- cross-posted to:
- california@lemmy.world
- cross-posted to:
- california@lemmy.world
You must log in or register to comment.
Jeepers shouldn’t they be paying to protect water supplies from increased salinity over sea walls to protect against property damage?
The court decision is indeed one to limit the use of seawalls to protect against property damage. There are limited cases where they’ll still be used, but it’s not going to be too widespread in California as a result.
If these people want to pay for their own sea walls to protect their homes, fine; but taxpayers shouldn’t be subsidizing the ultra rich to protect their properties. Buying ocean front property in this day and age is a big risk.
The problem us that private seawalls have the effect of destroying public beaches, which is why California restricts them.
I see, there are different ways to do them. In some ways, the public will need to fund some seawall construction to protect roads and reduce erosion overall. Highway 1 in CA is a good example. But, there are also plenty of examples of people who built homes dangerously close to the ocean and when a big storm rolls in, they get wrecked.
“a state appeals court has indicated it will uphold rules limiting the construction of sea walls along the coast.” oh thank fuck
We do not need to be spending money to preserve houses on a beach and destroying the environment with a sea wall.
Stop subsidizing losses. No paying for seawalls unless we own the land.
