Cheap home ownership in the flood zone

Why ban construction in an area at risk of flooding? Why not simply "Only floatable houses may be used"?

  Cheap home ownership in the flood zone

Flooding can now occur in areas where it would previously have been considered impossible and out of the question. The reaction of politicians to this is to declare the area a flood zone, a red zone, a building ban. If a real estate speculator were to bet on higher prices, he could not find a more perfect ally than this policy.

It is well known that supply and demand determine the price. If there is a shortage of supply, the price goes up. This is why housing is gradually becoming unaffordably expensive and wages have to be so high that the economy becomes uncompetitive. Looking at California and all the working people who live in tents or cars, one can only say “Austria has not to become California”.

As a typical example: in a place known for flooding, building land costs €500/m². For 500 m², that is currently €1,257 per month over 30 years. In the flood zone, a building ban secured by a bulwark of laws.

If you were to build a €150,000 house on a 500 m² plot, the loan installment would be €2,007. Because the loan installment may not exceed 40% of the household income, €5,018 household income.

How would the residents of these places rejoice if building plots were available in the flood zone for €50/m²? 30,000 extra for the Venezia option. That would mean a loan installment of €1,032 and a household income of €2,580.

  Against the technophobes

Why ban construction in an area at risk of flooding? Why not simply “Only floating houses may be used”? Why is land use constantly argued in terms of acreage for food? Couldn't modern technology such as vertical gardening aeroponics make do with a fraction of the land for food?

Shouldn't we suspect a misanthropic attitude behind this anti-technology attitude? According to the motto, humans must be contained and crammed together?

  Opinion poll on the climate

The IPCC repeatedly emphasizes “net zero emissions and everything will be fine again”. This is despite the fact that the Amazon has already switched from absorbing CO2 to emitting it in 2021 and studies on thawing permafrost soils have very wide-ranging forecasts. Alternatively, PEGE proposes energy-optimized settlement areas with ClimateProtectionHomes, which enable affordable living in owner-occupied homes and a cost-optimized energy transition. This should reduce CO2 emissions by 2 ppm per year by 2054.

This is what the question should have been originally, but unfortunately only 200 characters are possible in the question, not 500. That's why I had to shorten it:

The climate issue: IPCC “Net zero emissions and everything will be fine again” or PEGE energy-optimized residential areas with ClimateProtectionHomes will reduce CO2 emissions by 2 ppm per year by 2054.

Here to the survey.

Please take part and spread the word about the survey. The result will be published in the newsletter on April 28.

  GEMINI next Generation AG will prove the contrary

It's not about whether the shares will be worth 10 times or 100 times more in 20 years' time or whether they will only be worth a few cents. It's about the future of us all. Will there be a big showdown between eco-fascism and yesterday's fossils, or will it be possible to overcome the deep divisions in society and inspire supporters of both sides to work towards a great new goal?

Global prosperity and planetary restoration instead of saving, restricting, renouncing and climate catastrophe or peak oil and a little more climate catastrophe. Both sides must be convinced that there is no solution that is even remotely viable.

On the one hand, it must be shown that net-zero emissions are a completely inadequate target and that the goal must instead be a planetary clean-up back to 350 ppm CO2. The other side must be shown that solar power enables a higher standard of living than fossil energy.

It's about survival! The social situation in 2024 compared to 2004. Extrapolating that to 2044 makes for a horror world! If we are successful and your shares are worth 100 times more, this is just an addition to all the other achievements.

One new shareholder said "I with my very modest investment”, but €4,000 times €1,000 is also €4 million for all investments up to the opening of the settlement in Unken as a starting point for global expansion.

There is a reward program for recommending the share to others. Two of the new shareholders have become shareholders through this reward program.

Here are the details.
          Cheap home ownership in the flood zone: Why ban construction in an area at risk of flooding? Why not simply "Only floatable houses may be used"?