The Weekly Addresses

Comments (17)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

1. fightingbluehen says:

   July 28, 2013 at 9:19 am

   Mapping out areas for some sea level rise initiative and then charging people extra to remain in their homes hurts the middle class.
   Taking tax dollars that could be used to improve peoples lives, and using that money to subsidize solar panels so that rich people’s houses look cool, hurts the middle class.
   Giving public money to companies who’s plan is to soak the local population, and then go belly up, hurts the middle class. You get the idea? I didn’t think so.

2. Dave says:

   July 28, 2013 at 11:41 am

   “Mapping out areas for some sea level rise initiative and then charging people extra to remain in their homes hurts the middle class.”

   Ideas come from more than sound bites. But hey, let me try one for the fun of it.

   Mapping out areas for some sea level rise initiative and then providing federal tax dollars to help the middle class recover when their homes flood because they like to live near the ocean.

   See how that works? Sound bites are wonderful things. Devoid of all content, nuance, and analysis, they can sound like whatever you want them to. Reminds me of the ad that was used against Goldwater with the girl and the flower.

   Rational discussion and discourse is necessary for society to advance. The only value in sound bites is to sustain continuing (and often willful) ignorance.

3. fightingbluehen says:

   July 28, 2013 at 12:17 pm

   You obviously haven’t seen the map if you think it’s just people living near the ocean. It’s based on theoretical projections relating to global warming. People living in areas that have never flooded will be affected.
   It’s a scam.

4. Dave says:

   July 28, 2013 at 12:28 pm

   And what about the “charging people extra”? Is there a law, a bill? Is this a proposal in Congress? Are there Congressional sponsors in the House for this? Or did this come out of some think tank and is akin to floating an idea to see who bites? If you can provide an authoritative source, I would be happy to reconsider whether it is an alarmist sound bite.

5. fightingbluehen says:

   July 28, 2013 at 12:39 pm

   “Rational discussion and discourse is necessary for society to advance. The only value in sound bites is to sustain continuing (and often willful) ignorance.”

   OK then, rational it is. Why are they creating an initiative based solely on projections of a theory that has not even been proven.
   Also NOAA says that ocean levels have been rising at a steady rate of about 0.04 to 0.1 inches a year since 1900. Is there really a need to panic? The tide rises and falls by feet every day, and slight wind variations can change that rise and fall by several inches at least.
   So, are you saying that this .04 to .1 inches per year in rise is reason enough for this initiative, or do you buy the notion that the global warming projections are such that immediate action is needed?

6. fightingbluehen says:

   July 28, 2013 at 12:51 pm

   And what about the “charging people extra”?

   Sorry, I worded it wrong. I should have said this will cause people to pay more, although I wouldn’t put it past the state to charge people extra.

7. cassandra m says:

   July 28, 2013 at 1:43 pm

   Why are they creating an initiative based solely on projections of a theory that has not even been proven.

   Because they aren’t. FEMA has been mapping floodplains and risk projections since the 60’s at least. It is a function of the mandated National Flood Insurance Program. People who live in higher water risk areas have to get flood insurance as a measure to share in the hazards that taxpayers shell out for when there are floods and other water-related damage. The people who are at greatest risk *should* pay and should pay commensurate with the risk and potential loss.

   Those maps are updated periodically (not often enough), but water damage risk changes over time for a variety of reasons and not all of them are climate change reasons.

8. Dave says:

   July 28, 2013 at 1:50 pm

   Ok. So “this will cause people to pay more…” money for…. flood insurance, higher mortgage interest rates, building costs associated with flood standards? I mean can we get specific please?

   If I build in a flood plain, the bank may decided that they are incurring some risk and charge me accordingly. Ditto insurance companies. Is that not the way it should be? But then, I’m opining in advance of you finishing the “pay more money for…” something.

9. fightingbluehen says:

   July 28, 2013 at 2:59 pm

   @Dave- I’m just curious as to your reasoning. You agree with the Delaware sea level rise initiative, right.
   Why won’t you answer my simple question? Is .04 to .1 inches per year in sea level rise as stated by NOAA , reason enough for this initiative, or do you buy the notion that the global warming projections are such that immediate action is needed?

10. cassandra m says:

    July 28, 2013 at 4:02 pm

    Is .04 to .1 inches per year in sea level rise as stated by NOAA , reason enough for this initiative

    Can you document that this is why FEMA is changing the flood maps? Because NOAA doesn’t change the flood insurance maps.

11. Zachary Caruso says:

    July 28, 2013 at 5:24 pm

    “You obviously haven’t seen the map if you think it’s just people living near the ocean. It’s based on theoretical projections relating to global warming. People living in areas that have never flooded will be affected.
    It’s a scam.”

    Indeed it is a scam people living 7 to 10 miles in are now informed their homes are considered to be in flood plains based on 50/100 year storm predictions.

12. Tom Hawk says:

    July 28, 2013 at 6:15 pm

    From today’s NJ (7/28/13) in the zoning changes/uses line-up.

    FEMA maps at https://www.rampp-team.com/de.htm

    Protection advice at http://www.floodsmart.gov

    I’ve not yet had the opportunity to check out those links, but they are accurate copies of the NJ print.

13. Tom Hawk says:

    July 28, 2013 at 6:31 pm

    Prepare to spend a lot of time to find information on a specific property from the FEMA link. After 15 minutes I still haven’t found out how to get to my White Clay Creek neighborhood.

14. cassandra_m says:

    July 28, 2013 at 7:24 pm

    If you go here:
    https://msc.fema.gov/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/mapstore/homepage/MapSearch.html

    Type in your address, you should be directed to your map. It won’t be by property, but will show the map that includes your address.

15. Dave says:

    July 28, 2013 at 9:05 pm

    “Why won’t you answer my simple question? Is .04 to .1 inches per year in sea level rise as stated by NOAA , reason enough for this initiative, or do you buy the notion that the global warming projections are such that immediate action is needed?”

    Sorry, I missed the question. Or rather I thought it was semi-rhetorical.

    No, the sea level rise as stated by NOAA is not reason enough for this initiative.
    Yes, I buy the notion that immediate action is needed.

    The reason I think that action is needed is because if we wait until there is a crisis, whether catastrophic, financial, environmental, yadda, yadda, it will undoubtedly be harder to deal with. The old Fram Oil Filter commercial – “You can pay me now, or pay me later.” The question is not whether to do something now. Rather it is what are the right things to do now.

    Also, as Cassandra pointed out, FEMA updates the flood maps periodically. It is not evident that they update the maps as result of any sea level rise initiative.

    Finally, you did provide any specifics regarding the additional costs. I assume you are referring to flood insurance? If so, remember that flood insurance is not mandatory. However, if you want federal aid after a flood and you live in a flood zone, insurance is required. Additionally, if you borrowed money for your home, your lender will require flood insurance. Ultimately, if you own your home outright you can thumb your nose all you like at the government and the lender and not have to “pay more.”

    I am 3.5 miles from the bay and 7.8 miles from the ocean. My flood control zone is X (minimum risk, above the 500 year flood point). So, the any initiative has had no affect on me at least. Regardless, I think it’s important to discuss the detail of the initiative and the real benefits and economic impacts by digging into the details and facts without resorting to apocalyptic headlines. That way, maybe we can keep the good ideas and get rid of the bad ideas.

16. Tom McKenney says:

    July 29, 2013 at 9:50 am

    Why do we need to subsidize flood insurance? What is wrong with the free market? The new rates are risk based After billions of dollars in losses, Democrats and Republicans voted to change the program. Sounds fiscally responsible to me.

17. cassandra_m says:

    July 29, 2013 at 10:40 am

    I don’t think that there is privately-provided flood insurance, unless you have a high-value property.