🚀 go-pugleaf

> There's nothing reasonable about the suggestion - it's at least as
> pathetic as almost anything Judy posts, if not moreso.  How do you
> expect to buy out every house within 500 miles of an ocean anyway?
> Where does the money come from to pay people for their land, in order
> to eminient domain their property for your superparks?

Who said anything about eminent domain or buying people's property?  I said
the area should be re-zoned as commercial only.  No need to kick anybody
out, just grandfather all current residential property to the CURRENT
landowner ONLY.  If the current landowner wants to sell, his land is
residential 'current use' in a commercial zone.  It wouldn't take long for
all current residents to move, and no eminent domain would be necessary.
Compare the cost of my re-zoning suggestion to say, the cost of re-building
New Orleans, AS it WAS, before Katrina.  Both my re-zoning suggestion and
(rebuilding New Orleans) would cost significantly LESS than we've spent
rebuilding infrastructure in oil-rich Iraq in the past year, but which would
cost less?  Still think it's such a pathetic idea?  Well, you probably do.

>
> Where does the money come from for all the environmental cleanup of all
> the damaged areas that people have already settled?

That's a totally separate topic.  We need to keep people out of there
anyway, so what's the rush to clean it up?  Seems to me if we allow the
ocean to reclaim New Orleans (already happened, apparently), then there
won't be much of a cleanup cost there.

  What about
> floodplains?  By your backwards logic we can't allow people to live in
> any floodplains either, or anywhere that could possibly get a tsunami,
> earthquake, tornado, wildfire, hailstorm, volcano, or meteor strike.
>

Tornados, wildfires, hailstorms and meteor strikes?  Well now you're just
being silly.  But there are some areas nowhere near any ocean that flood
regularly.  It could be argued that those few areas SHOULD indeed be
re-zoned commercial use only, also.  If all land within 500 miles of the
ocean is commercial only, no need to worry about tsunamis, either.  For that
matter, the major earthquake danger in the U.S. would be pretty much solved
by rezoning the first 500 miles of California (by the ocean) as commercial
only.  When the whole state drops into the Pacific, at least loss of life
would be lower.  Yes, earthquakes hit other areas of the U.S. once in a blue
moon, but the major earthquake risk is in Cali . . . and coincidentally,
close to an ocean.  If volcanic erruptions that cause loss of life are a
frequent occurrence, rezone areas around volcanoes, also.  I don't think
this is really necessary, though.  Hurricanes are a yearly happening, with
some years (like this one) worse than others, so it is a good idea to
prepare for them.  The last volcano that I remember being a problem (in the
U.S. anyway) was Mt. St. Helens.  (SP?)  -Dave