Comments on: After The Deluge

By: LVTfan

LVTfan — Sat, 28 Nov 2009 00:16:25 +0000

Geezer and Brooke, I’d love to talk Georgist economics with you some time … Sussex County would need some updated land valuations: 1974’s are likely to be a bit out of date and growth since then has likely not been very consistent. The beach-area folks are likely to be getting a lovely bargain.

If we’re going to replenish beaches, it ought to be paid for via a tax in proportion to land values, and it ought not to fall on inland folks 10 or 20 miles from the ocean or bays.

By: john Galt

john Galt — Sat, 21 Nov 2009 02:17:45 +0000

Lets see, we spend 10 million a year on the beaches and 90 million on public transportation every year.

I say replenish the beaches and cut 45 million from DART.

By: anon

anon — Wed, 18 Nov 2009 03:12:37 +0000

Funny how republicans whining about earmarks and government spending are for spending money on SAND. LOL. How self-serving and laughable. The sand will keep washing away, not just in Bethany, but along the entire east coast. At some point as sea levels rise, this country is going to have to decide what to save and what to let wash out to sea. People who made poor decisions in building homes or businesses too close to the ocean have only themselves to blame. It is not the job of taxpayers to once again bail out the wealthy and ignorant. Government spending on sand. Too funny.

By: Brooke

Brooke — Mon, 16 Nov 2009 18:03:32 +0000

Geezer, some day you and I will get together to chat about Georgist economics… and why Delaware doesn’t have any.

By: cassandra_m

cassandra_m — Mon, 16 Nov 2009 17:39:06 +0000

One could also make the argument that NOLA’s inundation was due to federal exploitation of the wetlands that normally would have protected the city.

You can make this argument if you insist that NOLA’s inundation was caused by the storm. It was caused by the levees failing. Wetlands disappearing leave NOLA and the rest of southern LA vulnerable to storm damage from powerful hurricanes still. In which case, the argument can be made that both the feds and the oil and gas companies who crisscrossed the wetlands with pipes and canals are equally responsible.

By: a.price

a.price — Mon, 16 Nov 2009 17:36:27 +0000

What about someone in kansas paying for our health care?
I like the beach. I’ll pay a little bit more to fix it up. unless global warming really goes crazy, storms like that dont hit us often. If this becomes a yearly thing, then I’ll just go to Fla when i want fun in the sun. But Delaware needs the tourism, we have nothing else…. besides you have to hire people to fix the beaches and that = jobs

By: Brian Shields

Brian Shields — Mon, 16 Nov 2009 17:09:37 +0000

Those who benefit from the beach tourism income should be the ones who pay for the replenishment.

The state coffers see some benefit, the state should pay for some of it. Maybe a special beach replenishment fund funded by a small percentage of GRT already paid by businesses in the beach areas. Over the 5 or 8 years it takes to need replenishment that fund should have built up to enough to handle it.

I am against Federal money paying for it at all. No reason why someone in Kansas should pay for our beach.

By: Geezer

Geezer — Mon, 16 Nov 2009 16:43:54 +0000

The most progressive tax we could raise in Delaware is the property tax. IIRC, we are in the bottom quartile in property taxes, down there with the deep South. Lots of rich people in Delaware are not on payrolls, so no matter how progressive you make an income tax, it won’t be as progressive as a higher property tax.

In fact, we should institute a statewide property tax (we are, I believe, one of only 13 states without one; again, most are in the deep South) and make clear that the money raised goes to education. This makes sense, since we pay a higher proportion of education funding at the state level than almost every other state. AS it stands, more than one-third of state spending goes to education; a property tax is the best way to fund it.

By: liberalgeek

liberalgeek — Mon, 16 Nov 2009 16:29:44 +0000

One could also make the argument that NOLA’s inundation was due to federal exploitation of the wetlands that normally would have protected the city. What was the federal governments role in the storm-related damage on the DE/MD shoreline?

By: anononthisone

anononthisone — Mon, 16 Nov 2009 16:22:27 +0000

If we have $100 million dollars to spend on the beaches because it is important to the Delaware economy, then we should have at least that to spend on public education, building better schools and attracting more qualified teachers by paying them more instead of CUTTING their salaries to pay for oceanfront property. Perhaps a slightly higher,but much more more progressive income tax in Delaware would make sense; let the rich pay for their own lifestyle.

By: Geezer

Geezer — Mon, 16 Nov 2009 15:31:52 +0000

He’s not whining, lizard, you are, as usual. That’s what your ilk does best.

JC, New Orleans has NOT been restored to what it was before Katrina. Hundreds of thousands of people have not been returned to their homes — way more than would be displaced by failure to replenish Delaware’s beaches.

By: Unignorant Lawyer

Unignorant Lawyer — Mon, 16 Nov 2009 14:51:55 +0000

Property deeds from around the turn of the 19th/20th Century list the beach areas as “waste”. Additional descriptions indicate that the beaches were so insect infested that no one really had a use for the property.

By: lizard

lizard — Mon, 16 Nov 2009 14:50:04 +0000

The deal was made decades ago, private beaches were taken in return for beach replenishment.

These are Public Beaches that are being replenished.

(and listening to the 330lb trust fund boy whine about the rich beach people is just too funny)

By: Brooke

Brooke — Mon, 16 Nov 2009 13:57:52 +0000

Well, we’re really overbuilt, statewide, and we need the infrastructure to support that, or we need to retrench.

As far as beach replenishment goes, we’re like the preacher who inherited a house from an uncle, and went to it to discover it operating as a brothel. He came home and reported it to his wife, who said, “Well, of COURSE you’re closing it down!” and the preacher said, “I wanted to, but the bishop tells me it turns a profit.”

If we started by refusing building permits we’d be on the right track, and ita with Suzanne about private beaches.

By: cassandra_m

cassandra_m — Mon, 16 Nov 2009 02:47:57 +0000

Not exactly a good comparison, Joanne — New Orleans drowned because the levies failed — not because of a storm. And you can’t engineer a long-term solution to beach replenishment, unlike the levies which can be built to a 1000 year flood event strength. But apparently there is more political will to keep pumping sand up on a beach to preserve hyper-inflated property values than there is to adequately rebuild levies in a key port city.