Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Swept away: $500k sand dune built to protect US homes disappears in days

theguardian.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 100 posts

Re: Swept away: $500k sand dune built to protect US homes disappears in days

#61

Post by pixl97 »

rat9988 wrote: post #4
master_crab wrote: post #2

Perfectly 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.

Yea, it's like the government knows the problems induced by rigid structures near the ocean and most people have no clue because they "want what they want" and have never picked up a textbook to even begin understanding the damage they are causing.

Re: Swept away: $500k sand dune built to protect US homes disappears in days

#62

Post by pixl97 »

misja111 wrote: post #49
brk wrote: post #6

A lesson learned from boating, and living on waterfront property: Water always wins.

The Dutch would disagree

Two things....

1. They spend something like 1.5% of their GDP so they can double the size of their country. This works ok for small countries, but not large ones (think more of city protection for larger places).

2. This will eventually get them sued in international court when one of their projects affects surrounding countries. The ocean is filled with butterfly effects.

Re: Swept away: $500k sand dune built to protect US homes disappears in days

#63

Post by short_sells_poo »

acdha wrote: post #27
tromp wrote: post #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)…

The problem is that seawalls are very expensive and make the problem worse for your neighbors. If you build a sea wall, you break the natural process which replenishes sand on the adjacent beaches and they’ll shrink and disappear. https://www.wbur.org/onpoint/2023/09/26/lessons-from-califor... The real solution is to accept that anyone who bought in the last half century should have factored in the scientific evidenc…

There's definitely a significant amount of "leopards ate my face" going on here, but I think a fair few people simply don't know better. They see a beautiful beachfront property and when the weather is good, it's all hunky dory.

But then a hurricane moves in and levels everything to the ground, and the real estate agents neglect to mention that this will happen on a regular basis.

Re: Swept away: $500k sand dune built to protect US homes disappears in days

#64

Post by oldandtired »

If you want pristine sand beaches then expect major change over time. Looking at areas where there is little change over time, certain coastal structures are in plain sight.

But as many have already noted, the sea erodes all coastlines. However, what the sea takes away at one time, it also brings back in another time. When my father was in his teens, the water's edge for a small residential site was over a mile away. By the time I was in my teens, that distance had been reduced to 30 metres. By the time I was in my late twenties and early thirties, the water's edge was now at half a kilometre further out. Since then (I'm in the mid 60's) that beach has has grown and receded a couple more times.

Moral of the story, build only where there is relatively constant conditions.

Re: Swept away: $500k sand dune built to protect US homes disappears in days

#65

Post by acdha »

ryandvm wrote: post #59
acdha wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem is that seawalls are very expensive and make the problem worse for your neighbors. If you build a sea wall, you break the natural process which replenishes sand on the adjacent beaches and they’ll shrink and disappear. https://www.wbur.org/onpoint/2023/09/26/lessons-from-califor... The real solution is to accept that anyone who bought in the last half century should have factored in the scientific evidenc…

> The real solution is to accept that anyone who bought in the last half century should have factored in the scientific evidence of climate change and not expect taxpayers to subsidize their failure to plan appropriately. It's mostly not even climate change. The reality is that without a great deal of very expensive intervention from humans, sand coastlines are constantly shifting and changing. Building long term str…

> It's mostly not even climate change

Let me amend that: it’s not just climate change but climate change is like a catalyst for the existing problem. Higher sea level, greater storm intensity and frequency, and other ecological impacts (e.g. native vegetation might not control erosion as well due to changing conditions or invasive pests) all mean we get the harder versions of the problem and have deal with more crises at a time.

Re: Swept away: $500k sand dune built to protect US homes disappears in days

#66

Post by acdha »

short_sells_poo wrote: post #63
acdha wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem is that seawalls are very expensive and make the problem worse for your neighbors. If you build a sea wall, you break the natural process which replenishes sand on the adjacent beaches and they’ll shrink and disappear. https://www.wbur.org/onpoint/2023/09/26/lessons-from-califor... The real solution is to accept that anyone who bought in the last half century should have factored in the scientific evidenc…

There's definitely a significant amount of "leopards ate my face" going on here, but I think a fair few people simply don't know better. They see a beautiful beachfront property and when the weather is good, it's all hunky dory. But then a hurricane moves in and levels everything to the ground, and the real estate agents neglect to mention that this will happen on a regular basis.

Another weird one I’ve heard are people saying it can’t be that bad if insurers cover it, followed by dismay when the premiums double multiple years running.

I think the solution will end up involving some changes to federal disaster aid: FEMA will give you relocation assistance if you sell your house to BLM to become part of the coastal buffer reserve.

Re: Swept away: $500k sand dune built to protect US homes disappears in days

#67

Post by awestley »

pixl97 wrote: post #60
awestley wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 m…

>help protect the beaches more permanently. Then you get rid of the houses.... The shape of the shore is an equation. In it you have have a massive pool of energy that is the water and its currents. You have a second smaller, yet still massive in human terms, pool of energy in the wind. Then you have the slope of the land from a few miles on shore to many (maybe even hundreds of miles) offshore. This is the lever of…

That is why I said more permanently. 10 years is better than 72 hours. To say "get rid of the houses" as a solution to beach erosion without considering legal, social, and economic implications is a classic case of oversimplifying a complex problem.

Re: Swept away: $500k sand dune built to protect US homes disappears in days

#69

Post by octopusRex »

>Tarr, noting that a more permanent seawall was not an option because hard structures like these are not allowed on Massachusetts beaches, said: “We’re managing a natural resource that protects a lot of interests.”

The interests of the wealthy. When rich people make mistakes, they rarely suffer the consequences.

That is why they can arrogantly build housing along beaches without a thought to the outcome.

I on the other hand am forced to use my limited resources paying for their mistakes - whether they build homes on the beach or overinvest in commercial real estate.

Re: Swept away: $500k sand dune built to protect US homes disappears in days

#70

Post by LunaSea »

seszett wrote: post #48
master_crab wrote: post #2

Perfectly 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 don't know, in my place (the West coast of France) it's the government's job to protect citizens property. There used to be a dike built in 1856 but it eroded away and in the 90s when I was young the broken sections were replaced with just big rocks[0]. It works quite fine, I believe they wouldn't count as a "hard structure" which is forbidden in this case, and they don't wash away like sand. Beaches form, naturall…

Because they built houses in place they shouldn't have
Post reply on HN