Yeah, this is a leopards ate my face moment. I lived in Capitola for 2 years back in the late 00s and it was a problem even then. After every major storm the expectation is that everything is...
Yeah, this is a leopards ate my face moment. I lived in Capitola for 2 years back in the late 00s and it was a problem even then. After every major storm the expectation is that everything is built back exactly like it was. The University of California Santa Cruz, just a 15 minute drive away from the enclave in the article, has one of the most pre-eminent advocated and researchers for planned retreat Dr. Gary Griggs. He has been beating the drum of planned retreat for nearly 3 decades and has gotten nothing but pushback.
I know it's a difficult position to lose your cute beachfront property, but I find it hard to have sympathy when it's a known risk (or beyond that an experienced one), the federal government will absolutely bail them out, and they'd rather we all subsidize their existence. It's the same for West Cliff Drive in Santa Cruz. It's wild that these folks have all the resources to make the change, ones that aren't available to many communities including those in Louisiana after Katrina or New Jersey following Sandy, and they continue to dig in.
Like other have mentioned, it's time to implement sticks with the carrots FEMA is offering. I think removing subsidized insurance options and time-lining disaster buyouts (i.e. available only for the next 5 years) would get the ball rolling. Wealthy people respond to risk and loss; and I'm tried of socializing these losses. The same goes for Pacifica.
EDIT: I had a knee jerk reaction to the headline, the article isn't framed how I assumed. I stick by my major points but it is much more of a "here is information" article with a sympathetic slant for the property owners.
I think you're somewhat misled by the clickbait headline. I don't see anyone in the story asking for sympathy. These seem to be wealthy people - they're fine. It sounds like it's not their primary...
I think you're somewhat misled by the clickbait headline. I don't see anyone in the story asking for sympathy. These seem to be wealthy people - they're fine. It sounds like it's not their primary home. They're not even complaining about the price of insurance.
I don't see what's wrong with using these houses until they can't anymore. Also, renting them out for $200,000 a year in short-term rentals means that other people get to enjoy the place for a few more years, and it funds a lot of repairs.
It seems like this isn't really much of a problem. Some things are temporary, maybe.
Yeah, you're right, I knee jerked at the headline. I really shouldn't do that. I looked at the article and you're right, it's not what the headline made out. It's good to see Gary getting a shout...
Yeah, you're right, I knee jerked at the headline. I really shouldn't do that. I looked at the article and you're right, it's not what the headline made out.
It's good to see Gary getting a shout out and largely it's not the aggressive bent I expected. It still portrays the owners of the properties in quite a positive light and I'm still frustrated about socializing the insurance, protection, and repair of their properties:
The Newells said they get insurance from the National Flood Insurance Program, a government program run by FEMA often reserved for those who own property where flood insurance isn’t available or is too costly.
Venetian Court’s federal designation as a National Historic District could, in theory, help prioritize the homes for rebuilding in the event of a disaster. For example, owners could be eligible for some grant programs, said Julianne Polanco, state historic preservation officer in the California Office of Historic Preservation, the office that oversees the national program for the state. They could also be eligible for a state tax credit program in the future that’s reserved for the rehabilitation of historic buildings.
It’s a good article, but very heavyweight (makes my tablet heat up and unload all other browser tabs), so you may prefer using an archive link. From the article: … …
It’s a good article, but very heavyweight (makes my tablet heat up and unload all other browser tabs), so you may prefer using an archive link.
From the article:
In many ways, this stretch of waterfront in Capitola paved the way for California’s beachfront communities — it claims to be the first and oldest oceanfront resort in California. The Venetian Court homes are still standing nearly 100 years after they were built, a longtime symbol of the picturesque California coast. But after strong storms battered the area for the second winter in a row, they’re also emblematic of the challenges communities along the shore will battle in the face of climate change.
…
One Capitola history museum document shows the complex has incurred storm damage at least eight times since 1924; there has been flooding during the past two years of wet winters. Mike said residents used to just put sandbags and plywood in front of their front doors, but now people are boarding up almost the entire front of the home each winter. “We’re definitely taking more precautions than we have in the past,” Mike said.
…
Mike said the conversation of raising the seawall has come up before at HOA meetings. “It’s something that we’ve talked about, that someday we may have to do it and we may have to raise it, you know, a little bit more, and we understand that as global warming continues and if it continues to rise, you know, eventually we’re not going to have any other option,” he said. “But fortunately that’s a ways off still.”
Griggs said it may not be as far off as they think. He said sea level rise is not going to be what “gets us” in the next 20 or even 30 years — the effects of climate change are going to pile on before that.
“Sea level rise is going to get us eventually, but another winter like 2023/2024 is the real problem,” Griggs said.
Seems pretty clear to me: either (1) accept FEMA insurance and sign an agreement to never be able to sell to anyone, or (2) permanently reject FEMA insurance before you go ahead and try to sell...
“People don’t want to think about [managed retreat], but in the long run, that is the only solution. We can no longer afford to keep building walls or adding sand to these beaches and it’s just a question of when, and how big and how expensive our Band-Aids are,” Griggs said.
Seems pretty clear to me: either (1) accept FEMA insurance and sign an agreement to never be able to sell to anyone, or (2) permanently reject FEMA insurance before you go ahead and try to sell with a huge red flag on the listing that this property is un-insurable even for cash buyers.
People aren't going to manage their own retreats. Especially when there's a cool five mil on the line or $200k a year while it's not completely in the sea. These are vacation homes: I think a tougher stance can be taken.
Yeah, this is a leopards ate my face moment. I lived in Capitola for 2 years back in the late 00s and it was a problem even then. After every major storm the expectation is that everything is built back exactly like it was. The University of California Santa Cruz, just a 15 minute drive away from the enclave in the article, has one of the most pre-eminent advocated and researchers for planned retreat Dr. Gary Griggs. He has been beating the drum of planned retreat for nearly 3 decades and has gotten nothing but pushback.
I know it's a difficult position to lose your cute beachfront property, but I find it hard to have sympathy when it's a known risk (or beyond that an experienced one), the federal government will absolutely bail them out, and they'd rather we all subsidize their existence. It's the same for West Cliff Drive in Santa Cruz. It's wild that these folks have all the resources to make the change, ones that aren't available to many communities including those in Louisiana after Katrina or New Jersey following Sandy, and they continue to dig in.
Like other have mentioned, it's time to implement sticks with the carrots FEMA is offering. I think removing subsidized insurance options and time-lining disaster buyouts (i.e. available only for the next 5 years) would get the ball rolling. Wealthy people respond to risk and loss; and I'm tried of socializing these losses. The same goes for Pacifica.
EDIT: I had a knee jerk reaction to the headline, the article isn't framed how I assumed. I stick by my major points but it is much more of a "here is information" article with a sympathetic slant for the property owners.
I think you're somewhat misled by the clickbait headline. I don't see anyone in the story asking for sympathy. These seem to be wealthy people - they're fine. It sounds like it's not their primary home. They're not even complaining about the price of insurance.
I don't see what's wrong with using these houses until they can't anymore. Also, renting them out for $200,000 a year in short-term rentals means that other people get to enjoy the place for a few more years, and it funds a lot of repairs.
It seems like this isn't really much of a problem. Some things are temporary, maybe.
Yeah, you're right, I knee jerked at the headline. I really shouldn't do that. I looked at the article and you're right, it's not what the headline made out.
It's good to see Gary getting a shout out and largely it's not the aggressive bent I expected. It still portrays the owners of the properties in quite a positive light and I'm still frustrated about socializing the insurance, protection, and repair of their properties:
It’s a good article, but very heavyweight (makes my tablet heat up and unload all other browser tabs), so you may prefer using an archive link.
From the article:
…
…
Seems pretty clear to me: either (1) accept FEMA insurance and sign an agreement to never be able to sell to anyone, or (2) permanently reject FEMA insurance before you go ahead and try to sell with a huge red flag on the listing that this property is un-insurable even for cash buyers.
People aren't going to manage their own retreats. Especially when there's a cool five mil on the line or $200k a year while it's not completely in the sea. These are vacation homes: I think a tougher stance can be taken.