Do they deserve it?

[Web Rider]

The Population of Florida alone grows on average, by 500,000(http://www.stateofflorida.com/Portal/DesktopDefault.aspx?tabid=95) every year, this is true for many Gulf Coast states, as it stands, people STILL move to Galveston island and hurricanes STILL level it. And earthquake of similar destructive force hits a place like California or Japan once every 50 years at most. Generally only one per century is ever seen to demolish cities on par with your average hurricane.

 

Unlike earthquakes, hurricanes strike annually, and with global weather changes, they have been more frequent and more powerful. Yet people continue to live in hurricane prone areas, and more people move there every year. And every year, billions of dollars are accumulated in damages due to these hurricanes.

 

Billions of dollars, that you are generally paying for through your taxes. Primitive animals learned long ago, when a storm is coming, you leave. And after a while, primitive humans learned not to live in storm prone areas. Even advanced civilizations learned that living near an active volcano, even if it goes off only once every thousand years, is a bad idea.

 

Yet we have tens of millions of people living, on purpose, will full knowledge, in an area assured to sustain serious damage on an annual basis. Many of them even refuse to leave their homes when the storms are coming, resulting in death and injury that your tax dollars will end up covering, either in the form of FEMA or government loans to insurance companies to keep them from collapsing, especially now under economically stressed times.

 

So for your consideration, the libertarian ideal of: Do they deserve it? They know what happens down there, even if it only happens once every 10 years. The average person cannot afford to rebuild their home every decade. They knew what they were getting into, and on the chance they were born there, they know full well what goes on there if they have grown up to an age where they can move out/get a job somewhere else. Yet, in economically hard times, this may not be possible, but by the same coin, in economically hard times, we cannot simply have the government dropping a few hundred billion to fix the homes and lives of people who knew full well this could happen to them.

 

Should people who live in these areas be redlined by their insurance agencies to allow them to recoup costs, regardless of if the insuree's home was ever damaged by a hurricane at all? Should the government provide financial support and reconstructive support to people who knew they were moving into an area uniquely affected by this kind of weather? Should we as a nation provide incentives to move people away from these places?

 

On a personal note, you have to wonder how stupid some of these people are when they're more scared of an earthquake that happens once in a hundred years to the annual onslaught of hurricanes.

[True_Avery]

Having lived in Florida for almost 10 years of my life, then California to the present, I must thank you for saying what comes to mind every time I hear about the next Hurricane hitting the Gulf.

 

I think there is a line, although fine, between deserving something and asking for it. In this case I believe it is less of they deserve it, as much as they are simply asking for it to happen to them by choosing to live in such a disaster prone area. This, however, does not apply to those that do not have the money to simply pick up their things and move.

 

So do we force them out? This is the United States, so for better or worse I don't think the government has the power to do that. Using money to goad people out of the area or pay for the costs of moving will be an economic venture comparable, if not far more than the 700 billion dollar bail out we just made to save our current broken system.

 

Will the cost outweigh the benefits? Probably not. Doesn't mean that its impossible. Hell, we just outweighed the benefits heavily with offshore drilling, so its not impossible to convince people otherwise. But actually getting it to happen...

 

Personally, I'd like to see it happen. That is, however, speaking from the other side of the country and having a questionable knowledge of how those beach cities contribute to the American economy on a yearly basis compared to how much the Hurricanes destroy.

 

The jobs put out would be crushing. The housing market is the south east would plummet, if not die. People would be displaced, having to deal with housing pricing and laws from other states. It would not be easy, and would most likely do far more damage to the economy than letting them stay.

 

On paper and as a concept it sounds like a great idea. Hurricanes trying to eat this plot of land? Get the people out and the Hurricanes can go on their merry way and eat that plot of land. But in practice, I think it would be devastating.

 

In the long run? Who knows. In the short term, bad. In the long term, its kind of a coin flip isn't it?

 

Here in Cali, Earth Quakes are a non-issue. It is regulation around here, especially in cities, to reinforce buildings above a certain height to be earthquake resistant. Even though another one will happen, considering the entire state is basically the San Andreas fault line, but they are unlikely to do the damage of a wildfire, and even those burn mostly on long stretches of empty brush.

[ForeverNight]

It's about time somebody started talking about this.

 

While I don't live near the gulf states... or any major body of water (Minnesota), I'd have to say that people who choose to live in areas where Hurricanes hit almost annually must be out of their minds!

 

I remember just yesterday, I was reading a Reader's Digest talking about the NFIP (National Flood Insurance Program). According to the article, more than $9B on homes that have flooded more than... I want to say it was 16 times in the past decade. And that's not its entire budget.

 

And, funny enough, a congressman supposedly put forward a bill that allowed homeowners to buy insurance Retroactively... I don't know about you, but isn't insurance supposed to be bought "In case" not because it happened?

 

Oh well... I'm going to have to go source hunting soon...

[Arcesious]

I wish I didn't live right in the middle of tornado alley... I mean come on- we keep getting lucky because these tornadoes haven't hit the big city in my state for awhile, but for how long will it be before one does? All these buildings- they are not designed to even attempt to withstand one, except perhaps some of the newer, bigger buildings downtown... But if we got hit by a mile-wide one... I don't think we'd be even close to ready.

[Achilles]

Could someone please list for me one area that isn't prone to natural disasters? I'll give extra credit if you can also show what size population said region(s) will support. Thanks in advance.

[Arcesious]

Well it has to be in a temperate area (IE, mostly neutral weather, like light rain and light wind regularly) that is of considerable distance from the edges of the tectonic plates and not directly in any of the air or sea current paths...

 

Now where a place like that is, I dunno.

[Jae Onasi]

Could someone please list for me one area that isn't prone to natural disasters? I'll give extra credit if you can also show what size population said region(s) will support. Thanks in advance.

Perfect reply.

[mimartin]

Do they deserve it? [/Quote] To quote one of my favorite my favorite Clint Eastwood movie

Deserve's got nothing to do with it.[/Quote]

 

Unlike earthquakes, hurricanes strike annually, and with global weather changes, they have been more frequent and more powerful.[/Quote] Yet, unlike earthquakes, those that live along the coast usually have advance notice.

Yet people continue to live in hurricane prone areas, and more people move there every year. And every year, billions of dollars are accumulated in damages due to these hurricanes.[/Quote] Yet, ask yourself why people are moving along the gulf coast. Hint: Tourism, Chemical Plants, Seafood, Shipping, Petroleum… That is where the jobs are.

And after a while, primitive humans learned not to live in storm prone areas.[/Quote] I thought primitive man was more concerned with their next meal instead of storm patterns. Native American tribes such as the Atakapas and Karankawa lived in the Galveston and Brazoria County area of Texas. I would think the abundance of food was the reason native American lived along the coast.

Yet we have tens of millions of people living, on purpose, will full knowledge, in an area assured to sustain serious damage on an annual basis.[/Quote] Carla (1961), Alicia (1983) and Ike (2008), are the three substantial storms that have hit this area over the past 50 years. Sure, there have been a few other minor storms that have hit the area, but these are the only one that caused substantial property damage and loss of life. If the frequency was annually, I actually believe the damage and loss of life would be less, as people would not be allowed to be so complacent with their respect for a storm.

Many of them even refuse to leave their homes when the storms are coming, resulting in death and injury that your tax dollars will end up covering, either in the form of FEMA or government loans to insurance companies to keep them from collapsing, especially now under economically stressed times.[/Quote] I believe this isn’t a problem with people living along the coast. This is a problem with the attitude in American where EVERYONE wants something for nothing. I have insurance and my insurance company has reinsurance so that they know before the disaster how much they are going to have to payout. Requires neither government involvement nor our tax dollars. I evacuated my parents and myself and did not ask FEMA to reimburse me for either. However, many people around her have applied with FEMA to be reimbursed for everything.

 

There was a rumor that FEMA would pay up to $850.00 for generators so many went out and purchased one. Now if you want a used generator you can get one cheap at Lowes as people have returned them due to the rumor not being true. I purchased one, not because of the rumor, but because I needed one. I did not ask to be reimbursed by FEMA, even though they would have because of my parent’s health and my business.

The average person cannot afford to rebuild their home every decade.[/Quote] They can if they are responsible and purchase insurance from a reputable insurance company. You can find out if the company is reputable by visiting your state department of insurance websites as it should have financial and reinsurance information of all state licensed companies on their website.

They knew what they were getting into, and on the chance they were born there, they know full well what goes on there if they have grown up to an age where they can move out/get a job somewhere else.[/Quote] I’ve grown up within 45 minutes of where I live now. I’ve lived here my entire life and I usually do not evacuate unless it is a big storm. You can build homes to survive wind. The problem is not wind, the problem is storm surge and as such I do agree with you for people living on the coastal side of the Intracoastal Water Way. However, I do not agree with the blanket statement for people living further inland. Not saying I’m safe from storm surge just because I live 15 miles inland, I am saying it has not happen before even during the last Category 5 storm Carla in 1961. I have flood insurance in case it does happen and I leave during bigger storms (category 2 or above).

Yet, in economically hard times, this may not be possible, but by the same coin, in economically hard times, we cannot simply have the government dropping a few hundred billion to fix the homes and lives of people who knew full well this could happen to them. [/Quote] I agree, just I believe it has to do with personal responsibility and has nothing to do with where I live. Let’s take away the coastal jobs (many of which are recession proof) and lets see what happens to not only the U.S. economy, but the world economy. People don’t live on the Texas Gulf Coast for the beauty, it is the jobs. Not just industrial, but farming cotton, rice and soybean. There is also a lot of ranching in the coastal countries.

 

Should people who live in these areas be redlined by their insurance agencies to allow them to recoup costs, regardless of if the insuree's home was ever damaged by a hurricane at all? [/Quote] Yes, as it illegal to insure one home for a weather related claim and not insurer the neighboring home because it had a weather related claim. However, insurance companies can refuse coverage in Texas, if the home does not meet the State Department of insurance wind codes on the building or the roof on any new construction or repairs done after 1988. The code does work as the homes and business here are in better shape than those 45 miles inland that are under a different code. These codes have nothing to do with storm surge. The insurance commissioner is talking about increase the area along the coast that must comply with the stricter code. Which I wholeheartedly support even though it does increase the cost of construction, it decreases the damage caused by wind.

 

Should we as a nation provide incentives to move people away from these places? [/Quote] To where? See Achilles reply.

On a personal note, you have to wonder how stupid some of these people are when they're more scared of an earthquake that happens once in a hundred years to the annual onslaught of hurricanes.

Thanks

 

I have a warning for a hurricane and it is far from annual. Three times in 47 years or twice in my lifetime is not what I consider an annual event. I have a respect for the power of Hurricanes. Yet, I know I have time to get away before it makes landfall.

[Web Rider]

Could someone please list for me one area that isn't prone to natural disasters? I'll give extra credit if you can also show what size population said region(s) will support. Thanks in advance.

 

To properly respond, I'll have to ask you to define a "natural disaster". Ice storms happen in the North Eastern US, but are rarely as damaging as hurricanes.

 

Yet, unlike earthquakes, those that live along the coast usually have advance notice.

Define "advance". Hurricane warnings are, at best, 5 days in advance, often less due to hurricanes suddenly changing course upon striking warmer or less salted waters along the Gulf and it's coast.

 

Yet, ask yourself why people are moving along the gulf coast. Hint: Tourism, Chemical Plants, Seafood, Shipping, Petroleum… That is where the jobs are.

Such jobs, with the exception of shipping and seafood, can be found from Texas to Alaska. And I think you'll agree that having a chemical plant in an area known to sustain heavy damage doesn't look like a very good idea.

 

I thought primitive man was more concerned with their next meal instead of storm patterns. Native American tribes such as the Atakapas and Karankawa lived in the Galveston and Brazoria County area of Texas.

Many of these tribal people had lands that stretched well inland and they were not tied to massive homes or buildings that they needed for survival.

 

Carla (1961), Alicia (1983) and Ike (2008), are the three substantial storms that have hit this area over the past 50 years. Sure, there have been a few other minor storms that have hit the area, but these are the only one that caused substantial property damage and loss of life.

Except for Andrew($40.7 & 65), Katrina(81.2 & 1800+), Wilma($29.1 & 63), Ivan, Gustav, Charlie, and Agnes, all of which cost more than 15billion. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_costliest_Atlantic_hurricanes

 

If the frequency was annually, I actually believe the damage and loss of life would be less, as people would not be allowed to be so complacent with their respect for a storm. I believe this isn’t a problem with people living along the coast.

What you believe is somewhat irrelevent, since the the link above lists out that costly(both in terms of lives and money) hurricanes happen on an annual to bi-annual regularity.

 

This is a problem with the attitude in American where EVERYONE wants something for nothing.

I'll grant you that much.

 

I have insurance and my insurance company has reinsurance so that they know before the disaster how much they are going to have to payout. Requires neither government involvement nor our tax dollars. I evacuated my parents and myself and did not ask FEMA to reimburse me for either. However, many people around her have applied with FEMA to be reimbursed for everything.

It's impossible to know how much a disaster will cost before it happens. Work is STILL going on to repair damage done by Katrina, which means costs are still going up.

 

They can if they are responsible and purchase insurance from a reputable insurance company. You can find out if the company is reputable by visiting your state department of insurance websites as it should have financial and reinsurance information of all state licensed companies on their website.

That hardly stopped many insurance companies for saying that "mold damage" caused by the water voided the insurance, or some other petty excuse that allowed them to not provide proper payouts to people who needed them. Combined with sitting on their hands to hope people would go away or devaluing a house based on the damage to the point where the company wouldn't pay enough or what was covered to rebuild it.

 

I’ve grown up within 45 minutes of where I live now. I’ve lived here my entire life and I usually do not evacuate unless it is a big storm. You can build homes to survive wind. The problem is not wind, the problem is storm surge and as such I do agree with you for people living on the coastal side of the Intracoastal Water Way. However, I do not agree with the blanket statement for people living further inland. Not saying I’m safe from storm surge just because I live 15 miles inland, I am saying it has not happen before even during the last Category 5 storm Carla in 1961. I have flood insurance in case it does happen and I leave during bigger storms (category 2 or above).

I agree that there is some limit to which the effect of your average hurricane is reduced to the point where you're not really getting hit with the devastating part of the hurricane.

 

I agree, just I believe it has to do with personal responsibility and has nothing to do with where I live. Let’s take away the coastal jobs (many of which are recession proof) and lets see what happens to not only the U.S. economy, but the world economy. People don’t live on the Texas Gulf Coast for the beauty, it is the jobs. Not just industrial, but farming cotton, rice and soybean. There is also a lot of ranching in the coastal countries.

On the same coin, Florida is often one big retirement community, many people have jobs, but they don't need them and only take them to get out of the house. Elderly are often the most vulnerable to the effects of bat weather, yet many of them express the same "ZOMG EARTHQUAKE!!" fear when the topic of moving to someplace like California comes up.

[KinchyB]

Could someone please list for me one area that isn't prone to natural disasters? I'll give extra credit if you can also show what size population said region(s) will support. Thanks in advance.

 

Does Canada count?

[Achilles]

To properly respond, I'll have to ask you to define a "natural disaster". Ice storms happen in the North Eastern US, but are rarely as damaging as hurricanes.

Your argument seems to be that people shouldn't live where they know that they could be the victims of a natural disaster. So please tell me which part of the world meets this criteria. I don't need to define "natural disaster" as I'm sure that you know what a natural disaster is.

 

All in all, I think your post makes several poorly thought-out assumptions and displays a general lack of empathy. Why do people live in tornado alley (et al)? Better yet, why do people live in trailer parks in tornado alley (et al)? Your post seems to suggest that it's because they are lazy thrill-seekers looking to make a dime off the tax payers (I guess they themselves don't pay taxes?)? I guess you've never seen footage of a home owner crying over the loss of life and property. I guess you can't imagine what it's like to be so poor that the only place you can afford to live is where property prices are low due to the increased chance of natural disasters.

 

As mimartin pointed out, some people have to go to where the jobs are and sometimes that means having to live somewhere potentially dangerous. Regardless, despite all the things that I find to be generally offensive in your post, I do sincerely hope that you never have to find yourself in a position where you require the charity of others.

[Web Rider]

Your argument seems to be that people shouldn't live where they know that they could be the victims of a natural disaster. So please tell me which part of the world meets this criteria. I don't need to define "natural disaster" as I'm sure that you know what a natural disaster is.

I emphasized regularity in my post quite a bit. I know, living in California, that there could be an Earthquake. However, the probability of that earthquake being powerful enough to do any significant damage is extremely low.

 

Also, I would probably point out that Arizona or Idaho are not prone to natural disasters. Could one happen? Sure, could the moon fall on our heads? Sure. Whats the chance of it actually happening? Pretty darn low. The Chance of half of Florida getting demolished at least once in the next decade? Pretty good.

 

All in all, I think your post makes several poorly thought-out assumptions and displays a general lack of empathy. Why do people live in tornado alley (et al)? Better yet, why do people live in trailer parks in tornado alley (et al)? Your post seems to suggest that it's because they are lazy thrill-seekers looking to make a dime off the tax payers (I guess they themselves don't pay taxes?)? I guess you've never seen footage of a home owner crying over the loss of life and property. I guess you can't imagine what it's like to be so poor that the only place you can afford to live is where property prices are low due to the increased chance of natural disasters.

Technically, personal attacks are against Kavars Rules. My presumed lack of empathy, regardless of it is true, has very little bearing on reality. And I have lived in places in California where the property vales are soo law because of...well, just because they were low. Income was pretty low and jobs were scarce so we didn't need natural disasters to make things "cheap".

 

As mimartin pointed out, some people have to go to where the jobs are and sometimes that means having to live somewhere potentially dangerous. Regardless, despite all the things that I find to be generally offensive in your post, I do sincerely hope that you never have to find yourself in a position where you require the charity of others.

Yet, unlike your ad hominem attack on my character as a basis for refusing my post, I did take much of that into account in my OP.

 

If that's the only place for jobs, why don't we, as a society, give them incentives for find work elsewhere, or to get new jobs? If that's the only place jobs are located in their line of work, then shouldn't we as a society have the burden of pressing those companies to move their operations elsewhere, or, since those companies know their workers will have to deal with these things, shouldn't we pressure companies to take better care of their workers?

 

Much of that was addressed in my post though apparently you decided to think I was a jerk instead of actually reading any of it.

[mimartin]

Define "advance". Hurricane warnings are, at best, 5 days in advance, often less due to hurricanes suddenly changing course upon striking warmer or less salted waters along the Gulf and it's coast.[/Quote] I’d define advance as knowing that a Hurricane can happen anytime during Hurricane season. Moreover, 24 to 48 hours is more than enough time to get people out of the areas prone to storm surge. The problem is costal communities are trying to evacuate the entire population along the entire coast when they should only be worried about the storm surge.

Such jobs, with the exception of shipping and seafood, can be found from Texas to Alaska.[/Quote] No worries about over fishing an area?

And I think you'll agree that having a chemical plant in an area known to sustain heavy damage doesn't look like a very good idea.[/Quote] No' date=' I don’t because I understand why they are here. Climate and the abundance of water is the reason those planets were built here. Like I said you can build for the wind, the worry is storm surge.

Many of these tribal people had lands that stretched well inland and they were not tied to massive homes or buildings that they needed for survival. [/Quote] Yet some still lived on an Island and along the coast.

Except for Andrew($40.7 & 65), Katrina(81.2 & 1800+), Wilma($29.1 & 63), Ivan, Gustav, Charlie, and Agnes, all of which cost more than 15billion. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_costliest_Atlantic_hurricanes[/Quote] I may not have been clear. I agree with you people should not live within the typical storm surge areas, but you seemed to be saying we should not be allowed to live along the coast which I disagree with. Again, you can build for wind, but not the storm surge. Also a storm does not end once it is a shore, so how far do you want to move people inland? Oklahoma, Kansas or Illinois?

 

 

It's impossible to know how much a disaster will cost before it happens. Work is STILL going on to repair damage done by Katrina, which means costs are still going up.[/Quote] Yes, you are correct there is no way to predict how much the total storm is going to cost. How much it is going to cost the individual or how much it is going to cost an individual insurance company is very easy to predict. It is because of set deductibles on personal insurance and reinsurances by insurance companies.

That hardly stopped many insurance companies for saying that "mold damage" caused by the water voided the insurance, or some other petty excuse that allowed them to not provide proper payouts to people who needed them. Combined with sitting on their hands to hope people would go away or devaluing a house based on the damage to the point where the company wouldn't pay enough or what was covered to rebuild it.[/Quote] Since mold was excluded from the original policy, I hardly see how this is relevant. The courts originally ruled it was and the insurance companies paid claims for mold until the Texas Supreme Court overturned the lower courts ruling.

I agree that there is some limit to which the effect of your average hurricane is reduced to the point where you're not really getting hit with the devastating part of the hurricane.[/Quote] The devastating part of the hurricane is the storm surge. If people built and kept their homes at the state and Federal Flood Management codes even this damage could be minimized. People build house 18 to 20 feet of the ground to code, but then build a room without breakaway walls below it (not to code). Then they wonder why their home disappeared. Lets also remember most of these beach homes are weekend homes or rentals.

IOn the same coin, Florida is often one big retirement community, many people have jobs, but they don't need them and only take them to get out of the house. Elderly are often the most vulnerable to the effects of bad weather, yet many of them express the same "ZOMG EARTHQUAKE!!" fear when the topic of moving to someplace like California comes up.

So you want to keep the elderly off the coast? I’m all for that because it would mean my parents would have to move further away than 15 minutes away.

[Achilles]

I emphasized regularity in my post quite a bit. I know, living in California, that there could be an Earthquake. However, the probability of that earthquake being powerful enough to do any significant damage is extremely low.

I guess I'm not seeing how this address my counter-argument or the counter-argument presented by mimartin. It appears that you're simply circling back around to your original post.

 

Also, I would probably point out that Arizona or Idaho are not prone to natural disasters. Could one happen? Sure, could the moon fall on our heads? Sure. Whats the chance of it actually happening? Pretty darn low. The Chance of half of Florida getting demolished at least once in the next decade? Pretty good.

To reference mimartin (referencing me), where do you suggest the good people of Florida move to then? Who's going to pay for it? Who's going to fill all of the shipping job (just to focus on one industry that would be affected) once all those people are living somewhere else?

 

Technically, personal attacks are against Kavars Rules.

There weren't any. If you need assistance understanding what is or is not a personal attack, feel free to let me know and I'll do my best to help you out.

 

My presumed lack of empathy, regardless of it is true, has very little bearing on reality. And I have lived in places in California where the property vales are soo law because of...well, just because they were low. Income was pretty low and jobs were scarce so we didn't need natural disasters to make things "cheap".

Assuming for a moment that your analysis of the driving forces of property values in California are correct, what does this have to do with the rest of the U.S.?

 

If that's the only place for jobs, why don't we, as a society, give them incentives for find work elsewhere, or to get new jobs?

We'll move all the gulf coast shipping jobs to...where?

 

If that's the only place jobs are located in their line of work, then shouldn't we as a society have the burden of pressing those companies to move their operations elsewhere, or, since those companies know their workers will have to deal with these things, shouldn't we pressure companies to take better care of their workers?

Same as above.

 

Also, why should employers (who are subject to the same risks) have to shoulder their employees? Wasn't this whole thing spurned on in a spirit of Libertarianism? I think we're starting to drift off-message.

 

Much of that was addressed in my post though apparently you decided to think I was a jerk instead of actually reading any of it.

I assure you that I read the whole thing (more than once) before responding.

[Web Rider]

I’d define advance as knowing that a Hurricane can happen anytime during Hurricane season. Moreover, 24 to 48 hours is more than enough time to get people out of the areas prone to storm surge.

And knowing about it and doing something about it are two totally different things. If you know a Hurricane could strike at any time during the season, then you're either going to prepare for it, or not live there. It's all the people who seem ambivalent about it happening that cause the problem.

 

No, I don’t because I understand why they are here. Climate and the abundance of water is the reason those plants were built here. Like I said you can build for the wind, the worry is storm surge.

Which could be properly designed for, but really isn't. Big square structures do not take to wind or water force kindly.

 

I may not have been clear. I agree with you people should not live within the typical storm surge areas, but you seemed to be saying we should not be allowed to live along the coast which I disagree with. Again, you can build for wind, but not the storm surge. Also a storm does not end once it is a shore, so how far do you want to move people inland? Oklahoma, Kansas or Illinois?

When a hurricane reaches those points, the parts of it that are most devastating, such as the wind and storm surge, are well exhausted. The wind and rain lasts longer, but without the water source to fuel it, the storm has nowhere near the preliminary effect.

 

 

Yes, you are correct there is no way to predict how much the total storm is going to cost. How much it is going to cost the individual or how much it is going to cost an individual insurance company is very easy to predict. It is because of set deductibles on personal insurance and reinsurances by insurance companies.

Curious...

 

Since mold was excluded from the original policy, I hardly see how this is relevant. The courts originally ruled it was and the insurance companies paid claims for mold until the Texas Supreme Court overturned the lower courts ruling.

Because the water is what caused the mold. Declining payments on these kinds of basis is just a low blow and they know it. Mold didn't magically appear when the storm hit. The water from the storm caused it.

 

The devastating part of the hurricane is the storm surge. If people built and kept their homes at the state and Federal Flood Management codes even this damage could be minimized. People build house 18 to 20 feet of the ground to code, but then build a room without breakaway walls below it (not to code). Then they wonder why their home disappeared.

I agree that making sure homes are built to or beyond code is a good idea. I worked in construction, and we always "overbuilt" because it always made things better.

 

Lets also remember most of these beach homes are weekend homes or rentals. So you want to keep the elderly off the coast? I’m all for that because it would mean my parents would have to move further away than 15 minutes away.

Sure, that could be a minimal thing to do, keep those most prone to injury or death, and not NEEDing to be there for work, away from the most heavily damaged areas.

 

I guess I'm not seeing how this address my counter-argument or the counter-argument presented by mimartin. It appears that you're simply circling back around to your original post.

Because it took into account things you said it did not. I'm not going to rewrite what I wrote a few posts before.

 

To reference mimartin (referencing me), where do you suggest the good people of Florida move to then? Who's going to pay for it? Who's going to fill all of the shipping job (just to focus on one industry that would be affected) once all those people are living somewhere else?

That depends, if we're talking libertarianism, they can live wherever they want, just as long as they don't expect anyone to some save their butt when they don't get out fast enough. Empathy has no bearing here, if we're truly libertarians, then they knew what they were getting into and it's not our job to help them get out of their own mess.

 

There weren't any. If you need assistance understanding what is or is not a personal attack, feel free to let me know and I'll do my best to help you out.

Aside from saying that I was wrong because I wasn't empathetic enough.

 

Assuming for a moment that your analysis of the driving forces of property values in California are correct, what does this have to do with the rest of the U.S.?

I don't know, considering I have no idea what podunk trailer-park housing costs have to do with the rest of the US. I guess we both made examples that were irrelevant.

 

We'll move all the gulf coast shipping jobs to...where?

 

Same as above.

 

Also, why should employers (who are subject to the same risks) have to shoulder their employees? Wasn't this whole thing spurned on in a spirit of Libertarianism? I think we're starting to drift off-message.

Of course, but you accused me of lack of empathy, which is, in case you didn't know, a lack of caring for my fellow man. Something of which you'll find little in libertarianism. A system based on the idea that you're free to do as you will, as long as it doesn't cause harm to others, and you are responsible for your own actions.

[mimartin]

And knowing about it and doing something about it are two totally different things. If you know a Hurricane could strike at any time during the season, then you're either going to prepare for it, or not live there. It's all the people who seem ambivalent about it happening that cause the problem.[/Quote] Buildings built after 1988 must have plywood cut and labeled for each window on a home or business. Yet, the state cannot force people to put it over their windows.

 

Every year I purchase batteries, bottle water and canned food. I also keep 2 ten gallon gas cans and a up to date first aid kit.

Which could be properly designed for, but really isn't. Big square structures do not take to wind or water force kindly.[/Quote] But they are if they were built after 1988. I would much ratter have the companies along the coast using salt water than be inland using fresh water for their needs.

Because the water is what caused the mold. Declining payments on these kinds of basis is just a low blow and they know it. Mold didn't magically appear when the storm hit. The water from the storm caused it. [/Quote] We are talking about two different matters. You are talking about flood water damage. Flood is written through the National Flood Insurance Program and not by private insurance companies. The National Flood Insurance Program through FEMA which is a part of Homeland Security does not now and never has covered mold damage. They pay to replace the wall up to a certain amount above the flood damage, if this is done properly and in a timely matter mold should not be an issue. It cases like New Orleans where the government kept people from caring for their property after a disasters it presents a major problem. Blame the government as they kept the people out and are also the insurer in flood cases.

Sure, that could be a minimal thing to do, keep those most prone to injury or death, and not NEEDing to be there for work, away from the most heavily damaged areas.

So the government should make elderly people move away from those that love and care for them? Who is going to care for them then?

 

Does Canada count?

With all respect to our friends from the great white north. Canada is a beautiful place to visit and I am planning to visit it in a little over a year for Vancouver 2010! However, it is too cold for a Texans like me. Just as it is most likely to hot here for them to enjoy this place.

[Achilles]

Because it took into account things you said it did not. I'm not going to rewrite what I wrote a few posts before.

I'm not asking you to rewrite your post, I'm asking you to address the counter-arguments present which raise points that you did not address in your earlier posts. Hence why I pointed out that circling back doesn't answer the question (twice now).

 

That depends, if we're talking libertarianism, they can live wherever they want, just as long as they don't expect anyone to some save their butt when they don't get out fast enough.

This doesn't answer the question. Where are they supposed to live? Please be specific.

 

And fast enough compared to what? As you yourself pointed out, hurricane paths are not 100% predictable. Earthquakes aren't predictable at all and tornados have little to no warning. The argument seems to be, "if a natural disaster hits you in the middle of the night and you can't avoid it, then just please die quietly as you're getting what you deserve for living there". Never mind that it may be the only place they can afford to live or where the jobs they can find are, etc.

 

Empathy has no bearing here, if we're truly libertarians, then they knew what they were getting into and it's not our job to help them get out of their own mess.

Case in point

 

Aside from saying that I was wrong because I wasn't empathetic enough.

Please point where I made any comment at all regarding your empathy. Since you won't be able to, perhaps we can drop the false accusation of personal attacks? Thanks in advance.

 

I don't know, considering I have no idea what podunk trailer-park housing costs have to do with the rest of the US. I guess we both made examples that were irrelevant.

I wasn't trying to tie it to the rest of the U.S.. You were discussing a specific region, which I kept on topic, and then decided to introduce immigration issues in Southern California (I can only assume that's where you were going).

 

Of course, but you accused me of lack of empathy, which is, in case you didn't know, a lack of caring for my fellow man.

"they can live wherever they want, just as long as they don't expect anyone to some save their butt when they don't get out fast enough"

 

"they knew what they were getting into and it's not our job to help them get out of their own mess."

 

"considering I have no idea what podunk trailer-park housing costs have to do with the rest of the US." (emphasis added)

 

Something of which you'll find little in libertarianism. A system based on the idea that you're free to do as you will, as long as it doesn't cause harm to others, and you are responsible for your own actions.

And I repeat my earlier sincere hope that you never find yourself in a situation in which you need the assistance of others. Lest you be forced to have to change your perspective or something.

[Web Rider]

This doesn't answer the question. Where are they supposed to live? Please be specific.

Somewhere that doesn't get destroyed on a bi-annual basis. Or: Canada.

 

And fast enough compared to what?

As in, they got out fast enough, that they were clear of the storm when it hit.

 

As you yourself pointed out, hurricane paths are not 100% predictable. Earthquakes aren't predictable at all and tornadoes have little to no warning. The argument seems to be, "if a natural disaster hits you in the middle of the night and you can't avoid it, then just please die quietly as you're getting what you deserve for living there". Never mind that it may be the only place they can afford to live or where the jobs they can find are, etc.

Earthquakes can't be predicted days in advance except in cases when there have been a significant number of tremors before it. Also, due to geological studies, we can predict how often a fault should move and trigger an earthquake. It's not an exact science, but it's certainly not "unpredictable".

 

And the difference between somebody receiving warnings throughout the week that a hurricane is coming and somebody at home all comfy with a storm popping out of nowhere are totally different. I live in California and we hear about hurricanes and what path they'll take and how long they'll take to get there. Surely people who live in these paths get this news as well.

 

Case in point

 

Please point where I made any comment at all regarding your empathy. Since you won't be able to, perhaps we can drop the false accusation of personal attacks? Thanks in advance.

Oh, so sure you are?

All in all, I think your post makes several poorly thought-out assumptions and displays a general lack of empathy.

It's in the first reply you made to this topic.

 

I wasn't trying to tie it to the rest of the U.S.. You were discussing a specific region, which I kept on topic, and then decided to introduce immigration issues in Southern California (I can only assume that's where you were going).

What? Where on earth are you getting that. I introduced and had no intention to introduce any such thing. You claimed disasters decreased the prices of homes and nowhere else would you see a similar kind of people who can't afford to live anywhere else. I countered by saying yes indeed there are many places like this even in California, where natural disasters are infrequent at best.

 

"they can live wherever they want, just as long as they don't expect anyone to some save their butt when they don't get out fast enough"

 

"they knew what they were getting into and it's not our job to help them get out of their own mess."

 

"considering I have no idea what podunk trailer-park housing costs have to do with the rest of the US." (emphasis added)

 

And I repeat my earlier sincere hope that you never find yourself in a situation in which you need the assistance of others. Lest you be forced to have to change your perspective or something.

Considering I'm operating under a libertarian perspective here, I would probably say it's my fault anyway.

[Achilles]

Somewhere that doesn't get destroyed on a bi-annual basis. Or: Canada.

I asked for specifics. Are you unable or just unwilling to provide them? At this point, it seems as though you just want people to move to satisfy your ideology. You offer no specifics on where they should move to, who will pay for it, how the industries that would be subsequently abandoned would continue, what impact that would have on the rest of the country/world, etc.

 

As in, they got out fast enough, that they were clear of the storm when it hit.

First, this isn't specific. Second, it completely fails to address the other examples of natural disasters that multiple people have pointed out. Do you intend on defending your argument or not?

 

Earthquakes can't be predicted days in advance except in cases when there have been a significant number of tremors before it.

Really? Magnitude? Epicenter?

 

Also, due to geological studies, we can predict how often a fault should move and trigger an earthquake. It's not an exact science, but it's certainly not "unpredictable".

Source please? The last I heard, they don't have anything reliable.

 

And the difference between somebody receiving warnings throughout the week that a hurricane is coming and somebody at home all comfy with a storm popping out of nowhere are totally different.

This is yet another red herring. Natural disaster is natural disaster. Warning or no warning, the thrust of your argument is "you chose to live there, now deal with the consequenses". So whether you had 5 days warning and opted to leave before you lost everything or woke up in the middle of the night to lose everything doesn't matter within the larger context of your point.

 

I live in California and we hear about hurricanes and what path they'll take and how long they'll take to get there. Surely people who live in these paths get this news as well.

So you're retracting your earlier admission that hurricane paths are not 100% predictable? Or are you trying to have it both ways?

 

Oh, so sure you are?

 

It's in the first reply you made to this topic.

Yes, I'm quite sure, but that refers to your post. No character attack was made. You appear to be struggling with the distinction, but that isn't my fault or my problem.

 

What? Where on earth are you getting that. I introduced and had no intention to introduce any such thing.

And I have lived in places in California where the property vales are soo low (fixed) because of...well, just because they were low.

You left it open to interpretation. That was the impression that I got. Feel free to correct my thinking.

 

You claimed disasters decreased the prices of homes...

I believe I said "property". "Homes" are what people usually build on "property" and are generally considered to have a separate cost/value.

 

...and nowhere else would you see a similar kind of people who can't afford to live anywhere else.

I said that? Where?

 

I countered by saying yes indeed there are many places like this even in California, where natural disasters are infrequent at best.

You're telling me that I can purchase property in California for roughly the same amount as I can in say Kentucky or Tennessee? Forget all the other implication of the arguement that I was making (such as proximity of family, culture, jobs, etc).

 

Considering I'm operating under a libertarian perspective here, I would probably say it's my fault anyway.

Do you have a family Web Rider? Wife and kids depending on you? Are you/will you be so cavalier with their lives and well-being as well? It's a rhetorical question for you to chew on. No need to share your answer here.

[mimartin]

Somewhere that doesn't get destroyed on a bi-annual basis.

So you mean all costal residence can stay where they are since even Florida averages being hit in the same place less than once a year.

 

Now if you can find me a job in Austin, Texas with the same income and cost of living I have now. I'd be willing to move.

 

Oh, if you want view storm history and costal population you may want to visit the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration website. Historical Hurricane Tracks covers storms from 1851 to 2007.According to this data and adding Ike to it 9 Category 2 or above storm have hit within 65 nautical miles of where I live since 1900. 1900, 1909, 1915, 1932, 1945, 1949, 1961, 1983 and 2008 and only one of them was Category 5 storm. Hardly bi-annual if my math is correct.

[deathdisco]

I lived in Florida(Miami, Fort Lauderdale and Tampa) for 21 years. I was never in the direct path of any hurricane. The remnants of one of the recent storms ended up dumping a ton of rain in Illinois causing severe flooding(I was not affected). Should I move out of Illinois to avoid hurricane remnants?

[Tommycat]

Depends on what you mean by destroyed as well. I mean New Orleans had been around a long time before Katrina. Galveston had been destroyed once in like the 1800's before Ike hit. I think I'd rather take my chances with a hurricane over moving to Kansas. I live in AZ right now. All it'll take is a bad drought. We also have dust storms and flash flooding. In fact there was a town that was destroyed because of flooding. Colorado Springs where I lived before had severe storms that would sneak up on ya and end up killing people(if you live in the area, you know the name Monument Hill as a bad spot for that). They have tornados and heavy snow storms. California has wildfires mudslides and earthquakes. The question is why tell people to move away from places where the danger can be predicted and warned about several days out for a place that the danger can hit without warning? Seems kinda backwards to me.