Houses falling into the ocean (my title)

[DotAndBuzz]

Mar 13, 2023 10:33:25 GMT -5 bdubs419 said:

So ironically we purchased a NC beach home last year. NOT in this area. We did a lot of research and actually backed out on one we started second guessing. We bought further back in much safer area. We will sell ASAP some day if things ever start changing in that area. There are SO many areas of coastal NC that I cannot believe people are still buying in. For example, if anyone is familiar with the North Topsail area of NC. I feel like that area is a ticking time bomb just like Rodanthe.

I looked up the home that was purchased in 2021 as the guys retirement plan/home and OMG the pictures. This shouldn’t have come as a massive surprise.

I was JUST thinking of North Topsail.

We rented a beach house for a week there last summer, and our house had steps directly from the deck to the beach. No boardwalk decking over the dunes, because it was built ON THE DUNES. Stairs literally from the house to the beach.

It was bonkers that this house was even allowed to be built. They built on the dunes not even that long ago (maybe 20 years?), so *SURPRISE!* there is no protection from the ocean. A storm came in one night and the waves were washing up 6 ft from the stairs off the deck. When the hurricane came through a few years back, it took out some houses, and thankfully the town doesn't allow beachfront homes that are total losses to be rebuilt, so the 2nd row homes are now beachfront. But those houses were literally 7 down from us. They're now just a little deck (owners still own the land, but the most they are allowed to build is a covered deck). I doubt the place we stayed at will be there in 10 years, let alone 30.

[bdubs419]

Mar 14, 2023 10:00:43 GMT -5 DotAndBuzz said:

Mar 13, 2023 10:33:25 GMT -5 bdubs419 said:

So ironically we purchased a NC beach home last year. NOT in this area. We did a lot of research and actually backed out on one we started second guessing. We bought further back in much safer area. We will sell ASAP some day if things ever start changing in that area. There are SO many areas of coastal NC that I cannot believe people are still buying in. For example, if anyone is familiar with the North Topsail area of NC. I feel like that area is a ticking time bomb just like Rodanthe.

I looked up the home that was purchased in 2021 as the guys retirement plan/home and OMG the pictures. This shouldn’t have come as a massive surprise.

I was JUST thinking of North Topsail.

We rented a beach house for a week there last summer, and our house had steps directly from the deck to the beach. No boardwalk decking over the dunes, because it was built ON THE DUNES. Stairs literally from the house to the beach.

It was bonkers that this house was even allowed to be built. They built on the dunes not even that long ago (maybe 20 years?), so *SURPRISE!* there is no protection from the ocean. A storm came in one night and the waves were washing up 6 ft from the stairs off the deck. When the hurricane came through a few years back, it took out some houses, and thankfully the town doesn't allow beachfront homes that are total losses to be rebuilt, so the 2nd row homes are now beachfront. But those houses were literally 7 down from us. They're now just a little deck (owners still own the land, but the most they are allowed to build is a covered deck). I doubt the place we stayed at will be there in 10 years, let alone 30.

Yep!!! It is insane in certain spots for sure. All the sand bags should be a sign to people. It is so beautiful there, but yeah not smart to buy. We were quickly talked out of that area. I will happy recommend it for a vacation but not to buy!!! We do know people who own a bit further south on the island. I think the North part is just the worst when it comes to serious beach erosion.

[UMaineTeach]

See also, www.nytimes.com/2023/03/14/us/seaweed-blob-florida-mexico.html

“naturally abundant in the Sargasso Sea — has long been seen floating in mats across the North Atlantic. But in 2011, scientists began to observe extraordinary accumulations of the seaweed extending in a belt from West Africa to the Caribbean Sea and Gulf of Mexico, according to a 2019 study. The immense bloom has continued to grow almost every year.”

“But Dr. Lapointe, the research professor, warned that anyone experimenting with new uses for the seaweed should exercise extreme caution: sargassum contains arsenic, which, if used in fertilizer, could potentially make its way up the food chain.”

[jlt19]

Mar 13, 2023 21:54:38 GMT -5 carmenere said:

It’s not just coastal areas that have this problem. In the St. Louis area where my family lives there is a ton of new-ish development in the flood plains along the rivers that flooded badly over summer. As the climate changes it’s only going to get more severe and less predictable. ETA: I do feel a lot more sympathy for the folks in that situation who owned regular homes and businesses and the risk wasn’t as obvious.

I live in a new-ish development along what everyone in St. Louis LOVES to claim is a flood plain, but actually isn’t. Did some homes flood during the unprecedented rain we had this summer? Sure. But only those along the lakes and canals. It had nothing to do with being near a river. There were highways and areas that flooded that had never flooded before because of the amount of rain in such a short period and the sewer systems couldn’t handle it.

I am fully in agreement that the weather event that caused the flooding was due to climate change. But it was flash flooding that happened and can happen anywhere, flood plain or not.

[jamaicam]

Mar 14, 2023 20:57:14 GMT -5 UMaineTeach said:

See also, www.nytimes.com/2023/03/14/us/seaweed-blob-florida-mexico.html

“naturally abundant in the Sargasso Sea — has long been seen floating in mats across the North Atlantic. But in 2011, scientists began to observe extraordinary accumulations of the seaweed extending in a belt from West Africa to the Caribbean Sea and Gulf of Mexico, according to a 2019 study. The immense bloom has continued to grow almost every year.”

“But Dr. Lapointe, the research professor, warned that anyone experimenting with new uses for the seaweed should exercise extreme caution: sargassum contains arsenic, which, if used in fertilizer, could potentially make its way up the food chain.”

WE have been having this issue for a few years here. Local researchers are looking into its use as a possible biogas. 

[pixy0stix]

Update with numbers on the solutions proposed in the OP article: www.washingtonpost.com/climate-environment/2023/05/15/north-carolina-beach-houses-erosion-solution/

A one-time beach nourishment in the area would cost as much as $40 million, the report found — roughly double the amount a similar study found a decade earlier. Maintaining that beach over 30 years would cost more than $175 million. The report details other potential options, such as installing structures to help slow erosion, but every path comes with a massive price tag.

OR

In a Raleigh ballroom, Young told attendees at an Association of State Floodplain Managers conference that to buy out all the houses in Rodanthe within 300 feet of the high-tide line, using their current assessed tax value, would cost roughly $43 million, while avoiding repeated beach nourishments.

It amounts to about 80 structures, the vast majority of which are vacation homes, and which according to Young comprise only a small fraction of the county’s tax base. Meanwhile, his study found, “by removing these properties Rodanthe will likely have a viable beach for 15 to 25 years.”

Frankly, I'm ok with letting investment properties fall into the ocean.

[krystee]

I think they should only have to buy out the houses at purchase price. If you buy a house in the freaking ocean, you should bear some consequence. You don’t get to make top dollar on a useless building.

[pixy0stix]

May 15, 2023 9:59:56 GMT -5 krystee said:

I think they should only have to buy out the houses at purchase price. If you buy a house in the freaking ocean, you should bear some consequence. You don’t get to make top dollar on a useless building.

Some of these people *just* bought, so the price is still at a premium. Can we add a stupidity tax?

[pixy0stix]

NYT getting in on the theme with UK houses - www.nytimes.com/2023/05/15/realestate/coast-england-homes-eroding.html

I don't understand wasting billions on defenses when they can start moving/demolishing houses now. Why kick the can down the road?

[mrsukyankee]

May 16, 2023 7:40:57 GMT -5 pixy0stix said:

NYT getting in on the theme with UK houses - www.nytimes.com/2023/05/15/realestate/coast-england-homes-eroding.html

I don't understand wasting billions on defenses when they can start moving/demolishing houses now. Why kick the can down the road?

Because our country is just as full of idiots that are short-sighted as elsewhere. 

[ohgillian]

National Park Service using nonprofit conservation trust fund money to buy 2 of these homes. They don’t seem to say it outright in this article, but to me it suggests that the funding will be use to demolish the houses before they fall into the ocean and create ocean litter.

I don’t want ocean litter either, but somehow the use of conservation funds here feels a bit like a waste. I don’t know.

coastalreview.org/2023/10/park-service-uses-trust-fund-to-buy-2-rodanthe-houses/

[curbsideprophet]

Here is a WaPo article on these two homes. Overall it seems like a good idea to me.

www.washingtonpost.com/climate-environment/2023/10/16/obx-rodanthe-house-collapse-ocean-bought/


“As long as the houses teetered at the ocean’s edge, visitors couldn’t safely navigate the beach. Turtles and birds couldn’t use that stretch of shore as they normally would. The houses’ septic systems were at repeated risk of inundation. And if or when the homes fell, any collapse posed an environmental and public health threat that would stretch for miles as debris got swept away.”


It also mentioned how this could not be an example for other locations.

“Rob Young, a Western Carolina University professor and director of the Program for the Study of Developed Shorelines, believes communities should consider more creative and thoughtful ways to retreat from eroding and flood-prone shorelines. Retreat, he often says, can be managed or unmanaged, and in many coastal communities it has largely been the latter so far.
Young has advocated for more extensive buyouts and believes the Park Service purchase is “important because it is finally a successful buyout on an oceanfront property that I can point to,” he said. “We need models for how this can happen and where the money can come from.””

[wawa]

Oct 18, 2023 12:46:50 GMT -5 ohgillian said:

National Park Service using nonprofit conservation trust fund money to buy 2 of these homes. They don’t seem to say it outright in this article, but to me it suggests that the funding will be use to demolish the houses before they fall into the ocean and create ocean litter.

I don’t want ocean litter either, but somehow the use of conservation funds here feels a bit like a waste. I don’t know.

coastalreview.org/2023/10/park-service-uses-trust-fund-to-buy-2-rodanthe-houses/

it is a waste in that it never should have happened, but it's not fundementally any different from using consevation funds to mitigate soemthing like abandoned underground gas tanks or generally restore coastline.  Heading off problems down the road and restoring coastline to it's natural state seems like a pretty good fit for the pupose of these funds.

[InBetweenDays]

I initially was of the opinion that it made sense to use federal money to tear the houses down before they fall into the ocean, but I questioned actually purchasing the properties (which seemed to be bailing out the owners). But reading that they paid $700k for both properties (which seems pretty low) and that they plan to turn the properties into public beach access seems like a decent use of funds.

[wawa]

Oct 19, 2023 11:50:05 GMT -5 InBetweenDays said:

I initially was of the opinion that it made sense to use federal money to tear the houses down before they fall into the ocean, but I questioned actually purchasing the properties (which seemed to be bailing out the owners). But reading that they paid $700k for both properties (which seems pretty low) and that they plan to turn the properties into public beach access seems like a decent use of funds.

Maybe I'm misunderstanding your initial issue here, but the government can't just take your property. They have to pay for it. Even if they did a taking under eminent domain the owner still gets compensated.

[Bad Dingo]

Every time I see this thread title I think it's an allegory for America.

[InBetweenDays]

Oct 20, 2023 6:10:21 GMT -5 wawa said:

Oct 19, 2023 11:50:05 GMT -5 InBetweenDays said:

I initially was of the opinion that it made sense to use federal money to tear the houses down before they fall into the ocean, but I questioned actually purchasing the properties (which seemed to be bailing out the owners). But reading that they paid $700k for both properties (which seems pretty low) and that they plan to turn the properties into public beach access seems like a decent use of funds.

Maybe I'm misunderstanding your initial issue here, but the government can't just take your property. They have to pay for it. Even if they did a taking under eminent domain the owner still gets compensated.

No, i understand that. I was thinking the government wouldn't have to take possession of the property at all. They could condemn the property and force the owners to start demolishing/removing the home. At least that is what is being done on nantucket.

We walked by this house in August. They had condemned it in July and required the homeowners to remove the septic system, deck, etc. Then just yesterday they started full demolition of the house. But the town didn't have to take possession of the property. This has happened a number of times on the south shore there and i don't think the government (town, state, or federal) has ever purchased the property. 




nantucketcurrent.com/news/severe-erosion-prompts-demolition-of-condemned-nantucket-beach-house

[wawa]

Oct 20, 2023 9:15:38 GMT -5 InBetweenDays said:

Oct 20, 2023 6:10:21 GMT -5 wawa said:

Maybe I'm misunderstanding your initial issue here, but the government can't just take your property. They have to pay for it. Even if they did a taking under eminent domain the owner still gets compensated.

No, i understand that. I was thinking the government wouldn't have to take possession of the property at all. They could condemn the property and force the owners to start demolishing/removing the home. At least that is what is being done on nantucket.

We walked by this house in August. They had condemned it in July and required the homeowners to remove the septic system, deck, etc. Then just yesterday they started full demolition of the house. But the town didn't have to take possession of the property. This has happened a number of times on the south shore there and i don't think the government (town, state, or federal) has ever purchased the property. 

View Attachment

So...I'm not a lawyer.  But condemnation and takings in eminent domain are actually all part of the same legal process.  Like, they're all just referred to as condemnation cases by the land use attorneys I know (who are usually talking about eminent domain for infrastructure projects, or denial of use takings).  I have limited clue how that all works ...but I would have assumed that the owner of a condemned property who is required to remove the structure and is denied all future similar use is also due fair compensation.  Anybody here the right flavor of expert to clarify this?  I have no idea what the answer is, but I don't know why it'd be different and I'm curious.  If the ocean takes your house, you obviously aren't due any compensation from the gov't, but if you own property and the government tells you you may no longer use it, that's USUALLY in my limited experience all the same process and they do have to pay you "fair value" for it.  

now of course in the case you're talking about the fair value might be peanuts if the land is already uninhabitable.  Which might be the difference.

[InBetweenDays]

Oct 20, 2023 9:27:30 GMT -5 wawa said:

Oct 20, 2023 9:15:38 GMT -5 InBetweenDays said:

No, i understand that. I was thinking the government wouldn't have to take possession of the property at all. They could condemn the property and force the owners to start demolishing/removing the home. At least that is what is being done on nantucket.

We walked by this house in August. They had condemned it in July and required the homeowners to remove the septic system, deck, etc. Then just yesterday they started full demolition of the house. But the town didn't have to take possession of the property. This has happened a number of times on the south shore there and i don't think the government (town, state, or federal) has ever purchased the property. 

View Attachment

So...I'm not a lawyer.  But condemnation and takings in eminent domain are actually all part of the same legal process.  Like, they're all just referred to as condemnation cases by the land use attorneys I know (who are usually talking about eminent domain for infrastructure projects, or denial of use takings).  I have limited clue how that all works ...but I would have assumed that the owner of a condemned property who is required to remove the structure and is denied all future similar use is also due fair compensation.  Anybody here the right flavor of expert to clarify this?  I have no idea what the answer is, but I don't know why it'd be different and I'm curious.  If the ocean takes your house, you obviously aren't due any compensation from the gov't, but if you own property and the government tells you you may no longer use it, that's USUALLY in my limited experience all the same process and they do have to pay you "fair value" for it.  

now of course in the case you're talking about the fair value might be peanuts if the land is already uninhabitable.  Which might be the difference.

Got it. I did not know that.

[penguingrrl]

Oct 20, 2023 9:27:30 GMT -5 wawa said:

Oct 20, 2023 9:15:38 GMT -5 InBetweenDays said:

No, i understand that. I was thinking the government wouldn't have to take possession of the property at all. They could condemn the property and force the owners to start demolishing/removing the home. At least that is what is being done on nantucket.

We walked by this house in August. They had condemned it in July and required the homeowners to remove the septic system, deck, etc. Then just yesterday they started full demolition of the house. But the town didn't have to take possession of the property. This has happened a number of times on the south shore there and i don't think the government (town, state, or federal) has ever purchased the property. 

View Attachment

So...I'm not a lawyer.  But condemnation and takings in eminent domain are actually all part of the same legal process.  Like, they're all just referred to as condemnation cases by the land use attorneys I know (who are usually talking about eminent domain for infrastructure projects, or denial of use takings).  I have limited clue how that all works ...but I would have assumed that the owner of a condemned property who is required to remove the structure and is denied all future similar use is also due fair compensation.  Anybody here the right flavor of expert to clarify this?  I have no idea what the answer is, but I don't know why it'd be different and I'm curious.  If the ocean takes your house, you obviously aren't due any compensation from the gov't, but if you own property and the government tells you you may no longer use it, that's USUALLY in my limited experience all the same process and they do have to pay you "fair value" for it.  

now of course in the case you're talking about the fair value might be peanuts if the land is already uninhabitable.  Which might be the difference.

I’m currently in the middle of a real estate law course. When eminent domain is used the owner has to be compensated for full market value of the property as determined by the property’s tax bill. Otherwise it could risk leaving people destitute. I’m thinking about myself, my house is a huge piece of my net worth right now and if it was taken and I was still on the hook for my mortgage payment but had to find alternate housing it would be impossible to pay for both. Even if someone’s mortgage is paid off, it’s still property they invested a lot of money in.

If the ocean took it the owner would be entitled to an insurance payout, so also wouldn’t just be SOL, although I can’t even fathom what the insurance rates in these houses must be.

[wawa]

Oct 20, 2023 9:48:18 GMT -5 penguingrrl said:

Oct 20, 2023 9:27:30 GMT -5 wawa said:

So...I'm not a lawyer.  But condemnation and takings in eminent domain are actually all part of the same legal process.  Like, they're all just referred to as condemnation cases by the land use attorneys I know (who are usually talking about eminent domain for infrastructure projects, or denial of use takings).  I have limited clue how that all works ...but I would have assumed that the owner of a condemned property who is required to remove the structure and is denied all future similar use is also due fair compensation.  Anybody here the right flavor of expert to clarify this?  I have no idea what the answer is, but I don't know why it'd be different and I'm curious.  If the ocean takes your house, you obviously aren't due any compensation from the gov't, but if you own property and the government tells you you may no longer use it, that's USUALLY in my limited experience all the same process and they do have to pay you "fair value" for it.  

now of course in the case you're talking about the fair value might be peanuts if the land is already uninhabitable.  Which might be the difference.

I’m currently in the middle of a real estate law course. When eminent domain is used the owner has to be compensated for full market value of the property as determined by the property’s tax bill. Otherwise it could risk leaving people destitute. I’m thinking about myself, my house is a huge piece of my net worth right now and if it was taken and I was still on the hook for my mortgage payment but had to find alternate housing it would be impossible to pay for both. Even if someone’s mortgage is paid off, it’s still property they invested a lot of money in.

If the ocean took it the owner would be entitled to an insurance payout, so also wouldn’t just be SOL, although I can’t even fathom what the insurance rates in these houses must be.

So are condemnations for safety/code issues different?  If they require a house to be torn down, but I guess the owners keeps the land  - is there compensation for that?  Or because it's uninhabitable already is there no value for teh use/structure to compensate them for?

[penguingrrl]

Oct 20, 2023 9:56:25 GMT -5 wawa said:

Oct 20, 2023 9:48:18 GMT -5 penguingrrl said:

I’m currently in the middle of a real estate law course. When eminent domain is used the owner has to be compensated for full market value of the property as determined by the property’s tax bill. Otherwise it could risk leaving people destitute. I’m thinking about myself, my house is a huge piece of my net worth right now and if it was taken and I was still on the hook for my mortgage payment but had to find alternate housing it would be impossible to pay for both. Even if someone’s mortgage is paid off, it’s still property they invested a lot of money in.

If the ocean took it the owner would be entitled to an insurance payout, so also wouldn’t just be SOL, although I can’t even fathom what the insurance rates in these houses must be.

So are condemnations for safety/code issues different?  If they require a house to be torn down, but I guess the owners keeps the land  - is there compensation for that?  Or because it's uninhabitable already is there no value for teh use/structure to compensate them for?

I’m actually not sure on that, but I’ll see if I can get an answer. Typically the structure is supposed to be worth 1/3 of the value, the rest of the value of real estate is 1/3 for the land itself 1/3 and 1/3 the location (meaning what block its on, is it waterfront, busy road, etc), so the owner should be entitled to roughly 2/3 of the current value even if the structure itself is condemned. They might even do better than that if there are good faith actors recognizing the true value of that land and location.

Whether you are made whole likely depends on a lot of things, including who is serving in your government at the time (apparently if they know they’ll be using eminent domain some municipalities have been known to do things like fail to maintain the street, not fix dead street lamps, etc in an effort to drive the value of that location down prior to the payout) and whether that body is acting in good faith to keep homeowners whole.

[penguingrrl]

Oct 20, 2023 9:56:25 GMT -5 wawa said:

Oct 20, 2023 9:48:18 GMT -5 penguingrrl said:

I’m currently in the middle of a real estate law course. When eminent domain is used the owner has to be compensated for full market value of the property as determined by the property’s tax bill. Otherwise it could risk leaving people destitute. I’m thinking about myself, my house is a huge piece of my net worth right now and if it was taken and I was still on the hook for my mortgage payment but had to find alternate housing it would be impossible to pay for both. Even if someone’s mortgage is paid off, it’s still property they invested a lot of money in.

If the ocean took it the owner would be entitled to an insurance payout, so also wouldn’t just be SOL, although I can’t even fathom what the insurance rates in these houses must be.

So are condemnations for safety/code issues different?  If they require a house to be torn down, but I guess the owners keeps the land  - is there compensation for that?  Or because it's uninhabitable already is there no value for teh use/structure to compensate them for?

Whoops, kind of answered the wrong question. I’m pretty sure if your house itself is condemned and you’re keeping the land that’s mostly your issue. Insurance may pay out depending on why it was condemned (this was a huge thing after Sandy in my area since a whole neighborhood in my town had over 8’ of water in their houses) but they’ll give you the value of the structure prior to the event. So if when you took out your insurance the house was in good shape and it was destroyed by an event then you would be covered by insurance.

If you let your property slip into such disrepair by failing to maintain it over decades I believe that’s on you because as the owner you have a responsibility to ensure it’s in safe condition.