BayTrawlerGuy
Member
- Joined
- Aug 2, 2004
- RO Number
- 14696
- Messages
- 185
The San Francisco Chronicle ran an article today on planned residential development in the Delta floodplain. It's at:
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2006/01/30/MNGO7GVLK41.DTL
It mentions "dry levees" which some developers are constructing to provide extra protection for new houses, but also mentions how existing houses are left outside these levees. Unfortunately, it may leave the impression that all new residential development is behind new "dry levees", which I believe isn't the case.
My altruistic side tells me that we should protect innocent homebuyers from the potential danger of flooding.
My cynical side tells me that another 40,000 homes in the floodplain means many more $$ for levee maintenance, both through additional tax base and by having another 80,000 voters threatened.
Neither side really feels that this is good for the long term health of the Delta.
BTG
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2006/01/30/MNGO7GVLK41.DTL
It mentions "dry levees" which some developers are constructing to provide extra protection for new houses, but also mentions how existing houses are left outside these levees. Unfortunately, it may leave the impression that all new residential development is behind new "dry levees", which I believe isn't the case.
My altruistic side tells me that we should protect innocent homebuyers from the potential danger of flooding.
My cynical side tells me that another 40,000 homes in the floodplain means many more $$ for levee maintenance, both through additional tax base and by having another 80,000 voters threatened.
Neither side really feels that this is good for the long term health of the Delta.
BTG