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.
Forgot that the toll was only inbound. Oh well. And I said SOMEWHERE around $8. Couldn’t remember the exact figure, but I remember it being high, from my personal experience, because I actually have gone there several times and have a feel for the place, unlike you who only gets your information from Google.
Recreation centers and churches are for anyone.
Again, have you checked the short term rental listings on the island? Of course not — it doesn’t feed your narrative.
Why am I even arguing with you? Posts full of insults and attacks when you, again, prove you know nothing about the place.
You've visited Sanibel several times, but still claimed "barely anyone lives there" despite hundreds of school children, the churches, the veterinary clinics, and an apparently excellent community recreation center??? You've dismissed census data with convoluted, ridiculous claims.
We weren't arguing, as that requires some honest debate and some factual foundation. Instead, you foisted a "Big Lie" deceit on this forum, and I explained the factual reality that exposed your deceit.
You've visited Sanibel several times, but still claimed "barely anyone lives there" despite hundreds of school children, the churches, the veterinary clinics, and an apparently excellent community recreation center??? You've dismissed census data with convoluted, ridiculous claims.
We weren't arguing, as that requires some honest debate and some factual foundation. Instead, you foisted a "Big Lie" deceit on this forum, and I explained the factual reality that exposed your deceit.
7,400 people is not a lot.
Didn't "dismiss" census data. I said A LOT of those residents are homeowners who do not live there year round -- hence the very high amount of short-term rental listings on the island.
The PK-8 number is ridiculously low for a town of 7,500, so that definitely does not support your argument.
City of Mount Dora, population ~12,000, has two public elementary schools (well, one K-5 and one PK-7.) Total enrollment between these two is almost 2,000 students. Add in Mount Dora Middle, which has another roughly 800 students in 6-8, and that shoots up that number even more, of students enrolled in PK-8 in a town known as a retirement hub.
These numbers amount to roughly 15-20% of the population in their respective cities.
Sanibel's is 3%. Census data shows only 8% of households having children under 18.
Those numbers speak volumes about the average people "living" there.
Churches are everywhere -- it's the South. Not Ohio.
Of course there will be veterinary clinics. Why wouldn't there be? There are vet clinics everywhere, including at exclusive resorts.
Community Recreation Center? What is the relevance of that? Nearby Southseas Island on Captiva has at least two community recreation centers, including a tennis academy. Are you going to tell me this is proof that a lot of people live there permanently too?
Of course, now you're going to google "Captiva" and look up Southseas, because you've never heard of those places, yet will want to drop a ton of links coupled with insults in an effort to come across as knowledgeable.
The stats & charts in this report do NOT show Miami as being as big a flood threat as MANY other places now, or in the future looking 30 years out.
Sorry to burst the OP's bubble, but this report looks pretty comprehendive to me. Scroll down to the charts starting on page 13. Miami doesn't appear on any of the charts I looked at.
The stats & charts in this report do NOT show Miami as being as big a flood threat as MANY other places now, or in the future looking 30 years out.
Sorry to burst the OP's bubble, but this report looks pretty comprehendive to me. Scroll down to the charts starting on page 13. Miami doesn't appear on any of the charts I looked at.
The big cities that banks should not be loaning to build in are:
New Orleans
NYC
Chicago
Houston
LA
Tampa
Philly
These cities better start electing politicians who will prevent massive flooding from happening.
Given the substantial flooding risks in Miami, Miami's low elevations above sea level, and exposure to hurricanes and tides, and even severe episodes of "sunny day flooding," did your argument make sense to you, or did you just decide to report the chart findings without trying to find out why they were so grossly misleading when reported at face value by either ignorant or deliberately disingenuous individuals?
Your arguments are devoid of any recognition of the significantly qualifying asterisk next to the headings on page 13 or 15. The asterisk links to the following footnote:
<< Substantial risk is calculated as inundation 1 cm or more to the building in the 100 return period (1% annual risk). See methodology for full model details. Threshold of at least 45,000 properties for cities shown.>>
This is a bizarre definition of "substantial risk" of flooding. See page 8 for further elaboration of this definition. My guess is in order to exaggerate flooding risk, especially in non-coastal areas, FirstStreet decided to rely on an IMO preposterous definition of "substantial risk" and ignore the more meaningful statistic of "certain risk," defined as properties with an annual flooding risk of 20 percent.
So the tables cited on those charts include all properties subject to a flood of as little as 1 cm once every hundred years. So properties with an insignificant flood for a few hours in a hundred years are lumped together with properties that flood annually with a foot or much more of flood waters.
Most importantly, the tables only include cities with a threshold of at least 45,000 properties. The charts don't comprehend MSAs, or even counties, just individual geopolitical units. Miami, with only 36 miles of land area, doesn't meet the threshold. Additionally, many Miami residences don't flood because they are in multi-story buildings.
The massive and increasing flood risk in Miami and throughout Florida is better visualized by the national maps on pages 10 and 11, even though these still rely on the ridiculous definition of "substantial risk."
Posters can check out risks for each Florida county here, even though the easy ability to read the headers make this table much less useful.
Very few persons IMO would be willing to seriously compare the flooding risks in Chicago with those in Miami without a much greater examination of the statistics. You either declined to ignore the explanations of the statistics or chose to ignore them. WHY???
Given the substantial flooding risks in Miami, Miami's low elevations above sea level, and exposure to hurricanes and tides, and even severe episodes of "sunny day flooding," did your argument make sense to you, or did you just decide to report the chart findings without trying to find out why they were so grossly misleading when reported at face value by either ignorant or deliberately disingenuous individuals?
Your arguments are devoid of any recognition of the significantly qualifying asterisk next to the headings on page 13 or 15. The asterisk links to the following footnote:
<< Substantial risk is calculated as inundation 1 cm or more to the building in the 100 return period (1% annual risk). See methodology for full model details. Threshold of at least 45,000 properties for cities shown.>>
This is a bizarre definition of "substantial risk" of flooding. See page 8 for further elaboration of this definition. My guess is in order to exaggerate flooding risk, especially in non-coastal areas, FirstStreet decided to rely on an IMO preposterous definition of "substantial risk" and ignore the more meaningful statistic of "certain risk," defined as properties with an annual flooding risk of 20 percent.
So the tables cited on those charts include all properties subject to a flood of as little as 1 cm once every hundred years. So properties with an insignificant flood for a few hours in a hundred years are lumped together with properties that flood annually with a foot or much more of flood waters.
Most importantly, the tables only include cities with a threshold of at least 45,000 properties. The charts don't comprehend MSAs, or even counties, just individual geopolitical units. Miami, with only 36 miles of land area, doesn't meet the threshold. Additionally, many Miami residences don't flood because they are in multi-story buildings.
The massive and increasing flood risk in Miami and throughout Florida is better visualized by the national maps on pages 10 and 11, even though these still rely on the ridiculous definition of "substantial risk."
Posters can check out risks for each Florida county here, even though the easy ability to read the headers make this table much less useful.
Very few persons IMO would be willing to seriously compare the flooding risks in Chicago with those in Miami without a much greater examination of the statistics. You either declined to ignore the explanations of the statistics or chose to ignore them. WHY???
Given the substantial flooding risks in Miami, Miami's low elevations above sea level, and exposure to hurricanes and tides, and even severe episodes of "sunny day flooding," did your argument make sense to you, or did you just decide to report the chart findings without trying to find out why they were so grossly misleading when reported at face value by either ignorant or deliberately disingenuous individuals?
Your arguments are devoid of any recognition of the significantly qualifying asterisk next to the headings on page 13 or 15. The asterisk links to the following footnote:
<< Substantial risk is calculated as inundation 1 cm or more to the building in the 100 return period (1% annual risk). See methodology for full model details. Threshold of at least 45,000 properties for cities shown.>>
This is a bizarre definition of "substantial risk" of flooding. See page 8 for further elaboration of this definition. My guess is in order to exaggerate flooding risk, especially in non-coastal areas, FirstStreet decided to rely on an IMO preposterous definition of "substantial risk" and ignore the more meaningful statistic of "certain risk," defined as properties with an annual flooding risk of 20 percent.
So the tables cited on those charts include all properties subject to a flood of as little as 1 cm once every hundred years. So properties with an insignificant flood for a few hours in a hundred years are lumped together with properties that flood annually with a foot or much more of flood waters.
Most importantly, the tables only include cities with a threshold of at least 45,000 properties. The charts don't comprehend MSAs, or even counties, just individual geopolitical units. Miami, with only 36 miles of land area, doesn't meet the threshold. Additionally, many Miami residences don't flood because they are in multi-story buildings.
The massive and increasing flood risk in Miami and throughout Florida is better visualized by the national maps on pages 10 and 11, even though these still rely on the ridiculous definition of "substantial risk."
Posters can check out risks for each Florida county here, even though the easy ability to read the headers make this table much less useful.
Very few persons IMO would be willing to seriously compare the flooding risks in Chicago with those in Miami without a much greater examination of the statistics. You either declined to ignore the explanations of the statistics or chose to ignore them. WHY???
If you saw a map designating areas that "flood annually with a foot or more of flood waters" you wouldn't like it; there would be hardly anything to show..
And why do you continue to make up your own punctuation criteria for citing passages from the work of others? Are you confused or attempting to confuse others?
The source I cited is the most comprehensive flood report ever compiled. This is what banks, & other investors are using now because it looks into the future, whereas the FEMA maps/data do not.
Again, Miami is NOT listed as one of their highest risk major cities. Its time to stop ignoring the scientific facts, & for Miami to continue morphing into the "Wall Street of the South", taking major financial businesses from economically failed, & more flood prone NYC.
Banks, and other Fortune 500's have been, and continue to, flee NYC like rats off a sinking ship.
If you saw a map designating areas that "flood annually with a foot or more of flood waters" you wouldn't like it; there would be hardly anything to show..
And why do you continue to make up your own punctuation criteria for citing passages from the work of others? Are you confused or attempting to confuse others?
Lol, just like my "flood prone" home, yet there has never been standing water from what anyone could ever recall. Even during hurricane Irma, there was no standing water despite it being the most rain we got in recent history.
If a Hurricane like Irma did not even cause standing water, then what in the hell is suppose to flood my place?
Lol, just like my "flood prone" home, yet there has never been standing water from what anyone could ever recall. Even during hurricane Irma, there was no standing water despite it being the most rain we got in recent history.
If a Hurricane like Irma did not even cause standing water, then what in the hell is suppose to flood my place?
Incoming copy-paste wall of text, along with insults about how ignorant you are, coming from someone living in Ohio.
Where is there any place in Florida.....that floods annually...every year...with a foot or more of water
...and there's actually houses or neighborhoods there?
mangrove swamps flood annually....the Everglades floods annually....and they are supposed to...always have...it would be wrong if they didn't
...but no one is building shopping centers out there
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.
