By Invitation, I participated in the New York Times Op-Ed “Room for Debate” Discussion:

Three Years after Sandy - Are Coastal Communities Safer?

 Here is the version that the skillful editors of the NY Times

produced for their 10/28/2015 edition :

(https://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2015/10/28/three-years-after-sandy-are-coastal-communities-safer/safety-necessitates-a-retreat-from-the-waterfront)

Safety Necessitates a Retreat From the Waterfront.

Klaus H. Jacob is a special research scientist at Columbia University's Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory, and an adjunct professor at Columbia University's Earth Institute.

Beaches have been replenished, and boardwalks rebuilt. Some homes and structures have been restored, "wet-floodproofed," or raised on pilings by owners who could afford it. Subway ventilation shafts have been re-engineered to minimize tunnel inundation, and sandbags are now stockpiled by Port Authority, the MTA and at the Indian Point nuclear site, to prevent floodwaters from seeping into critical systems.

These are positive steps, but New York City's post-Sandy safety measures seem largely dependent on bags of sand. Disaster resilience has not truly increased in our communities. Folks in hard-hit areas like the Rockaways feel neglected and ignored despite beach replenishment, and evacuation procedures seem as opaque as ever.

Yet nobody appears inclined to get up and leave, and that is the underlying problem cities must reckon with in preparing for the future. We need to develop fair and equitable procedures for federal, state and local governments to relocate the most flood-threatened communities and businesses to higher elevations.

New York did buy out several hundred water-front homes in Staten Island so that the owners would have the means to move to safer places. But because many residents did not want to leave the neighborhood — and the state did not want to leave the neighborhood pocked with empty lots — it auctioned off some of the land with the caveat that both new and old homes must be able to withstand rising tides.

Migration of entire neighborhoods requires education and drawn-out consensus-building negotiations. It requires long-term stable financing, community building and improved schools, transportation, health and other lifeline facilities in the recipient neighborhoods that experience an increase in population density.

We are far from rezoning policies that will sustain the test of continued sea level rise. If development rights were sold to build more mid- to high-rise buildings in communities on higher ground, proceeds could contribute to the buyout of homes in communities at risk. Instead we are still adding unsustainable real estate near the waterfront — in the Rockaways, Red Hook and along the East River and the Hudson — at elevations that could be underwater before the close of this century. Street access and electric, gas, water, sewer and communication lines there are hardly designed to become submersible.

We need a long-term vision of a truly sustainable New York City that will thrive with sea level rise of yet uncertain upper bounds. If we fail to provide for the short, medium and long-term, we are guilty of unduly burdening our grandchildren’s children, and will miss out on providing much-needed new opportunities for communities that are already at risk and, disproportionately, struggle economically.

------------------And here is my originally submitted version:-------------

 Sandy caused ‘official’ losses in New York City of about $20 Billion. To guess losses of a recurring Sandy today, I allow a 10% reduction. Call that improvement. But is it good and safe?

 Yes: sand at beaches is replenished; boardwalks are rebuilt; some homes restored or raised by owners who can afford this; some structures are “wet-floodproofed” to recover faster; subway ventilation shafts re-engineered to minimize tunnel inundation; sandbags and sand piles readied to protect manholes at the Indian Point nuclear site from letting floodwaters seep into critical systems; more sand, bags and other gadgets are at hand to keep Port Authority and MTA tunnels from flooding quickly.

The City’s restored (perhaps increased) safety seems largely built on sand, notwithstanding other measures. A noteworthy solution: several hundred homes in Staten Island were bought out, and their owners moved to safer places.

But is disaster resilience increased in our communities? I doubt it based on my last visit to the Rockaways. Folks feel neglected, ignored, despite beach replenishment. Evacuation procedures seem as obscure as ever. And yet nobody appears inclined to leave.

What I see as underlying problem is this: we need yet to come up with a fair and equitable procedure for federal, state, and local governments to work with the most threatened communities and businesses at risk from storm surge (amplified by sea level rise accelerating up to 6 feet by century’s end) to develop consensus plans that allow relocation to safer places at higher elevations. This requires population density to increase in some recipient neighborhoods that need to be deeply engaged. If development rights are sold to build more mid- to high-rise buildings in recipient communities, proceeds could contribute to buyout of homes in communities at risk.

Migration of entire neighborhoods requires long education and consensus-building ramp-up times, long-term stable financing, community building, and improved school, transportation, health and other lifeline facilities in the recipient neighborhoods.

We are far from developing such rezoning that will sustain the test of continued sea level rise. Instead we are still adding unsustainable real estate near the waterfront, whether in the Rockaways, Red Hook, along the East River, or the Hudson (including my own alma mater in West-Harlem’s Manhattanville), at elevations that before the close of this century are threatened; and with street access, electric, gas, water, sewer and communication life lines hardly designed to become submersible.

We need to insert a long-term vision and awareness into our short (years) and midterm (decades) adaptation measures so we can gradually work towards a truly sustainable New York City that will thrive with sea level rise of yet uncertain upper bounds. If we fail to envision that, we are guilty of unduly burdening our grandchildren’s children. And we miss out providing much needed new opportunities now, for communities that already are at risk and struggle economically. This applies globally.

================

Lesson Learned from this Juxtaposition:

What you loose in directed bluntness you gain in modesty and readability via courtesy and skillful art of the "Grey Lady's" editors and fact checkers. I like some of the web links they added, but would have chosen others in some cases. Of course, a few items fell by the editor's wayside: e.g. my oblique reference to Columbia's Manhattanville project as unsustainable. To provide a bit of history, here is a link to a piece from 2008 (!):

https://www.villagevoice.com/news/columbia-ignores-peril-6389508

 True, Sandy did NOT flood the construction site which was on its most vulnerable west side walled by Sandbags. The campus may not always be so lucky a few decades from now, given sea level rise forecasts 

https://www.nyc.gov/html/planyc2030/downloads/pdf/npcc_climate_risk_information_2013_report.pdf

The picture I added to this site shows a bird's eye view of the planned campus with the flooding superimposed (at current sea level!!) for worst-case track hurricanes of Category 1 (red), 2 (brown), 3 (yellow), and 4 (green), on the Saphir-Simpson scale, based on NOAA SLOSH computations as used by NYS and NYC emergency offices for evacuation planning.

Food for thought!