dan0623_2000
Active Member
I can't believe tax money is being used to buy up the houses on the Cliffs of Calvert
SoMdNews.com: Cliff houses, derecho grants approved
SoMdNews.com: Cliff houses, derecho grants approved
Cliff Houses
- Thread starter dan0623_2000
- Start date
NorthBeachPerso
Honorary SMIB
I have a small issue with it, too. They all bought those houses knowing the cliffs were in an erosion zone. In fact, when this all started to be a crisis a couple years ago, one of the people even stated that her plan was to sell and get out after 20 years and stick the next buyer with the problem. Mother Nature fooled her.
I also have the same lack of sympathy for people at this end of the County who have bought in flood zones and are now expecting the rest of us in Town to spend $2 or $3 million dollars to stabillize the shoreline, build new breakwaters and construct a protective berm.
I also have the same lack of sympathy for people at this end of the County who have bought in flood zones and are now expecting the rest of us in Town to spend $2 or $3 million dollars to stabillize the shoreline, build new breakwaters and construct a protective berm.
KingFish
Nothing to see here
I am glad the Cliff Dwellers are finally getting some help. When they had a chance to do something to protect their property, the thought to be extinct tiger beatle was found in one of the cliffs and the state did not let them do anything to stop cliff erosion.
At least the Feds are helping people in southern maryland for a change. If not, it would be going somewhere else.
At least the Feds are helping people in southern maryland for a change. If not, it would be going somewhere else.
I don't think it's fair for us tax payers to pay for this. They had to have known the potential danger of buying a house next to the cliffs. It's not our fault mother nature is erroding the beach. I am sorry they are going to loose thier homes but that's the chance they chose to take. Maybe the insurance companies should institute a mandantory cliff insurance so we don't have to pay for it? 
MarieB
New Member
To me this is one of those instances where you never get all of the information. I found a few articles from several years ago, and they state that the home owner (s) did their due diligence and were not permitted to shore things up do to the beetle. (If you believe that they had advice from engineers). They must have been insured, right?
Then I saw this
These cliffs naturally erode and sooner or later, a lot of these homes are going to be faced with this situation, whether they have tiger beetles or not," said John R. Griffin, secretary of the Maryland Department of Natural Resources.
From Calvert County cliffside properties, homeowners battle tiger beetle, time
Now, my question is why permits were ever issued for building on this land if a state DNR secretary can emphatically make such a statement? And if something changed, why did they not do something or condemn the property?
I'm sure there is more history, but in the end it is usually difficult to get to the entire truth when these things happen.
Then I saw this
These cliffs naturally erode and sooner or later, a lot of these homes are going to be faced with this situation, whether they have tiger beetles or not," said John R. Griffin, secretary of the Maryland Department of Natural Resources.
From Calvert County cliffside properties, homeowners battle tiger beetle, time
Now, my question is why permits were ever issued for building on this land if a state DNR secretary can emphatically make such a statement? And if something changed, why did they not do something or condemn the property?
I'm sure there is more history, but in the end it is usually difficult to get to the entire truth when these things happen.
SG_Player1974
New Member
MONEY! It always comes down to money doesn't it?
No permit.... no building
No building... no taxes!
MarieB
New Member
That is what i thought too.....But, what about this?
75 percent federal and 25 percent non-federal, which means the county will be paying 75 percent of the assessed value of a particular home and that homeowner must pay 25 percent of the costs for items such as demolition.
This is what was confusing to me, and then they threw in that 59k figure. I'm hesitant to say the article is poorly written because it might just be me
KingFish
Nothing to see here
25% non-federal is the home owners. MEMA was supposed to pay the 25% but passed that to the home owners so Maryland tax payers are paying zero.
Calvert Emergency MAnagement Agency is working with MEMA and FEMA. So I have not seen anything where the county is paying anything. FEMA is giving the funds to the county and the county is making sure the work gets done.
Friday, May 13, 2011
By MEGHAN RUSSELL
Staff writer
In a unanimous decision, the Calvert County Board of County Commissioners agreed to the terms of a grant application for federal emergency funds on Tuesday, to help citizens whose homes along the Chesapeake Bay are in danger of collapsing from cliff erosion.
Last month, the county applied to the Maryland Emergency Management Agency for Federal Emergency Management Agency funds to assist with the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program. However, MEMA requested the county provide more information; in order to be eligible for the requested up to $3 million in grant funding, of which the federal government would provide 75 percent, the commissioners had to decide who would be responsible for the 25 percent nonfederal match requirement under the HMGP. Although the county plans to continue working with homeowners in receiving the grant, they voted this week to place that responsibility on each of the individual homeowners who benefit from the grant money.
Last edited:
How old are these houses ?
It seems to me that the CRE developer was given a lot of leeway on what to do with his land back when the whole thing started. There may not have been much county or MDE involvement back in the days.
NorthBeachPerso
Honorary SMIB
The rules/codes have changed over the years. Also, the "average" erosion is X per year, a house is XX feet from the cliff line so there's XX years until there's a problem. What was ignored was "average".
The whole cliff stabilization became about the Tiger Beetle but in reality the State and Feds have gotten away from armoring the shore with stone and wood bulkheads and seawalls over the last couple decades. When a shore gets armored all that happens is that you move the problem downstream to the next unarmored area.
That's one of the reasons the Bay is losing its beaches, the shore got armored through the 50's, 60's and 70's and with the stone there's nothing for the migrating sand to grab hold of. Same thing in Ocean City, to an extent, with all the building on the dune line.
Last edited:
HorseQueen
New Member
So I guess you feel that FEMA and other agencies shouldn't be helping people up the coast involved in Hurricane Sandy because the home owners chose to live near the water. Clearly they knew that hurricanes would be an issue. If it doesn't concern you, then maybe you shouldn't be complaining about it. If you were in the same position you would appreciate that the agencies were helping you. The money is not coming from the county. FEMA is giving the money. The other percent is coming straight out of the homeowners' pocket- not random Joe's tax money.
Pretty much every penny of the FEMA money IS our tax money...random Joe's and everyone else.
MMDad
Lem Putt
In hurricane prone areas there is a probability of a storm causing damage. Even here, there is a probability that a really big storm could wipe out thousands of homes and flood large areas. We've had a few tropical storm strngth hits in the last couple of decades, and look at how much damage we had.
The probability is relatively low for a hurricane to hit us that hard very often, just like it is in NY/NJ. That probability is almost impossible to predict. If they don't get hit one year, it doesn't make the odds any higher the next.
The cliffs however were known to be eroding. Every year that erosion progressed, sometimes quickly and sometimes slowly. No matter what it was going to happen.
The cliff houses were built in an area that has constant erosion. The only variable is the speed of that erosion. If someone built 100' from the cliff and the average erosion was 1' per year, they took a gamble and lost. I feel bad for them, but they don't deserve my money.
If they built 500' from the cliff and the erosion unexpectedly accelerated from 1' to 10' per year I wouldn't have a problem with helping them since they did not take an unreasonable risk when they built.
dan0623_2000
Active Member
Where the heck do you think FEMA money is coming from? It is yours and mine Federal tax money. FEMA is one of the worst run federal programs there is. Our money problems today are because of programs like FEMA. Just because someone is stupid enough (yeah I said a political incorrect word) to buy/build a home on cliffs and on beaches does not mean tax money should be used to bail them out. That is what private insurance is for. If they can't afford the insurance then they should not buy the property. If they can't get insurance then maybe they should rethink buying it.
If you talk a competent engineering firm you would find out there is no economically viable way to stabilize cliffs the size of the cliffs of Calvert. The key word here is economically.