5 ms·

An Outer Banks house that collapsed into the ocean

19 points by jedwhite 4y ago

sklargh 4y ago
I suspect that most of the barrier islands along the United States' eastern intracoastal waterway will submerged by the time I die (2070ish). The pace at which beach disappears near my local barrier island has clearly increased in the past decade.
- binyah 4y ago
  As a long-time resident of barrier island down in the "Lowcountry" - why? The only places we've seen material issue are spots where carpetbagging developers filled in wetlands which have since settled. Of course, folks love to exploit that for warming / climate change panic porn.
  - plugger 4y ago
    Sea level rise, more powerful storms (especially nor'easters), etc. My folks live 60 miles away from here and sit on the highest elevation in the area, which is 11ft above sea level. There's very little margin on the Outer Banks.
- pixl97 4y ago
  If you want to kill a beach, treat it like it's dead. Things like barrier islands should be considered living structures. The moment you stake them down you've given them a death sentence. Tearing up the grasses and building objects on them begins the slow process where they are not able to replenish their sands. In addition the move with time. The head of the beach will get ate away and the tail will grow. But when we start putting up walls and dredging the ocean, we change those currents that feed them and put them at much higher risk of dissolution when strong storms hit. "The beach, if you love it, let it go"
- Markoff 4y ago
  >intracoastal waterway will submerged by the time I die (2070ish) So you are in early 30s or late 20s? I was just thinking about this, if I'm lucky I die in 2060s, if dramatic improvements in extending life 70s though I have fingers crossed for "Upload", though I still think creating exact copy while deleting old one is dying as well (unless they can keep just brain hooked up).
lazypenguin 4y ago
Good writing and a nice preview into what rising sea levels and eroded shores can accomplish.
spicyusername 4y ago
“There was, back in the 90s, an amendment to the National Flood Insurance Program called the Upton Jones Amendment,” said Couch, “and it essentially paid 40% of the property policy to relocate the home, and paid 110% of the policy to demolish the home.” “Well, in its short five-year existence, with the combination of hurricanes, the lunar tides, and some bad stuff weather-wise, it proved to be very [costly], and 75% of the applicants were for demolishing their homes,” added Couch. “So, as you can imagine, the insurance lobby put the kibosh on that pretty quickly.” A bummer that targeted special-interest lobbying always seems to have the tactical advantage that diffuse citizen interests lack.
- zmgsabst 4y ago
  Isn’t that due to citizens not caring enough to spend $1-5 each hiring their own lobbyists? Stop funding politicians and start funding private lobbyists, then vote based on how well politicians respond to your lobbyist.
- anm89 4y ago
  why would you pay 110% up front to demolish? It seems like they are intentionally incentivizing the worst outcome. Or is there some reason they wanted these people to demolish their homes? I mean if they were trying to avoid claims on these homes, it seems like those claims would only pay out 100% right? so now they are opting in to paying more than their worse case scenario?
  - dagw 4y ago
    *it seems like those claims would only pay out 100% right? 100% of the value of the house perhaps. But they probably also cover things like any other loss of valuables in the house plus the cost of shelter temporary and relocation costs. Plus if someone dies or is seriously injured in the disaster they might also have to pay out for that. In addition there are costs that the local and national government will have to take when dealing with someones house being destroyed, and they might be willing to pay the insurance companies a bit to take that risk off their table.
m0llusk 4y ago
They can't force owners to remove the houses directly, but they could potentially make owners liable for expected clean up. That could indirectly get owners to take the situation more seriously.
quantified 4y ago
Isn’t there a song popular in those parts about the foolish man built his house upon the sand and the wise may built his house upon the rock?
- hprotagonist 4y ago
  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Eu5bBDRpzPM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Eu5bBDRpzPM why yes, there is. The source material's about 2,000 years old, too...
  - quantified 4y ago
    It was drilled into me as a kid, pretty obvious as a literal interpretation.
    - hprotagonist 4y ago
      some parables are really just On The Nose.
tomohawk 4y ago
People were upset that federally backed mortgages were being used to build / purchase homes in flood prone areas. So they passed a law to stop doing that unless the borrower got adequate flood insurance. However, no insurance company in their right mind would offer insurance for such properties. People said this was not fair, so the federal government created subsidized flood insurance. Reagan was right. "If it moves, tax it. If it keeps on moving, regulate it. If it stops moving, subsidize it."
owenversteeg 4y ago
I'll preface this with that I am a believer in climate change, etc, etc, not trying to deny anything, but listing the #1 reason that the shoreline moved as "climate change" appears to be incorrect. The Outer Banks are a barrier island, and barrier islands naturally migrate over time; they have a general tendency to move rapidly and unpredictably. Another sign of this is that the Outer Banks, in the Rodanthe area, actually (net) migrated further from 1852 to 1946 than it did from 1852 to 2020.
- plugger 4y ago
  The storm that caused this erosion was a nor'easter, which are on average worse for the Outer Banks when compared to hurricanes as they're slower moving, which causes more beach erosion. Nor'easters are increasing in both size and frequency due to climate change. So I'm pretty sure highlighting it as the number one contributor is quite valid.
  - owenversteeg 4y ago
    Sorry, but you’re wrong: 1. The house collapsed because of shoreline migration, not because of the storm. The shoreline has been migrating for a long time. These houses collapse even when there’s not a storm; there are currently 10 houses identified as being on the verge of collapse in just the Rodanthe area alone. 2. From historical records, shoreline migration in the Rodanthe area was actually more rapid in the 19th century than the 20th. This is consistent with what we know about barrier islands, which is that they migrate rapidly and unpredictably even in the absence of climate change. 3. Therefore, all signs point to the #1 cause here being natural barrier island migration. You may think you are doing a service to the cause of climate change by falsely attributing things like this to it, but you are instead doing it real damage. Many intelligent and powerful people in a position to do something about the issue see things like this - repeated lies and misleading statements from people who mean well - and conclude that climate change is not a real issue. Stop.
hprotagonist 4y ago
Pro tip, don't friggin' build houses on sand! "Everyone who hears these words of mine, and doesn't do them will be like a foolish man, who built his house on the sand. The rain came down, the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat on that house; and it fell—and great was its fall."
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]

19 points by jedwhite 4y ago

I suspect that most of the barrier islands along the United States' eastern intracoastal waterway will submerged by the time I die (2070ish). The pace at which beach disappears near my local barrier island has clearly increased in the past decade.

binyah 4y ago
As a long-time resident of barrier island down in the "Lowcountry" - why? The only places we've seen material issue are spots where carpetbagging developers filled in wetlands which have since settled. Of course, folks love to exploit that for warming / climate change panic porn.
- plugger 4y ago
  Sea level rise, more powerful storms (especially nor'easters), etc. My folks live 60 miles away from here and sit on the highest elevation in the area, which is 11ft above sea level. There's very little margin on the Outer Banks.
pixl97 4y ago
If you want to kill a beach, treat it like it's dead. Things like barrier islands should be considered living structures. The moment you stake them down you've given them a death sentence. Tearing up the grasses and building objects on them begins the slow process where they are not able to replenish their sands. In addition the move with time. The head of the beach will get ate away and the tail will grow. But when we start putting up walls and dredging the ocean, we change those currents that feed them and put them at much higher risk of dissolution when strong storms hit. "The beach, if you love it, let it go"
Markoff 4y ago
>intracoastal waterway will submerged by the time I die (2070ish) So you are in early 30s or late 20s? I was just thinking about this, if I'm lucky I die in 2060s, if dramatic improvements in extending life 70s though I have fingers crossed for "Upload", though I still think creating exact copy while deleting old one is dying as well (unless they can keep just brain hooked up).

lazypenguin 4y ago

Good writing and a nice preview into what rising sea levels and eroded shores can accomplish.

spicyusername 4y ago

“There was, back in the 90s, an amendment to the National Flood Insurance Program called the Upton Jones Amendment,” said Couch, “and it essentially paid 40% of the property policy to relocate the home, and paid 110% of the policy to demolish the home.” “Well, in its short five-year existence, with the combination of hurricanes, the lunar tides, and some bad stuff weather-wise, it proved to be very [costly], and 75% of the applicants were for demolishing their homes,” added Couch. “So, as you can imagine, the insurance lobby put the kibosh on that pretty quickly.” A bummer that targeted special-interest lobbying always seems to have the tactical advantage that diffuse citizen interests lack.

zmgsabst 4y ago
Isn’t that due to citizens not caring enough to spend $1-5 each hiring their own lobbyists? Stop funding politicians and start funding private lobbyists, then vote based on how well politicians respond to your lobbyist.
anm89 4y ago
why would you pay 110% up front to demolish? It seems like they are intentionally incentivizing the worst outcome. Or is there some reason they wanted these people to demolish their homes? I mean if they were trying to avoid claims on these homes, it seems like those claims would only pay out 100% right? so now they are opting in to paying more than their worse case scenario?
- dagw 4y ago
  *it seems like those claims would only pay out 100% right? 100% of the value of the house perhaps. But they probably also cover things like any other loss of valuables in the house plus the cost of shelter temporary and relocation costs. Plus if someone dies or is seriously injured in the disaster they might also have to pay out for that. In addition there are costs that the local and national government will have to take when dealing with someones house being destroyed, and they might be willing to pay the insurance companies a bit to take that risk off their table.

m0llusk 4y ago

They can't force owners to remove the houses directly, but they could potentially make owners liable for expected clean up. That could indirectly get owners to take the situation more seriously.

quantified 4y ago

Isn’t there a song popular in those parts about the foolish man built his house upon the sand and the wise may built his house upon the rock?

hprotagonist 4y ago
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Eu5bBDRpzPM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Eu5bBDRpzPM why yes, there is. The source material's about 2,000 years old, too...
- quantified 4y ago
  It was drilled into me as a kid, pretty obvious as a literal interpretation.
  - hprotagonist 4y ago
    some parables are really just On The Nose.

tomohawk 4y ago

People were upset that federally backed mortgages were being used to build / purchase homes in flood prone areas. So they passed a law to stop doing that unless the borrower got adequate flood insurance. However, no insurance company in their right mind would offer insurance for such properties. People said this was not fair, so the federal government created subsidized flood insurance. Reagan was right. "If it moves, tax it. If it keeps on moving, regulate it. If it stops moving, subsidize it."

owenversteeg 4y ago

I'll preface this with that I am a believer in climate change, etc, etc, not trying to deny anything, but listing the #1 reason that the shoreline moved as "climate change" appears to be incorrect. The Outer Banks are a barrier island, and barrier islands naturally migrate over time; they have a general tendency to move rapidly and unpredictably. Another sign of this is that the Outer Banks, in the Rodanthe area, actually (net) migrated further from 1852 to 1946 than it did from 1852 to 2020.

plugger 4y ago
The storm that caused this erosion was a nor'easter, which are on average worse for the Outer Banks when compared to hurricanes as they're slower moving, which causes more beach erosion. Nor'easters are increasing in both size and frequency due to climate change. So I'm pretty sure highlighting it as the number one contributor is quite valid.
- owenversteeg 4y ago
  Sorry, but you’re wrong: 1. The house collapsed because of shoreline migration, not because of the storm. The shoreline has been migrating for a long time. These houses collapse even when there’s not a storm; there are currently 10 houses identified as being on the verge of collapse in just the Rodanthe area alone. 2. From historical records, shoreline migration in the Rodanthe area was actually more rapid in the 19th century than the 20th. This is consistent with what we know about barrier islands, which is that they migrate rapidly and unpredictably even in the absence of climate change. 3. Therefore, all signs point to the #1 cause here being natural barrier island migration. You may think you are doing a service to the cause of climate change by falsely attributing things like this to it, but you are instead doing it real damage. Many intelligent and powerful people in a position to do something about the issue see things like this - repeated lies and misleading statements from people who mean well - and conclude that climate change is not a real issue. Stop.

hprotagonist 4y ago

Pro tip, don't friggin' build houses on sand! "Everyone who hears these words of mine, and doesn't do them will be like a foolish man, who built his house on the sand. The rain came down, the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat on that house; and it fell—and great was its fall."

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]