LA, San Francisco .... I mean don't we all tire of hearing about earthquakes, mudslides, houses falling off the hill, Santa Ana winds starting fires, water shortages, etc. And then all those in the woods, fire after fire after fire. STOP living in those places. Let's get rid of all the cities on the Mississippi, NOLA - just bulldoze it. WHY do people live in Tornado Alley, how many times does a twister have to flatten a town before we outlaw living near those places? WHY is is legal to live in a mobile home or sleep in a trailer? That should not be allowed.

Of course there are a few of the extremes ... south of me are about 6-8 houses literally built on a sand bar. They've been pulverized so many times surely they have no insurance. After Matthew I was sure they would have to be torn down, who keeps paying for the road to connect them? So I think we can agree there is a tiny number of homes that should not exist. BUT the BULK of all this damage was on mainland. The damage costs in ORLANDO are going to be huge. What is the answer no one can build within 25 miles of the coast or river? No one can built on a tetonic fault?

I think energy should be on future development, making sure they are done with more intense scrutiny to how they impact the environment and how the environment will impact them? Less paving, more pervious surfaces. Less drilling = less sinkholes, build up. Lots we can to do in construction to be better to the earth but pointing fingers at one area, when there are many across this country is not productive. Compassion right now is the better choice.

And all rebuilds need new code. After the first hurricane in like 50 years hit by us the rebuilds came with rules including the house must be raised. Insurance money had to be used within a short period of time avoiding derelict homes. Houses could not be increased in square footage by more than a certain percentage (to avoid new McMansions). Hurricane code was increased.

Just finished watching a segment on the Cajun Navy and how they jumped right in to get help on the ground. They show the best in us.

 

[cm8]

Currently in Charleston SC, we lost power this am for about 2hours. It is said we will lose power again. We have extensive flooding in the low lying areas but nothing yet compared to what happened in Florida. We are expecting storm surge ranging between 4-7 ft at our high tide. We have a few trees down and branches everywhere. It’s raining heavily as well.

 

[Ms Bibbidi]

It's fine to have "great ideas" so let's get down to brass tacks.

So, when you all ban building or rebuilding in a certain area, can I ask if you all intend that the local government exercise its power to condemn the property in an "eminent domain" proceeding? It has to be for a governmental purpose and the government has to pay the property owner for that land. If the government just passes a law, regulation or ordinance that no building can happen on that land, that is a condemnation of existing property rights. Zoning is different. What posters here are discussing are full-on condemnation of existing property rights and that costs a whole lot of money.

 

[DLgal]

It is devastating and depressing. Not knowing until today if my family was safe..an awful feeling . I have family and friends scattered over Florida. It was once my home. Many areas have come close to devastation but knowing what has happened to Fort Meyer, Sanibel and nearby cities...I'm sick.

I disagree. It's not just barrier islands that were affected. Respectfully NOW is absolutely not time or place. These areas were the center and are absolutely devastated. They missed destruction many times but not with this hurricane. I have family in South Carolina too. There are many areas that have be by an act of God. To blame victims for buying coastal or island homes... just isn't right especially when many are dead, injured and/or lost everything. It's very raw for many right now.

At no point did I do any victim blaming. I was speaking ONLY about rebuilding homes *specifically* on the barrier islands. I also said I feel very sad for EVERYONE involved in a loss to their homes. It is devastating all around.

 

[GreatLakes]

It's fine to have "great ideas" so let's get down to brass tacks.

So, when you all ban building or rebuilding in a certain area, can I ask if you all intend that the local government exercise its power to condemn the property in an "eminent domain" proceeding? It has to be for a governmental purpose and the government has to pay the property owner for that land. If the government just passes a law, regulation or ordinance that no building can happen on that land, that is a condemnation of existing property rights. Zoning is different. What posters here are discussing are full-on condemnation of existing property rights and that costs a whole lot of money.

I don't think you ban it other than extremes. You just let nature take it's course and if private insurers withdraw you don't offer government insurance. Will people build in areas that are un-insurable? Some will, many won't. If you lose your home to a storm or fire without insurance will you re-build in the same area? Even if you want to can you afford to? I'm not talking about areas with "some" risk, I'm talking about areas that will have very high risk as climate change shifts weather patterns and droughts.

I'm not living somewhere that has frequent hurricanes, or that needs water sent to me from hundreds of miles away, and some other natural phenomenon that I don't want to deal with.

 

[DLgal]

And that's an even bigger argument for not just deciding not to rebuild in certain areas. The way things are going, you'd have to just not build in pretty much any part of the country. Without getting political, isn't it possible that maybe the locations aren't the problem...climate change is?

We have to rebuild smarter. Up, not out. Condensed living. People don't like to hear that though. Everyone wants their own piece of land.

 

[MillauFr]

It's fine to have "great ideas" so let's get down to brass tacks.

So, when you all ban building or rebuilding in a certain area, can I ask if you all intend that the local government exercise its power to condemn the property in an "eminent domain" proceeding? It has to be for a governmental purpose and the government has to pay the property owner for that land. If the government just passes a law, regulation or ordinance that no building can happen on that land, that is a condemnation of existing property rights. Zoning is different. What posters here are discussing are full-on condemnation of existing property rights and that costs a whole lot of money.

No we shouldn't ban building on these islands. We shouldn't subsidize it either by offer low cost flood insurance so people can get mortgages.

 

[MillauFr]

I don't think you ban it other than extremes. You just let nature take it's course and if private insurers withdraw you don't offer government insurance.

Exactly correct.

 

[MillauFr]

What posters here are discussing are full-on condemnation of existing property rights and that costs a whole lot of money.

That would be a good question for an appraiser. If the property is uninsurable what is it's worth? Not much.

 

[MillauFr]

YES! .... if we want to make sure people don't build in high risk areas that will include most of dense California on the Pacific Plate and North American Plate. So no more San Diego, LA, San Francisco ....

It isn't difficult to retrofit most single family houses to withstand earthquakes. Fires are a far higher risk in California. Not earthquakes.

 

[HopperFan]

It isn't difficult to retrofit most single family houses to withstand earthquakes. Fires are a far higher risk in California. Not earthquakes.

It is so much more than houses, the public cost comes with infrastructure damage and the ripple effect.

My point was that LIVING in areas that naturally come with risk is everywhere in this country and often in highly populated areas. California has a high percentage. Telling people to not develop where nature brings consequences applies all over this country, it's just the very few in the grand scheme that live on barrier islands.

 

[MillauFr]

This is a 500 year event, lets not get too carried away

Wasn't this Charlie 2.0?

 

[MillauFr]

It is so much more than houses, the public cost comes with infrastructure damage and the ripple effect.

My point was that LIVING in areas that naturally come with risk is everywhere in this country and often in highly populated areas. California has a high percentage. Telling people to not develop where nature brings consequences applies all over this country, is not just the very few in the grand scheme that live on barrier islands.

Yes it is tough conversation to have for sure. There were some saying even a major city like New Orleans shouldn't be rebuilt after Katrina which is ludicrous.