As the world burns, you just paid for someone beech to be saved!

[Zan15]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...tons-sand.html

How Florida's coast is being saved with huge dumps of sand: Before and after pics show $11.5million project to move 300,000 tons to save coastal resorts
The huge restoration project was carried out at Mid-Beach in Miami between 46th Street and 54th Street


It took about three months for the shoreline to be fully restored as part of the works that cost $11.5million


Half of the cost was covered by federal funding, and the remainder was split by the state and local county


3,000-foot long strip of beach was widened by 230 feet as a result of 285,412 tons of sand being dumped




But don't worry they are not done yet, on to save the next beech!!!

And the rejuvenation effort was deemed so successful, it is now due to be used to shore up Sunny Isles Beach - about 10 miles up the coast.



Shame just a few coastal storms will negate all this work, should have just put 11 million dollar bills on the shore and let it float away.

[Endus]

Beach "restoration" like this is pointless. If currents are scouring the sand away, they're gonna scour away what you replenish.

It's like trying to fix the hole in your bucket by pouring more water in.

[Independent voter]

Wikipedia says you can't use Dailymail as a source anymore.

What could be going on is the federal government made a mistake a long time ago and issued insurance for people who live in places prone to flooding. There are thousands of well off people who had their beach homes ruined by some storm only to cash in their insurance and rebuild.

[Tradewind]

Florida generates a hefty chunk of its revenues from tourism. To the tune of 80+ Billion annually. Throwing $11.5 Million at its sustainability makes sense.

[Kalis]

Surprised the Daily Mail did not say that beaches cause cancer, or sand is made by illegal immigrants. They must be slipping.

[Puupi]

This is like the duplicate thread of the starving Sudanese, but just using euphemisms instead.

Beach "restoration" like this is pointless. If currents are scouring the sand away, they're gonna scour away what you replenish.

It's like trying to fix the hole in your bucket by pouring more water in.

True, and this is also how you don't fix the starvation in Sudan.

[Endus]

This is like the duplicate thread of the starving Sudanese, but just using euphemisms instead.

True, and this is also how you don't fix the starvation in Sudan.

With the difference that in the one case, you're "saving" a beach, and in the other, human lives. I don't think sending food to Sudan will "fix" any problems, but it might help Sudanese people to not die, and that has value.

[PC2]

Regarding the title, the world is not burning.

Federal contributions to state funding ought to avoid highly localized features. If locality really matters the federal government would just directly invest, like putting a NASA launch site at Cape Canaveral.

Investing in the beach is not inherently unstable, annual sea level increase has been around 4mm for decades now. Just put that and erosion data into an amortization rate to figure out a project ROI.

[Zan15]

Florida generates a hefty chunk of its revenues from tourism. To the tune of 80+ Billion annually. Throwing $11.5 Million at its sustainability makes sense.

how much does that little strip generate?

3,000-foot long strip of beach

Florida has 663 Miles of beaches



In summary, the state invested $44 million in the Beach and Management Restoration Program during
the review period resulting in an average increase in GDP of $2.4 billion per year. This, in turn, increased
the overall collection of state revenues by $237.9 million over the three year period.


So 2.4 billion GDP. 3.6m per mile per year
they spent 11.5 million at 3/4 of a mile.

will take 4 years to generate the GDP.

now here is the kicker it only increased state tax 237.9m / 3 years = 79m per year in taxes. at 663 miles thats 119k per mile

so this 3000 ft strip that cost 11.5m is generating 100k in additional tax revenue, so this investment pays the state back in 6 years assuming they contributed half the money and will take twice to three times as long to generate the return to federal tax payers.


11.5m / 3000 ft = $3833 per ft

so 663 miles of beaches = 3500640 feet x 3833 = 13 billion+


not really looking worth it.

if the state wants to fund it and their taxpayers feel its good fine, but why are we using federal money?

[Tradewind]

You're not accounting for a lot of other factors. Property values (and in turn property taxes). Or alternatively think about the opposite, if no work was done, what would be the costs then in lost tourism dollars, property damage from further erosion and so on. You seem to be only focusing on the increases, rather than the impact it would have on current revenue generation.

Wrapping this up into a "omg muh federal tax dollars" argument is somewhat asinine. Even if it costs $13 Billion over what, the next 10-15 years to remediate all 663 miles of beach in Florida? I'm sure one can put their finger on a dozen other more wasteful expenditures in much shorter time frames.

[Rudkobing]

I would have done it for two fifty.