- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: East Baton Rouge official calls for moratorium on development in high-risk floodplains
Posted on 9/21/17 at 10:09 am to slackster
Posted on 9/21/17 at 10:09 am to slackster
quote:
If you want to build in a flood plain, go right ahead. Your insurance will be commensurate with the risk you're taking.
Doesn't the flood insurance program cost taxpayers money?
This post was edited on 9/21/17 at 10:17 am
2
Posted on 9/21/17 at 10:11 am to goofball
quote:
It doesn't include a lot of the areas that flooded.
That's my point. What code updates are needed in high-risk floodplains? Its not like people are swindled into buying property in Flood Zone A.
Posted on 9/21/17 at 10:14 am to nes2010
quote:
Doesn't the flood insurance program cost taxpayers money?
No doubt. The program is insolvent.
Posted on 9/21/17 at 10:16 am to Chucktown_Badger
quote:
Ok, so build wherever you want, but if you choose to build there, let's make it such that you can't get flood insurance and no one else is going to subsidize your losses. Everyone else in the country is going getting sick of paying for idiots who constantly build in an area that is going to flood.
The NFIP needs an overhaul. If premiums were commensurate with the risk, development of floodplains wouldn't be an issue.
Posted on 9/21/17 at 10:22 am to Chucktown_Badger
Y’all are confused. This isn’t just about the developments themselves. But the results of those developments. When dirt is brought into a low lying area, it takes up the space flood waters would go. Without that space the water has to go somewhere... places that never flooded before maybe? One development may not affect things but when it’s wide spread, it’s a real issue for both property owners and insurance companies.
This post was edited on 9/21/17 at 10:23 am
Posted on 9/21/17 at 10:22 am to SpeckledTiger
quote:
If we made development decisions on storms like that, there'd be no where left to build in damn near the entire country.
Well that's just not true for the moment. And if this does become true, don't you think it's responsible to build on highest ground first to keep at bay any flood payments made by the government?
Posted on 9/21/17 at 10:22 am to slackster
quote:
What code updates are needed in high-risk floodplains? Its not like people are swindled into buying property in Flood Zone A.
That's what I think they need to move fast with. If they are changing code in the 25 year floodplain (which are areas that see pretty regular flooding), they need to act quickly IMO.
I'm not sure if it would be wise to use 2016's catastrophic flood as a key driver in substantially re-mapping the area though.
I do think it should be justification for investment into dredging some of the rivers, digging the diversion canal, setting aside land near the Amite upriver from Baton Rouge for retention, and adding additional requirements for green space within new developments.
Posted on 9/21/17 at 10:30 am to nes2010
The problem is they build in and fill up natural drainage so shite that isn't supposed to flood now does.
See: Spanish lake primary school for one example. That school was built in a ditch.
See: Spanish lake primary school for one example. That school was built in a ditch.
Posted on 9/21/17 at 10:39 am to goofball
quote:
Seems like they can come up with new standards a lot quicker than 6 months,
6 months is 4 months too long!
Posted on 9/21/17 at 10:54 am to DownshiftAndFloorIt
quote:
Spanish lake primary school for one example. That school was built in a ditch.
Why did Ascension Parish build a school right there? It's not even in a particularly convenient ditch.
Posted on 9/21/17 at 11:03 am to SpeckledTiger
Even the great flood wouldn't have been so bad if not for overdevelopment. Building in flood plains makes flooding worse elsewhere. This is especially true on the Nortshore. Covington proper only got three inches of rain during the March 2016 flood. All their water came from heavy rain to the north. If that land had been forest and pasture instead of subdivisions, most of it would have soaked in slowly.
The narrative of these events is already changing to "act of God, nothing we can do about it," as an excuse for doing nothing about it. So this will happen again, and sooner than anybody expects.
The narrative of these events is already changing to "act of God, nothing we can do about it," as an excuse for doing nothing about it. So this will happen again, and sooner than anybody expects.
Posted on 9/21/17 at 11:17 am to Jim Rockford
Development played a very minor role in the 2016 flooding in the Baton Rouge area. It was a natural disaster. Even without development, a majority of the same areas would have flooded.
I can't speak for the northshore, but Baton Rouge has a fill ordinance that prevents any net loss of flood storage. If you build a subdivision or commercial project in the flood zone, any fill placed in that flood zone must be offset with dirt dug from the same flood zone. That dirt must come from above any water surface you create in a lake or pond so that you are replacing air with air.
The rules are going to become more strict for new development. The problem is the older developments are not going to benefit. A majority of the developments constructed since the flood ordinance did not flood. Those built generally between the post war period but pre flood ordinance are the ones that flooded. Since the city relaxed the re-building standards, all those same houses will flood again if we get 32" of rain like we did in August.
I can't speak for the northshore, but Baton Rouge has a fill ordinance that prevents any net loss of flood storage. If you build a subdivision or commercial project in the flood zone, any fill placed in that flood zone must be offset with dirt dug from the same flood zone. That dirt must come from above any water surface you create in a lake or pond so that you are replacing air with air.
The rules are going to become more strict for new development. The problem is the older developments are not going to benefit. A majority of the developments constructed since the flood ordinance did not flood. Those built generally between the post war period but pre flood ordinance are the ones that flooded. Since the city relaxed the re-building standards, all those same houses will flood again if we get 32" of rain like we did in August.
Posted on 9/21/17 at 11:19 am to Supermoto Tiger
There really is a lot involved in watershed management and development of land. I 100% would not trust that to the city/parish/state government. All they see is dollars. Gonna take either a private company or the Corps a long time to figure it out properly
Posted on 9/21/17 at 11:20 am to goofball
Additionally, the proposed Top Golf would be caught up in the moratorium.
From Business Report: If passed, Planning Director Frank Duke says four projects that have applied but not yet been approved would be halted, including the controversial subdivision Lakes at Jones Creek, as well as TopGolf, which is eyeing the vacant site at Siegen Lane Marketplace that was once home to Tinseltown movie theater. The city-parish would likely have to refund $13,000 in application fees, most of which came from the Lakes at Jones Creek.
From Business Report: If passed, Planning Director Frank Duke says four projects that have applied but not yet been approved would be halted, including the controversial subdivision Lakes at Jones Creek, as well as TopGolf, which is eyeing the vacant site at Siegen Lane Marketplace that was once home to Tinseltown movie theater. The city-parish would likely have to refund $13,000 in application fees, most of which came from the Lakes at Jones Creek.
Posted on 9/21/17 at 11:22 am to goofball
Posted on 9/21/17 at 11:23 am to TickledTiger
No go on this link
Posted on 9/21/17 at 11:31 am to goofball
If your home's 'flooded over 40 time,' God may be telling you to move, says GOP Texas congressman
quote:
"We have these repetitive loss properties," said the chairman of the House Financial Services Committee. "So for example, we have one property outside of Baton Rouge [Louisiana] that has a modest home worth about $60,000 that's flooded over 40 times. The taxpayers have paid almost half a million dollars for it."
Posted on 9/21/17 at 11:35 am to Kingpenm3
quote:
"We have these repetitive loss properties," said the chairman of the House Financial Services Committee. "So for example, we have one property outside of Baton Rouge [Louisiana] that has a modest home worth about $60,000 that's flooded over 40 times. The taxpayers have paid almost half a million dollars for it."
Assuming this is true, it's a perfect example of why the NFIP needs an overhaul. The premiums on that property should effectively prevent it from being developed.
Posted on 9/21/17 at 11:41 am to member12
Because our dumbass parish leadership will let anybody build anything anywhere in the name of growth.
The flood of 16 was so bad in large part due to development in drainage areas. When you plot 150 houses in a swamp that's been built up 3' higher than everything else around it, you've converted what used to be the high land into the low land and the low into the high. It completely fricks everything up.
The flood of 16 was so bad in large part due to development in drainage areas. When you plot 150 houses in a swamp that's been built up 3' higher than everything else around it, you've converted what used to be the high land into the low land and the low into the high. It completely fricks everything up.
Posted on 9/21/17 at 12:49 pm to DownshiftAndFloorIt
quote:
The flood of 16 was so bad in large part due to development in drainage areas.
The flood of 16 was so bad in large part due to a historic storm event.
Page 2 of 4
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News