221
Massachusetts town grapples with sea rise after sand barrier fails
(www.theguardian.com)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 17 Mar 2024
221 points (98.3% liked)
News
23296 readers
928 users here now
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.
Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
7. No duplicate posts.
If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners.
The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
" local citizens came together to take the necessary steps to protect their homes." - the steps they took were obviously not the necessary steps, instead they were unnecessary and in fact idiotic.
The Town of Salisbury did not 'grapple with sea rise'. An ad hoc association, Salisbury Beach Citizens for Change, basically the owners of multi-million dollar absurdly situated beach front homes, blew 500,000 dollars on one wall of a giant sand castle.
I feel bad that these homeowners are basically facing a complete loss of their properties, but I'm more than a little miffed that they expect the state to save their homes because the beach next door is a "public beach." I'm pretty sure the public beach ends where their properties begin and the state has no duty to keep the ocean off their property.
I bet a sea wall or jetty of large boulders would help, but I imagine the residents would complain about the unsightly walls/boulders and want to have their cake and eat it too by proposing some ridiculously expensive or difficult solution funded by the taxpayers that only benefits the residents of these 15 homes. This one idea already cost $33k per home and lasted 3 days.
Massachusetts beach law is complicated due to dating back before the American revolution. Most states allow private ownership to the high water line, but Massachusetts allows private ownership all the way to the low water line. So it doesn't really make sense for the government to maintain their private property.
Now, if they want to cede the beach to the state, I think the state would be happy to build something more permanent. Hopefully also something that would improve the ecosystem.
Personally I think the state should take the beach and tell them to fuck off somewhere that's not going to be building houses in fragile ecosystems.
The state will not allow a seawall to be built.
For good reasons. Besides being a huge ongoing expense, they frequently end up amplifying the erosion, and would almost certainly degrade the public beaches adjacent to these houses.