Is this discussion even possible in America?

NYT

As the Gulf Coast reels from two catastrophic storms in a month, and the Carolinas and Florida deal with damage and debris from hurricanes this year and last, even some supporters of coastal development are starting to ask a previously unthinkable question: is it time to consider retreat from the coast?

Not because it makes no sense, or is a question that shouldn't be asked, but because it will be discussed in terms of black v. white, of "development," of "unconstitutionally limiting the individual's right to use their property." It will be discussed in terms of American "will" and "resolve":

"There are engineering solutions to almost any problem we face," said Mr. Simmons of the beach association, who is mayor of Caswell Beach, N.C., near Cape Fear. He said the problem with places like North Topsail Island is too little infrastructure support, not too much. "We are not doing a good enough job maintaining things" like beaches, he said.

In the past, the promise of engineering has prevailed against efforts to get the federal government out of the coastal development business.

More than a decade ago, for example, FEMA scientists suggested imposing new limits on federally subsidized flood insurance and government support for roads, sewers and other infrastructure in erosion hazard areas. But advocates for development denounced the move as undue federal interference, and it was defeated.

Setback requirements have been successfully challenged as unconstitutionally limiting people's use of their property.

Let that one sink in a moment: "setbacks" don't protect life and community; they interfere with my "right" to create as much beach erosion as possible.

Note the entire tone of the article. An environmental response to problems (erosion on barrier islands on the Texas Gulf coast; loss of wetlands around New Orleans due to flood control efforts on the Mississippi, efforts largely doomed to failure; even global warming) is not even raised. The only response being discussed here is retreat.

"Babe" Schwartz may actually sound the right tone with his belated mea culpa. It isn't a matter of handwringing, now, but of engineering. Not, however, public engineering (which someone else will pay for).

Florida was hit by four storms last year alone. In a sense, the entire state is "coastline." There was a story (apocryphal?) of a house in Florida, built to withstand a hurricane, that survived the devastation of Andrew, or one of the major storms of many years ago, while all around it was smashed to kindling. One major storm that marched across Florida went, like all good tornadoes, straight through a trailer park (and while we're on the subject, what do we do when global warming fires up "Tornado Alley?" A force Five tornado ripped through Texas one year, tearing the asphalt from the streets.). Could it be the problem is not just where we build, but how we build?

Which is really the issue, isn't it?

Mr. Hoggard of the Park Service said he would not consign even Fort Pickens to that fate. But, he said, it is time to consider replacing the road, possibly, for example, with a ferry service from the mainland. But, as is the case on all the developed shoreline, abandoning infrastructure means lost revenue, in this case fees from a year-round campground. So Mr. Hoggard said there would be pressure to maintain the road, flooded yet again by pounding surf churned up by Hurricane Rita. "We can do that with our technology," he said. "But only for so long, and at a great price."

But, of course, we can't abandon New Orleans (largest port in the U.S., for one simple matter) or Beaumont, or Port Arthur. And frankly, none of the Texas Gulf Coast has been affected by storms this year, so Mr. Schwartz's mea culpa is a bit premature (his responsibility for loss of barrier islands notwithstanding). And the fact is, this discussion is not about Hilton Head or Martha's Vineyard, or even Miami. It's about the working class towns along the Louisiana, Texas, and Mississippi coasts. Even New Orleans is the poor step-child of American cities. Would anyone question rebuilding Los Angeles after a major earthquake? Chicago or St. Louis after a tornado, or, given the precarious energy situation, a major blizzard?

There's no small amount of "classism" in even raising this question, because the question is: maybe we don't need those working class towns, after all. Mr. Schwartz's mea culpa is misleading in this context: the Gulf Coast is not California, or Massachusetts. The expensive houses in Florida have been spared this year, and when they are destroyed, will serious questions be raised about protecting them? For that matter, will serious question be raised about our stewardship of God's creation? Or will we simply say "those people" shouldn't "be there," and go on about our business, ignorant of the oil trade, fishing, ports, and other commerce we rely on, and they provide? Will we even ask those people for their opinions (the NYT didn't)?

If we have this discussion, what kind of discussion will we have? Because that's the reason the questions are so controversial. Not because of what's being asked, but because of who's asking, and whose viewpoints are not even solicited.