BostonUrbEx
Senior Member
- Joined
- Mar 13, 2010
- Messages
- 4,340
- Reaction score
- 127
The fatal flaw that will be the end of Boston and it's mighty flood gates. Dum dum dummmm.
Again, this specific plan is being developed BY BOSTON.
Nothing is stopping said communities from developing their own plans and eventually applying for state/federal financing.
Boston can't find the money to pay fire fighters. Boston can't figure out a correct signal system for the intersection of Dorchester Avenue, Hancock Street, and Freeport Street. Boston can't find the guy who cut Karina Homer in two. Boston can't keep libraries open. You want them to develop a flood barrier?
Also, If Chelsea cannot come up with their share of the funds to pay for their share or do not agree with the construction of the barrier, yet they lie behind the barrier, do they open their hydrants to simulate storm surges when the 500 year flood comes?
Agree with the comments that this is Boston-specific. But even if it weren't:
1. More people and assets would be affected by the flooding of the central city.
2. The only way one of these barriers could be realistically designed would be to protect the center and increasingly disparate areas. So the question isn't whether the center should be protected at the expense of certain suburbs, but which suburbs can be protected along with the city center.
3. People who live in dispersed settlements wind up taxing us who live more efficiently in cities because they demand more infrastructure to support their way of life - longer roads, sewage lines, the externalities of autocentrism, etc. Per capita the barrier would be way more expensive if extended to include low density towns, like a highway built to these communities generally is. Moreover, the barrier is specifically protecting coastal dwellers who have enjoyed high property values...why should people inland have to pay for their protection when they've chosen to accept the risk of seaside living?
4. So what's so terrible about subsidizing (or mandating insurance coverage for) the movement of people to higher elevations in places where the barrier can't be built? The fact that these are low density towns makes it relatively easy by comparison.
(Caveat: I do wonder if a more inclusive barrier would be more cost effective than this)
You're right. Boston is a shithole and not worth saving. I really can only assume you didn't read the article.
I am not saying that. Don't dare lecture me on Boston. I grew up in Dorchester, lived in the South End and South Boston, went to Boston Public Schools. I am working in the City 3-4 days a week. I did read the article. I understand it.
Once again, why are we playing favorites with what gets protected and what doesn't? Percieved density and the protection of some REIT's investment in an office block cannot be the answer.
Once again, why are we playing favorites with what gets protected and what doesn't? Percieved density and the protection of some REIT's investment in an office block cannot be the answer.
yeesh...shades of Ned Flaherty
Nice. Is it because I am not going along with the Groupthink or are you still upset that I called you out on your lack of knowledge about Dorchester a few months back?
Heaven forbid someone disagrees.
Most of the state is saved in my plan! Not sure where we'll get the building material for this. Oh and the bay will more than likely turn into a cesspool.
Not sure where we'll get the building material for this.