Too many flats are being built on seaside fronts. Will they be unsaleable in the near future
2006-12-13 22:05:30 · 10 answers · asked by Anonymous in Environment
i totally think building on beaches and close to the ocean should be prohibited for many reason. first for the same reason mention. Their will always be hurricanes, flooding, and title wave possibilities. its a waist of peoples money (tax payer too) to allow people to build so close to something so volatile. My second reason most will not agree with but why should only the very wealthy get the great view? why should only the privileged get to have access to one of the most amazing parts of mother nature? i think all, and i mean all sea shore should be community property like a state park where all are fee to visit. just think no more over crowded beaches. my overly simple plan for doing so, the government buys properly from those that own ocean front when it becomes storm damaged... rather than give them aid to rebuild it. slowly over a few hundred years most land would be community owned. my 3rd reason which fits well with making it all parks is it will make it nice natural national sea shore. it will be cleaner and stay healthier for the animals. in place of mcmansions being built on bluffs over looking the ocean, the natural vegetation would be given lots of room to flourish given homes back to a variety of animals, but particularly birds... just my .02 cents but really for the average American ocean front or sea side is not an option. and the idea of closing off a huge beautiful part of nature seems nuts to me and unfair. wanted to add what is sea side or sea front? some one mentioned living 4 miles in land... this is not sea side... this is near the ocean. sea side would be only a half mile or mile... a distancde where you can clearly see the ocean. also wanted to add that in barbadose all of their actualy ocean front is goverment owned. even the weathy do not own the beach infront of their mansions. i don't know how many feet or what the distance from the water is but its big enough to allow access to everyone.
2006-12-13 22:52:36 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
the sea aspect has been increasing enormously reliable for over 100 years. it may surely be compensated for by starting to be large man made lakes in low factors of the international. The needed valley in California once had a lake as large because the entire Salt Lake, even with the undeniable fact that it replaced into destroyed by guy. The Mississippi River floods almost each and every 12 months causing thousands of thousands in harm. For a lot less money shall we construct an excellent lake alongside the sting of the river that would eliminate the once a year flooding and eliminate most of the sea aspect upward thrust, Kill 2 birds with one stone. this can be environmentally very pleasant, starting to be new habitat for poultry species.
2016-11-26 02:28:43 · answer #2 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I myself do not believe that building at sea level should be prohitbited. I live on the coast of Massachusetts. Here if you are at sea level then the building/house MUST be built up so that it is ABOVE sea level. So if someone is building a house on the shore front then the house must be raise on stilts. I myself do not and would not want shore front property. I live about four miles in land.
2006-12-13 22:21:31 · answer #3 · answered by GRUMPY 7 · 0⤊ 2⤋
I read an article the other day about a couple on the east coast who could not re-insure their new home because it is 12 feet above sea level. They said they cannot sell it either because it cannot be insured. They are a retired couple that invested in this new house and now.......
2006-12-13 22:21:12 · answer #4 · answered by anybody 3 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Impossible to know for sure - only one way to find out for certain, and that is to wait and see. Besides, what if you are building a marina? It wouldn't make sense to build it 20 miles inland, would it?
2006-12-13 23:06:22 · answer #5 · answered by Paul H 6 · 0⤊ 1⤋
it makes sense to limit construction in high risk areas 'cause everybody shares in the expense when disaster strikes (insurance premiums, wasted resources, inflation of building material costs). even so, these areas will command a premium price until restrictions are place on development.
2006-12-13 23:06:58 · answer #6 · answered by Sam E 6 · 0⤊ 1⤋
What? Where? Madagascar? Rio? Kiev?
Explain.
2006-12-13 22:35:22 · answer #7 · answered by Minmi 6 · 0⤊ 1⤋
I don't think it should be prohibited. It's a buyers choice if they decide to buy a vulnerable property. If people weren't buying them, they wouldn't be built.
2006-12-13 22:09:18 · answer #8 · answered by Wafflebox 5 · 0⤊ 2⤋
not in the near future no.
Just don't get a ground floor one
2006-12-13 22:15:06 · answer #9 · answered by ArskElvis 3 · 0⤊ 2⤋
Come on! you and me can work this one out together?
2006-12-13 22:14:33 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 2⤋