It’s not like SF is having issues with crime, businesses and citizens leaving, stolen and broken into cars, homelessness, open drug use, and poop and pee in the streets, right?
San Francisco considers lifting the Ferry Building by 7 feet to save it from the sea
San Francisco’s waterfront is on the National Register of Historic Places for good reason. Its picturesque old landmarks, like the Ferry Building and the Bay Bridge, have been featured in many vintage books, TV shows and movies — from the stories and novels of Jack London to the 1970s TV series The Streets of San Francisco.
The future of San Francisco’s waterfront, however, isn’t secure.
In 2016, the National Trust for Historic Preservation put part of the city’s urban shoreline on its list of the U.S.’s most endangered historic places, in part because of the threat of sea level rise. Now, San Francisco is considering drastic measures to save its historic shoreline.
But the growing magnitude and frequency of the climate-related threats, the high costs and effort involved in saving heritage sites, and competing ideas about what’s worth saving and what isn’t, can make it hard for cities to know where their priorities lie.
“The whole issue of climate change and historic preservation intersects right at the waterfront,” said Elaine Forbes, executive director of the Port of San Francisco. The agency manages a 7.5-mile stretch of the city’s Bay-facing waterfront.
So, doom.
Parts of the main road that runs along the waterfront have flooded from heavy rains in recent years. The state estimates the water could rise roughly up to two and a half feet above its current level by 2060, and potentially up to seven feet by the turn of the century.
“Could.” But, what does the data actually say?
.64 feet per 100 years. About 7-8 inches. So, not 2 1/2 feet in 37 years. And 7-8 inches is exactly average for the Holocene period. It should be much, much more during a warm period.
Preserving historic buildings is just a small piece of San Francisco’s overall Waterfront Resilience Program. Other priorities include beefing up emergency response systems and protecting natural habitats.
There should be zero concern, because everything will be fine. But, this is a great way to raise some taxes and spread out some graft to donors.
So there is plenty of time for the tenants of those buildings to pay higher rents to save up for the building mods.
I read somewhere just about a week ago that it would cost$400 billion to raise the levels of the buildings and bridges and all that need to be saved the 2 1/2 feet needed to save them.
I think this is a job for the favorite people of H and dowd, in other words a wealth tax on anybody making over $500,000 in California to pay for the project. I would suggest an income tax of 25% of gross on the leftist that love that stuff. There’s no reason why leftists shouldn’t be taxed to support the crap they believe in. And since H is always bragging about how rich blue states are tax them. Tax them till it hurts. Tax them till they wanna move out of the state. Then tax them for moving.
I believe the property owners should bear the full cost of the mods. If they start saving now, they should have plenty to do it themselves. Of course, if they think that saving those properties is not worth the cost, we should respect their choice of how to manage their own property. No reason for taxpayers at any level to be on the hook for it.
Hmmmm….”The state ESTIMATES the water could rise roughly up to two and a half feet above its current level by 2060, and potentially up to seven feet by the turn of the centurY.”
I estimate that their estimate is wrong.
Or they could just move to Juneau.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qtlrHI_QT6A
[…] Pirates Cove mock San FranFreako! Because how can you NOT mock that place […]