Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Fairfax county built, at some expense, a dyke to reduce flooding in Huntington. It would have been cheaper to purchase the property in the long run because there is no continuing maintenance. However, the housing in question was low income and there is no where for these people to go. So it's a problem the county doesn't want to address correctly.

Flood plains also change and what was once developable land may not be anymore. Or developers grease the wheels to build in the only remaining and cheap land--flood plains. They just need to get the property rezoned.

Arlington Terrace is the street and it has duplexes [2 bed, 1 bath] built in 1947 after WW2. Part of the post war building boom. These are privately owned NOT low income housing and have sold for about 250 to 440k in Oct 2019. Look it up on redfin. https://ggwash.org/view/72906/alexandria-virginia-huntington-levee-passes-first-flash-flood-test

Would fixed income make you happier? This is an older neighborhood where most are not recent purchases.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If the flooding experienced by these properties was exacerbated by new development that was approved after they were constructed, then I can't see how the locality can not be compelled to purchase them.

Why should it be on the locality and not the developer?

The locality approved the developer's project without taking into account stormwater management.

How is that possible though? They have laws/regulations about this. Did the project not comply?

You hire a firm to do an environmental study. Since the firm is for profit they are going to find whatever you ask them to find. Unfortunately, purely objective analysis is difficult with something this complicated as well. However there's also idiots as well. There is a developer that wants to build in a flood plain down here in Fairfax county. It's currently zoned industrial, he wants to rezone as residential and dump six or so feet of soil to get up out the flood plain and build townhouses.

Sure, this sounds like a good idea. Is this sustainable? Constant erosion seems like a problem. And 6' is good enough for now. What about 20 years from now?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If the flooding experienced by these properties was exacerbated by new development that was approved after they were constructed, then I can't see how the locality can not be compelled to purchase them.

Why should it be on the locality and not the developer?

The locality approved the developer's project without taking into account stormwater management.

How is that possible though? They have laws/regulations about this. Did the project not comply?

Hence the conclusion that builders/developers bribe officials to gain access to un-buildable land.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If the flooding experienced by these properties was exacerbated by new development that was approved after they were constructed, then I can't see how the locality can not be compelled to purchase them.

Why should it be on the locality and not the developer?

The locality approved the developer's project without taking into account stormwater management.

How is that possible though? They have laws/regulations about this. Did the project not comply?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If the flooding experienced by these properties was exacerbated by new development that was approved after they were constructed, then I can't see how the locality can not be compelled to purchase them.

Why should it be on the locality and not the developer?

The locality approved the developer's project without taking into account stormwater management.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If the flooding experienced by these properties was exacerbated by new development that was approved after they were constructed, then I can't see how the locality can not be compelled to purchase them.

Why should it be on the locality and not the developer?

It should be on both. The municipalities are approving the building sites - when they're clearly unsuitable for construction.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Fairfax county built, at some expense, a dyke to reduce flooding in Huntington. It would have been cheaper to purchase the property in the long run because there is no continuing maintenance. However, the housing in question was low income and there is no where for these people to go. So it's a problem the county doesn't want to address correctly.

Flood plains also change and what was once developable land may not be anymore. Or developers grease the wheels to build in the only remaining and cheap land--flood plains. They just need to get the property rezoned.

Flood plains change because increased development upstream in the watershed increases the amount of water run-off. And when zoning planners don't take such things into account and mitigate it, then the jurisdiction those planners work for needs to be held responsible for the damage their flawed plans created.

This isn't rocket science... well actually it's hydrology, so it's water science - which is a lot easier to understand than rocket science.

It's environmental science actually. Rocket science preceded it by a few decades.

Anonymous wrote:If the flooding experienced by these properties was exacerbated by new development that was approved after they were constructed, then I can't see how the locality can not be compelled to purchase them.

Why should it be on the locality and not the developer?

Anonymous wrote:Fairfax county built, at some expense, a dyke to reduce flooding in Huntington. It would have been cheaper to purchase the property in the long run because there is no continuing maintenance. However, the housing in question was low income and there is no where for these people to go. So it's a problem the county doesn't want to address correctly.

Flood plains also change and what was once developable land may not be anymore. Or developers grease the wheels to build in the only remaining and cheap land--flood plains. They just need to get the property rezoned.

Flood plains change because increased development upstream in the watershed increases the amount of water run-off. And when zoning planners don't take such things into account and mitigate it, then the jurisdiction those planners work for needs to be held responsible for the damage their flawed plans created.

This isn't rocket science... well actually it's hydrology, so it's water science - which is a lot easier to understand than rocket science.

Anonymous wrote:Fairfax county built, at some expense, a dyke to reduce flooding in Huntington. It would have been cheaper to purchase the property in the long run because there is no continuing maintenance. However, the housing in question was low income and there is no where for these people to go. So it's a problem the county doesn't want to address correctly.

Flood plains also change and what was once developable land may not be anymore. Or developers grease the wheels to build in the only remaining and cheap land--flood plains. They just need to get the property rezoned.

Arlington Terrace is the street and it has duplexes [2 bed, 1 bath] built in 1947 after WW2. Part of the post war building boom. These are privately owned NOT low income housing and have sold for about 250 to 440k in Oct 2019. Look it up on redfin. https://ggwash.org/view/72906/alexandria-virginia-huntington-levee-passes-first-flash-flood-test

Fairfax county built, at some expense, a dyke to reduce flooding in Huntington. It would have been cheaper to purchase the property in the long run because there is no continuing maintenance. However, the housing in question was low income and there is no where for these people to go. So it's a problem the county doesn't want to address correctly.

Flood plains also change and what was once developable land may not be anymore. Or developers grease the wheels to build in the only remaining and cheap land--flood plains. They just need to get the property rezoned.

If the flooding experienced by these properties was exacerbated by new development that was approved after they were constructed, then I can't see how the locality can not be compelled to purchase them.

If those houses didn't face flooding until other construction happened, which then altered the water run-off patterns to the point where the older houses were now in a flood area, then that's on the county for not taking into account new stormwater management practices to mitigate run off from new development.

But municipalities are best at cashing checks for new permits, and lousy at following through to make sure new growth works, so I can see the failure. But they're liable, absolutely. .

Of course not.

It would be helpful to have some information about how building these homes and that location was approved. Communities that participate in the national flood insurance program have pretty strict guidelines that should have prevented this problem and the homeowners‘ lenders would have required a flood zone determination and required flood insurance if this was a known flood area. I’m guessing the flood maps were out of date and the flood zones changed based on all the developments in the county. It is also likely that developers have enough sway that they got this subdivision approved in a location that was a bad idea.

https://wtop.com/loudoun-county/2019/12/loudoun-co-seeks-to-buy-14-homes-in-flood-prone-selma-estates-development/

These houses were built since 2013 in Loudoun County. Do you think the federal and local governments should buy or spend millions mitigating the problem? Why were these homes allowed to be built? Fairfax County built a levee for an older dev that floods and people still bought there between floods.

This is NOVA not New Orleans.