When Sandy Hits Home(s)

Today we examine Hurricane Sandy's effect on the tri-state areas's low-lying coastal regions, the potential dangers posed to the Jersey Shore's homes and commercial structures by some of the state's coastal zoning laws, and what the current rebuilding effort can learn from past oversight. 

Hurricane Sandy, which destroyed or severely damaged nearly 350,000 homes in New Jersey alone,  and the rebuilding efforts in the storm's aftermath are illuminating many shortcomings of coastal zoning laws that, if left unchanged, could leave the densely-packed Northeast coastline vulnerable to future housing and infrastructure catastrophes. Amidst a backdrop of growing climate change concerns and urban planners' pleas for a focus on resiliency, it seems evident that rebuilding plans that snub meaningful changes to how areas affected by the storm regroup in favor of previous zoning schemes are doomed to repeat history. New Jersey is known for its stringent residential building codes but the state is also home to fairly permissive coastal zoning laws that would allow many of the damaged structures lying in coastal flooding zones- including areas between beaches and seawalls- to rebuild to their exact pre-Sandy locations. Rebuilding plans will almost certainly include the use more storm-resistent materials and heightened building requirement to ensure more durable seaside structures (similar to the 1989 response to Hurricane Hugo on Isle of Palms, S.C.), many New Jerseyans- among other concerned parties- are urging the New Jersey Coastal Commission and various state and local authorities to take a more proactive stance. In particular, Andrew Willner, past NY/NJ Baykeeper former scholar at Monmouth University's Urban Coast Institute has called on Governor Christie and the  Commission to "make the hard choices...to retreat from the coast when necessary."

Image Credit: Reuters 

Efforts to prevent rebuilding and future development along the most ecologically and physically vulnerable stretches of the Jersey Shore face the up-dune battle of resistance from developers with their eyes on the oceanfront prize and property owners who ask the eternal question "Why can't I live where I want, how I want?." The idea of the government precluding landowners from developing (or redeveloping) their private property for the public interest may sound undesirable to some, but there is precedent that states, that while outside the state's normal police powers, such action is permissible if just compensation is provided. within a state's police powers, with the caveat of compensation, of course. In 1988, South Carolina passed the Beach Management Act, which tightened regulation of the development and use of coastal land in that state. The restrictions effectively barred a property owner from building on two coastal residential lots near Charleston that were susceptible to beach erosion. SCOTUS eventually held that the state's prohibition on building on these lots amounted to a "total taking", because the regulation deprived the property of any economic value and that the government had to provide compensation to the petitioner. See Lucas v. S.C. Coastal Council, 505 U.S. 1003 (1992). Setting aside the cases's shady subsequent history, in which the state compensated the petitioner for the lots and then sold them to another developer to build homes, the Lucas total takings analysis may point to (an albeit controversial) alternative to plans to erect buildings on the same physically unsound lots and wait for the next big storm to wreak coastal havoc. If the state could compensate property owners for the taking of their seaside land, refrain from reselling it to the highest bidder, and construct more seawalls and other protections to prevent further erosion; the destruction of 350,000 more properties could possibly be avoided. However, the understandable nostalgia of the Jersey Shore of yesteryear, homeowners' strong emotional ties to their lots and damaged homes, and the dollar signs in the eyes of developers in search of prime real estate make this option very unlikely. Hopefully, a third way that approaches land use in a sensitive way and avoids the pitfalls of irresponsible rebuilding that leaves the shore open to destruction and further housing crises from a future storm is tenable and can be reached in quick time. Unlike other past storms that have sparked land use arguments, Sandy's housing woes do not allow us to look back with clear hindsight- the recovery efforts are still underway and we have yet to enter the eye of the debate and legal challenges surrounding coastal zoning policy changes.