Swept away: $500k sand dune built to protect US homes disappears in days
1–10 of 100 posts
Re: Swept away: $500k sand dune built to protect US homes disappears in days
#2Perfectly acceptable for homeowners to spend their own money to save their houses.
But it’s the last sentence in the story that makes me boil over:
“Now, the homeowners have asked the state to step in and provide assistance.”
Re: Swept away: $500k sand dune built to protect US homes disappears in days
#3If you’re betting against the ocean, half a million bucks seems like a piddling small amount to bring to the table.
Like, so small an amount that you probably shouldn’t be allowed to play the game.
Part of why you have table stakes is to keep small players out of the game, and the ocean is maybe the biggest, most powerful player in the largest game on earth. (Metaphorically speaking, of course.)
Re: Swept away: $500k sand dune built to protect US homes disappears in days
#4Perfectly acceptable for homeowners to spend their own money to save their houses. But it’s the last sentence in the story that makes me boil over: “Now, the homeowners have asked the state to step in and provide assistance.”
Well, it's government regulation that keeps them from building a more rigid structure. I'm not sure it's that unacceptable to ask it to help, after they did their best within the regulated framework.
Re: Swept away: $500k sand dune built to protect US homes disappears in days
#5Perfectly acceptable for homeowners to spend their own money to save their houses. But it’s the last sentence in the story that makes me boil over: “Now, the homeowners have asked the state to step in and provide assistance.”
I was more interested in the comment that more permanent sea wall structures are prohibited. Maybe the residents feel like if their hands are tied then the government doing the tying should help? I don’t really know the local politics or reasoning though.
Re: Swept away: $500k sand dune built to protect US homes disappears in days
#6A lesson learned from boating, and living on waterfront property:
Water always wins.
Re: Swept away: $500k sand dune built to protect US homes disappears in days
#7Perfectly acceptable for homeowners to spend their own money to save their houses. But it’s the last sentence in the story that makes me boil over: “Now, the homeowners have asked the state to step in and provide assistance.”
> Property owners dumped 15,000 tons of sand in a Massachusetts town
to fend off dangerous tides, but it was swept away in 72 hours
The assistance they could benefit from most is not financial but a short educational course on basic construction science. Sand is not a great building material. It even mentions that in the bible (Matthew 7:24-27).
Re: Swept away: $500k sand dune built to protect US homes disappears in days
#8Perfectly acceptable for homeowners to spend their own money to save their houses. But it’s the last sentence in the story that makes me boil over: “Now, the homeowners have asked the state to step in and provide assistance.”
I agree, but to be fair it was also the state that limited them such a silly option. They can't do anything more permanent than sand. Which, I understand has an environmental impact, but the beaches are going to keep eroding so why not "draw a line in the sand" so to speak and help protect the beaches more permanently. Regardless of how lives there now.
* I live in the state but no where near the water. So I'm sure my taxes will be paying for this.
Re: Swept away: $500k sand dune built to protect US homes disappears in days
#9> the volunteer organization behind the dune project, said on Facebook that even though the expensive protection mechanism was destroyed within days, “the sacrificial dunes did their job”, arguing that much more could have been destroyed were it not for the presence of the dune.
Either that, or the sand dune project was a result of their own gross incompetence
Re: Swept away: $500k sand dune built to protect US homes disappears in days
#10> Local news outlet Fox59 reported that the Republican state senator Bruce Tarr was working to secure $1.5m in state funding to replenish the sand.
> Tarr, noting that a more permanent seawall was not an option because hard structures like these are not allowed on Massachusetts beaches
If the only alternative is to drain state funds dumping tonnes of sand that quickly get swept away, then it's time to change the (by)laws.