Florida Keys Deliver a Hard Message: As Seas Rise, Some Places Can’t Be Saved | Hacker News Reader

Florida Keys Deliver a Hard Message: As Seas Rise, Some Places Can’t Be Saved

nytimes.com

19 pointspseudolus13 comments

This isn't a global warming story. This is a Keys corruption story. Here are typical road costs in Florida: https://www.fdot.gov/programmanagement/estimates/lre/costper... . Note that $25 million per mile is much larger than the cost to build a new 6 lane urban interstate.

Yes, it does cost more to build on the islands. From the experience of building my dad's house in the Keys, things tend to cost about 4 times as much as on the mainland. Most of that is due to theft and embezzlement, such as https://www.miamiherald.com/news/local/community/florida-key.... This stuff is very, very common, as in "just happened to my dad last Saturday" common.

I'm not sure if the county is just creating a high price as just a way of justifying a "no", or if they are taking into account the actual cost of building including all the corruption.

It's a hard reality to face. Houses are supposed to not be seen as investments, but realistically are. What happens when your 500k investment is unsellable overnight? On one hand, logic tells us to help displaced folks. On the other, it's that they should have seen this coming. And the third, that these people can realistically afford to take the loss.

As an aside, I drove through Daytona Beach last week and... there was absolutely no beach to be seen. The water was up past the bottom stairs of the seawall. While ignorant of if this was somewhat normal, it definitely made me stop and think...

I think it's about finding middle ground. Without government, your home's value might rapidly race to zero. Without climate change, you'd realize the full value of the property. Therefore, with FEMA funding buyout of properties that are likely to be impacted by climate change [1], owners shouldn't be getting wealthy from these transactions, but they should have the ability to relocate to a comparable quality of life.

Governance and oversight is crucial. Be transparent about the properties you're buying and demoing, and prevent future building on those retired properties (developers can be a persuasive [$$$] bunch).

[1] https://www.fema.gov/faq-details/Buy-out-of-flooded-property...

I found the website for the summit (https://www.climatesummitmonroe.com/home) but I failed to find any information about that report, which is a shame. I have absolutely zero understanding of how it costs $4700 per foot to raise a road 16 inches.

> The couple used to fly down from Long Island in a Cessna, until one day the runway at the island’s airport was underwater.

Sounds like time for a float plane certificate.

I wonder how many complaining the government should fix this, voted for Trump.

Who, incidentally, appealed to the reality of climate change in his application to build a sea wall to combat rising sea levels at his golf resort in Ireland.

https://www.politico.com/story/2016/05/donald-trump-climate-...

And what would the government do to reduce the sea level? And how would it get past the do nothing house of representatives?

If you vote for a president denying global warming, you have little ground to sue your county for not acting on sea level rise.

The government should address global warming, if they want to truely address sea level rise.

> If you vote for a president denying global warming, you have little ground to sue your county for not acting on sea level rise.

What recourse would one have if they were from a different country than the one who's president denies global warming?

The article was about homes in Florida, where the majority of the population voted for Trump.

I would expect that in a state where the majority voted to deny global warming, they would also agree to not take actions to battle the effects of a non existent global warming.

My question remains unanswered.

And to generalise the reason for a voter to select a candidate to a singular issue is to ignore the realities of why voters select candidates.

Additionally, there are four levels of government in the United states. The federal level is not the one being sued. Besides, one of the persons in the article has a misconception as to the role of the government with regard to property:

"What’s government for? They’re supposed to protect your property,” Mr. Silverman said from behind the wheel of his shallow skiff boat on a recent afternoon.

This person believes the public road is his property, or that his personal property has some right not granted by the constitution. If you live by the ocean or by a river, the water can erode your land and you have to be the one to protect it.

It's like saying that leaving the Paris Accord is going to make the government responsible for land erosion on a river

If your land is in danger of being turned into sea due to sea level rise caused by global warming, i would expect your no 1 priority would be to address this. I cannot imagine you'd vote for someone who thinks it's all an hoax.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com