On 8/6/2018 7:16 PM, John H. wrote:
On Mon, 6 Aug 2018 18:44:52 -0400, "Mr. Luddite" wrote:

On 8/6/2018 5:01 PM, John H. wrote:
On Mon, 06 Aug 2018 15:54:08 -0400, Wayne.B wrote:

On Mon, 06 Aug 2018 15:40:44 -0400, John H.
wrote:

A good video of the problems faced by Scituate, MA, from the nor'easters this past spring.

https://features.weather.com/exodus/...me-every-year/

Much of the problem is blamed on climate change, but the sea level has risen by only 8 inches on
average since 1900. A good article on the problem:

https://insideclimatenews.org/news/1...shment-project

"This year, the town of Scituate, which includes Humarock, proposed building a $9.6 million
artificial dune and raised road to protect the homes.

Yet some residents are prepared to block the project. The town is asking them to sign easements that
would cede property rights along the privately owned beach and allow public access. Whatever
concerns they have about protecting their homes are being overridden by fear of permanently
relinquishing control of their property.

Seems like some folks bring on the problems themselves, but like to blame climate change.

===

Scituate has been hammered more times than my great grand uncle's
blacksmithing anvil. I'm fine with people living on that beach if
that's what they want, but I'm not fine with repeated tax payer bail
outs.

Can't disagree with that! When seen in an overhead view, it appears they're just trying hard to
tempt mother nature.



Don't go pick'in on one of my favorite towns up here (Scituate) :-)

Go back to your insideclimatenews.org link and scroll down a bit until
you come upon an interactive map. Check that out. You'll find that
Massachusetts has invested a mere pittance to coastal erosion compared
to all the other states on the east coast, especially Florida. Since
1990 Florida has had major projects on both coasts, from Jacksonville to
Miami and from Cape Coral to Tampa.

Most of the money spent has been from New Jersey and southward and
includes every state from there to Florida.


That's what I mean. They blame 'climate change' but don't want to do the things necessary to protect
themselves.



You mean depend on federal bail out funds?

On Mon, 6 Aug 2018 19:25:21 -0400, "Mr. Luddite" wrote:

On 8/6/2018 7:16 PM, John H. wrote:
On Mon, 6 Aug 2018 18:44:52 -0400, "Mr. Luddite" wrote:

On 8/6/2018 5:01 PM, John H. wrote:
On Mon, 06 Aug 2018 15:54:08 -0400, Wayne.B wrote:

On Mon, 06 Aug 2018 15:40:44 -0400, John H.
wrote:

A good video of the problems faced by Scituate, MA, from the nor'easters this past spring.

https://features.weather.com/exodus/...me-every-year/

Much of the problem is blamed on climate change, but the sea level has risen by only 8 inches on
average since 1900. A good article on the problem:

https://insideclimatenews.org/news/1...shment-project

"This year, the town of Scituate, which includes Humarock, proposed building a $9.6 million
artificial dune and raised road to protect the homes.

Yet some residents are prepared to block the project. The town is asking them to sign easements that
would cede property rights along the privately owned beach and allow public access. Whatever
concerns they have about protecting their homes are being overridden by fear of permanently
relinquishing control of their property.

Seems like some folks bring on the problems themselves, but like to blame climate change.

===

Scituate has been hammered more times than my great grand uncle's
blacksmithing anvil. I'm fine with people living on that beach if
that's what they want, but I'm not fine with repeated tax payer bail
outs.

Can't disagree with that! When seen in an overhead view, it appears they're just trying hard to
tempt mother nature.



Don't go pick'in on one of my favorite towns up here (Scituate) :-)

Go back to your insideclimatenews.org link and scroll down a bit until
you come upon an interactive map. Check that out. You'll find that
Massachusetts has invested a mere pittance to coastal erosion compared
to all the other states on the east coast, especially Florida. Since
1990 Florida has had major projects on both coasts, from Jacksonville to
Miami and from Cape Coral to Tampa.

Most of the money spent has been from New Jersey and southward and
includes every state from there to Florida.


That's what I mean. They blame 'climate change' but don't want to do the things necessary to protect
themselves.



You mean depend on federal bail out funds?


I was thinking more of these folks who don't want to sign away some property rights so the town can
try to fix the problem.

"This year, the town of Scituate, which includes Humarock, proposed building a $9.6 million
artificial dune and raised road to protect the homes.

Yet some residents are prepared to block the project. The town is asking them to sign easements that
would cede property rights along the privately owned beach and allow public access. Whatever
concerns they have about protecting their homes are being overridden by fear of permanently
relinquishing control of their property."

On Tuesday, August 7, 2018 at 6:11:03 AM UTC-4, John H wrote:
On Mon, 6 Aug 2018 19:25:21 -0400, "Mr. Luddite" wrote:

On 8/6/2018 7:16 PM, John H. wrote:
On Mon, 6 Aug 2018 18:44:52 -0400, "Mr. Luddite" wrote:

On 8/6/2018 5:01 PM, John H. wrote:
On Mon, 06 Aug 2018 15:54:08 -0400, Wayne.B wrote:

On Mon, 06 Aug 2018 15:40:44 -0400, John H.
wrote:

A good video of the problems faced by Scituate, MA, from the nor'easters this past spring.

https://features.weather.com/exodus/...me-every-year/

Much of the problem is blamed on climate change, but the sea level has risen by only 8 inches on
average since 1900. A good article on the problem:

https://insideclimatenews.org/news/1...shment-project

"This year, the town of Scituate, which includes Humarock, proposed building a $9.6 million
artificial dune and raised road to protect the homes.

Yet some residents are prepared to block the project. The town is asking them to sign easements that
would cede property rights along the privately owned beach and allow public access. Whatever
concerns they have about protecting their homes are being overridden by fear of permanently
relinquishing control of their property.

Seems like some folks bring on the problems themselves, but like to blame climate change.

===

Scituate has been hammered more times than my great grand uncle's
blacksmithing anvil. I'm fine with people living on that beach if
that's what they want, but I'm not fine with repeated tax payer bail
outs.

Can't disagree with that! When seen in an overhead view, it appears they're just trying hard to
tempt mother nature.



Don't go pick'in on one of my favorite towns up here (Scituate) :-)

Go back to your insideclimatenews.org link and scroll down a bit until
you come upon an interactive map. Check that out. You'll find that
Massachusetts has invested a mere pittance to coastal erosion compared
to all the other states on the east coast, especially Florida. Since
1990 Florida has had major projects on both coasts, from Jacksonville to
Miami and from Cape Coral to Tampa.

Most of the money spent has been from New Jersey and southward and
includes every state from there to Florida.


That's what I mean. They blame 'climate change' but don't want to do the things necessary to protect
themselves.



You mean depend on federal bail out funds?


I was thinking more of these folks who don't want to sign away some property rights so the town can
try to fix the problem.

"This year, the town of Scituate, which includes Humarock, proposed building a $9.6 million
artificial dune and raised road to protect the homes.

Yet some residents are prepared to block the project. The town is asking them to sign easements that
would cede property rights along the privately owned beach and allow public access. Whatever
concerns they have about protecting their homes are being overridden by fear of permanently
relinquishing control of their property."

Well, we can't have the poor, unwashed masses on our private beaches now, can we? If it's privately owned, then no public money should be used to prop it up. Why should state and federal tax money be used to "save" a bunch of rich people? Some might argue that it's a national treasure, but it's one I can't set foot on.

On Tue, 7 Aug 2018 06:17:28 -0700 (PDT), Its Me
wrote:

If it's privately owned, then no public money should be used to prop it up. Why should state and federal tax money be used to "save" a bunch of rich people? Some might argue that it's a national treasure, but it's one I can't set foot on.

===

Exactly. It's too bad for the people who live there but it should
come as no surprise to them. Like many other beaches it has probably
been eroding for years. Beaches do that, and the sand that goes
missing ends up somewhere else to build a new beach.

In some ways it's like the people who build or buy a house near an
airport and are then surprised that planes are making noise.

Wayne.B Wrote in message:
On Tue, 7 Aug 2018 06:17:28 -0700 (PDT), Its Me
wrote:

If it's privately owned, then no public money should be used to prop it up. Why should state and federal tax money be used to "save" a bunch of rich people? Some might argue that it's a national treasure, but it's one I can't set foot on.

===

Exactly. It's too bad for the people who live there but it should
come as no surprise to them. Like many other beaches it has probably
been eroding for years. Beaches do that, and the sand that goes
missing ends up somewhere else to build a new beach.

In some ways it's like the people who build or buy a house near an
airport and are then surprised that planes are making noise.


Somehow the houses lost get replaced with bigger fancier ones. The
shoreline residents who "lost everything" seem to come back
better off than before. Maintaining the shoreline is an expensive
proposition. Taxpayers pay for all of it. Like New Orleans, why
keep pouring money into it. Mother nature is going to win this
war eventually.
--
x


----Android NewsGroup Reader----
http://usenet.sinaapp.com/

On Tue, 7 Aug 2018 08:17:03 -0600 (MDT), justan wrote:

Wayne.B Wrote in message:
On Tue, 7 Aug 2018 06:17:28 -0700 (PDT), Its Me
wrote:

If it's privately owned, then no public money should be used to prop it up. Why should state and federal tax money be used to "save" a bunch of rich people? Some might argue that it's a national treasure, but it's one I can't set foot on.

===

Exactly. It's too bad for the people who live there but it should
come as no surprise to them. Like many other beaches it has probably
been eroding for years. Beaches do that, and the sand that goes
missing ends up somewhere else to build a new beach.

In some ways it's like the people who build or buy a house near an
airport and are then surprised that planes are making noise.


Somehow the houses lost get replaced with bigger fancier ones. The
shoreline residents who "lost everything" seem to come back
better off than before. Maintaining the shoreline is an expensive
proposition. Taxpayers pay for all of it. Like New Orleans, why
keep pouring money into it. Mother nature is going to win this
war eventually.

I still think my idea was right after Katrina. They should have
condemned every flooded property, like they would just about any other
place in the US and if they wanted to rebuild, they have to rebuild
using the same FEMA rules we use.
The place we are building on Ft Myers Beach is 16' ASL to the first
floor.
In the case of New Orleans they could have put all of those out of
work people in the rust belt to work loading dirt on barges and raise
the flooded areas of NOLA by 10 or 12 feet. It would be far cheaper
than the money FEMA will spend on the next flood.
That may sound ridiculous but compared to the amount of dirt they have
hauled west to raise Lee County Florida it is a sand box exercise.
The little 150 acre community my wife brought out of the ground hauled
in about 1.5 million yards of dirt, one truck load at a time. The
whole development was lifted over 3 feet, then each house was raised
another ~3 feet above that. That was duplicated hundreds of times
across the county.

On 8/7/2018 9:30 AM, Wayne.B wrote:
On Tue, 7 Aug 2018 06:17:28 -0700 (PDT), Its Me
wrote:

If it's privately owned, then no public money should be used to prop it up. Why should state and federal tax money be used to "save" a bunch of rich people? Some might argue that it's a national treasure, but it's one I can't set foot on.

===

Exactly. It's too bad for the people who live there but it should
come as no surprise to them. Like many other beaches it has probably
been eroding for years. Beaches do that, and the sand that goes
missing ends up somewhere else to build a new beach.

In some ways it's like the people who build or buy a house near an
airport and are then surprised that planes are making noise.



We almost bought a house south of Plymouth (near the Cape) that was
built high up on a cliff overlooking the southern part of Cape Cod
Bay. I loved the house, the view and the fact that we would be
able to have a mooring block for the Navigator, although the climb
down the stairs to the the water wasn't something you'd want to do
five times a day.

Anyway, the house sat 60 feet from the edge of the cliff. We started
the paperwork and at one point the realtor handed me a disclosure to
sign. The disclosure (required by law) was related to the erosion
history of the cliffs and indicated that they lost approximately 8
inches a year over the last 40 or 50 years. I divided the
60 feet by 8 inches and determined we'd have 90 years before the
house fell in the ocean. Then I found out that the 8
inches/year was just an average .... some years there was no erosion
but some years with big storms caused over 20 feet of the cliff to
fall away.

Decided my luck wasn't that good and we passed on the house.

On Tuesday, August 7, 2018 at 10:42:36 AM UTC-4, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 8/7/2018 9:30 AM, Wayne.B wrote:
On Tue, 7 Aug 2018 06:17:28 -0700 (PDT), Its Me
wrote:

If it's privately owned, then no public money should be used to prop it up. Why should state and federal tax money be used to "save" a bunch of rich people? Some might argue that it's a national treasure, but it's one I can't set foot on.

===

Exactly. It's too bad for the people who live there but it should
come as no surprise to them. Like many other beaches it has probably
been eroding for years. Beaches do that, and the sand that goes
missing ends up somewhere else to build a new beach.

In some ways it's like the people who build or buy a house near an
airport and are then surprised that planes are making noise.



We almost bought a house south of Plymouth (near the Cape) that was
built high up on a cliff overlooking the southern part of Cape Cod
Bay. I loved the house, the view and the fact that we would be
able to have a mooring block for the Navigator, although the climb
down the stairs to the the water wasn't something you'd want to do
five times a day.

Anyway, the house sat 60 feet from the edge of the cliff. We started
the paperwork and at one point the realtor handed me a disclosure to
sign. The disclosure (required by law) was related to the erosion
history of the cliffs and indicated that they lost approximately 8
inches a year over the last 40 or 50 years. I divided the
60 feet by 8 inches and determined we'd have 90 years before the
house fell in the ocean. Then I found out that the 8
inches/year was just an average .... some years there was no erosion
but some years with big storms caused over 20 feet of the cliff to
fall away.

Decided my luck wasn't that good and we passed on the house.

The insurance on a house like that has to be staggering. We have some friends that have an ocean-front house here in SC. It was initially an investment that they figured they could pass on to their three kids. While they raised some great kids, none went into a field as lucrative as their father (cardio-vascular surgeon), so they realized the kids just wouldn't be able to afford to keep it. The taxes and insurance bills are just too much.

We just got back from our Maine trip, and one of the stops we made was Kennebunkport. There are some really cool houses there. Rode by the Bush compound both on land and by water (lobsta boat tour). Waved at the Secret Service boat that was out patrolling. Nice guys... they knew we were Republicans.

On Tue, 7 Aug 2018 09:28:30 -0700 (PDT), Its Me wrote:

On Tuesday, August 7, 2018 at 10:42:36 AM UTC-4, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 8/7/2018 9:30 AM, Wayne.B wrote:
On Tue, 7 Aug 2018 06:17:28 -0700 (PDT), Its Me
wrote:

If it's privately owned, then no public money should be used to prop it up. Why should state and federal tax money be used to "save" a bunch of rich people? Some might argue that it's a national treasure, but it's one I can't set foot on.

===

Exactly. It's too bad for the people who live there but it should
come as no surprise to them. Like many other beaches it has probably
been eroding for years. Beaches do that, and the sand that goes
missing ends up somewhere else to build a new beach.

In some ways it's like the people who build or buy a house near an
airport and are then surprised that planes are making noise.



We almost bought a house south of Plymouth (near the Cape) that was
built high up on a cliff overlooking the southern part of Cape Cod
Bay. I loved the house, the view and the fact that we would be
able to have a mooring block for the Navigator, although the climb
down the stairs to the the water wasn't something you'd want to do
five times a day.

Anyway, the house sat 60 feet from the edge of the cliff. We started
the paperwork and at one point the realtor handed me a disclosure to
sign. The disclosure (required by law) was related to the erosion
history of the cliffs and indicated that they lost approximately 8
inches a year over the last 40 or 50 years. I divided the
60 feet by 8 inches and determined we'd have 90 years before the
house fell in the ocean. Then I found out that the 8
inches/year was just an average .... some years there was no erosion
but some years with big storms caused over 20 feet of the cliff to
fall away.

Decided my luck wasn't that good and we passed on the house.

The insurance on a house like that has to be staggering. We have some friends that have an ocean-front house here in SC. It was initially an investment that they figured they could pass on to their three kids. While they raised some great kids, none went into a field as lucrative as their father (cardio-vascular surgeon), so they realized the kids just wouldn't be able to afford to keep it. The taxes and insurance bills are just too much.

We just got back from our Maine trip, and one of the stops we made was Kennebunkport. There are some really cool houses there. Rode by the Bush compound both on land and by water (lobsta boat tour). Waved at the Secret Service boat that was out patrolling. Nice guys... they knew we were Republicans.

We've taken a trip to Maine with our little trailer and are thinking of another one through Maine to
Nova Scotia. But, we're also kicking around Yellowstone, Glacier, and Grand Teton NPs. I've done
them by motorcycle (not Glacier) but my wife's not seen any of them.

On Tue, 7 Aug 2018 09:28:30 -0700 (PDT), Its Me
wrote:

On Tuesday, August 7, 2018 at 10:42:36 AM UTC-4, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 8/7/2018 9:30 AM, Wayne.B wrote:
On Tue, 7 Aug 2018 06:17:28 -0700 (PDT), Its Me
wrote:

If it's privately owned, then no public money should be used to prop it up. Why should state and federal tax money be used to "save" a bunch of rich people? Some might argue that it's a national treasure, but it's one I can't set foot on.

===

Exactly. It's too bad for the people who live there but it should
come as no surprise to them. Like many other beaches it has probably
been eroding for years. Beaches do that, and the sand that goes
missing ends up somewhere else to build a new beach.

In some ways it's like the people who build or buy a house near an
airport and are then surprised that planes are making noise.



We almost bought a house south of Plymouth (near the Cape) that was
built high up on a cliff overlooking the southern part of Cape Cod
Bay. I loved the house, the view and the fact that we would be
able to have a mooring block for the Navigator, although the climb
down the stairs to the the water wasn't something you'd want to do
five times a day.

Anyway, the house sat 60 feet from the edge of the cliff. We started
the paperwork and at one point the realtor handed me a disclosure to
sign. The disclosure (required by law) was related to the erosion
history of the cliffs and indicated that they lost approximately 8
inches a year over the last 40 or 50 years. I divided the
60 feet by 8 inches and determined we'd have 90 years before the
house fell in the ocean. Then I found out that the 8
inches/year was just an average .... some years there was no erosion
but some years with big storms caused over 20 feet of the cliff to
fall away.

Decided my luck wasn't that good and we passed on the house.

The insurance on a house like that has to be staggering. We have some friends that have an ocean-front house here in SC. It was initially an investment that they figured they could pass on to their three kids. While they raised some great kids, none went into a field as lucrative as their father (cardio-vascular surgeon), so they realized the kids just wouldn't be able to afford to keep it. The taxes and insurance bills are just too much.

We just got back from our Maine trip, and one of the stops we made was Kennebunkport. There are some really cool houses there. Rode by the Bush compound both on land and by water (lobsta boat tour). Waved at the Secret Service boat that was out patrolling. Nice guys... they knew we were Republicans.

===

Nice. So where else did you get to in Maine, and how did you like it?
It's always been one of our favorite places by both car and boat.