<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
<channel>
	<title><![CDATA[Grist - Comment Feed for Fifteen years after the Great Flood of 1993, floodplain development is booming]]></title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.grist.org/rss/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<description>Grist Comment Feed</description>
	<language>en</language>
    
		<item>
            <title>Comment #1 by parkprotector</title>
			<link>http://www.grist.org/article/gertz2/</link>
			<pubDate>Wed, 19 Mar 2008 04:43:51 -0700</pubDate>
			<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.grist.org/article/gertz2/1</guid>
			<description><![CDATA[
				<p><strong>Floodplain Construction</strong></p><p>Unfortunately, developers along the Mississippi are not alone in their preference for money over safety or the best interests of the consumer and the local communities. Here in Sacramento, a city named second most likely to experience a devastating flood after New Orleans, floodplains immediately adjacent to levees are covered with new executive homes, condos, shopping centers, and even Arco Arena. Never mind that these levees don't meet the Corps' current standards for flood protection or that the water table is so high that contractors have to place pumps in the trenches when installing utility lines. But all the blame shouldn't fall on the developers. City and county commissioners and supervisors consistently ignore recommendations from their planning and public works departments that warn against approving residential construction in these areas. And to all those real estate agents and promoters who promise buyers that "the likelihood of flooding is really very small", I would ask..."Would you want your family to live there?".</p>
			]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[
				<p><strong>Floodplain Construction</strong></p><p>Unfortunately, developers along the Mississippi are not alone in their preference for money over safety or the best interests of the consumer and the local communities. Here in Sacramento, a city named second most likely to experience a devastating flood after New Orleans, floodplains immediately adjacent to levees are covered with new executive homes, condos, shopping centers, and even Arco Arena. Never mind that these levees don't meet the Corps' current standards for flood protection or that the water table is so high that contractors have to place pumps in the trenches when installing utility lines. But all the blame shouldn't fall on the developers. City and county commissioners and supervisors consistently ignore recommendations from their planning and public works departments that warn against approving residential construction in these areas. And to all those real estate agents and promoters who promise buyers that "the likelihood of flooding is really very small", I would ask..."Would you want your family to live there?".</p>
			]]></content:encoded>
		</item>
    
		<item>
            <title>Comment #2 by tico89</title>
			<link>http://www.grist.org/article/gertz2/</link>
			<pubDate>Wed, 19 Mar 2008 08:09:17 -0700</pubDate>
			<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.grist.org/article/gertz2/2</guid>
			<description><![CDATA[
				<p><strong>Short-term v long-term works both ways...</strong></p><p>A common criticism is that people are very short-sighted when it comes to change. For example, someone who doesn't want to buy a fluorescent lightbulb because it's more expensive, regardless of the fact they'll save money over the long-term.</p><p>
Obviously this applies to much larger scales, such as energy, water, and everything to do with climate change.</p><p>
But...reading this, it really began to dawn on me that it's not just the future where people notice short-term over long-term--it's the same with the past. If 1993 has already been forgotten, how long before the lessons of Katrina are forgotten? Does this mean we've already forgotten the lessons of wars throughout the twentieth century?</p><p>
The passing of years makes something more likely to recur, not less. So why do we keep acting as if it's the other way round?</p>
			]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[
				<p><strong>Short-term v long-term works both ways...</strong></p><p>A common criticism is that people are very short-sighted when it comes to change. For example, someone who doesn't want to buy a fluorescent lightbulb because it's more expensive, regardless of the fact they'll save money over the long-term.</p><p>
Obviously this applies to much larger scales, such as energy, water, and everything to do with climate change.</p><p>
But...reading this, it really began to dawn on me that it's not just the future where people notice short-term over long-term--it's the same with the past. If 1993 has already been forgotten, how long before the lessons of Katrina are forgotten? Does this mean we've already forgotten the lessons of wars throughout the twentieth century?</p><p>
The passing of years makes something more likely to recur, not less. So why do we keep acting as if it's the other way round?</p>
			]]></content:encoded>
		</item>
    
		<item>
            <title>Comment #3 by mtvyfan</title>
			<link>http://www.grist.org/article/gertz2/</link>
			<pubDate>Fri, 21 Mar 2008 01:51:50 -0700</pubDate>
			<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.grist.org/article/gertz2/3</guid>
			<description><![CDATA[
				<p><strong>Call me crazy</strong></p><p>but in every picture there are puddles of water. Either there was a huge amount of rain when these photos were taken, or the ground is so saturated by wetland/river water that building on it would be flat out ridiculous.</p>
			]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[
				<p><strong>Call me crazy</strong></p><p>but in every picture there are puddles of water. Either there was a huge amount of rain when these photos were taken, or the ground is so saturated by wetland/river water that building on it would be flat out ridiculous.</p>
			]]></content:encoded>
		</item>
    
 </channel>
</rss>