I am a proponent of beach replenishment around the resort areas because I believe good wide beaches have an economic impact upon businesses who depend upon tourists for a living.

However I am an opponent to spending taxpayer money to protect private property located near or on the water; a waste of money and a losing cause against Mother Nature.

State emergency planners are hoping to tap a small piece of the $60 billion Hurricane Sandy relief package to help owners of 17 high-risk properties raise their homes onto higher supports, cutting future flood damage and losses according to a News Journal article.

Why? $1.1 million is for 10 homes where the water is up to their concrete protection walls; so they go on stilts, soon the water will cross over the barriers then under their homes; each year the water will crept further inland and the houses will be sitting in the water.

As much as I would hate to move from a water front view, to avoid losing my home altogether, I think I would accept a buy-out and move on. I don’t think staying should be an option; sell out or take the consequences, no more spending good money after bad choices.



  1. I totally agree, Frank. When folks build on the water they take the responsibility and the risk of an act of God wiping them out. We shouldn’t have to pay to fix that and if people are wealthy enough to have a home on the water, they should be wealthy enough to pay for insurance. And, if the insurance is not available, so be it.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s