Now go and sue the person/entity that has approved construction in areas prone to flooding.
Perhaps it’s a good idea not to have houses in flood plains…
Agreed, especially since there are probably plenty of better locations in NJ to have these houses rebuilt. With the rise of insurance costs this will save 1200 people the hassle of higher prices and the increased percentage of having to deal with a disaster. It sounds like a great idea to me.
Why do you add the quotes, OP? Is there a better ‘answer’ that New Jersey could feasibly offer?
Depends on the cause of the flooding. If it’s failure to enforce limits on impervious surface of new construction, they need to fix that. If it’s climate change, they need to make policies that address the causes of climate change (e.g. zoning reform for walkability).
That’s in addition to buying out the properties, not instead of, BTW.
If it’s climate change, they need to make policies that address the causes of climate change (e.g. zoning reform for walkability)
And how will that change coastal inundation?
If New Jersey acts but other entities don’t, the fight against climate change might fail. If nobody acts because they assume everybody else won’t, the fight will definitely fail.
Therefore, your question is irrelevant and New Jersey must act.
How is this dystopic?
In a world of bad options, for a state government this might be the best of the worst.
Coming soon on the Trump Show: "Floods are AI Antifa Oax and will be soon declared illegal "
