Lord protect us from the Middleman, the entrepreneurs who see their way to facilitating a development in an area already prone to flooding and inundation.
Perhaps they could be required to post a 30 year bond to cover remedial work on the homes they build there, tie up their capital as a way of suggesting- build elsewhere, no suckers to be had in this burg!
62
I wish the article headline included the fact that developers are trying to build in already risky areas = floodplain. Even before we add the climate factor this area’s exposure to flooding is high.
The way it’s stated in this article pits residents/city/elected officials as being against development when it’s really against risky development where the goal is to turn a profit then leave the homeowners and the community to bear the burden of the future risk of this vulnerable development.
This long standing narrative of all development is good for the tax base/economy needs to change in our coastal communities and the VA Beach story as well as Norfolk’s freeboard and zoning efforts are good examples of the first steps towards that goal.
53
Kudos to Virginia Beach!
Wildfire and smoke ravaged-California intends to build over a million new homes if the governor gets his way, as a solution to our housing crisis. No doubt we have a housing crisis. Yet speaking for Los Angeles, a quarter of us residents live in fire-prone areas. I wonder how smart it is that new homes and residents, earmarked for coastal communities so residents can avoid long commutes adding to greenhouse gases, will add to our congestion, water shortage, and suffer inevitable natural disasters with their clean up, insurance rate increases if policies are renewable at all, and negative health impacts.
I think more people that can leave should leave California rather build without consideration or the consequences. And the most disaster prone areas in the US, don’t build or rebuild in high risk natural disaster areas.
Kudos for using your noodle, leaders of Virginia Beach!
27
“Don’t build in stupid places.” The history of humanity is an unending saga of people ignoring the most basic common sense, and the futility of stating the obvious.
49
We can say that developing in floodplains and wetlands is a problem and unsustainable, and it's true enough.
Truer yet, the problem is that developers have absolutely zero stake in the risk of such. They build, get rich, and walk away to leave everyone BUT themselves holding the bag.
76
Thanks for highlighting our ongoing struggle to reclaim the VB City Government for the people. Unfortunately, this article failed to mention (1) that the City took over the multi-million dollar responsibility to reconstruct the failed stormwater infrastructure in Asheville Park, which was built on a swamp, and (2) that the new pumping infrastructure caused flooding in nearby residential areas. The resulting outrage over wasted millions and flooded homes is what finally caused our clueless corrupt City Council to deny rezoning to build houses on swamps.
17
There are a huge number of coastal and other low-lying properties that are going to lose value due to flooding -- they will never be worth as much as they are today.
Its going to happen as fertility drops, populations age and real estate market demand declines globally - there is already a housing glut in parts of rapidly-aging Europe.
Not only does that wipe out a huge amount of wealth, it saddles homeowners with the expense of recurring clean-up costs, spiraling insurance premiums and literally underwater mortgages -- creating another generation of worthless mortgage-backed securities -- sound familiar?
It will mean large insurance payouts, publicly-financed bailouts and reduced earnings and dividends to shareholders such as pension and retirement funds.
Once healthcare and retirement costs of aging populations start to climb -- along with reconstruction costs from ever-accumulating climate-related damage -- there is unlikely to be much capacity for publicly-financing property buyouts.
The problem is its going to happen globally and across virtually all markets simultaneously. The biggest risk is with the coastal mega-cities of Asia
A decade ago, scientists estimated the climate crisis would wipe out about 25% of global GDP. As with all other climate predictions, that is starting to look overly-conservative.
The question now is not whether it will be possible to engineer any kind of soft landing, its whether the financial system can recover from another hard crash.
16
Kudos to the NY Times authors for clearly outlining that the problems experienced in Virginia and elsewhere are not caused by global warming under any of its popular names, but by the building developments in areas unsuitable for homes.
Wetlands are wet because they are at the waterline (or very near to it) -- simple weather or normal high tides flood these areas -- normal heavy rains flood these areas.
You'd think that this lesson would have been learned long ago.
Floodplains and wetlands are not appropriate areas for homes.
17
@Kip Hansen - "Floodplains and wetlands are not appropriate areas for homes." Absolutely concur with you there. But your habit of pretending climate change isn't one part of everything going on along coasts doesn't make that reality go away. In fact, climate change makes those areas increasingly worse for building.
The article includes this quote: “I think Hurricane Matthew crystallized for some folks the issue of flooding and sea level rise, and that no further development of any kind should take place in this area”
Sea level is rising because of our greenhouse emissions. Here's a link to Virginia Beach's Comprehensive Sea Level Rise and Recurrent Flooding Response Plan, where they mention that sea level has risen a foot since development took off in 1960.
One quote: "The VIMS report recommended a planning scenario of 1.5 feet for the region over the next 20 to 50 years, but notes that 3 feet is possible in the 50-year horizon. These recommended values are being used in the City’s analysis."
https://www.vbgov.com/government/departments/public-works/comp-sea-level-rise/Pages/default.aspx
Sorry, Kip, but bad siting choices are part of the problem in Virginia Beach, as is subsidence, but so is climate change. The Atlantic Coast is expecting more sea level rise than much of the world for a variety of reasons including slowing of the Gulf Stream, and gravitational changes as declining ice mass leaves Antarctica and Greenland suddenly lighter. That's current reality.
20
b fagan ==> You are well aware that actual Absolute Sea level Rise in the real world has been in the range of 8 to 12 inches over the last 150 years.
Virginia Beach is a marshy coastal wetland and almost entirely unsuitable for homes. Any sea level rise is bad news there....even the tiny 3 mm/yr we are currently experiencing. Virginia Beach is sinking faster than that.
7
@Kip Hansen - yes, Kip. Sea level rise from greenhouse gases is especially concerning in areas that are sinking during a time when sea level rise has already accelerated from the old 1.7mm increase to now more than 3mm per year. So people caring about such areas should work to lessen the impacts of all of the bad choices we make.
7
For this planet: Too many careless humans. Too many ignorant humans. Too many greedy humans. Too many humans!
33
@Murray Bolesta But mostly, too many Americans have been over-sold the idea that they can have a large home in a relatively remote and dispersed community, supported by a matrix of fossil-fuel dependent activities.
Americans may love their single-family homes, but the catastrophic cost is staggering.
14
The market has a demand for more housing and people concerned about flood risk say no, through their representatives. These are private lands that people would like to develop to provide housing relief. This will not prevent flooding to existing homes btw. When the people complain about high taxes and high cost of living, they should blame themselves for stopping development.
2
@E Robichaux well i guess when people aren't able to insure their properties that'll stop em huh?
20
The local/state governments encourages demand for vulnerable/coastal property through policies to bail out flooded homeowners.
Why would the Galiotos brothers develop a self-sustained community when Virginia Beach and the USG will sustain it through subsidized flood insurance and city services?
14
There is going to be taxpayer revolt over this issue. The insurance companies are also going to withdraw from those markets, and I see little political support for a government-run insurance program that eats up taxpayers dollars (the Federal Flood Insurance Program is already in financial trouble).
Either the real estate industry acknowledges this or they’re going to be stuck with a bunch of worthless home in the future. The old strategy of “We keep the profits, taxpayers pay for losses” isn’t going to work for them anymore.
32
From sea to shining sea, it is a beautiful country. If you built on the dock of the bay and that bay floods it’s time to move inland. I, for one, have long been tired of paying higher taxes and insurance rates in order to subsidize other folks’ second homes.
Visit our beautiful coastlines any time, just don’t ask me to pay for you to live there. NOLA would have been fine, as would have Miami, if not for the greed of developers. Despite what the trumpies say, the times they are a changin’. Look to the future, don’t pretend you can go back to the good ole days of 1956.
21
@Nina The market always has a solution. Unfortunately, our government subsidizes the flood insurance programs and it incentives development in flood zones. There is also a growing need for housing. tough situation to deal with.
1
@E Robichaux Yes, people need a place to live; no one needs a single family home. We've subsidized the cost of single-family sprawling communities for generations, and in doing so we've wrecked the environment. We face a future of epic contraction as coastlines are inundated and remote areas burn; the only sensible housing to build as is dense and multi-family, where most daily activities don't require a car.
12
@E Robichaux well you can opt for building away from the coast...no?
9
"vulnerability to climate change for generations" ? Not sure we have that long
7
The claim that developers care about “affordable” housing is laughable. Their only intent is to make a buck. Home warranties are a glaring example of this. I’d like to meet one person who bought a defective house from a developer that honored their “home warranty”.
19
Unless you like the idea of living in Newark, developers are your long term enemies. No piece of undeveloped land is safe as, one after another, these vultures apply to develop everywhere. They never retreat for long and there are hoards of them. They control your planning boards. They are the force behind urban sprawl and are coming for you.
23
Developers suing to build homes in know floodplains and swamps and then saying that anything else will be more expensive; it's so proposterous. For far too long, developers externalized and socialized the cost while privitizing the profit and we allowed this to happen. Perhaps the tide is turning now that the waters are rising.
This is a similar strategy to what developers do in Texas where they build slab foundations knowing full well that the soil in Texas is prone to shift and movement causing expensive foundation problems the majority of the time. Yes, the houses are "cheap" but the homeowner is almost guarenteed to spend $10,000 - $20,000 on foundation repairs.
As a long time taxpayer, I am so tired of funding and enabling stupidity. If you build in a flood plain or at the edge of the ocean, more power to you but don't expect any tax subsidized or consumer subsidized insurance and don't expect emergency services and first responders to be put in harms way either to rescue you.
31
The estimated cost to move the first village in the US due to global warming impacts is $180 million for around 600 people.
The US alone has 1,400 cities and towns threatened by sea level rise (SLR).
One problem with SLR is that the closer sea level approaches the top of a coastal defense the greater the risk of a storm surge breaching the defense and the damage occurs as in New Orleans with Hurricane Katrina.
So many of these coastal areas won’t go slowly with the drip, drip, drip of SLR, but quickly in catastrophic storms.
Here’s amature video of lethal storm surge from Typhoon Haiyan, it looks like a large tsunami rolling ashore.
https://youtu.be/rS0gv4Xbw7w?t=39s
9
Excellent article, captures the reality that there are smart, forward facing actions being taken to protect people from climate harm + from business-as-usual developers.
Next, please report on the enablers of climate-stupid development, the lenders + the insurers that developers must have on tap to build where they never should be building
15
Look at all that affordable housing in the background!
5
Gee, you think climate change is related to population growth? More people, more houses, more climate change and more damage from fires and floods.
Who'd a thunk it.
12
Maybe those folks down in Virginia Beach can find assistance by knocking on Pat Robertson’s door at the Christian Broadcasting Network.
9
The developers are thinking a few months ahead, until they can sell the land with houses on it for a profit. The future homeowners and their flood insurance policies will foot the bill. So what is needed is to rationalize flood insurance to reflect the risk (or wild fire insurance in the NW and CA).
10
Local governments seem, for the most part, to have little to no concern about the environmental impacts of endless development.
Here on the Front Range, where water is scarce and fracking is ruining our air quality more each day, city councils and zoning/planning commissions are busy approving dozens of new housing developments every day. In Douglas County, a development the size of sprawling Highlands Ranch, built between the 1980s-2000s, is on the way. Aurora is spreading far to the east, Adams County urbanization will soon meet Larimer County, and once-quiet Castle Rock (halfway to Colorado Springs) is spreading like an amoeba across the landscape.
All of this is happening with no consideration of the reality that this state's public transportation system is under-funded and provides too little access to nearly everyone. It is happening even though wildfires have shown themselves to be a real threat to homes near the foothills. It is happening even as air quality continues to degrade and even as the state has no effective means of paying for an ambitious water plan that, even if financed, would largely rely on further draining rivers. And, of course, there seems no local official or planning staff in the state outside of Boulder, Aspen, and Vail that would admit to caring even a tiny bit about climate change.
Arizona and Nevada (Clark County), and California have it worse, for sure. But we are in denial about the need for cities to stop growing. Now.
13
Portions of Norfolk and Virginia Beach (particularly Sandbridge) flood easily and even though the local media cover it every time it occurs, virtually nothing is ever done to ameliorate the problem. A good example of what not to do is how Houston has ignored the potential of flooding and allowed building anywhere developers wanted to. The aftermath of the last two hurricanes has shown the foolishness of this.
14
The problem is not the developers, it is the demand, which of course is from a burgeoning population. Funny, but that same growing population is at the heart of our climate change problem, as well as many other issues we face, such as diminishing fresh water supply in many parts of the world. Perhaps it is time to have a conversation about whether a growing population is within humanities best interest?
28
"Developers reject that argument. 'If we shut everything down, prices are going up, and it’s going to make home buying unaffordable,' said Patrick L. Reynolds, president of the Tidewater Builders Association, the trade group for local home builders."
I understand journalists feel obligated to just report the story and get quotes from those involved, but as someone with friends in building and real estate, the implication that a builders trade group is remotely concerned about unaffordability beggars belief.
61
When my husband was USN, we lived in Va Beach between Bow Creek and Lynnhaven. Every time it rained our yard would flood so badly that ducks could swim in our back yard. Our (at the time) 3 year old daughter named two of them Wonker and Sue-Sue. It was amusing and endearing until a nor'easter blew through. Thousands of dollars and many man hours later, I never wanted to see another duck in my back yard again.
14
Property owners in the afflicted areas all know what’s coming. So some have adopted the “git out while the gittens good” attitude, hoping to sell, subdivide or otherwise extract some profit from their property while they still can and pass the risk onto buyers and neighbors and taxpayers elsewhere before the property value collapses. Just like the sub prime loan debacle of the Bush administration that set off the last deep recession, except that in this case many of the properties will be very literally underwater, not just in the mortgage sense. Taking out a thirty or fifteen year mortgage to buy a family home on a tidewater marsh is an invitation to future loss of credit rating if not outright bankruptcy. Please don’t do it!
28
Flooding on the coast and fires in the foothills represent the first hint of hard limits to the American dream of limitless expansion, which has been with us since the founding and manifest destiny. Of course we need to put more restrictions on where we live - not just for the reasons described in this article, but also to protect the last vestiges of wild land (and begin restoring what we've already destroyed).
As others have pointed out, though, this is not just a developer problem: it's the modern incarnation of the American dream, which says that unless you have a single-family home, a yard with a lawn, and a driveway and garage with two cars, you've failed. The obsession with low-density, detached living has destroyed cities by prioritizing cars over people, made us unhealthy and sad (because there's no way to exercise or connect with people unless you can drive first), and set us on a collision course with natural limits that are asserting themselves. Unless more people are willing to change how they feel they need to live, we won't be able to adapt to coastal flooding or the myriad other challenges heading our way.
41
Follow the money. These sensitive areas should not be developed any way. Where are all the developers who want to build in the blighted areas of this country, some which all ready have infrastructure in place? Very few hands are raised.
Using tax revenue as an excuse is very weak. In the end it will cost in more than just revenue.
31
There should be no insurance available for people who wish to settle in flood plains. They can pay all the rebuilding costs themselves, or let the developers insure the homes and be responsible for any damage caused by flooding, not tax-payers. Long time residents who cannot sell their properties because they're in a flood plain should be bought out at a price making it feasible for them to move. If they choose not to, they pay. Likewise with fire zones. I'm very sorry when people lose their homes to natural disaster, but if it could have been prevented by common sense, then I am angry as well.
66
Other than fear of law suits, I never understood the rabid desire by local officials for residential growth. These new houses provide property taxes of maybe $5K-$8K per year, while costing the town $10,000 per student per year for the 2-3 kids living in these houses.
37
Sea level rise projections have grown with our knowledge of the ice sheets.
From the most respected glaciologist in the US last year, Richard Alley:
“If we don’t change our ways we’re expecting something like 3 feet of sea level rise in the next century, and it could be 2 and it could be 4 and it could be 20.
The chance that we will cross thresholds that commit us to loss of big chunks of West Antarctica and huge sea level rise is real.
So when you start doing “Well you’re not sure,” but there’s a chance of really bad things and the uncertainties are mostly on the bad side, could be a little better or a little worse or a lot worse, but we’ll be breaking things.”
It's the same for most other projected impacts from global warming, could be a little better than we think, a little worse, or a lot worse.
We need to start thinking about a managed retreat from vulnerable coastal areas.
24
Just the beginning of the issue. The middle of the range estimate is now 5 feet by 2100, but that assumes, repeat, that assumes, sea level rise is linear, which we now see it is not. The data now shows sea level rise has been accelerating and is non-linear. Therefore only five feet of sea level rise by 2100 is now a known under estimate. Another in a series of profound under estimates of the effects of climate change. So that entire neighborhood in Virginia Beach is going to wash away. All those people will be refugees. We need to plan for relocation of a hundred million people, but that is too hard, so it will happen helter skelter, without planning, as emergency after emergency forces people to refugee.
23
Lawmakers in Virginia Beach stymied new development on marshland near the neighborhood of Princess Anne Quarters, triggering a battle with home builders. pretty much says it all. It is marsh for crying out loud. Wet and floods regularly. If the developer wants to build, let them but pay a huge price for destroying the marsh but the law should also read, every potential buyer needs to be told orally and in writing, you will get no insurance on your property, no state or federal dollars for rebuilding in case of disaster, your street will not be maintained or repaired if a natural disaster damages it and emergency services is not obligated to come to your neighborhood during natural disasters. You are entirely on your own. Here is a map of the areas flooded in the last natural disaster. That should be on a big billboard at the entrance to the development, paid for by the developer. Then see how many people would want to buy those homes.
110
@tom, I wrote the article with Chris. Transparency is good! In more than 20 states, there's not even an obligation for home sellers to disclose previous flooding. Here's a page about disclosure and "right to know" rules: https://www.nrdc.org/flood-disclosure-map
55
@tom But even that doesn't work. Quarter century ago, the county of Dallas, Texas, bought out the residents of Sandbranch - a flood prone marsh with contaminated wells. Some refused to leave, however. So they were presumably 'on their own' having to truck in their own water. Fast forward three decades and a new county judge who aspires to higher office made a "cause" of the "plight" of the people of Sandbranch. Enlisting a few megachurch 'pastors', an article in Vanity Fair, and an ample dose of bogus social justice shaming, people forgot that they had previously paid residents to leave. Now we have self-anointed "advocates" pressuring local govt to install utility service. Which will lead to development on cheap land with consequent flooding and another taxpayer buyout. Never underestimate the ability of an enterprising public official to weaponize pity.
50
@tom
Then what happens when that house is literally underwater? It just gets left there leaching whatever chemicals and toxins were left in the house when the last flood made it inhabitable?
I'm encouraged by this article, but it highlights just how shortsighted we are and how insane all of these "market incentives" make us act. I'm sympathetic to individuals, such as those in the recentish book Rising, who've been in communities for decades or generations. But people who are crying that the community won't let them make a killing now and stick taxpayers with the eventual costs down the road need to suck it up, accept that they maybe made bad investments, and take the loss.
12
No problems here. Just require that new construction and replacement construction meet very high standards and that utility services and access roads are constructed to withstand extreme weather and take care of population growth. Of course, everything will be paid for by the developers.
5
@John Bowman, what about the downstream effects of the development, though? Building in one are can exacerbate flooding in another. So it's anything but simple to plan for the effects of increased flooding.
35
While we definitely need more top-level support for flood mitigation efforts, it's good to see that some local communities are taking steps to reduce flood risks. More careful long-term growth would generally be good for communities--so long as we can figure out a way to house everybody.
16
@Jacob Sommer
In 1955 the Connecticut river flooded. It was one of the worst floods in New England's history. 87 people died and there was over $200 million in damage (1955 dollars). After that flood, towns all up and down the river said "enough". Many homes were bought out, the people moved, and the areas turned into a park. They made other changes too. And then you know what happened? People just adjusted. The only real difference was the next flood, nobody died and the damage was minimal. And people will adjust to not having beach front homes.
18
The Federal flood insurance program needs to be changed in light of changing risk patterns brought on by climate change, regardless of the cause ( for all my GOP brethren who insist its not man-made).
Market rates need to be the end point even if takes 5-10 years to transition to a realistic cost. And Yes the real estate and builder / developer industries will howl and clamor for relief from such moves.
As someone who now lives near the coast, we chose our home and community based in part on flood / hurricane potentials. I know these are not factors the vast majority would understand - however there is no reason the lack of forward planning should be subsidized by the other taxpayers.
38
If the government is really going to take flood risk reduction seriously by restricting or prohibiting development in flood-prone areas, then shouldn't most of New Orleans be a "no build, no renovate" zone?
13
@Stuck on a mountain
The fact that there are current problems in large developed cities of this country, is not a reason to allow undeveloped areas to be built upon. BTW, many of the problems of New Orleans are due to the loss of wetlands along the coast, wetlands which were there when this city was first built. The wetlands acted as a buffer to protect the city, wetlands decrease the height of a storm surge. Building homes on wetlands provides a political avenue to ask the city/county to protect those homes and roads from flooding, even though the threat of flooding was a known risk to developers and home purchasers.
65
@Kenarmy ,
Yes once built, the developers disappear, and the homeowners will demand to be made whole from any future disasters. Any talk about loss of tax revenue, we need housing etc... is just that, talk.
Tax revenue is a diversion, revenue is used to provide services for the homeowners in the developments, and will be dwarfed by the future mitigations and bailouts caused by building in known high-risk areas. There is no economic win except for the landed gentry/developers who walk away with their cash, and no commensurate risk for them in this fixed game.
The cry of "we need housing" also rings false. Houses like those in the picture aren't providing reasonably priced inventory to meet housing shortages. Those are always the type of houses you see in these types of stories.
62
@Kenarmy
Three towns on the CT shore. One has kept most of it salt marshes. The other two (on either side) allowed building right on the beach. Guess which ones got pounded by Sandy and guess which one had little damage?
23
As a taxpayer I am irate that my taxes on a federal level subsidize building in flood-prone areas. The federal flood insurance fund is $1billion dollars in the red (ie, in debt to the taxpayers of the US) because flood insurance is not high enough to cover expenses. When the price of flood insurance is large enough to support the risk and also reimburse local governments for the cost of flooding (and large enough to pay down the debt owed), then let people build and be fiscally responsible for the risk.
116
@Hazel
Would somebody please tell me why John Rice bought a house on land that is under water constantly? Last year? Did he not read a newspaper that year?
10
There are three groups not discussed in this article that need to step up to the plate: (1) Consumers - refuse to purchase, lease or rent properties in flood prone areas. (2) Insurance Companies - Set rates for at risk areas high enough to discourage construction there. (3) Lending institutions - Do not lend for development in risky areas.
130
@John Warnock
Given than "homes are going up at the fastest rate in the most flood-prone areas", I don't think we can rely on smart consumers. Its hard to help stupid. As the old saying goes " de nile isn't just a river in Africa"
16
I grew up in Norfolk VA and worked for a while in an architect's office in the mid 70's which did tract and custom house design in Va Beach. Enlightened developers are not a term that comes to mind. Va, local and state wide government needs to protect and enforce. Looking forward it isn't a pretty picture.
42
@Ernie E oops, is not are
2