Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

SoCalDem

(103,856 posts)
Mon Apr 29, 2013, 08:05 AM Apr 2013

Morning Schmo's coverage of Sandy is interesting.

One thing I notice is the devastation on the coast is mostly the ugly broken boxes littering gorgeous beaches.

The governor said they were offered 100% of the PRE-hurricane valuation..and they go elsewhere, or they pay out of pocket to build up on 10 feet pilings (50K personal expense).. Apparently people are "holding out" to see if someone else will pay the cost..

NONE of those houses shown are in any way repairable, so I don't see why they don't just get bulldozer in there and remove them. Let people and the state/insurance companies haggle , but in the meantime get them off the damned beaches.

The aerial shots pretty much show that houses should have never been there anyway, so pay them off, move them away and let the public have the beaches back.. Then when a storm comes, there is no damage except for sand shifting around..

I know the people who have been there for a long time are heartbroken, but they had a good long run and things have changed now..

There are just some places that should not have "permanent homes"..and not only beaches.. It's the same out here for all the canyon-perchers with houses impossible to get to when wild fires break out (as they always do).

1 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Morning Schmo's coverage of Sandy is interesting. (Original Post) SoCalDem Apr 2013 OP
They should take the money and should have months ago.And many already have a regular home. graham4anything Apr 2013 #1
 

graham4anything

(11,464 posts)
1. They should take the money and should have months ago.And many already have a regular home.
Mon Apr 29, 2013, 08:17 AM
Apr 2013

Alot of these were 2nd summer homes and a good percentage (not all, but many) are far from poor.
But it would seem they could take the money and purchase another summer home on the Shore. (One interesting thing, and I know many people from my area who have summer homes down on the shore, is alot of them never bothered with insurance. So they will be coming out ahead of the game. And the very majority of those people, all their material items are in their regular home, as they didn't keep much in the summer weekend homes. (They commute back and forth each weekend, a cult of people loving the 3 hour or more ride in traffic each way.)

And the summer season is fast approaching, and for the people who work on the Shore, and the Boardwalks, they rely on about 75% of their yearly income in the 2-3 months of summer.
So they need the shore to be the nicest, to have the most tourists and regulars go down there and support them, as their income relies on it.

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Morning Schmo's coverage ...