French side measures to help business

Daily herald story Really curious what that means, about having things on Orient able to be dismantled? Say what??

I don't get that dismantling statement either. I would much rather the structures be concrete block or poured concrete and strapping the roof to the walls much like the state of Florida has required post hurricane Andrew. If they are to be dismantled, would that mean they have to be, for lack of better terms, tent like? Or do they mean the type of construction that is elevated with "breakaway" lower level? Might be just a translation issue.

Makes no sense. How can a restaurant be built to be dismantled? Or restrooms??????

Here is report of press conference in french - which appears more detailed - maybe was a handout at conference - ? http://smn-news.com/french-news.html

I would read it to say that Gibbs is making a clear distinction between rebuilding on private land and rebuilding on the beaches - which are public land. Maybe what he means is that what is built on beaches should be considered as temporary, pending decisions of the Collectivitie about the ultimate plan for the beaches. Businesses can rebuild on beaches but should not consider what they build permanent - it should be light and easily taken down. ?

As the old children's song says, "the foolish man built his house upon the sand ... and the floods came up and the foolish man's house went splat". Many of the concrete slabs that were built on Orient were damaged or destroyed because they were built on the beach and were no match for the shifting sands and storm surge.

Norbert Luftman has been called many things, but I do not think "foolish" is one of them. With the possible exception of the new places between Pedros and Kon Tiki, the Orient Beach establishments have made people a lot of money.

Agreed.

Perhaps they mean " temporary" as like Karakter on the Dutch side. They were not permitted to build a permanent structure there because of beach regulations so they used the bus on wheels and built around it. They were able to reconstruct their place quickly after the hurricane and back in business again.

Wow, I did not call anybody foolish. That was a quote from a song and I guess I should have put it in quotes. I also made no reference to how much money the Orient restaurants made.

My only point, which I guess flew over your head, is that I think the French government's idea of having non-permanent structures on the beach that can be disassembled if necessary is good. Building on the sand with concrete slabs, concrete blocks, and steel is still no match for a strong storm. By the way, someone else mentioned building like they do in Florida to withstand hurricanes. Well, in Florida they don't build permanent buildings on the beach sand because it's not wise and not environmentally friendly.

It is interesting . A few years ago we took a group of people to Orient bay . We rented a villa . While we were walking down Orient beach . I told my friend about the plans to dismantle the beach bars , and spend a lot of money and put nicer buildings in . He looked at me and said . That was a stupid idea . It is a lot cheaper to rebuild with 2x4 and 2x6 than to put something expensive in . It will never with stand a hurricane . Jeff_C

Why are so many people struggling with what is being proposed? The fact that you have warm memories of these places doesn't mean that they make any sense, from an ecological or engineering standpoint. Neither does the fact that someone made a lot of money before the storm blew the places away like they were sand castles. If what has happened at Orient doesn't lead people to understand the ultimate folly of building things within 50 metres or so of the waterline, nothing will.

I do not know "what is being proposed." I am not sure President Gibbs at this time knows what will happen on Orient Beach. There seems to be a distinction between the immediate time between now and October 1, 2018 and then the planning for after October 1, 2018.

I do struggle with the idea that it was folly to build the Five Stars and other beach structures that lasted for more than 20 years as very successful businesses. I think building them - like building Dreams on Nettle - was a calculated and reasonable taking of risk by entrepreneurs.

If you simply want to take the position that nothing should be built that close to the high water mark again, fine - say so. But, to say that the plan needs to be to build that close to the high water mark again in a way that would withstand the hit that Orient Beach took from Irma - I just do not think that ever will happen.

And, let me add that I do not want that to happen. I do not want concrete bunkers built on Orient Beach. I much prefer nothing or what was there before Irma and before the carbets.

It appears as though the French government, which ultimately owns the beachfront IINM, is considering requiring any improvements to be very low impact, and capable of disassembled easily. I used the term "folly" to refer to any notion that what was built would withstand a major storm. Sure, people made money while it lasted, more than they would have made had they faced the responsibility to clean up the debris left behind, which I seriously doubt will be the case. Will any of the entrepreneurs line up to write a check for those costs? Who will get stuck for those costs?

What happened with the "small bars" between Club Orient and Kon Tiki is instructive. Someone had the "brilliant" idea to "upgrade" those places. All that was left behind, based on the photos I saw, were the roofs, sitting on top of the footprints of the buildings.

My guess is that the French government wants any future improvements to be designed based on reality, and not some fantasy that there will not be another major storm, so that when the inevitable happens, the residual financial impact involved in cleaning up the mess is minimized. Makes sense to me.