Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Don't worry, the state legislature's end-run around the will of the people (remember voting down the rent control proposition?) will ensure no builder constructs new property that won't see immediate returns. That means nobody but the richest will be able to move here. So, yes, we'll get a trickle in of the wealthy "refugees" from Florida who sold their land before it became worthless submerged property. But that's actually a good thing.
I guess you haven't taken the time to acquaint yourself with the geography of the US. The entire Midwest is much higher in elevation than anywhere in the LA Basin (OKC, Wichita, Des Moines, Indianapolis, Minneapolis, Columbus - they're all about 700 to 1,000 feet elevation. They will never flood from the absolute worst case scenario 3 ft ocean rise that "might" happen by 2100. Even Memphis TN is 338 ft - much higher than immediate coastal areas of California (Santa Monica is 105 ft, Long Beach is 52 ft, Oakland is 43 ft, etc...). Atlanta and Charlotte are from 700 to 1000 ft elevation as well.
Basically, any "climate refugees" you might see would be from the coast of California moving inland... but that ignores any preparations that will be made such as seawalls. Plus we'll all be worm food by the time it happens "if" it happens. Basically, calm down (and dare I say, stop being ridiculous). They're not moving here - and the reverse will probably continue.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Badger09
Florida was under water before, so who cares if people were stupid. That’s like building a home on an inactive volcano. Also, you’ll be dead before sea level rise becomes an issue.
I think you gentlemen are missing the point. The entire Midwest doesn't sit on an elevation. Most of it is flat with a few areas of mild elevation so the vast majority of inhabitants east of the Rockies to the Appalachians live in flood zones. I don't expect you to take my word for it, Charles so here's a map from NOAA detailing the areas at risk.
We have a population of roughly 330 million people. Assume 2/3's of them live east of the Rockies. Roughly half of them are affected by floods, tornadoes, hurricanes, and white-out winter snowstorms. Out here in the west we only have an occasional 6.0 earthquake about every 25 years. You think that salient fact isn't appealing to tens of millions of people in those disaster zones??????
The last Big One was in 1993 when the Northridge Quake struck--almost 24 years ago!
"The Northridge Earthquake: 20 Years Ago Today. On January 17, 1994, at 4:31 am, a magnitude 6.7 earthquake struck the San Fernando Valley region of Los Angeles, killing more than 60, injuring more than 9,000, and causing widespread damage."
I'll take an occasional earthquake over annual floods, tornadoes, hurricanes, and sub-zero temperatures any day and so will tens of millions of other people, at least those with the financial means to escape all that. Remember, as the population ages more and more old people from east of the Rockies will become climate refugees and will be inundating the west because they cannot cope with the stress of losing their homes every few years, that's for sure.
And it's not "when it happens", it's the perception that "it's happening right now" and you already have how many millions of people in Miami/Dade seeing the effects already??? You actually think some of these people aren't selling their condos and moving west???????
Climate change and rising coastal waters are not to be taken lightly. Already Miami Beach is starting to "sink" under the Atlantic as streets regularly become waterlogged by encroaching ocean water. California, despite its high COL will be a primary target for these refugees as areas further inland start to get developed to accommodate the rise in the number of people fleeing the Southeast and Midwest. In the Northwest part of LA County where I live the streets are already choking with traffic during morning and late afternoon rush hours. I won't drive during those times. The map in the link below shows which parts of the West will be most inundated with these climate refugees (that's what the article calls them) and SoCal to Las Vegas is projected to be the largest growth region. That stands to region when you consider that land to the immediate west and east of the I-5 to Nevada is plentiful with undeveloped flat tracts.
The prices of real estate can only go up in SoCal so if you're thinking about selling, I'd advise not to, especially if you have children you want to pass your property onto. I recently sold a junkie 3+1 in Highland Park 1000 sq ft for 735K for my terminally ill mother. She paid 16K for it back in the early 70's so the sale was pure profit. I will have an enormous capital gain tax to pay but that still leaves roughly half a million to pocket. Others in this California forum I'm sure are in the same desirable position to cash in on their houses. Think before selling. But then plan for fighting even worse elbow to elbow people in the next 20 years if you decide to stay.
Climate change and rising coastal waters are not to be taken lightly. Already Miami Beach is starting to "sink" under the Atlantic as streets regularly become waterlogged by encroaching ocean water. California, despite its high COL will be a primary target for these refugees as areas further inland start to get developed to accommodate the rise in the number of people fleeing the Southeast and Midwest. In the Northwest part of LA County where I live the streets are already choking with traffic during morning and late afternoon rush hours. I won't drive during those times. The map in the link below shows which parts of the West will be most inundated with these climate refugees (that's what the article calls them) and SoCal to Las Vegas is projected to be the largest growth region. That stands to region when you consider that land to the immediate west and east of the I-5 to Nevada is plentiful with undeveloped flat tracts.
The prices of real estate can only go up in SoCal so if you're thinking about selling, I'd advise not to, especially if you have children you want to pass your property onto. I recently sold a junkie 3+1 in Highland Park 1000 sq ft for 735K for my terminally ill mother. She paid 16K for it back in the early 70's so the sale was pure profit. I will have an enormous capital gain tax to pay but that still leaves roughly half a million to pocket. Others in this California forum I'm sure are in the same desirable position to cash in on their houses. Think before selling. But then plan for fighting even worse elbow to elbow people in the next 20 years if you decide to stay.
Of all the posts I've ever seen on CD, this one takes first prize for the largest TROLL I've ever seen.
Utter nonsense. Complete and utter nonsense. And you use "theguardian" as a source? Why not just use the National Enquirer? I'm not going to argue climate science with anyone here. But the idea that Miami Beach is soon to be underwater is simply false. The actual article that all this information comes from estimates things may start to be a problem around the year 2050, if at all. Talk about fake news. Just wow.
And lastly "Nevada is plentiful with undeveloped flat tracts"? Those "flat tracts" are owned by the US Federal Government and administered by the US BLM. They're not allowing houses any time soon.
Lastly, any decent estate planning attorney can show you how to avoid a lot of capital gains on the sale of a primary residence. My mom put our house in my name and used a trust, etc. Zero cap gains.
You're saying, that climate refugees will flock to a fire-trap of a state? I'll have to see it to believe it.
Ruth, just use simple logic. Does a person have to move into a heavily wooded area? Picture yourself back east where you lose your power for days in sub-zero temperatures while a blizzard blows outside your door. Then picture your home in the Mississippi valley getting flooded every 5 years. Then picture listening to the tornado horns blaring every year. Are you sure you aren't ready to flee all that and come out here to sunny California or Oregon if you have the means to do so? I mean, come on. This is Kindergarten stuff.
Of all the posts I've ever seen on CD, this one takes first prize for the largest TROLL I've ever seen.
Utter nonsense. Complete and utter nonsense. And you use "theguardian" as a source? Why not just use the National Enquirer? I'm not going to argue climate science with anyone here. But the idea that Miami Beach is soon to be underwater is simply false. The actual article that all this information comes from estimates things may start to be a problem around the year 2050, if at all. Talk about fake news. Just wow.
And lastly "Nevada is plentiful with undeveloped flat tracts"? Those "flat tracts" are owned by the US Federal Government and administered by the US BLM. They're not allowing houses any time soon.
Lastly, any decent estate planning attorney can show you how to avoid a lot of capital gains on the sale of a primary residence. My mom put our house in my name and used a trust, etc. Zero cap gains.
Oh dear. people insist on splitting hairs on this matter. If you object to the Guardian then here's another link detailing the same thing from a reputable source:
Re the capital gains. max "shield" is 500K on a residence. And my mother's property was a rental, not her residence so all of it less the basis is subject to capital gains. Some people.....
Most of Coastal California can't be a refugee target. It's not like it's that much further above sea level than FL.
Yeah it is, you have cliffs that drop down from 200-300 ft at the ocean's edge in places. Many others are at least 20 feet above sea level just a block or two from the sand. A 10ft sea level rise pretty much puts Miami-Dade and most of Broward County underwater while it just puts small patches of LA and SD underwater and mostly industrial/commercial areas in SF Bay.
Out here in the west we only have an occasional 6.0 earthquake about every 25 years. You think that salient fact isn't appealing to tens of millions of people in those disaster zones??????
The last Big One was in 1993 when the Northridge Quake struck--almost 24 years ago!
What? It hasn't been 24 years since the last large earthquake in California! There have been seven 6.0+ quakes in CA since Northridge. Two of them were this year, the 6.4 and 7.1 Ridgecrest earthquakes; have you forgotten those already? We were lucky that they weren't in densely populated areas, but to say California only gets a 6.0+ quake every 25 years is patently false.
Oh dear. people insist on splitting hairs on this matter. If you object to the Guardian then here's another link detailing the same thing from a reputable source:
It's BS.
The person quoted Jesse Keenan, a faculty member of the Graduate School of Design at Harvard College, is simply proof that just because you're a faculty member at Harvard doesn't mean you're very smart.
Jesse has a lot of conflicts of interest in spouting off about such things. Probably is looking to renew some grants. And loves getting his name in the papers.
Right off the bat, when you have a quote like this, ""What we understand is the northern migration of flora and fauna, fisheries and everything else in the Northern Hemisphere…. They're moving north slowly," he said. "So why wouldn't people also do that?"" you have to realize what was just said. He said "everything else in the Northern hemisphere". Right. Total BS. It's meant to incite people. It's fake news. Simple as that. If you believe this nonsense I'd suggest you find something else to do with your time.
What? It hasn't been 24 years since the last large earthquake in California! There have been seven 6.0+ quakes in CA since Northridge. Two of them were this year, the 6.4 and 7.1 Ridgecrest earthquakes; have you forgotten those already? We were lucky that they weren't in densely populated areas, but to say California only gets a 6.0+ quake every 25 years is patently false.
Well, that true if you want to talk about earthquakes covering every inch of California. The population of Ridgecrest is 28K which is a far cry from LA/Orange/San Diego which is about 24 million (please don't quibble with my numbers, I'm close). The last time we had a 6. earthquake in a heavily populated area was 1993. As I said, I'll take a 6.7 over what the people back east and Midwest annually go through any day. For the record I went through the Sylmar quake in 1971, the Whittier in 1987, and the Northridge and I'm still here alive a well. That's 3 serious earthquakes on the western seaboard of SoCal in almost 50 years!!!! Contrast that with Katrina, Harvey, Ike, Sandy, Irma, Matthew, Michael and a few others that struck the east/Gulf in the last 15 years alone, and these superstorms are expected to get more numerous as climate change worsens. Common sense dictates that people don't want to go through these disasters and would want to escape them if they had the means. Does that make sense?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
fishing for trolls
