Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: TimF who wrote (325593)	2/12/2007 2:28:56 PM
From: combjelly	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1576894

"The houses are there because people wanted them there. They like being near the water" That they do. But what happens when a hurricane goes into Chesapeake? And what happened to the Spartina? I am guessing there used to be a marsh there, it is sort of characteristic of a bay. Spartina species grasses form the base of the ecosystem, when you remove it, you remove the primary food source for much of the ecosystem. There are lots of reasons why houses shouldn't be built in places where those are. Runoff isn't the primary reason. Marsh destruction, along with the turbidity produced by the obligatory boats should be enough.

To: TimF who wrote (325593)	2/12/2007 8:40:42 PM
From: tejek	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1576894

If the houses where a mile inland its still likely that they would cause run off in to the bay. If there is some other specific problem with these houses you don't say what it is. The article you link to doesn't mention these houses. It talks about old sewage plants and improperly set up septic systems, and farms without proper controls for runoff. There are so many things wrong with that development, I don't know where to begin......they would be susceptible to flooding during storms; its very likely they are on septic tanks.....the shifting soil conditions would make putting in pipe problematical....that means future runoff as the septic tanks deteriorate; probably at one time that area formed an estuary.....a grazing area for fish and animals.....lost now; given the likely soil conditions and the footprint of the houses they will experience severe settling in the future. Its such a stupid and ugly development, it amazes me that given the DC area's sophisticated planning, it was allowed. Apparently the 2010 goal for the bay cleanup is unrealistic and probably has always been unrealistic. Given the attitude of the planners responsible for that development, I can understand. In any case I don't know what gave you the impression that I'm automatically against any and all environmental regulation, or that I think people should be able to dump whatever they want in to the Chesapeake Bay with no restrictions. I was just showing how capitalism doesn't work well....that was an example. The houses are there because people wanted them there. They like being near the water. If the country was thoroughly socialist it wouldn't change that desire it would just change the owners of the house from people with upper middle class jobs to people with government power or connections. Many of the worst environmental disasters in history have been located in heavily socialist countries. Nope. Good socialists are more concerned with what's good for all the people, not just a special few. Leaving that site vacant would have been the best development for the entire community.