But I'm taking a break before I head off for the re-opening of the YWCA pool facility and looking at the Daily News online. Just three new stories since Friday? Can that be true?
One of the three stories, of course, is about the beach at PI Center. The first paragraph of the story pretty much says it all:
For much of the island's history, its oceanfront was lined with small, cheaply built shacks. When storms washed them into the ocean — which has happened to dozens of cottages over the years — there was hardly anything of value to claim.
Why, when "for much of the island's history" houses were washed into the ocean did anyone continue to allow building along the ocean? What, $1 million homes are immune from erosion and damage from storms? Well, the situation today proves that point, right?
And I dispute the "cheaply built shacks" crack. Many of them are still standing. The Daily News has said so itself.
The rest of the story has little value when prefaced with that paragraph, except to show that once again, people think they are privileged.
The story is about the National Flood Insurance Plan, which kicks in when private insurers think something is too risky to insure.
But if the house falls victim to the ocean due to what the government defines as "anticipated cyclical levels" of erosion, it's not covered, the story continues.
"Gradual erosion is not covered; however, damage caused by the collapse of land along the shore as a result of erosion of waves and current is," FEMA spokesman Bryan Hvinden said, noting the waves and current most likely have to be from a storm.
(Newbury Selectman Vincent) Russo questions how the government can predict erosion to begin with.
Well, let's see ... it's an ocean and it's a beach. Nearly every other place on the east coast where there are those 2 things has been in the past and is now suffering from erosion. Hmmmm .... nah, I don't see it, either, Dr. Russo.
Perhaps he should have read this March 31 story, reprinted from the Eagle-Tribune, which is about Salisbury Beach, right across the river from Plum Island.
"I think it's time for CZM to gather more data on the beach for years after 1994," (Chairman of Salisbury's Conservation Commission and owner of Hughes Environmental Consulting Tom) Hughes said. "We can't use short-term data to predict long-term erosion rates. You need long periods of time to estimate the long-term erosion rate."
I think this reporter (the one from E-T) had a better handle on what she was writing.
Back to the DN: Information wasn't available on the amount of Plum Island erosion the government considers as "anticipated."
Do we need that information, really?Again, the first paragraph says it all.
No comments:
Post a Comment