What you fail to see is that the areas you have mentioned are large areas subject to diffuse threats (such as hurricanes that might hit anywhere along a 1,000 miles or more of coastline), and have Huge in-place economic infrastructure and populations, neither of which could realistically be moved. Moreover, the prospect of leaving that much land fallow is out of the question.
The ERZ is relatively small with a localized threat (volcano) and almost no economic infrastructure that has to be moved (no ports, airports, oil refineries, smelters, factories, centers of world commerce etc.,) It's like comparing grains of pollen and boulders.
Speaking Truth to Lies / Facts to Ignorance
Posts: 761
Threads: 40
Joined: Nov 2014
OK, let's simplify the comparison then. Island vs. Island. The Florida Keys. Every year, about a dozen hurricanes wander in toward them before (usually) veering off at the last second. They are only a few feet above sea level in the past hurricanes have completely obliterated the population of entire islands. Most choose not to evacuate when hurricanes approach because
1) usually nothing dangerous actually happens
2) each evacuation blows about a week of vacation; nobody can spare months of vacation time each year, and
3) evacuation puts you on a 120 mile road to the mainland that is stalled with bumper-to-bumper traffic and often takes you straight into the storm. (Welcome to Miami. Please evacuate Miami.)
Thousands have been killed by these storms. No one has been killed by lava flows.
As for "useful economic activity", both locations are tourism and retiree driven, and in addition Puna farms quite a bit. The Keys do not farm at all (real estate is much too expensive)... they are purely bedroom communities, and thus "non-essential".
So, if the nanny-state somehow gets to decide where we are allowed to live, living in the Florida Keys should be banned, not Puna.
Posts: 1,107
Threads: 72
Joined: Jan 2009
quote:
Originally posted by ElysianWort
I was actually asking midnightrambler but thanks for your reply.
[ ]
So sorry. Thank you!
Cheers,
Kirt
Posts: 1,120
Threads: 57
Joined: Mar 2013
Is it correct that lava flows generally put no more than 50 feet of new rock over the existing terrain? And with the exception of the cinder shield around Fissure 8, almost all the acreage covered by our recent flow is re-habitable, albeit with some extra expenses for 1) re-surveying and 2) building new roads?
(Though the new Fissure 8 hill might have value as a park or scenic climb.)
If that is the case, maybe we ought to view our Puna destruction as similar to a fire, hurricane or tornado that razes homes to the ground.
Meaning those who want to rebuild should. But being aware of the significant probability of another flow within 30 years.
Movable homes might be the best option. In this respect, we are advantaged over fire and wind destruction. It's not feasible to move homes to avoid those rapid events, generally.
Posts: 1,674
Threads: 81
Joined: Aug 2014
Something like this would be my choice if I were rebuilding in Leilani.
https://www.itinyhouses.com/tiny-homes/l...ale-89500/
Posts: 1,674
Threads: 81
Joined: Aug 2014
quote:
Originally posted by Lodestone
OK, let's simplify the comparison then. Island vs. Island. The Florida Keys. Every year, about a dozen hurricanes wander in toward them before (usually) veering off at the last second. They are only a few feet above sea level in the past hurricanes have completely obliterated the population of entire islands. Most choose not to evacuate when hurricanes approach because
1) usually nothing dangerous actually happens
2) each evacuation blows about a week of vacation; nobody can spare months of vacation time each year, and
3) evacuation puts you on a 120 mile road to the mainland that is stalled with bumper-to-bumper traffic and often takes you straight into the storm. (Welcome to Miami. Please evacuate Miami.)
Thousands have been killed by these storms. No one has been killed by lava flows.
As for "useful economic activity", both locations are tourism and retiree driven, and in addition Puna farms quite a bit. The Keys do not farm at all (real estate is much too expensive)... they are purely bedroom communities, and thus "non-essential".
So, if the nanny-state somehow gets to decide where we are allowed to live, living in the Florida Keys should be banned, not Puna.
You're comparing the non-AG economic contribution of the Keys to the ERZ? Lot of resorts and large and small hotels in the ERZ?
The ERZ should be Ag and Thermal only (with a hotel or two for visitors, along with a few shops, cafes etc.), but not large-scale BR, IMHO. BTW, no children should reside in the ERZ, as they are too young to decide, and have a future to consider.
Speaking Truth to Lies / Facts to Ignorance
Posts: 3,216
Threads: 103
Joined: May 2009
Open-d: The ERZ should be Ag and Thermal only (with a hotel or two for visitors, along with a few shops, cafes etc.)
Well it's good that Leilani and nearly all parcels in the LERZ are zoned Agricultural then. Pahoa has a hotel or two and a few shops & cafes. Problem solved.
quote:
Originally posted by ironyak
Open-d: The ERZ should be Ag and Thermal only (with a hotel or two for visitors, along with a few shops, cafes etc.)
Well it's good that Leilani and nearly all parcels in the LERZ are zoned Agricultural then. Pahoa has a hotel or two and a few shops & cafes. Problem solved.
Refering to actual farms and farming, not 4-footed lawn mowers.
Speaking Truth to Lies / Facts to Ignorance
Posts: 1,507
Threads: 12
Joined: Oct 2016
quote:
Originally posted by Open-d
[quote]
The ERZ should be Ag and Thermal only..
Moving here soon with your hot air contribution?
|
