Galveston, which is similar to New Orleans and Mississippi Gulf Coast after Katrina came through. Many beleived that New Orleans and Mississippi Gulf Coast should not be rebuilt, in the likely hood that these places would be hit gain by Hurricanes.

What residents will find in Galvestion is the following:

- Contractors who just became contractors after the storm. Be Careful (guys that never picked up a hammer or nail will suddenly have a contractors liscence and a crew of people ruining your home. Make sure you ask for references, see records of their business etc.)

- Insurance companies will fight tooth and nail to put the blame on you or someone else. Trying to get an adjuster to your house and then once the adjuster comes, trying to get them to give you enough money.

- Infastructure of your city is gone, so your taxes, insurance and bills will increase for the next several years.

- Economy, a small town built on tourism will struggle to bring tourist to Galveston. Lack of workers and places that are open will turn tourists away. Which means lack of money.

Galveston is not a below sealeve city built in a bowl. The trouble with N.O. is not that it exists, but thaty had expanded into areas that were not sustainable and had pushed lower end housing into living well below water levels to creat newer housing in areas that should not have ever had housing.
I see no future in abandoning our barrier islands. Galveston gets blown over ever hiunderd years or so and frankly, is not like to be the almost impossible rebuild that certain areas of N.O. are.

There will be a percentage of people who will leave permanently. For every one who leaves, there will be 10 waiting to buy their property. In a few years, the island may look a little different, but it will once again be a thriving economy.


It's the way real estate is.

Galveston may be one of the few who did it right. A seawall was erected to protect the middle class and lower in town and on the west end where most people spend their extra millions on a second house, they're not protected.

The back side of the island is a different issue where the Bay can rise up. Any new construction in that part of town will surely have to be erected on stilts I imagine.

[This message has been edited by McInnis 03 (edited 9/18/2008 8:23a).]

What I'd like to see is insurance rates that vary with design/construction standards. If a home/business is built to withstand a major hurricane and the design and construction is documented accordingly then the rates should be lower than standard construction. This would encourage more high quality structures and consequently less damage when the inevitable major storm hits.

As Niteside suggests, Galveston is not the same as the parts of Nawlins that are below sea level.

Any one that chooses to build, buy, or rent a home on a piece of ground that is prone to flooding from hurricanes should just get used to what just happened, it will again and again. Yes, it's nice to tell everyone of watching the sun set over the water, have your boat close by, and all the other niceties that go along, BUT, just be ready to lose all of it in a few short hours. Lived on the coast, 30 miles inland, well aware of what hurricanes can and will do, even small ones. Personally, I would not invest a dime on coastal property, let some other fool. I will pay the rent to visit the coast two to three times a year. Good to see the power coming back on, soon, back to semi normal.


"57"

quote:

---

Any one that chooses to build, buy, or rent a home on a piece of ground that is prone to flooding from hurricanes should just get used to what just happened, it will again and again. Yes, it's nice to tell everyone of watching the sun set over the water, have your boat close by, and all the other niceties that go along, BUT, just be ready to lose all of it in a few short hours. Lived on the coast, 30 miles inland, well aware of what hurricanes can and will do, even small ones. Personally, I would not invest a dime on coastal property, let some other fool. I will pay the rent to visit the coast two to three times a year. Good to see the power coming back on, soon, back to semi normal.

---

Yes, because we all know we get a hurricane like this every year.[/sarcasm (in case you couldn't tell)] Things like this happen. It doesn't matter where you live; you are likely to face some sort of natural disaster. Now should better building codes be enforced? Yes they should. Are there certain areas on the coast that you should have to pay higher insurance if you build there? Yes.

Many houses that were properly built withstood this hurricane very well. Yes there was flooding but that is a rare event in Galveston. Even still with the high waters, out of all my family on the island, 4 out of six had no flooding at all, and none of them had wind damage. Galveston is fortified against hurricanes better than any other barrier island in the United States; most likely the world.

Personally I would rather risk my property against hurricanes than live on top of fault line, on the side of a hill that will slip away, on the banks of a river that floods every other year, next to an active volcano, in an area prone to drought and fire, etc. Many, not all, but many of these things happen with a lot more frequency.



[This message has been edited by Ag_B_10 (edited 9/18/2008 9:25a).]

To call people who choose to live on a beach "fools" is stupid and ignorant.

Let us all come to YOUR house and belittle you for where YOU choose to live and the lifestyle YOU live. Deal?

Kind of long:

Galveston's seawall did its job like always. There was about as much structural damage behind the wall as was found on much of the mainland, including the Woodlands and Conroe (tree related damage mostly up there). Most structures are still standing and generally fine, so there's not alot to "rebuild", just repair.

The problem for Galveston (city proper) is major water damage, but that was all over Houston during Allison. I doubt anyone is suggesting that Houston not have been 'rebuilt' following Allison?

The city of Galveston really did fine overall considering a direct hit. My in-laws returned for L&L this week and said as much.

As far as Bolivar/Crystal Beach or West Galveston, sure, rebuilding is a legitimate although unrealistic question. (Personally I think more of Bolivar could be purchased by TPWD and made into a huge state park/wildlife refuge to limit growth, but naturally some residences and business could and should remain.)

Coastal erosion where there is no protective seawall is a huge issue that is largely ignored by the legislature and development boards. But people will always want to spend time on the beach-such as that beachfront condo or hotel you go to for spring break. It's a matter of shoring up building codes, securing bigger dunes & restoring erosion, and paying the price when disaster does strike. If you notice, newer homes on West Galveston and even parts of Bolivar fared generally quite well compared to older beach homes due to stricter building codes and newer construction techniques.

As far as New Orleans goes, it was nothing like Galveston or even Mississippi as it is as far inland as Houston (50mi.)-so a different situation entirely. While much of N.O. is under sea level, so are some coastal communities in Europe. Perhaps if we learned from their gate/levee expertise N.O. would fare much better in these situations. More importantly, laws to keep developers from draining and building in protective swamplands and marshes would also help protect places like N.O. There are N.O. suburbs that should NEVER been allowed to have been built because its swampland's absorbing affect helped to keep water levels down. Allowing the Mississippi to drain appropriately into the delta would rebuild the land and marsh that should be protecting N.O. This is an ecological fact that N.O. was historically protected from coastal storms and surges by miles of swamp and delta soaking up tidal surges. This is one reason why environmental laws (as opposed to allowing developers to go willy-nilly) are so important.

Coastal Mississippi would have fared much better had it a significant wall like Galveston. It's pathetic 3 foot enbankment along the beaches were pretty worthless to stopping surge however.

Beach communities will always exist. The issue really is how to enact building codes and keeping developers in check to keep damage potential to a minimum. Can you imagine not allowing building along Florida's expansive coastline because hurricanes sometimes happen? With that logic you would need to eliminate any building on the West Coast and much of Alaska (earthquakes), the upper midwest (tornados), the southeastern seaboard (hurricanes) and the Rocky Mountains (avalanches and fires).

Long live Galveston and the Gulf Coast.



[This message has been edited by Saint Arnold (edited 9/18/2008 7:13p).]

I think TPWD should turn Galveston Island in to a state park as well. Get rid of the seawall and let Galveston Island serve it true purpose....a seawall for Houston!

Get rid of the downtown and let Houston serve it true purpose....a seawall for Dallas!



fify

As someone who was born and grew up on Galveston and have generations of famalies that are still living and died there in the past. I am offended by this post.

Galveston isn't some coastal community where people JUST go to vacation...and the city isn't gone. When Galveston was destroyed by the 1900 storm the people of the city built the city up and built the seawall with their hands. So you think that because there is some water and wind damage to the city itself that it should be demolished? The damage is bad, I know...I have heard the horror stories, but it will be re-built and up and running sooner than expected.

You saying Galveston should not be re-built is the same thing as saying we should get rid of every island in the world because it could get a bad storm.

My home and the many neighborhoods around my house have little to no damage. They don't have to be re-built. Seawall did its job and we did not receive any water damage.

I wonder how some of you would feel if someone suggested turning the area where you live into a state park?

[This message has been edited by BTHOB4T12 (edited 9/18/2008 4:25p).]

Greatest- you are comparing apples to oranges.

As suggested by many, we should all learn from the destruction of this storm and react accordingly. Therefore, vote for me for president and every time there is a tornado in Kansas we shall NEVER again build a structure in Kansas! Vote for me and every time there is an earthquake in California we shall have FEMA relocate all of them to Houston! Vote for me and every time the Mississippi River rises and floods homes, we shall all point fingers at them and laugh because they built in a flood plane. Vote for me!!!

There are some dumb places to construct... many places in N.O. granted.

Following this "coastal rule" some propose, 200 miles inshore from Texas to New Jersey would have to be vacated.

Forget the west coast with its earthquakes.

I guess Alaska and Hawaii would have to go.

Bears and wolves, people should leave those areas or just kill them off entirely into extinction.

No living in the mountains... that's too cold.

No living near rivers... they flood.

There are smarter ways to build for the 100 year [insert disaster here]. Covering your entire state in pavement only promotes flash flooding and groundwater oversaturation.

What ever just happened to moderation? Maybe we shouldn't destroy everything to build cheap slumlord homes. Maybe we shouldn't build out everywhere.

Everything we do has an effect on what is around us. Why is this so hard to understand?

quote:

---

Personally I would rather risk my property against hurricanes than live on top of fault line,

---

Show me where I can move to, away from a fault line and still be in the same relative area. It can't be done. You can't move away from the damage of an earthquake because earthquakes aren't predictable in where they strike. For example, I could move any single house from the Peninsula as little as 5 miles and GUARANTEE that it would not be hit with the worst devastation from a hurricane. Can you do the same for an earthquake?

quote:

---

on the side of a hill that will slip away,

---

I think that anyone that builds on the side of a hill is in the same boat as those that build on beach on the Gulf. I can tell you a better spot to put a house usually within a 1/4 mile that wouldn't slide off the hill.

quote:

---

on the banks of a river that floods every other year,

---

I think if you live in a flood plain of a river you are in the same boat as living on a barrier island. It has been shown time and again that levees WILL NOT PROTECT YOU RELIABLY FROM FLOODS. This is why we aren't building new levees in this country to make new land available for housing. It isn't smart.

quote:

---

next to an active volcano,

---

Seriously? Just listing natural disasters at this point, huh?

quote:

---

in an area prone to drought and fire, etc. Many, not all, but many of these things happen with a lot more frequency.

---

I am sorry, but EVERYBODY lives in an area prone to drought and fire. The climate is variable and leads to the possibility of these events. I have never heard of a drought destroying a house either.

quote:

---

To call people who choose to live on a beach "fools" is stupid and ignorant.

Let us all come to YOUR house and belittle you for where YOU choose to live and the lifestyle YOU live. Deal?

---

Come on over, I live on North Padre Island. I evacuated during the voluntary evacuation order for Ike. I am a fool for living there. I also lived in Southern California for the Whittier quake and about 90 miles from SF for the 1989 Quake. It cracked our pool and a wall in our brand new house.

Belittle away. I am not going to go crying to the feds over the damage caused by the natural disasters. I am going to be fully insured and understand that if the coast line changes I may lose property.

People are suggesting that places not be rebuilt because WE ALL PAY FOR THE REPLACEMENT COSTS. As much as people that live in these places are offended by the suggestion that they shouldn't live there, it still should be discussed.

well..WE ALL PAY for alot of things.

CalAg, did you actually pay attention to what you where reading when you read my post? I'm not a 100% sure what you are trying to say but It sounds like we agree on most of the issue at hand.


My point is that no matter where you build, you face nature. It is an asinine statement to say you must not build in an area such as Galveston Island yet it is okay to build in those other areas.

quote:

---

quote:

---

next to an active volcano,

---

Seriously? Just listing natural disasters at this point, huh?

---

Lord knows that nothing like Mt St. Helens has ever happened. Nor is there any chance that Mt Reiner could ever go off.



[This message has been edited by Ag_B_10 (edited 9/19/2008 5:05p).]

There is no reason not to rebuild Galveston, the key will be to implement building codes that assure minimizing damages in future storms.

The one thing I have seen in all the coverage is how well the newer more modern structures faired in all of this.

When Biloxi sustained such damage a few years back the people overseeing rebuilding the downtown area spoke of the ground floor of large buildings as being a "sacrifice" in that that the area vulnerable to flooding would not be utilized for office or retail space. The ground floor would have concrete walls and floors. If a flood came in the upper floors would be unharmed, the ground floor could be hosed down and life get back to normal all the sooner.