Some Experts Say It's Time to Evacuate the Coast (for Good)

[GalvestonDuck]

It would be beautiful though. If they just let it all go and left it to nature. It'd be the largest national park in the world.

Where would you suggest we all go to live?

Ditto that. I'm open to suggestions.

[kevin]

The moon.

[GalvestonDuck]

The moon.

It's a mouse-prone area. Besides, do you know what cheese does to the digestive system?

[sunny]

The moon.

Not funny from my end.

[JQ Public]

I was just saying since the topic was brought up that letting the beaches go back to the way they were would be quite "beautiful" from an ecological perspective. There are many places to live, but I understand there is only one home. Not trying to offend anyone just stating a hypothetical idea.

[GalvestonDuck]

Beaches, forests, canyons, mountains, rolling hills, and endless plains. Why only the beaches?

[sunny]

I was just saying since the topic was brought up that letting the beaches go back to the way they were would be quite "beautiful" from an ecological perspective. There are many places to live, but I understand there is only one home. Not trying to offend anyone just stating a hypothetical idea.

The point is I have noticed that people not affected by Katrina and the destruction are real quick to say "let it go back to nature, don't rebuild New Orleans". I wonder if the people posting this stuff stop to think about the human aspect. WE ARE PEOPLE. We are hurting right now, the emotional toll has been tremendous. To see things like this posted time and time again HURTS. I just wish some would think about that.

[NastyCat4]

EC of Florida really only needs a half mile zone, some places, only about 1,000 feet, like Coconut Grove, as the land quickly rises to about 10-20 feet above sea level right across Bayshore Drive

Exactly. Our CCL (Coastal Construction Line) runs 1500 feet from the shoreline in North/North Central Florida--we're 18 feet over sea level here.

[JQ Public]

NO is pretty far inland. I'm just talking about the beaches, b/c the cost can sometimes be too great to rebuild over and over again.

[GalvestonDuck]

NO is pretty far inland. I'm just talking about the beaches, b/c the cost can sometimes be too great to rebuild over and over again.

So, would you want people banned from visiting the beaches or swimming/surfing in the waves?

[vbhoutex]

EC of Florida really only needs a half mile zone, some places, only about 1,000 feet, like Coconut Grove, as the land quickly rises to about 10-20 feet above sea level right across Bayshore Drive

Exactly. Our CCL (Coastal Construction Line) runs 1500 feet from the shoreline in North/North Central Florida--we're 18 feet over sea level here.

This raises the question of what heighth of surge do you use to make the determination of what areas would be no build zones? 10'? 15'? 25'? 35'? If you go with the higher surges to be safer then there are large portions of several states that become "uninhabitable". This would even include areas of Houston Metro that have at least .5M residents now and some of the largest and most expensive petrochemical and chemical complexes in the world. VERY DIFFICULT to determine where and how to draw that line.

As many know I for one think the barrier islands should be for recreational purposes only which would lead to a lot less infrastructure being destroyed. However, to be realistic since we literally have millions on barrier islands now I think the the caveat to allowing anyone, corporate or otherwise, to build or rebuild on barrier islands should be that if you can afford to replace it AT YOUR OWN EXPENSE(proof required) then you can build or rebuild. If you can't then no go.

[GalvestonDuck]

As many know I for one think the barrier islands should be for recreational purposes only which would lead to a lot less infrastructure being destroyed. However, to be realistic since we literally have millions on barrier islands now I think the the caveat to allowing anyone, corporate or otherwise, to build or rebuild on barrier islands should be that if you can afford to replace it AT YOUR OWN EXPENSE(proof required) then you can build or rebuild. If you can't then no go.

Recreational purposes only? Define that, please.

[vbhoutex]

As many know I for one think the barrier islands should be for recreational purposes only which would lead to a lot less infrastructure being destroyed. However, to be realistic since we literally have millions on barrier islands now I think the the caveat to allowing anyone, corporate or otherwise, to build or rebuild on barrier islands should be that if you can afford to replace it AT YOUR OWN EXPENSE(proof required) then you can build or rebuild. If you can't then no go.

Recreational purposes only? Define that, please.

Meaning having only the facilities necessary for people to go to the beach for the day and enjoy it. Recreational meaning having fun at the beach, not living on a barrier island. I.E. after your day at the beach you go home to your place of residence or hotel which is not located on the barrier island. I know full well this is not going to happen, but IMO it is how it should be.

[GalvestonDuck]

As many know I for one think the barrier islands should be for recreational purposes only which would lead to a lot less infrastructure being destroyed. However, to be realistic since we literally have millions on barrier islands now I think the the caveat to allowing anyone, corporate or otherwise, to build or rebuild on barrier islands should be that if you can afford to replace it AT YOUR OWN EXPENSE(proof required) then you can build or rebuild. If you can't then no go.

Recreational purposes only? Define that, please.

Meaning having only the facilities necessary for people to go to the beach for the day and enjoy it. Recreational meaning having fun at the beach, not living on a barrier island. I.E. after your day at the beach you go home to your place of residence or hotel which is not located on the barrier island. I know full well this is not going to happen, but IMO it is how it should be.

So, no souvenir shops, restaurants, swimwear stores, surf shops, bike rentals, lifeguards, hospitals, or parks board crews either?

You know where I'm going with this, right?

[vbhoutex]

As many know I for one think the barrier islands should be for recreational purposes only which would lead to a lot less infrastructure being destroyed. However, to be realistic since we literally have millions on barrier islands now I think the the caveat to allowing anyone, corporate or otherwise, to build or rebuild on barrier islands should be that if you can afford to replace it AT YOUR OWN EXPENSE(proof required) then you can build or rebuild. If you can't then no go.

Recreational purposes only? Define that, please.

Meaning having only the facilities necessary for people to go to the beach for the day and enjoy it. Recreational meaning having fun at the beach, not living on a barrier island. I.E. after your day at the beach you go home to your place of residence or hotel which is not located on the barrier island. I know full well this is not going to happen, but IMO it is how it should be.

So, no souvenir shops, restaurants, swimwear stores, surf shops, bike rentals, lifeguards, hospitals, or parks board crews either?

You know where I'm going with this, right?

Duckie I always know where you are going when we get in this discussion. Light infrastructure is what I am after. Some of the questions would be who would control the above type of "convenience" if they were allowed to "build" on the island as opposed to being located at the "entrance" to the island or something similar. We're certainly not going to solve our "differences here. Just pointing out one way we could lessen the damage totals and the burden on the taxpayers. And like I said, what I want and what will happen are two different things since there is no way we are going to displace the millions who are already in place.

[JQ Public]

So, would you want people banned from visiting the beaches or swimming/surfing in the waves?

No they can visit the beach and swim in the waves like one would visit a park, but no one lives in the park. Then the money spent building and rebuilding and repainting wouldn't occur.

[Miss Mary]

I was just saying since the topic was brought up that letting the beaches go back to the way they were would be quite "beautiful" from an ecological perspective. There are many places to live, but I understand there is only one home. Not trying to offend anyone just stating a hypothetical idea.

The point is I have noticed that people not affected by Katrina and the destruction are real quick to say "let it go back to nature, don't rebuild New Orleans". I wonder if the people posting this stuff stop to think about the human aspect. WE ARE PEOPLE. We are hurting right now, the emotional toll has been tremendous. To see things like this posted time and time again HURTS. I just wish some would think about that.

People are always quick to judge aren't they sunny? Sigh, I wish I knew how this felt to help you more. But I do care and want to convey that in a post, on the actual message board thread, not just in a PM.

The way I have to look at it is like this - if I suddenly lost my hometown and community roots, hertitage, memories, landmarks, where I went to grade school, HS, got married, delivered my children at, on and on, I would be devastated. Just devastated. And lost. I think when people look at it like this, they then can possibly begin to understand why NO residents want to rebuild. And I also want to point out, to non-NO residents, it keeps coming back to one thing - NO is below sea level. Please know I'm not pointing fingers here, just stating a fact. I've heard people say that up here - they'd have to be crazy to rebuild again......if it wasn't below sea level, I don't this would be such an opinionated issue. There will always be differing opinions, on everything just about - the war in Iraq, what the WTC rebuilding and memorial should be like, etc.

Sometimes you just have to put one foot in front of the other and do your best. Please know that people do really care though sunny. The very same people that say don't rebuild, say they were horrified at what happened after NO flooded. That fast, they emphathize. And gladly donate their money and time.

And sometimes, it just comes down this - let's agree, to disagree. Show me your driver's license....if it says LA, then maybe you have an opinion that matters! I dunno what I'm trying to say here....maybe that I should just trust NOLA residents to handle this best. Heck, I live all the way up here in Ohio!

Mary

[GalvestonDuck]

So, would you want people banned from visiting the beaches or swimming/surfing in the waves?

No they can visit the beach and swim in the waves like one would visit a park, but no one lives in the park. Then the money spent building and rebuilding and repainting wouldn't occur.

Obviously, you've never been to Galveston. It'd make a pretty big "park."

[sunny]

I understand what you are saying, Mary. And I try to look at both sides. This is the first time in 40 years that NO has been hit by a major cane. And everyone is up in arms. Let me tell you, I have paid my share in taxes that have rebuilt cities affected or destroyed by natural disaters. This is the first time in my adulthood that MY city has faced the same. Last year Florida was hit by 4 canes. Never once did I say, oh, they should all just move and leave it go. That thought never crossed my mind.

[NastyCat4]

Last year Florida was hit by 4 canes. Never once did I say, oh, they should all just move and leave it go. That thought never crossed my mind.

Exactly. New Orleans should be rebuilt AT ALL COST. It is part of our population, part of our culture, and our history. How dare anyone say otherwise?