Reconfiguring Mississippi

[flashl]

Coastal buyout talk roils lives in Mississippi

Some, though not all, residents fear that a Corps of Engineers study of clearing lowlands will risk ending their way of life.

BAY ST. LOUIS, MISS. — This coastal resort town is on the front line of a project to gauge support for a mass federal buyout of 17,000 homes near Mississippi's Katrina-ravaged shore. This could become the nation's most significant attempt to radically reconfigure coastal communities -- converting huge swaths of flood-prone residential lots to public wetlands.

Until now, the Army Corps of Engineers has reserved buyouts for areas prone to river flooding. Some people, such as Susan I. Rees, the director of the corps project, believe the current assessment is the beginning of a serious national debate on whether Americans should retreat from the coasts. The costs and risks of future flooding are simply too great, they say -- especially if, as many believe, sea levels are rising and hurricanes are starting to get stronger.

"People have been talking about this for some time now, but no one has really said you don't need to live on the coast anymore," Rees said. "The whole concept of trying to remove people and properties from the coast is very, very challenging. The desire to live by the water is strong."

The plan, which officials stress would be voluntary, has shocked many in Bay St. Louis, which is struggling to rebuild after Katrina. Residents say they had no idea that while they were taking out loans and investing their savings to rebuild their homes, federal officials were drawing up proposals to erase more than half of the city's land mass.

---

Gotta love the Corps of Engineers. It is always the vulnerable who are the targets when a giant "first ever" occurs.

[mainegreen]

1. There ought to be a system to tell owners 'your home lot is a stupid place for a home'

and if people still want to live there, fine, but absolutely no government money for rebuilding if the persons home is destroyed for the original reason the lot was declared a stupid place for a home.

Now, don't get me wrong, I am *not* saying anything about what happened in New Orleans. The government failed in a responsibility it had taken on itself to protect the city (ie building and maintaining levies). However, at this point I don't see why anyone should be compensated if, say, there home is located on the beach on a barrier island in the gulf if a hurricane hits. At some point, don't we all have to step back and say 'at your own risk'? There is a lot of space in this country and most of it is fairly safe to live in, but some patches really, really are not suited to building homes.

[RB TexLa]

2. So do you list all of California or just the Bay Area in that?

:shrug:

[mainegreen]

4. I would certainly say some hillsides are dopey places for houses.

Especially if say that hillside is at high risk for all the the following:
Massive fires, land slides, earthquakes.

However, how often does a huge earthquake hit a specific area vs how often does a hurricane hit a specific area, and how are those risks trending? Can those risks be reduced? It's certainly possible to make a building that can withstand earthquakes up to a certain level. It's much harder to make a watertight house and almost impossible to make a house that can survive coastal erosion.

If somebody built there house, for example, right on the San Andreas fault because they liked the view and then their house was torn in two one day, I don't think we should give them money at this point, because the danger was clear and will not be reduced in time.

[RB TexLa]

6. Well, at least you you are not stupid enough to build where stupid people build, right?

You can be happy knowing you are smart enough to not live in places like those stupid people.

[mainegreen]

7. You aren't seriously arguing that any place is a good place for a home?

That there is no such thing as a stupid place for a house?

[Tyler Durden]

8. Yes, he is.

Personally, I figure anywhere someone is stupid enough to build is fine. Just don't ask me to insure it or subsidize the re-building after the inevitable catastrophe.

Build in a swamp, you forfeit complaints about water in your basement.

[HereSince1628]

3. There is one, it used to be called the Tennessee Valley Authority.

[mainegreen]

5. But its a government program!

Can't have those.

:sarcasm:

[HereSince1628]

10. I've been on the web looking...No hurricanes in N Iowa, but no seaport jobs

and next to no big river barge terminals.

In a fantasy world people can be 'relocated' to any god-damned where. Opportunity and risk often go hand in hand. THe deal is a gamble that profits in the short term will more than pay for the inevitable destruction from probable disasters.

The coming rise in sea-level is going to result in trillions of dollars of costs to the nation to keep our large coastal metropolitan areas working but you just can't run a whole hell of a lot of container ships through the port of Minot.

[Frances]

9. I live near a town that was severely damaged by an earthquake

Our homeowners association (I live in a townhouse) does not have earthquake insurance. If an earthquake ruins my house, I'm out of luck.

[mainegreen]

11. How often does your town have major earthquakes?

If it's every year, I don't think the US government should bail you out.
If, as is more likely, it's a rare event, not even likely to destroy homes in the town every couple of decades, I don't think that homes there should be considered foolishly placed, and would certainly support government relief if disaster struck.