Could coastal mansions become eligible for disaster aid? | TribLIVE.com
U.S./World

Could coastal mansions become eligible for disaster aid?

Associated Press
1441819_web1_1441819-d16b646b14664d62bc08c51640087e22
AP
A multimillion-dollar home sits on a peninsula in Old Saybrook, Conn. The home is among more than 900 structures on the East Coast that would become newly eligible for federal disaster aid, under a proposed remapping of coastal protection zones by the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service.
1441819_web1_1441819-ddca0d7a29724137939e43ca6eb40403
AP
An osprey lands on a nest in the marsh in front of multimillion-dollar homes along a peninsula in Old Saybrook, Conn. The homes are among more than 900 structures on the East Coast that would become newly eligible for federal disaster aid, under a proposed remapping of coastal protection zones by the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service.
1441819_web1_1441819-7b3559afbea94429a4a37641e3208465
AP
Multimillion-dollar homes and a lighthouse sit on a peninsula in Old Saybrook, Conn. The homes are among more than 900 structures on the East Coast that would become newly eligible for federal disaster aid, under a proposed remapping of coastal protection zones by the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service.
1441819_web1_1441819-b0d6e41245524ea39ea30acc6091234f
AP
Multimillion-dollar homes and a lighthouse sit on a peninsula in Old Saybrook, Conn. The homes are among more than 900 structures on the East Coast that would become newly eligible for federal disaster aid, under a proposed remapping of coastal protection zones by the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service.

OLD SAYBROOK, Conn. — On an exclusive Connecticut peninsula, where signs warn outsiders to stay off private roads, eight multimillion-dollar homes with sprawling yards along the Long Island Sound are poised to become eligible for taxpayer-funded disaster aid.

That’s despite the fact that the Fenwick neighborhood of Old Saybrook is in a potentially perilous position, hovering where the Connecticut River meets the sound. A 1938 hurricane washed many Fenwick homes out to sea, including that of Katharine Hepburn’s family.

The eight homes, a short distance from the rebuilt Hepburn house where the actress died in 2003, currently lie in a coastal protection zone that bans homeowners from receiving federal funds to fix storm damage. The goal is to create a disincentive for new development in areas vulnerable to storms. Half the homes were built after the zone was created nearly four decades ago.

But a proposed massive overhaul of the protection system to correct mapping mistakes and other errors would lift the prohibition on aid for the Fenwick homes and more than 900 other structures along the East Coast from New Hampshire to Virginia. That would allow the owners to buy lower-cost flood insurance backed by the federal government and potentially benefit from millions of dollars in other federal aid to fix infrastructure including roads and bridges.

The proposed changes, expected to go before Congress for approval next year, are drawing criticism from watchdog groups that say making so many more properties eligible for federal aid would stress already strained disaster relief programs and is a step in the wrong direction at a time when scientists expect stronger and more frequent storms because of climate change.

“I’m concerned about federal subsidies going to people who, quite frankly, don’t need it,” said Steve Ellis, vice president of Taxpayers for Common Sense, a Washington, D.C.-based group that describes itself as a nonpartisan government spending watchdog. “The idea was you can develop in these areas but don’t expect any support from the federal government. You want to build, it’s on your dime.”

The National Flood Insurance Program is already more than $20 billion in debt and it could be drained of hundreds of millions of dollars more by the mapping changes. The federal government also could be on the hook for millions of dollars more in disaster aid payouts through the Federal Emergency Management Agency to fix storm damage to infrastructure.

The proposal, however, has garnered support from several environmental groups because it would also add 277,000 acres into the protection system.

Officials with the Fish & Wildlife Service said the properties on which the structures in question were built were mistakenly included in the national Coastal Barrier Resources System, which was created in 1982.

The mapping changes affect some of the country’s ritziest waterfront communities, and that has led some to question whether the wealthy are being given an unfair break. In New York’s Southampton, for instance, a boundary line has been shifted slightly to make a nearly $18 million beachfront home and another property eligible for aid.

It was a Fish & Wildlife Service review of the maps, not requests from property owners, that spurred the changes, agency spokesman Brian Hires said.

In the case of the Fenwick and Southampton properties, Hires said the proposal simply corrects past mistakes: Officials now argue that the original determination that there wasn’t enough development on the lands to keep them out of the system was wrong and thus the properties should never have been in the protection zone.

Several Fenwick homeowners did not return messages seeking comment, while others did not want to comment publicly.

The Southampton estate is owned by Clifford and Barbara Sobel and their family, according to town records. Clifford Sobel is a managing partner at Valor Capital and served as U.S. ambassador to the Netherlands from 2001 to 2005 and to Brazil from 2006 to 2009. He did not respond to messages seeking comment.

At the same time, the new maps would make properties containing nearly 300 structures — more than half of them in public parks — ineligible for federal aid by adding them to the protection system. That has raised concerns by local officials, including many in New Jersey, who worry federal dollars would no longer be available to rebuild or repair park buildings, beaches and other public structures after damaging storms.

U.S. Rep. Jefferson Van Drew, a Democrat who represents southern New Jersey and sits on a committee that is expected to review the proposal, believes there will be changes to address concerns about some public beaches and parks being made ineligible for disaster aid. He also said there are concerns about making so many properties newly eligible for aid.

The Coastal Barrier Resources System — which now includes 3.5 million acres along the Gulf of Mexico, the Atlantic Ocean, the Great Lakes as well as in Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands — saved the federal government $9.5 billion in disaster aid payouts from 1989 to 2013, according to a recent study by academic researchers. Not taking the current proposal into account, the system is projected to save another $11 billion to $108 billion by 2068, the study said.

Over the years, however, Congress has removed hundreds of properties from the protection zones. In December, President Trump signed a bill that removed about 500 structures, with officials again citing past mistakes.

Mistakes or not, some experts are surprised the government would want to make many properties newly eligible for disaster aid, given concerns about climate change.

“That doesn’t’ seem like the move we should be making right now, said Dylan McNamara, a physics and physical oceanography professor at the University of North Carolina at Wilmington. “We should be looking toward the future and admitting that the entirety of the coast is in a precarious position.”

Categories: News | World
TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.