Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Wired)   How many times do coastal homes need to be washed away before we say we shouldn't be building homes here any more?   (wired.com) divider line 233
    More: Obvious, seat belt laws, electrical equipment, irrigation sprinklers, effects of global warming, catastrophe theory, economic values, extreme weather, foils  
•       •       •

12396 clicks; posted to Main » on 31 Oct 2012 at 4:29 PM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



233 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread
 
2012-10-31 01:30:22 PM  
Once.
 
2012-10-31 01:32:45 PM  
Who cares where someone builds their house at? If they (along with their insurance co.) want to accept the risk, I say let them. But don't expect any help from the government.
 
2012-10-31 01:35:58 PM  
How many times do homeless people need to be washed away before we say we shouldn't be building showers here any more?
 
2012-10-31 01:40:44 PM  
Now - say the same about all homes in Tornado Valley, near a fault line, near a fracking site, or near an area vulnerable for forest fires.

Also - many of these homes vulnerable to natural disaster weren't in an area considered to be disaster prone a few decades ago. Global warming will continue to rezone areas and create new water front property. Fracking will create new homes vulnerable to disasters as we expand that practice.
 
2012-10-31 01:41:02 PM  
As resident of Iowa during the 2001 floods, I will ask: Why don't NY/NJ build a 30' floodwall?
 
2012-10-31 01:41:38 PM  

Bladel: As resident of Iowa during the 2001 floods, I will ask: Why don't NY/NJ build a 30' floodwall?


(my point: It was a stupid question then, and it's a stupid question now.)
 
2012-10-31 01:42:17 PM  
Why can't we just move New York, Boston, New Orleans, Los Angeles, San Francisco, Chicago, Miami, San Diego, Charleston, Houston and Tampa 10 miles further inland? There can't be more than 50 million people living near the coast.
 
2012-10-31 01:48:22 PM  

Bontesla: Global warming will continue to rezone areas and create new water front property. Fracking will create new homes vulnerable to disasters as we expand that practice


This political announcement paid for by The Algore Center for Profit from Non-proven Theories
 
2012-10-31 02:00:50 PM  

knbber2: Bontesla: Global warming will continue to rezone areas and create new water front property. Fracking will create new homes vulnerable to disasters as we expand that practice

This political announcement paid for by The Algore Center for Profit from Non-proven Theories


If you want to be ignorant, do so quietly in the corner.
 
2012-10-31 02:11:28 PM  

Bontesla: knbber2: Bontesla: Global warming will continue to rezone areas and create new water front property. Fracking will create new homes vulnerable to disasters as we expand that practice

This political announcement paid for by The Algore Center for Profit from Non-proven Theories

If you want to be ignorant, do so quietly in the corner.


Nope, if you want to spout your opinions (and that is what those are, they are far from proven facts), expect to have others comment. And thanks for the "ignorant" comment, it makes me feel better when people go to the insult right off the bat.
 
2012-10-31 02:15:26 PM  
Someone who can afford a beach house can afford another beach house.
 
2012-10-31 02:24:12 PM  

knbber2: Bontesla: knbber2: Bontesla: Global warming will continue to rezone areas and create new water front property. Fracking will create new homes vulnerable to disasters as we expand that practice

This political announcement paid for by The Algore Center for Profit from Non-proven Theories

If you want to be ignorant, do so quietly in the corner.

Nope, if you want to spout your opinions (and that is what those are, they are far from proven facts), expect to have others comment. And thanks for the "ignorant" comment, it makes me feel better when people go to the insult right off the bat.


Your standard of belief for all things are "scientific facts"? Then you must be Chicken Little.

You obviously don't understand what determines something to be considered as a "scientific fact" within the scientific community. Said in another way: those words don't mean what you think they mean.

I don't insult everyone immediately. Only those willfully ignorant at the expense of others. This is what you are. This isn't a genetic condition. This is an adopted position. You have decided to disagree with such a large, dominant collection of scientists (virtally a statistical 100% of them). In doing so - you're favoring ignorance. Collectively, ignorance stalls progress toward solutions.
 
2012-10-31 02:26:56 PM  
I dont know, subby, but I think its stupid for anyone to live less than 30 feet above sea level. Much less have a densly populated island/area filled with millions.
 
2012-10-31 02:28:12 PM  
I forget who said it, but "we do science because we just dont know, not because we know". If we knew, there would be no point.
 
2012-10-31 02:33:24 PM  

Bontesla: I don't insult everyone immediately. Only those willfully ignorant at the expense of others. This is what you are.


Once again, immediately to the insult to try to demean me. There is a significant portion of the scientific community that disagrees with the causes of global warming. As far as fracking goes, the percentage is higher. And no, I am not going to search around for the numbers, as you did not either, that is not my point. You have your opinions, which is your right, I have mine. Fark is a place to express those opinions. If you need to tell someone who disagrees with your opinions to be ignorant in the corner, you need to get a thicker skin. Have a nice day, no hard feelings from this side.
 
2012-10-31 02:36:42 PM  

knbber2: There is a significant portion of the scientific community that disagrees with the causes of global warming


Who gives a damn ? Weather is getting stranger and stranger. I find it odd that areas with high fracking are suddenly quaking ....
 
2012-10-31 02:38:42 PM  

knbber2: Bontesla: knbber2: Bontesla: Global warming will continue to rezone areas and create new water front property. Fracking will create new homes vulnerable to disasters as we expand that practice

This political announcement paid for by The Algore Center for Profit from Non-proven Theories

If you want to be ignorant, do so quietly in the corner.

Nope, if you want to spout your opinions (and that is what those are, they are far from proven facts), expect to have others comment. And thanks for the "ignorant" comment, it makes me feel better when people go to the insult right off the bat.


And - FYI - global warming is an established phenomenon. Just as global cooling is. These are not partisan beliefs. These are established trends. The question you're trying to get at is: are we currently trending toward warming? If so - are humans catalysts? If humans are acting as a catalyst then to what degree are the changes reversible?
 
2012-10-31 02:40:03 PM  
I hope this thread gets washed out to sea and isn't rebuilt.
 
2012-10-31 02:49:21 PM  

knbber2: Bontesla: I don't insult everyone immediately. Only those willfully ignorant at the expense of others. This is what you are.

Once again, immediately to the insult to try to demean me. There is a significant portion of the scientific community that disagrees with the causes of global warming. As far as fracking goes, the percentage is higher. And no, I am not going to search around for the numbers, as you did not either, that is not my point. You have your opinions, which is your right, I have mine. Fark is a place to express those opinions. If you need to tell someone who disagrees with your opinions to be ignorant in the corner, you need to get a thicker skin. Have a nice day, no hard feelings from this side.


I respectfully disagree with many.

I'm simply being honest. Yes - calling you ignorant is insulting. But that doesn't mean I'm wrong. I can offend a thief by calling them a thief - but does that make me wrong? No. Could I find a more polite way to call you ignorant? Probably.

But what incentive do I have to politely search for a word to call you ignorant when your ignorance attributes to a dangerous situation?

Finally, if you have all of this evidence to support your argument then you should provide it.
 
2012-10-31 03:15:26 PM  

Bontesla: But what incentive do I have to politely search for a word to call you ignorant when your ignorance attributes to a dangerous situation?


Ok, one last time; just because I disagree with you does not mean I am ignorant. The CAUSES of global warming (as I said in my last post) are in dispute, as is whether it is still occurring. I'm sure you can provide a direct link between human contribution and the latest hurricane, as you indicated in your initial post. That is your OPINION, and because I disagree, you call me ignorant? I'm saying it is beneath you to take the low road with insults, especially right at the start. If you want to compare education levels, expertise...etc. and then you determine I am ignorant, then that may be an educated OPINION, but do some research first. Once again, have a good day.
 
2012-10-31 03:15:47 PM  
Related

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142405297020478930457808915324521 2 398.html


"Sandy is expected to become one of the costliest storms ever. But a substantial share of the tab won't be picked up by insurers, because standard homeowners' policies don't cover flood damage.

Instead, an indebted federal flood-insurance program is expected to pay for billions in property damage...

The U.S. government has provided flood coverage since the late 1960s, filling a void left by a private-sector insurance industry that generally views floods as too unpredictable-and too expensive-to cover. But the program has been in financial trouble, having borrowed nearly $18 billion from the Treasury Department to pay for claims in recent years. The largest hit came from Hurricane Katrina in 2005, which resulted in about $16 billion in claims. Irene prompted $1.3 billion in claims...

Federal law requires people who buy houses in designated flood-hazard areas with federally backed mortgages to purchase policies from the National Flood Insurance Program, though not all maintain coverage for the life of the loan."
 
2012-10-31 03:51:20 PM  

knbber2: Bontesla: But what incentive do I have to politely search for a word to call you ignorant when your ignorance attributes to a dangerous situation?

Ok, one last time; just because I disagree with you does not mean I am ignorant. The CAUSES of global warming (as I said in my last post) are in dispute, as is whether it is still occurring. I'm sure you can provide a direct link between human contribution and the latest hurricane, as you indicated in your initial post. That is your OPINION, and because I disagree, you call me ignorant? I'm saying it is beneath you to take the low road with insults, especially right at the start. If you want to compare education levels, expertise...etc. and then you determine I am ignorant, then that may be an educated OPINION, but do some research first. Once again, have a good day.


Opinion... that word doesn't mean what you think it means.

Also - I noticed a lack of evidence in your response.
 
2012-10-31 03:51:41 PM  
The answer, my friend, is blowin in the wind
 
2012-10-31 03:57:01 PM  
Since Sandy changed the shape of the sandbars, how do you collect from insurers when both your house and your land are gone?
 
2012-10-31 04:31:53 PM  
In other news, Topeka, KS has been renamed New New York to accommodate all the people who aren't allowed to live near the water anymore
 
2012-10-31 04:32:23 PM  
When I first came here, this was all swamp. Everyone said I was daft to build a castle on a swamp, but I built in all the same, just to show them. It sank into the swamp. So I built a second one. That sank into the swamp. So I built a third. That burned down, fell over, then sank into the swamp. But the fourth one stayed up. And that's what you're going to get, Lad, the strongest castle in all of England.
 
2012-10-31 04:33:21 PM  
I've got no problems with people building wherever they want, floodplain, edge of a volcano, R'lyeh. I just don't want the taxpayers to pay for it when it's damaged or destroyed.
 
2012-10-31 04:33:30 PM  
37,841
 
2012-10-31 04:34:22 PM  
people moving inland is idiotic but I do question why we build basically the same kinda housing no matter where it is located.
 
2012-10-31 04:34:30 PM  
I say let them die! Too Soon?
img15.imageshack.us

Seriously though, I say if you live in a place known to have storms then you should have to have insurance to cover it and stop giving them federal funds. Why should my tax money go to someone who owns 3 hundred thousand dollar home on a beach that is known to have hurricanes.

I live on the west coast and I have earthquake, fire, and flood insurance.
 
2012-10-31 04:34:32 PM  

revrendjim: Someone who can afford a beach house can afford another beach house.


They can also afford a city council member or two to ensure their zoning doesn't change. They can also afford a congressman or three to ensure that federal aid is there when they want to bootstrap up another house built on a sand bar in a hurricane zone.

This isn't going to change because it directly effects the people in control of the system.
 
2012-10-31 04:34:43 PM  
Stupidity: "It's got great ocean views"

Logic: "You are close enough to water that covers 2/3rds of the entire planet, moves at will, is measured by tonnage, and is totally unpredictable. You are sitting on sand, which is the dust under the atmosphere of dihydogenmonoxide and blows at its will. You may enjoy the view this fine day, but eventually, and more sooner than later, this will not be a safe place to be. You need to rent, for a while, but do not buy here. "

Assholiness: " Insure my house with great ocean views"
 
2012-10-31 04:34:44 PM  
images.mentalfloss.com
the ants are my friends, and they're blowin in the wind....
 
2012-10-31 04:35:44 PM  
MOVE TO WHERE THE FOOD IS


/OH! OHHHHHHHH!
 
2012-10-31 04:35:47 PM  

HailRobonia: When I first came here, this was all swamp. Everyone said I was daft to build a castle on a swamp, but I built in all the same, just to show them. It sank into the swamp. So I built a second one. That sank into the swamp. So I built a third. That burned down, fell over, then sank into the swamp. But the fourth one stayed up. And that's what you're going to get, Lad, the strongest castle in all of England.


The problem is that hurricanes like Sandy can cause flooding over huge tracts of land.
 
2012-10-31 04:36:06 PM  

knbber2: Bontesla: knbber2: Bontesla: Global warming will continue to rezone areas and create new water front property. Fracking will create new homes vulnerable to disasters as we expand that practice

This political announcement paid for by The Algore Center for Profit from Non-proven Theories

If you want to be ignorant, do so quietly in the corner.

Nope, if you want to spout your opinions (and that is what those are, they are far from proven facts), expect to have others comment. And thanks for the "ignorant" comment, it makes me feel better when people go to the insult right off the bat.


Well, I see I have a new addition to the Global Climate Change denialists on FARK.
 
2012-10-31 04:37:47 PM  

vernonFL: The answer, my friend, is blowin in the wind


Came here for this.

Man, I'm old....
 
2012-10-31 04:38:08 PM  
As long as the insurance company keeps paying out.
 
2012-10-31 04:38:19 PM  
dj_bigbird: Who cares where someone builds their house at? If they (along with their insurance co.) want to accept the risk, I say let them. But don't expect any help from the government.

There are areas here where there are cliffside homes that are not insured (insurance companies won't take the risk because it's not a question of if the cliff will erode, but when).

BUUUUUUT

Nobody cares because only rich bastards can afford those houses anyway and they can just move to one of their other homes.

// On more than one occasion, someone has purchasedfour adjacent houses (at over $1 million each), so that they could bulldoze them and build one huge house on the four plots.
 
2012-10-31 04:38:53 PM  

dj_bigbird: Who cares where someone builds their house at? If they (along with their insurance co.) want to accept the risk, I say let them. But don't expect any help from the government.


You do realize how insurance works right?

premiums : taxes :: Insurance : government.
 
2012-10-31 04:39:07 PM  
dj_bigbird [TotalFark]


Smartest
Funniest

2012-10-31 01:32:45 PM

Who cares where someone builds their house at? If they (along with their insurance co.) want to accept the risk, I say let them. But don't expect any help from the government.


because they offset the risk by raising premiums on homes in safer locations. Also I'm getting sick of building materials jumping in price every. farking. time. we need to rebuild 1500 miles of coastal homes.
 
2012-10-31 04:39:21 PM  

Drexl's Eye: HailRobonia: When I first came here, this was all swamp. Everyone said I was daft to build a castle on a swamp, but I built in all the same, just to show them. It sank into the swamp. So I built a second one. That sank into the swamp. So I built a third. That burned down, fell over, then sank into the swamp. But the fourth one stayed up. And that's what you're going to get, Lad, the strongest castle in all of England.

The problem is that hurricanes like Sandy can cause flooding over huge tracts of land.


What flooding over huge tracts of land might look like:

thebournevillechronicles.com
 
2012-10-31 04:39:26 PM  
Never.

That would mean relocating people, some of which could be poor.

And if you want to do things to the poor, you are a GOP voting fascist.
 
2012-10-31 04:39:42 PM  
We need to be near water to survive. Drinking, raising crops, sanitation, and commerce all rely on access to water. Sorry, but we're not going anywhere.
 
2012-10-31 04:40:01 PM  
Free country, right?
Folks have the freedom to be stupid and throw away their money if they want to.
But they shouldn't be subsidized by taxpayer money.
If you're rich, spend big; if you're petite bourgeois, suck it up with the rest of us serfs.
 
2012-10-31 04:40:12 PM  

Bontesla:
Finally, if you have all of this evidence to support your argument then you should provide it.


Says the guy who cites no evidence, and uses insults to further his arguments.
 
2012-10-31 04:40:37 PM  

Bontesla: knbber2: Bontesla: Global warming will continue to rezone areas and create new water front property. Fracking will create new homes vulnerable to disasters as we expand that practice

This political announcement paid for by The Algore Center for Profit from Non-proven Theories

If you want to be ignorant, do so quietly in the corner.


As they say, "best to be considered a fool by most than to open one's mouth and remove all doubt."
 
2012-10-31 04:41:00 PM  
First they cam for those who lived near the coast, and I said nothing. Then they came for those who lived near rivers and lakes, and I said nothing. Then they came for those who lived in tornado alley, and I said nothing. Then they came for those who lived near forests where fires occur, and I said nothing. Then they came for those who lived near fault lines, and I said nothing.Then they came for those who lived near...

/amidoingitright
//you can't run from disaster, subby, its everywhere.
 
2012-10-31 04:41:23 PM  

Drexl's Eye: The problem is that hurricanes like Sandy can cause flooding over huge tracts of land.


Mostly and most often land near the ocean.
 
2012-10-31 04:41:33 PM  
So is the Party of Personal Responsibility suggesting the State decree where and where not private citizens may build homes?
 
TWX
2012-10-31 04:41:51 PM  

Eddie Adams from Torrance: Why can't we just move New York, Boston, New Orleans, Los Angeles, San Francisco, Chicago, Miami, San Diego, Charleston, Houston and Tampa 10 miles further inland? There can't be more than 50 million people living near the coast.


It's more like 150 million...

http://oceanservice.noaa.gov/facts/population.html
 
2012-10-31 04:42:35 PM  
"Rescuers plucked one kayaker out of the roiling waters of Long Island Sound, but another remained missing and rescue workers were forced to call off the search as Hurricane Sandy bore down on the East Coast.

The kayakers, who were not wearing life jackets, took their ill-advised outing Sunday night, and the search and rescue operation diverted Connecticut emergency crews just as they braced for what could be a 100-year storm.

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/weather/2012/10/29/connecticut-kayaker-lost-in- rising-waters-long-island-sound/#ixzz2AuXqu87V"

I would also like to say that if you are just plain stupid, don't send rescue crews to risk thier lives to save stupid. Darwin would approve.
 
2012-10-31 04:44:06 PM  
Fine, build a house there. But make it freaking storm resistant. The technology exists. Sure, it might not look like a right angle having old fashioned house, but it won't freaking blow down every 10 years.
 
2012-10-31 04:45:09 PM  
How many times?

EVERY TIME.
 
2012-10-31 04:45:27 PM  

HotIgneous Intruder: Folks have the freedom to be stupid and throw away their money if they want to.


Too infatuated on tax-payer money. What about insurance company-payer money. The rest of us pay more in higher insurance premiums to subsidize them than we do taxes for things like FEMA.
 
2012-10-31 04:46:28 PM  
This time it was caused by global warming, which they couldn't have expected, so its forgivable.
 
2012-10-31 04:46:35 PM  
I laugh at all the stupid people who build homes on those islands off shore (such as the Barrier Islands). Many of these islands are naturally "migrating" as one end of the island is washed away and new soil is deposited on the other end. Yet, people still build there. Idiots.
 
2012-10-31 04:46:43 PM  
Relevant:
Swamp Castle (clicky-pop)
"The third one burned down, fell over, and fell into the swamp, but the FOURTH ONE STAYED UP!"
 
2012-10-31 04:46:50 PM  

Leopold Stotch: We need to be near water to survive. Drinking, raising crops, sanitation, and commerce all rely on access to water. Sorry, but we're not going anywhere.


If you are drinking the water there then you are going to die. Buy imported water.
www.nodeju.com
 
2012-10-31 04:47:37 PM  

FrinkLemur: Relevant:
Swamp Castle (clicky-pop)
"The third one burned down, fell over, and fell into the swamp, but the FOURTH ONE STAYED UP!"


King of Swamp Castle: One day, lad, all this will be yours.
Prince Herbert: What, the curtains?
King of Swamp Castle: No, not the curtains, lad, all that you can see stretched out over the valleys and the hills! That'll be your kingdom, lad.
 
2012-10-31 04:48:38 PM  
As long as FEMA spreads the risk to the central USA by forcing us to buy flood insurance for living next to a one foot deep drainage ditch.
 
2012-10-31 04:48:59 PM  

knbber2: Bontesla: I don't insult everyone immediately. Only those willfully ignorant at the expense of others. This is what you are.

Once again, immediately to the insult to try to demean me. There is a significant portion of the scientific community that disagrees with the causes of global warming.


HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!!!!!

Bullshiat.
 
2012-10-31 04:49:46 PM  
As much as I enjoyed going to OBX that one time. I don't see why everyone in North Carolina should be responsible for fixing the income property of rich people.
 
2012-10-31 04:50:25 PM  
People don't want their tax money going to things they don't personally use. shocker...
 
2012-10-31 04:50:56 PM  

Pants full of macaroni!!: MOVE TO WHERE THE FOOD IS

/OH! OHHHHHHHH!


guy.com
 
2012-10-31 04:50:57 PM  

skullkrusher: In other news, Topeka, KS has been renamed New New York to accommodate all the people who aren't allowed to live near the water anymore


I don't think anyone's saying to not live near water. I think the argument is that if you live a place where the probability of damage is so high that you have to get a government subsidy on your insurance, you should either pay your own insurance or live somewhere where the chance of catastrophic losses isn't so high
 
2012-10-31 04:51:38 PM  
The thing about "Let them build wherever they want; we just won't help them," is:

1) Say you've got 100 people and 50 kids stranded/starving/injured because of flood/fire/etc.
You really think we shouldn't try to help them?

2) When you DO go to help it takes resources that could be helping others and puts 1st responders at unecessary risk.

Fires and storms and flooding will get worse and worse and governments should write new zoning regulations regarding how and where people can build.
 
2012-10-31 04:52:18 PM  

simplicimus: FrinkLemur: Relevant:
Swamp Castle (clicky-pop)
"The third one burned down, fell over, and fell into the swamp, but the FOURTH ONE STAYED UP!"

King of Swamp Castle: One day, lad, all this will be yours.
Prince Herbert: What, the curtains?
King of Swamp Castle: No, not the curtains, lad, all that you can see stretched out over the valleys and the hills! That'll be your kingdom, lad.


We live in a bloody swamp lad
 
2012-10-31 04:54:19 PM  
♫He's going to tell (he's going to tell)♫
 
2012-10-31 04:54:51 PM  
Man has been building and living by the sea for millennia, for good reason. It's not going to stop anytime soon.
 
2012-10-31 04:55:01 PM  
In Texas they build beach houses on stilts.


imagesus.homeaway.com
/not rocket science people
 
2012-10-31 04:55:06 PM  

jasimo: The thing about "Let them build wherever they want; we just won't help them," is:

1) Say you've got 100 people and 50 kids stranded/starving/injured because of flood/fire/etc.
You really think we shouldn't try to help them?

2) When you DO go to help it takes resources that could be helping others and puts 1st responders at unecessary risk.

Fires and storms and flooding will get worse and worse and governments should write new zoning regulations regarding how and where people can build.


Sure, rescue them but don't give them money to rebuild.
 
2012-10-31 04:55:19 PM  
www.worldofstock.com

The morons that built or bought these deserve every last thing that happens to them.
 
2012-10-31 04:55:24 PM  

PerilousApricot: skullkrusher: In other news, Topeka, KS has been renamed New New York to accommodate all the people who aren't allowed to live near the water anymore

I don't think anyone's saying to not live near water. I think the argument is that if you live a place where the probability of damage is so high that you have to get a government subsidy on your insurance, you should either pay your own insurance or live somewhere where the chance of catastrophic losses isn't so high


which, as we saw, is a very significant chunk of very populated areas though I do agree with you. I live in NYC and I don't see why people living in flood areas should receive federal help. Insure your shiat
 
2012-10-31 04:56:31 PM  

dj_bigbird: Who cares where someone builds their house at? If they (along with their insurance co.) want to accept the risk, I say let them. But don't expect any help from the government.


You should care, that's who. Where do you think insurance companies go to recover their losses? To YOU. That's what insurance is all about: sharing risks. If someone is engaging in risky behavior that causes your insurance company huge losses, losses that you have to help pay for with higher premiums and lower coverages, you should speak up.
 
2012-10-31 04:56:38 PM  

Guidette Frankentits: dj_bigbird: Who cares where someone builds their house at? If they (along with their insurance co.) want to accept the risk, I say let them. But don't expect any help from the government.

You do realize how insurance works right?

premiums : taxes :: Insurance : government.


Except that premiums for insurance are voluntgarily paid by the individual and the cost will reflect the risk, providing a feedback path to clue people in that maybe building there is a bad idea. With taxes, the risk and cost is spread across taxpayers who won't benefit, meaning the person expecting "the government" to pay the damage won't get the "don't build here" feedback.
 
2012-10-31 04:58:27 PM  

skullkrusher: PerilousApricot: skullkrusher: In other news, Topeka, KS has been renamed New New York to accommodate all the people who aren't allowed to live near the water anymore

I don't think anyone's saying to not live near water. I think the argument is that if you live a place where the probability of damage is so high that you have to get a government subsidy on your insurance, you should either pay your own insurance or live somewhere where the chance of catastrophic losses isn't so high

which, as we saw, is a very significant chunk of very populated areas though I do agree with you. I live in NYC and I don't see why people living in flood areas should receive federal help. Insure your shiat


it isn't like New York gets more federal taxes than they put in.
 
2012-10-31 04:59:04 PM  

jjorsett: Guidette Frankentits: dj_bigbird: Who cares where someone builds their house at? If they (along with their insurance co.) want to accept the risk, I say let them. But don't expect any help from the government.

You do realize how insurance works right?

premiums : taxes :: Insurance : government.

Except that premiums for insurance are voluntgarily paid by the individual and the cost will reflect the risk, providing a feedback path to clue people in that maybe building there is a bad idea. With taxes, the risk and cost is spread across taxpayers who won't benefit, meaning the person expecting "the government" to pay the damage won't get the "don't build here" feedback.


Insurance premiums aren't entirely voluntary. My mortgage requires homeowner's insurance. If I live in a state that is prone to hurricane damage, my premiums are going to be higher because the costs are spread amongst the insurance purchasers, not directly billed to the insured.
 
2012-10-31 04:59:29 PM  

dj_spanmaster: Man has been building and living by the sea for millennia, for good reason.


So the rest of us can pay for his new house when the old one gets smashed and washed to sea?
 
2012-10-31 05:00:17 PM  

PerilousApricot: skullkrusher: In other news, Topeka, KS has been renamed New New York to accommodate all the people who aren't allowed to live near the water anymore

I don't think anyone's saying to not live near water. I think the argument is that if you live a place where the probability of damage is so high that you have to get a government subsidy on your insurance, you should either pay your own insurance or live somewhere where the chance of catastrophic losses isn't so high


Why? We are rich, we should just tax the poor and middle class more, so the wealthy can build anywhere they want with no repercussions or loss of capital. Can't have those job creators inconvenienced.
 
2012-10-31 05:01:15 PM  

skullkrusher: PerilousApricot: skullkrusher: In other news, Topeka, KS has been renamed New New York to accommodate all the people who aren't allowed to live near the water anymore

I don't think anyone's saying to not live near water. I think the argument is that if you live a place where the probability of damage is so high that you have to get a government subsidy on your insurance, you should either pay your own insurance or live somewhere where the chance of catastrophic losses isn't so high

which, as we saw, is a very significant chunk of very populated areas though I do agree with you. I live in NYC and I don't see why people living in flood areas should receive federal help. Insure your shiat


I would imagine it has a lot to do with insurance not covering things like roads, electricity, land management, sewer, water. If the gov isn't there fixing these things and cleaning up debris, there's no point in rebuilding with your insurance claim. Not to mention insurance doesn't instantly replace your house.
 
2012-10-31 05:01:42 PM  

asurferosa: First they cam for those who lived near the coast, and I said nothing. Then they came for those who lived near rivers and lakes, and I said nothing. Then they came for those who lived in tornado alley, and I said nothing. Then they came for those who lived near forests where fires occur, and I said nothing. Then they came for those who lived near fault lines, and I said nothing.Then they came for those who lived near...

/amidoingitright
//you can't run from disaster, subby, its everywhere.


We just need to move everyone to Corvallis OR.
 
2012-10-31 05:01:45 PM  

skullkrusher: which, as we saw, is a very significant chunk of very populated areas though I do agree with you. I live in NYC and I don't see why people living in flood areas should receive federal help. Insure your shiat


You realize that NYC is heavily relying on federal assistance to unclog your subway tunnels and otherwise fix shiat that has nothing to do with your house or apartment right?
 
2012-10-31 05:01:53 PM  

Headso: skullkrusher: PerilousApricot: skullkrusher: In other news, Topeka, KS has been renamed New New York to accommodate all the people who aren't allowed to live near the water anymore

I don't think anyone's saying to not live near water. I think the argument is that if you live a place where the probability of damage is so high that you have to get a government subsidy on your insurance, you should either pay your own insurance or live somewhere where the chance of catastrophic losses isn't so high

which, as we saw, is a very significant chunk of very populated areas though I do agree with you. I live in NYC and I don't see why people living in flood areas should receive federal help. Insure your shiat

it isn't like New York gets more federal taxes than they put in.


media.economist.com
 
2012-10-31 05:02:15 PM  

Girion47: jasimo: The thing about "Let them build wherever they want; we just won't help them," is:

1) Say you've got 100 people and 50 kids stranded/starving/injured because of flood/fire/etc.
You really think we shouldn't try to help them?

2) When you DO go to help it takes resources that could be helping others and puts 1st responders at unecessary risk.

Fires and storms and flooding will get worse and worse and governments should write new zoning regulations regarding how and where people can build.

Sure, rescue them but don't give them money to rebuild.


Example: With forest fires out West in the last several years, time after time, firefighters have had to risk their lives trying to save people/houses in areas that are surrounded by woods and very hard to reach. It's expensive, it's dangerous, and it's easy to predict the problem isn't going to get any better. Local/state governments have a responsibility to deal with the issue.
 
2012-10-31 05:02:38 PM  

JackieRabbit: dj_bigbird: Who cares where someone builds their house at? If they (along with their insurance co.) want to accept the risk, I say let them. But don't expect any help from the government.

You should care, that's who. Where do you think insurance companies go to recover their losses? To YOU. That's what insurance is all about: sharing risks. If someone is engaging in risky behavior that causes your insurance company huge losses, losses that you have to help pay for with higher premiums and lower coverages, you should speak up.


In this case, couldn't an insurance company just say, "your shiat is too expensive" and only sell to low-risk housing?

Isn't that how we ended up with federal flood insurance in the first place? People wanted to build a flood-prone place, insurance companies were reluctant to jack up the rates for 90% of their customers to cover the last 10% (or whatever) of risky insurees, so people used to be unable to get ANY insurance, which meant they couldn't get loans, etc...
 
2012-10-31 05:03:45 PM  

gingerjet: skullkrusher: which, as we saw, is a very significant chunk of very populated areas though I do agree with you. I live in NYC and I don't see why people living in flood areas should receive federal help. Insure your shiat

You realize that NYC is heavily relying on federal assistance to unclog your subway tunnels and otherwise fix shiat that has nothing to do with your house or apartment right?


yep. What's that have to do with rebuilding someone's house because they lived in a flood area and didn't have insurance to cover it?
 
2012-10-31 05:03:50 PM  

jasimo: Girion47: jasimo: The thing about "Let them build wherever they want; we just won't help them," is:

1) Say you've got 100 people and 50 kids stranded/starving/injured because of flood/fire/etc.
You really think we shouldn't try to help them?

2) When you DO go to help it takes resources that could be helping others and puts 1st responders at unecessary risk.

Fires and storms and flooding will get worse and worse and governments should write new zoning regulations regarding how and where people can build.

Sure, rescue them but don't give them money to rebuild.

Example: With forest fires out West in the last several years, time after time, firefighters have had to risk their lives trying to save people/houses in areas that are surrounded by woods and very hard to reach. It's expensive, it's dangerous, and it's easy to predict the problem isn't going to get any better. Local/state governments have a responsibility to deal with the issue.


At some point you have to tell the resident's they are responsible for putting themselves in harm's way and that they are negligently risking the lives of others.
 
2012-10-31 05:05:57 PM  

knbber2: Bontesla: knbber2: Bontesla: Global warming will continue to rezone areas and create new water front property. Fracking will create new homes vulnerable to disasters as we expand that practice

This political announcement paid for by The Algore Center for Profit from Non-proven Theories

If you want to be ignorant, do so quietly in the corner.

Nope, if you want to spout your opinions (and that is what those are, they are far from proven facts), expect to have others comment. And thanks for the "ignorant" comment, it makes me feel better when people go to the insult right off the bat.


People like you are why I maintain that it is a good thing that we all die, and that we should never pursue immortality. The people we depend on to make such judgements have made such a judgement - global warming is real, and it is anthropogenic. We know this with the same certainty and through the same scientific process with which we know that HIV causes AIDS, and radiation increases your risk of cancer.

You, meanwhile, are part of the obstructionist bit of the population that is still clinging to the liferaft piloted by people who will point to the rare exceptions for whom the virus is dormant for life, or for that minority of people who have managed to survive intense radiation exposure as though they disrupt the trend.

"Oh look, it's snowing in Texas this year."

The rest of humanity is lucky that our minority population of ignorant ilk will eventually be overcome when they simply die. Without death, people like you would still have us all waving pigeons over our heads to absolve us of our transgressions against an angry sky wizard, or insisting that the universe is not heliocentric.

You deserve to be insulted. Insults, unfortunately, don't educate you, but they at least make the rest of us feel better about the fact that we all have to carry the burden of your incorrigibility.
 
2012-10-31 05:06:01 PM  
Ah insurance the business that sells a product but in order to stay profitable and in business they must do everything they can to not deliver said product.
 
2012-10-31 05:06:06 PM  

revrendjim: Someone who can afford a beach house can afford another beach house.


Used to be a time when we didn't build million dollar homes in hurricane prone areas. My grandfather was a skilled trade carpenter, and built himself a little cottage on a nice slice of beachfront property he gained due to having money set aside during the Depression. I loved that place as a kid: roughing it, a little Black and White TV, old deisel genny, a couple radios.

It was where my dad was conceived, and where my gramps finally ended life with a little bit of salt wind blowing in off the Atlantic. We had to sell off the land due to his illness and my grandmother and uncle being injured in a car accident. I always wondered what had happened to the place after we got rid of it, and it was where my grandmother wanted to be spread along with gramp's ashes.

Went to the place about six months after she passed to find someone you've probably listened to on the radio had purchased the lot along with ten or so others to build a nice little seaside palace.

They saw me roll up in Gramp's old beat down pickup and thought I was a bum. Explained the situation, and asked if I could just lay them to rest. Buried them with my great grandfather's shovel from his days building the railroads, said a prayer, and went off. Guy put a little marker there out of his own pocket and we went out for drinks.

When he asked about the story of my family... That look of contempt, that was when I went off and didn't look back.

Went a few years ago to find the little town I knew was pretty much all multimillion dollar houses, and the little shops and boardwalk had been replaced with coffee houses, t-shirt shops, and whiny rich tourist. It is amazing to watch when the socioeconomic trends of such a lifestyle change so much in so short of time.
 
2012-10-31 05:06:58 PM  
THIRTY-SIX
 
2012-10-31 05:07:01 PM  
 
2012-10-31 05:07:36 PM  

Girion47: Insurance premiums aren't entirely voluntary. My mortgage requires homeowner's insurance. If I live in a state that is prone to hurricane damage, my premiums are going to be higher because the costs are spread amongst the insurance purchasers, not directly billed to the insured.


I get what you're saying, but owning a house is voluntary, as is choosing to live in a hurricane-prone area.
 
2012-10-31 05:07:38 PM  

robbiex0r: skullkrusher: PerilousApricot: skullkrusher: In other news, Topeka, KS has been renamed New New York to accommodate all the people who aren't allowed to live near the water anymore

I don't think anyone's saying to not live near water. I think the argument is that if you live a place where the probability of damage is so high that you have to get a government subsidy on your insurance, you should either pay your own insurance or live somewhere where the chance of catastrophic losses isn't so high

which, as we saw, is a very significant chunk of very populated areas though I do agree with you. I live in NYC and I don't see why people living in flood areas should receive federal help. Insure your shiat

I would imagine it has a lot to do with insurance not covering things like roads, electricity, land management, sewer, water. If the gov isn't there fixing these things and cleaning up debris, there's no point in rebuilding with your insurance claim. Not to mention insurance doesn't instantly replace your house.


I see those as different as they are critical to a very large # of people and in no-small-proportion to the functioning of the US economy as a whole. That said, cities should be insured against such catastrophes but in extreme circumstances like this, I don't see a problem with federal help for the public. The NY Metro area alone about 7% of the US population.

I don't think it is too much to ask people who choose to live on the water to have insurance to protect themselves or take the risk that they could lose their shiat. It's not like you can move a city
 
2012-10-31 05:07:41 PM  

dj_spanmaster: Man has been building and living by the sea for millennia, for good reason. It's not going to stop anytime soon.


Kind of true, but not exactly correct. Yes, man has been building by the sea for a long, long time for obvious reasons, but the foolhardiness of building one's house right on the shore line is rather recent. As late as the beginning of the 20th century, very few people lived "at the beach." They may visit there, but most beaches in the US were somewhat remote and unpopulated. This is because we followed the advice of the natives we met when we first came here: big storms that will can kill you are common, so live inland and on high ground.
 
2012-10-31 05:09:15 PM  

HotIgneous Intruder: dj_spanmaster: Man has been building and living by the sea for millennia, for good reason.

So the rest of us can pay for his new house when the old one gets smashed and washed to sea?


Social (public/governmental) guards also exist for a reason, though technically that one's private business leveraging social guards. If you don't like it, take it up with your representatives.
 
2012-10-31 05:09:30 PM  
premiums for insurance are not voluntary. The bank makes sure you have insurance whether you want it or not.

The flood plain maps are 100 years old and are rarely updated. The amount of red tape involved to get a simple change of even 3 feet is crazy.

Lastly, I live several hundred feet above sea level on a large hill and our house is still considered a flood plain.. I assume it's because we are in a hurricane zone because no tsunami or storm surge will ever make it up to us.
 
2012-10-31 05:09:35 PM  

Bontesla: Now - say the same about all homes in Tornado Valley, near a fault line, near a fracking site, or near an area vulnerable for forest fires.


and the biggest destroyer of all, winter.

better not allow anyone to live where snow/sleet/ice form, 2000 deaths every year from winter weather traffic accidents alone.
 
2012-10-31 05:09:40 PM  

Headso: skullkrusher: PerilousApricot: skullkrusher: In other news, Topeka, KS has been renamed New New York to accommodate all the people who aren't allowed to live near the water anymore

I don't think anyone's saying to not live near water. I think the argument is that if you live a place where the probability of damage is so high that you have to get a government subsidy on your insurance, you should either pay your own insurance or live somewhere where the chance of catastrophic losses isn't so high

which, as we saw, is a very significant chunk of very populated areas though I do agree with you. I live in NYC and I don't see why people living in flood areas should receive federal help. Insure your shiat

it isn't like New York gets more federal taxes than they put in.


no doubt that NYC is a net contributor to the kitty but I don't think that should matter. Contribute to insurance. If we want to do something like they do in the Mississippi flood plains and have federal flood insurance to guarantee that people get paid if they make a valid claim then do that. This after the fact crap isn't fair to the rest of the country though.
 
2012-10-31 05:11:52 PM  

Ashrams: Leopold Stotch: We need to be near water to survive. Drinking, raising crops, sanitation, and commerce all rely on access to water. Sorry, but we're not going anywhere.

If you are drinking the water there then you are going to die. Buy imported water.
[www.nodeju.com image 500x351]


Yup because we drink the salt water from the harbor. NYC has some of the cleanest and best municipal water in the country.
 
2012-10-31 05:12:12 PM  

screwzloos: Girion47: Insurance premiums aren't entirely voluntary. My mortgage requires homeowner's insurance. If I live in a state that is prone to hurricane damage, my premiums are going to be higher because the costs are spread amongst the insurance purchasers, not directly billed to the insured.

I get what you're saying, but owning a house is voluntary, as is choosing to live in a hurricane-prone area.


Yes, living in shelter is voluntary. Something society also regards as necessary.

Living in a hurricane prone area is also voluntary, and not a necessity.
 
2012-10-31 05:12:22 PM  

mcreadyblue: In Texas they build beach houses on stilts.


[imagesus.homeaway.com image 300x225]
/not rocket science people


Great idea until a piece of debris or a boat gets slammed into one of the supports....
 
2012-10-31 05:13:35 PM  

JackieRabbit: dj_spanmaster: Man has been building and living by the sea for millennia, for good reason. It's not going to stop anytime soon.

Kind of true, but not exactly correct. Yes, man has been building by the sea for a long, long time for obvious reasons, but the foolhardiness of building one's house right on the shore line is rather recent. As late as the beginning of the 20th century, very few people lived "at the beach." They may visit there, but most beaches in the US were somewhat remote and unpopulated. This is because we followed the advice of the natives we met when we first came here: big storms that will can kill you are common, so live inland and on high ground.


People were doing it long before the 20th century (see: Venice, Alexandria, countless others). There are simply fools, sometimes they're rich, and our society government has determined that sometimes they will be supported regardless of foolishness.
 
2012-10-31 05:14:47 PM  

mrmaster: premiums for insurance are not voluntary. The bank makes sure you have insurance whether you want it or not.

The flood plain maps are 100 years old and are rarely updated. The amount of red tape involved to get a simple change of even 3 feet is crazy.

Lastly, I live several hundred feet above sea level on a large hill and our house is still considered a flood plain.. I assume it's because we are in a hurricane zone because no tsunami or storm surge will ever make it up to us.


A good solid earthquake might drop you down to them, though. I'm not sure where you live, but much of the earthquake research out here on the west coast has centered around mapping where the land had dropped, sometimes as much as 20 feet, during a quake.
 
2012-10-31 05:16:49 PM  
FTFA: fusillade

Had to look that one up.
 
2012-10-31 05:19:23 PM  
How many times are we going to find out Carl wasn't in the house after all?
 
2012-10-31 05:19:41 PM  

gshepnyc: Ashrams: Leopold Stotch: We need to be near water to survive. Drinking, raising crops, sanitation, and commerce all rely on access to water. Sorry, but we're not going anywhere.

If you are drinking the water there then you are going to die. Buy imported water.
[www.nodeju.com image 500x351]

Yup because we drink the salt water from the harbor. NYC has some of the cleanest and best municipal water in the country.


I dip my watering bucket into the Hudson at the 79th St Boat Basin, thank you very much
 
2012-10-31 05:20:08 PM  

dj_bigbird: Who cares where someone builds their house at? If they (along with their insurance co.) want to accept the risk, I say let them. But don't expect any help from the government.


Therein lies the problem: Governments often pick up insurance coverage when private companies refuse to do so, encouraging carelessness. Then we all pay when something like this happens - we pay for rescues, rebuilding, relocation, ...

/Which is common to most anything financial: business investment, home loans, etc., etc.
 
2012-10-31 05:20:31 PM  

PerilousApricot: JackieRabbit: dj_bigbird: Who cares where someone builds their house at? If they (along with their insurance co.) want to accept the risk, I say let them. But don't expect any help from the government.

You should care, that's who. Where do you think insurance companies go to recover their losses? To YOU. That's what insurance is all about: sharing risks. If someone is engaging in risky behavior that causes your insurance company huge losses, losses that you have to help pay for with higher premiums and lower coverages, you should speak up.

In this case, couldn't an insurance company just say, "your shiat is too expensive" and only sell to low-risk housing?

Isn't that how we ended up with federal flood insurance in the first place? People wanted to build a flood-prone place, insurance companies were reluctant to jack up the rates for 90% of their customers to cover the last 10% (or whatever) of risky insurees, so people used to be unable to get ANY insurance, which meant they couldn't get loans, etc...


Yes. The program began in 1968 because insurers never have covered the losses from flooding. Because the population growing, more and more people began to live in flood plains and the losses to the economy due to floods was deemed unacceptable. So the US Government started a cooperative program with local communities to provide flood insurance to those living in high risk areas. The insurance and mortgage industries supported this program because it was good for their businesses. Mortgage lenders require federal flood insurance for any property in flood zones A and B (and a few other special zones). If a mortgagee allows coverage to lapse, they can foreclose.

Flood insurance is not cheap. When I lived in a flood zone B (low risk, but still a risk of a flood of one food every 100 years), my flood insurance was $500/yr. Had I lived across the street, which was zone A, it would have been almost double that.
 
2012-10-31 05:20:42 PM  
I wonder how many people had there bomb/survival shelters flooded.
 
2012-10-31 05:20:49 PM  

skullkrusher: Headso: skullkrusher: PerilousApricot: skullkrusher: In other news, Topeka, KS has been renamed New New York to accommodate all the people who aren't allowed to live near the water anymore

I don't think anyone's saying to not live near water. I think the argument is that if you live a place where the probability of damage is so high that you have to get a government subsidy on your insurance, you should either pay your own insurance or live somewhere where the chance of catastrophic losses isn't so high

which, as we saw, is a very significant chunk of very populated areas though I do agree with you. I live in NYC and I don't see why people living in flood areas should receive federal help. Insure your shiat

it isn't like New York gets more federal taxes than they put in.

no doubt that NYC is a net contributor to the kitty but I don't think that should matter. Contribute to insurance. If we want to do something like they do in the Mississippi flood plains and have federal flood insurance to guarantee that people get paid if they make a valid claim then do that. This after the fact crap isn't fair to the rest of the country though.


your first sentence blows off the unfairness of NY being a net contributor why does the unfairness of them getting this assistance matter? If fairness is the issue.
 
2012-10-31 05:25:22 PM  
If mankind can't figure out how to cope with an ocean that is 1" deeper, it deserves to perish.
 
2012-10-31 05:26:18 PM  

dj_spanmaster: JackieRabbit: dj_spanmaster: Man has been building and living by the sea for millennia, for good reason. It's not going to stop anytime soon.

Kind of true, but not exactly correct. Yes, man has been building by the sea for a long, long time for obvious reasons, but the foolhardiness of building one's house right on the shore line is rather recent. As late as the beginning of the 20th century, very few people lived "at the beach." They may visit there, but most beaches in the US were somewhat remote and unpopulated. This is because we followed the advice of the natives we met when we first came here: big storms that will can kill you are common, so live inland and on high ground.

People were doing it long before the 20th century (see: Venice, Alexandria, countless others). There are simply fools, sometimes they're rich, and our society government has determined that sometimes they will be supported regardless of foolishness.


Those are cities you cite. I said man has been building by water for a long, long time. But beach homes, etc are a recent phenomenon. Venice is a very special case. It and Alexandria had rather sophisticated flood control systems in antiquity. Flooding in Venice has only become a problem due to sea level rise.

I completely agree that building on the beach or in a flood plain is foolish. I think it is the kind of foolishness that is about to come to a slow end.
 
2012-10-31 05:26:21 PM  

Headso: skullkrusher: Headso: skullkrusher: PerilousApricot: skullkrusher: In other news, Topeka, KS has been renamed New New York to accommodate all the people who aren't allowed to live near the water anymore

I don't think anyone's saying to not live near water. I think the argument is that if you live a place where the probability of damage is so high that you have to get a government subsidy on your insurance, you should either pay your own insurance or live somewhere where the chance of catastrophic losses isn't so high

which, as we saw, is a very significant chunk of very populated areas though I do agree with you. I live in NYC and I don't see why people living in flood areas should receive federal help. Insure your shiat

it isn't like New York gets more federal taxes than they put in.

no doubt that NYC is a net contributor to the kitty but I don't think that should matter. Contribute to insurance. If we want to do something like they do in the Mississippi flood plains and have federal flood insurance to guarantee that people get paid if they make a valid claim then do that. This after the fact crap isn't fair to the rest of the country though.

your first sentence blows off the unfairness of NY being a net contributor why does the unfairness of them getting this assistance matter? If fairness is the issue.


because taxes paid are not flood insurance? We don't begrudge states or cities which are net takers, why would we credit states or cities which are net contributors?

At this point I don't think it would be fair to not assist private citizens with private property as it has been done in the past and could play into people's decisions on whether they should get disaster insurance or how much. I am cool with expecting people to protect their own shiat going forward, however. Making up a shortfall as the result of a historical catastrophe is one thing but as the primary protection against disaster? Nah
 
2012-10-31 05:26:33 PM  
How many times do coastal homes need to be washed away before we say we shouldn't be building homes here any more begin enforcing the use of tall pilings and steel frame construction? 

/FTFM
 
2012-10-31 05:27:09 PM  
I don't know how close to shore people in New England build their beach homes, but in Florida they are ridiculously close to the water. It's like they want waves lapping at the rear sliding glass door when there isn't a storm in sight. I think land at least the width of a typical city block plus should be purchased by state and federal governments and converted to parkland. Separate the park from the residential area with at least one two lane road. Make everyone build on the far side of the road and no closer. It might hold down storm damage and help wildlife like turtles.
 
2012-10-31 05:28:14 PM  

skullkrusher: I dip my watering bucket into the Hudson at the 79th St Boat Basin, thank you very much


skullkrusher (right) and his girlfriend:

www-deadline-com.vimg.net
 
2012-10-31 05:28:56 PM  

knbber2: Bontesla: Global warming will continue to rezone areas and create new water front property. Fracking will create new homes vulnerable to disasters as we expand that practice

This political announcement paid for by The Algore Center for Profit from Non-proven Theories


Global warming has been proven, repeatedly. The evidence is overwhelming. If uneducated tea party jerkoffs refuse to even look at the evidence, it won't change the facts of what is happening.
 
2012-10-31 05:30:33 PM  

ArcadianRefugee: skullkrusher: I dip my watering bucket into the Hudson at the 79th St Boat Basin, thank you very much

skullkrusher (right) and his girlfriend:

[www-deadline-com.vimg.net image 300x204]


oh Toxi, you so dreamy
 
2012-10-31 05:32:02 PM  

JackieRabbit: I completely agree that building on the beach or in a flood plain is foolish.


There was argument in Roanoke (Va.) over whether to repair or demolish the old Victory Stadium. Then this happened. Again.

img.photobucket.com
 
2012-10-31 05:32:05 PM  

vudukungfu: Stupidity: "It's got great ocean views"

Logic: "You are close enough to water that covers 2/3rds of the entire planet, moves at will, is measured by tonnage, and is totally unpredictable. You are sitting on sand, which is the dust under the atmosphere of dihydogenmonoxide and blows at its will. You may enjoy the view this fine day, but eventually, and more sooner than later, this will not be a safe place to be. You need to rent, for a while, but do not buy here. "

Assholiness: " Insure my house with great ocean views"


Logic:
You are standing on the surface of a thin coating of solid rock, floating on a sea 6400 km deep of molten iron. The only thing between you and the vacuum of space is 60km of atmosphere, of which only the bottom 10km is breathable.

Between you and the sun -- a giant permanent fusion explosion so large its own mass sucks the fireball back in -- there's a grand total of 6 miles worth of survivable space. That's a 0.00000645468% safety zone.

Life is dangerous.
 
2012-10-31 05:33:26 PM  

squeez cheez: Therein lies the problem: Governments often pick up insurance coverage when private companies refuse to do so, encouraging carelessness. Then we all pay when something like this happens - we pay for rescues, rebuilding, relocation, ...


I wonder how much various governments have made on real estate taxes on property that would be otherwise worthless?
 
2012-10-31 05:33:42 PM  

Girion47: jasimo: The thing about "Let them build wherever they want; we just won't help them," is:

1) Say you've got 100 people and 50 kids stranded/starving/injured because of flood/fire/etc.
You really think we shouldn't try to help them?

2) When you DO go to help it takes resources that could be helping others and puts 1st responders at unecessary risk.

Fires and storms and flooding will get worse and worse and governments should write new zoning regulations regarding how and where people can build.

Sure, rescue them but don't give them money to rebuild.


Yep, rescue them, refuse to provide the money for rebuilding, purchase the land and convert it to parkland - if it's really right on the beach and in a true flood zone. Maybe throw first dibs on a buildable lot a bit further away from the beach as further compensation for the homeowner, if that is feasible and can be done while treating all parties equitably. I wouldn't do that for an area that floods at most once every 100 years.
 
2012-10-31 05:33:51 PM  

skullkrusher: oh Toxi, you so dreamy


It gets worse.
 
2012-10-31 05:37:03 PM  

Eddie Adams from Torrance: We just need to move everyone to Corvallis OR.


Corvallis is in the middle of a lava field, which still exhibits active volcanoes.
 
2012-10-31 05:38:11 PM  

ArcadianRefugee: skullkrusher: oh Toxi, you so dreamy

It gets worse.


I'd say Troma jumped the shark if Troma didn't make a cottage industry out of intentionally jumping the shark. Now they're apparently intentionally making a mockery of things they made that were intended to make a mockery in the first place. Very meta, Mr Kaufman
 
2012-10-31 05:39:24 PM  

gingerjet: You realize that NYC is heavily relying on federal assistance to unclog your subway tunnels


I would think repairing interstate tunnels is exactly the kind of thing federal assistance is for.
 
2012-10-31 05:39:56 PM  

Rent Party: The morons that built or bought these deserve every last thing that happens to them.


They are still standing and not flooded.
 
2012-10-31 05:41:05 PM  

HailRobonia: ♫He's going to tell (he's going to tell)♫


NO SINGING.
 
2012-10-31 05:43:18 PM  

netizencain: How many times do homeless people need to be washed away before we say we shouldn't be building showers here any more?


Obscure Bob Dylan song?
 
2012-10-31 05:43:57 PM  

This text is now purple: gingerjet: You realize that NYC is heavily relying on federal assistance to unclog your subway tunnels

I would think repairing interstate tunnels is exactly the kind of thing federal assistance is for.


subways are all intrastate. Only intrastate tunnels are the ones going to Dirty Jerz and they're NJTransit, PATH and vehicle tunnels
 
2012-10-31 05:45:09 PM  

asurferosa: First they cam for those who lived near the coast, and I said nothing. Then they came for those who lived near rivers and lakes, and I said nothing. Then they came for those who lived in tornado alley, and I said nothing. Then they came for those who lived near forests where fires occur, and I said nothing. Then they came for those who lived near fault lines, and I said nothing.Then they came for those who lived near...

/amidoingitright
//you can't run from disaster, subby, its everywhere.


Then people living near the coast can pay for flood insurance while people living near tornados could pay for tornado insurance while people who live near...

You should be the one to pay for your stupid decisions, not us. If you think differently then GFY.
 
2012-10-31 05:49:10 PM  

ArcadianRefugee: mcreadyblue: In Texas they build beach houses on stilts.


[imagesus.homeaway.com image 300x225]
/not rocket science people

Great idea until a piece of debris or a boat gets slammed into one of the supports....


Believe it or not, that's not a big problem. Storm surges keep the debris heading inward.
 
2012-10-31 05:49:12 PM  

karmaceutical: So is the Party of Personal Responsibility suggesting the State decree where and where not private citizens may build homes?


If we have to pay for it then you aren't being very personally responsible now are you?
 
2012-10-31 05:52:28 PM  

NowhereMon: Once.


Done in one.
 
2012-10-31 05:55:57 PM  

Girion47: screwzloos: Girion47: Insurance premiums aren't entirely voluntary. My mortgage requires homeowner's insurance. If I live in a state that is prone to hurricane damage, my premiums are going to be higher because the costs are spread amongst the insurance purchasers, not directly billed to the insured.

I get what you're saying, but owning a house is voluntary, as is choosing to live in a hurricane-prone area.

Yes, living in shelter is voluntary. Something society also regards as necessary.

Living in a hurricane prone area is also voluntary, and not a necessity.


I'm not suggesting that living in shelter is voluntary. The percentage of independent adults in the US that don't own a home is significantly higher than the rate of homelessness. There is something in between. I'll let you figure that one out.
 
2012-10-31 06:09:30 PM  

Bontesla: knbber2: Bontesla: I don't insult everyone immediately. Only those willfully ignorant at the expense of others. This is what you are.

Once again, immediately to the insult to try to demean me. There is a significant portion of the scientific community that disagrees with the causes of global warming. As far as fracking goes, the percentage is higher. And no, I am not going to search around for the numbers, as you did not either, that is not my point. You have your opinions, which is your right, I have mine. Fark is a place to express those opinions. If you need to tell someone who disagrees with your opinions to be ignorant in the corner, you need to get a thicker skin. Have a nice day, no hard feelings from this side.

I respectfully disagree with many.

I'm simply being honest. Yes - calling you ignorant is insulting. But that doesn't mean I'm wrong. I can offend a thief by calling them a thief - but does that make me wrong? No. Could I find a more polite way to call you ignorant? Probably.

But what incentive do I have to politely search for a word to call you ignorant when your ignorance attributes to a dangerous situation?

Finally, if you have all of this evidence to support your argument then you should provide it.


You could just man up like all the other liberal douches and call someone hitler to shut them down when your counter-argument has no validity. Or go for the non-passé and just use correlation/causation...either way without numbers for YOUR argument, you're just as ignorant as you make everyone out to be.
 
2012-10-31 06:11:39 PM  
We have teh technology.

msnbcmedia1.msn.com
www.domeincorporated.com
 
2012-10-31 06:15:41 PM  

mcreadyblue: Rent Party: The morons that built or bought these deserve every last thing that happens to them.

They are still standing and not flooded.


You do understand that when those were built, they were built on dry land.

The thing about sand bars is that they move. Those places are going to be hundreds of yards out to sea in a few more years.
 
2012-10-31 06:16:20 PM  

Eddie Adams from Torrance: asurferosa: First they cam for those who lived near the coast, and I said nothing. Then they came for those who lived near rivers and lakes, and I said nothing. Then they came for those who lived in tornado alley, and I said nothing. Then they came for those who lived near forests where fires occur, and I said nothing. Then they came for those who lived near fault lines, and I said nothing.Then they came for those who lived near...

/amidoingitright
//you can't run from disaster, subby, its everywhere.

We just need to move everyone to Corvallis OR.


The West Coast is the best coast.
 
2012-10-31 06:21:47 PM  
Dear America

Why not stop building houses out of wood and start using things like "brick", "cement" or even "stone"? Then your residential areas might stop turning into lumber yards every time the wind blows.

Love

The Rest of the World
 
2012-10-31 06:24:40 PM  

JackieRabbit: I completely agree that building on the beach or in a flood plain is foolish. I think it is the kind of foolishness that is about to come to a slow end.


[Not directed at you, just using your "building on a floodplain is foolish" as a jumping off point]

Good idea in theory, sensible ideas to keep in mind for future planning, BUT: You may not realize just how much of our population already lives in a "flood plain." It's not just the places with waterfront and a dock.

For example, pretty much ALL of the Los Angeles basin is a flood plain.

Was it a mistake to build there? Maybe. But it's there now, and the cost of relocating one of the largest metropolises would be far higher than any potential loss. And even if you could move LA, where would you put ten million or so people? Yes, America has a lot of space, but you'd be trading floodplain risks for other weather or geological risks. It's not like there's some magical corner of the country without some potential hazard.

No, you just adapt your city so it can cope with a certain level of disaster. LA has paved over & walled all of it's rivers to channel runoff, streets have high curbs for the same reason, there are many flood control reservoirs, and beyond a certain amount of water in the watershed bad things will happen (like landslides) but Los Angelenos have come to the conclusion that the present situation is an acceptable compromise between "as perfectly safe as humanly possible" and "third world deathtrap".
 
2012-10-31 06:25:49 PM  
[Picture of NY]
"Maybe homes shouldn't be worth $10 million when they're on the coast and every five years the coast will be flooded and the home will be destroyed"


Juxtaposition fail. I don't recall NY or NJ, even the barrier islands, taking this pounding in the last 3 decades, at least. Even so, I have friends with places on the south jersey shore that are fine.
 
2012-10-31 06:26:30 PM  

skullkrusher: This text is now purple: gingerjet: You realize that NYC is heavily relying on federal assistance to unclog your subway tunnels

I would think repairing interstate tunnels is exactly the kind of thing federal assistance is for.

subways are all intrastate. Only intrastate tunnels are the ones going to Dirty Jerz and they're NJTransit, PATH and vehicle tunnels


PATH connects with MTA tunnels at 9th St, doesn't it?
 
2012-10-31 06:29:05 PM  
I don't have a problem with federal money paying to replace people's primary residence, as long as the rebuild is updated (ie, up to code for whatever natural hazard normally occurs there). I do kinda have a problem with paying to replace someone's vacation home, which is what a lot of seaside houses seem to be.

If you can have a vacation home, you should have enough insurance to cover it. If not, sucks to be you.

As for businesses damaged by hurricanes - eh, a business does contribute something (ie, taxes, jobs, etc.) - so I guess over time helping them out pretty much evens it all up, revenue-wise.

But that's just me.
 
2012-10-31 06:36:24 PM  

orbister: Dear America

Why not stop building houses out of wood and start using things like "brick", "cement" or even "stone"? Then your residential areas might stop turning into lumber yards every time the wind blows.

Love

The Rest of the World


Dear Rest of the World,

Regarding your latest inquiry. It is because we have trees here.

Sincerely,

America.
 
2012-10-31 06:37:21 PM  
They got the money, they want to build, whatever. Just don't cry when you have to build it again. Why not ask people why they keep rebuilding in tornado alley, when they know another tornado is going to come along and flatten their trailers again? As long as it makes them happy.
 
2012-10-31 06:43:58 PM  

asurferosa: First they cam for those who lived near the coast, and I said nothing. Then they came for those who lived near rivers and lakes, and I said nothing. Then they came for those who lived in tornado alley, and I said nothing. Then they came for those who lived near forests where fires occur, and I said nothing. Then they came for those who lived near fault lines, and I said nothing.Then they came for those who lived near...

/amidoingitright
//you can't run from disaster, subby, its everywhere.


hey. I live in SE Michigan. The only disasters we really get are economic. Ha!

/weeps quietly
//seriously, though, stray tornado now and then, minor flooding now and then, bad winter storms every few years... got some wind from Sandy... random earthquake vary rarely that no one can ever feel... droughts and snap frosts that affect crops but... that's about it
///longest I was ever without power was due to a dumbass human error (2003 blackout)
////still, worry about my friends in Joisey who are all without jobs for the time being since their office is likely a total loss
 
2012-10-31 06:48:14 PM  
I don't care what people with MARKET - BASED insurance do so long as their losses are between them and don't involve public funds. But of cours flood losses ALWAYS involve public funds as the damaged party alwyas shows up with their hand out at the FEMA trough for grants and low interest loans.

And then there's federal flood insurance which should cost many times what it does but instead it's subsidized by fees on everyone else's insruance policies.

Nice racket if you can get it flood victims.

Sad and disgusting simultaneously.
 
2012-10-31 06:48:45 PM  
The wise man built his house upon the Rock,
The wise man built his house upon the Rock,
The wise man built his house upon the Rock,
And the rains came tumbling down.
The rains came down and the floods came up,
The rains came down and the floods came up,
The rains came down and the floods came up,
But the house on the Rock stood firm.
The foolish man built his house upon the sand,
The foolish man built his house upon the sand,
The foolish man built his house upon the sand,
And the rains came tumbling down.
The rains came down and the floods came up,
The rains came down and the floods came up,
The rains came down and the floods came up,
And the house on the sand fell flat.
So build your life on the Lord Jesus Christ,
So build your life on the Lord Jesus Christ,
So build your life on the Lord Jesus Christ,
And the blessings will come down.
The blessings come down as your prayers go up,
The blessings come down as your prayers go up,
The blessings come down as your prayers go up,
So build your life on the Lord.
 
2012-10-31 06:57:33 PM  

knbber2: There is a significant portion of the scientific community that disagrees with the causes of global warming.


No. Buh-bye.
 
2012-10-31 07:00:57 PM  

cryinoutloud: knbber2: There is a significant portion of the scientific community that disagrees with the causes of global warming.

No. Buh-bye.


That portion is neither significant, nor very scientific. The VAST majority of scientists agree with the theory of global warming.
 
2012-10-31 07:21:01 PM  
people will never stop building by the water (or other attractive areas at risk for major disaste) nor should they

buildings will fall and will be rebuilt. nothing will change so the question is moot
 
2012-10-31 07:21:12 PM  

ElFugawz: [Picture of NY]
"Maybe homes shouldn't be worth $10 million when they're on the coast and every five years the coast will be flooded and the home will be destroyed"

Juxtaposition fail. I don't recall NY or NJ, even the barrier islands, taking this pounding in the last 3 h, at least. Even so, I have friends with places on the south jersey shore that are fine.


The last time something of this magnitude hit NJ is probably the hurricane of 1962. My wife was 4 at the ti
 
2012-10-31 07:22:32 PM  

HailRobonia: When I first came here, this was all swamp. Everyone said I was daft to build a castle on a swamp, but I built in all the same, just to show them. It sank into the swamp. So I built a second one. That sank into the swamp. So I built a third. That burned down, fell over, then sank into the swamp. But the fourth one stayed up. And that's what you're going to get, Lad, the strongest castle in all of England.


I know I'm late and I did not read this thread from your post forward-yet.
I hope I'm not the first, but

"What, the curtains?"
 
2012-10-31 07:24:08 PM  
Dammit. My wife was 4 years old and clearly remembers houses floating the bay at Long Beach Island, NJ. Her parents had a cottage on the island.
 
2012-10-31 07:24:59 PM  

amoral: Bontesla:
Finally, if you have all of this evidence to support your argument then you should provide it.

Says the guy who cites no evidence, and uses insults to further his arguments.


Nice handle
 
2012-10-31 07:26:33 PM  

simplicimus: FrinkLemur: Relevant:
Swamp Castle (clicky-pop)
"The third one burned down, fell over, and fell into the swamp, but the FOURTH ONE STAYED UP!"

King of Swamp Castle: One day, lad, all this will be yours.
Prince Herbert: What, the curtains?
King of Swamp Castle: No, not the curtains, lad, all that you can see stretched out over the valleys and the hills! That'll be your kingdom, lad.


Whew.

Thank you.
 
2012-10-31 07:28:24 PM  
Here in Missouri we took land that was in the Missouri River flood plains and gave it to the Army Corps of Engineers for "Reclamation". So basically we made it the Governments problem.

I must admit it keeps the dumbasses from rebuilding there.
 
2012-10-31 07:34:29 PM  

InitialCommentGuy: revrendjim: Someone who can afford a beach house can afford another beach house.

Used to be a time when we didn't build million dollar homes in hurricane prone areas. My grandfather was a skilled trade carpenter, and built himself a little cottage on a nice slice of beachfront property he gained due to having money set aside during the Depression. I loved that place as a kid: roughing it, a little Black and White TV, old deisel genny, a couple radios.

It was where my dad was conceived, and where my gramps finally ended life with a little bit of salt wind blowing in off the Atlantic. We had to sell off the land due to his illness and my grandmother and uncle being injured in a car accident. I always wondered what had happened to the place after we got rid of it, and it was where my grandmother wanted to be spread along with gramp's ashes.

Went to the place about six months after she passed to find someone you've probably listened to on the radio had purchased the lot along with ten or so others to build a nice little seaside palace.

They saw me roll up in Gramp's old beat down pickup and thought I was a bum. Explained the situation, and asked if I could just lay them to rest. Buried them with my great grandfather's shovel from his days building the railroads, said a prayer, and went off. Guy put a little marker there out of his own pocket and we went out for drinks.

When he asked about the story of my family... That look of contempt, that was when I went off and didn't look back.

Went a few years ago to find the little town I knew was pretty much all multimillion dollar houses, and the little shops and boardwalk had been replaced with coffee houses, t-shirt shops, and whiny rich tourist. It is amazing to watch when the socioeconomic trends of such a lifestyle change so much in so short of time.


boo hoo
 
2012-10-31 07:44:55 PM  

wookiee cookie: InitialCommentGuy: revrendjim: Someone who can afford a beach house can afford another beach house.

Used to be a time when we didn't build million dollar homes in hurricane prone areas. My grandfather was a skilled trade carpenter, and built himself a little cottage on a nice slice of beachfront property he gained due to having money set aside during the Depression. I loved that place as a kid: roughing it, a little Black and White TV, old deisel genny, a couple radios.

It was where my dad was conceived, and where my gramps finally ended life with a little bit of salt wind blowing in off the Atlantic. We had to sell off the land due to his illness and my grandmother and uncle being injured in a car accident. I always wondered what had happened to the place after we got rid of it, and it was where my grandmother wanted to be spread along with gramp's ashes.

Went to the place about six months after she passed to find someone you've probably listened to on the radio had purchased the lot along with ten or so others to build a nice little seaside palace.

They saw me roll up in Gramp's old beat down pickup and thought I was a bum. Explained the situation, and asked if I could just lay them to rest. Buried them with my great grandfather's shovel from his days building the railroads, said a prayer, and went off. Guy put a little marker there out of his own pocket and we went out for drinks.

When he asked about the story of my family... That look of contempt, that was when I went off and didn't look back.

Went a few years ago to find the little town I knew was pretty much all multimillion dollar houses, and the little shops and boardwalk had been replaced with coffee houses, t-shirt shops, and whiny rich tourist. It is amazing to watch when the socioeconomic trends of such a lifestyle change so much in so short of time.

boo hoo


Awesome response.
 
2012-10-31 08:01:40 PM  
There's nothing new under the sun.

Sea level been going up for 13,000 years, people.
It's how the Chesapeake Bay formed in what was once the Susquehanna River valley.
It's why what is now the submerged continental shelf stopped being Atlantic beachfront property.
 
2012-10-31 08:15:53 PM  

phrawgh: We have teh technology.

[msnbcmedia1.msn.com image 474x326]
[www.domeincorporated.com image 584x392]


"Far-out" architecture almost always seems to have more issues with keeping the elements out. Most of Frank lloyd Wright's shiat developed structural issues. Geodesic dome? Fark no. Difficult to waterproof to begin with. Very nearly impossible to keep waterproof for more than a couple of seasons. Spectacularly wasteful of materials, too.
 
2012-10-31 08:16:37 PM  

dj_bigbird: Who cares where someone builds their house at? If they (along with their insurance co.) want to accept the risk, I say let them. But don't expect any help from the government.


Why not? Everybody else is getting something from the government. If we ban stupid people from government relief, we don't need the government at all. It's there to help stupid and foolish people. Rescuing the unprepared and incompetent is one of the primary functions of our system.

/More! Give us more MORE MORE!
 
2012-10-31 08:17:05 PM  

InitialCommentGuy: wookiee cookie: InitialCommentGuy: revrendjim: Someone who can afford a beach house can afford another beach house.

Used to be a time when we didn't build million dollar homes in hurricane prone areas. My grandfather was a skilled trade carpenter, and built himself a little cottage on a nice slice of beachfront property he gained due to having money set aside during the Depression. I loved that place as a kid: roughing it, a little Black and White TV, old deisel genny, a couple radios.

It was where my dad was conceived, and where my gramps finally ended life with a little bit of salt wind blowing in off the Atlantic. We had to sell off the land due to his illness and my grandmother and uncle being injured in a car accident. I always wondered what had happened to the place after we got rid of it, and it was where my grandmother wanted to be spread along with gramp's ashes.

Went to the place about six months after she passed to find someone you've probably listened to on the radio had purchased the lot along with ten or so others to build a nice little seaside palace.

They saw me roll up in Gramp's old beat down pickup and thought I was a bum. Explained the situation, and asked if I could just lay them to rest. Buried them with my great grandfather's shovel from his days building the railroads, said a prayer, and went off. Guy put a little marker there out of his own pocket and we went out for drinks.

When he asked about the story of my family... That look of contempt, that was when I went off and didn't look back.

Went a few years ago to find the little town I knew was pretty much all multimillion dollar houses, and the little shops and boardwalk had been replaced with coffee houses, t-shirt shops, and whiny rich tourist. It is amazing to watch when the socioeconomic trends of such a lifestyle change so much in so short of time.

boo hoo

Awesome response.


thank you! seemed like an appropriate response to a wall of pointless shmaltz and nostalgia-fapping

protip: the only thing that's constant is change. now try not to die bitter.
 
2012-10-31 08:19:44 PM  

knbber2: Bontesla: I don't insult everyone immediately. Only those willfully ignorant at the expense of others. This is what you are.

Once again, immediately to the insult to try to demean me. There is a significant portion of the scientific community that disagrees with the causes of global warming. As far as fracking goes, the percentage is higher. And no, I am not going to search around for the numbers, as you did not either, that is not my point. You have your opinions, which is your right, I have mine. Fark is a place to express those opinions. If you need to tell someone who disagrees with your opinions to be ignorant in the corner, you need to get a thicker skin. Have a nice day, no hard feelings from this side.


Class act. Well done.
 
2012-10-31 08:32:14 PM  

InitialCommentGuy: wookiee cookie: InitialCommentGuy: revrendjim: Someone who can afford a beach house can afford another beach house.

Used to be a time when we didn't build million dollar homes in hurricane prone areas. My grandfather was a skilled trade carpenter, and built himself a little cottage on a nice slice of beachfront property he gained due to having money set aside during the Depression. I loved that place as a kid: roughing it, a little Black and White TV, old deisel genny, a couple radios.

It was where my dad was conceived, and where my gramps finally ended life with a little bit of salt wind blowing in off the Atlantic. We had to sell off the land due to his illness and my grandmother and uncle being injured in a car accident. I always wondered what had happened to the place after we got rid of it, and it was where my grandmother wanted to be spread along with gramp's ashes.

Went to the place about six months after she passed to find someone you've probably listened to on the radio had purchased the lot along with ten or so others to build a nice little seaside palace.

They saw me roll up in Gramp's old beat down pickup and thought I was a bum. Explained the situation, and asked if I could just lay them to rest. Buried them with my great grandfather's shovel from his days building the railroads, said a prayer, and went off. Guy put a little marker there out of his own pocket and we went out for drinks.

When he asked about the story of my family... That look of contempt, that was when I went off and didn't look back.

Went a few years ago to find the little town I knew was pretty much all multimillion dollar houses, and the little shops and boardwalk had been replaced with coffee houses, t-shirt shops, and whiny rich tourist. It is amazing to watch when the socioeconomic trends of such a lifestyle change so much in so short of time.

boo hoo

Awesome response.


one other thing, at first i sympathized with you when you mentioned the dude's look of contempt, but then i realized you probably regaled the dude with the same "i just a humble bum" holier-than-thou sanctimony you posted here
 
2012-10-31 08:48:29 PM  
As for NJ, this is by far the worst coastal flooding in anyone's living memory. The vast majority of those houses have never experienced any type of flooding, and many of them were built 50, 60, 70 years ago or more. The only area that I'm aware of along the shore that has been seriously devastated by storm flooding in the last 50 years is Harvey Cedars on Long Beach Island, and since then it's been a municipal code requirement that new houses in flood zones be built on stilts. Seriously, the most damage that happens to the shore year after year is damage to local boardwalks and piers, and those are owned by the municipalities - and yet no one minds when they get rebuilt year after year.

As far as rebuilding someone's vacation home, a lot of those NJ shore communities have a decent percentage of year-round residents whose houses are their only homes.

And if you seriously think that houses shouldn't exist in storm flood areas then don't rent that next shore house, since you're only reinforcing the financial incentive for people to build them there.
 
2012-10-31 08:51:06 PM  
It is rather awesome here in NC. They tried to introduce new laws to deal with the higher water levels, and they got blocked by politicians saying it was all a secret plot by Obama to destroy capitalism by increasing the cost of that several hundred dollar home by a couple more thousand.
 
2012-10-31 08:51:43 PM  

The Great Gazoo: As for NJ, this is by far the worst coastal flooding in anyone's living memory. The vast majority of those houses have never experienced any type of flooding, and many of them were built 50, 60, 70 years ago or more. The only area that I'm aware of along the shore that has been seriously devastated by storm flooding in the last 50 years is Harvey Cedars on Long Beach Island, and since then it's been a municipal code requirement that new houses in flood zones be built on stilts. Seriously, the most damage that happens to the shore year after year is damage to local boardwalks and piers, and those are owned by the municipalities - and yet no one minds when they get rebuilt year after year.

As far as rebuilding someone's vacation home, a lot of those NJ shore communities have a decent percentage of year-round residents whose houses are their only homes.

And if you seriously think that houses shouldn't exist in storm flood areas then don't rent that next shore house, since you're only reinforcing the financial incentive for people to build them there.


It's okay if the houses exist, but their risk shouldn't be socialized.
 
2012-10-31 08:51:53 PM  
My only hope is that the greater % of the destruction happened to those who thought NO shouldn't rebuild
 
2012-10-31 09:02:16 PM  

Eddie Adams from Torrance: Why can't we just move New York, Boston, New Orleans, Los Angeles, San Francisco, Chicago, Miami, San Diego, Charleston, Houston and Tampa 10 miles further inland? There can't be more than 50 million people living near the coast.


I'm on a hill at 550ft. in SF that's made of bedrock. No landslides and no liquifaction. The house is 75+ years old and has weathers many a quake.

Not moving.

Pay for my own insurance.

If something happens that I need a FEMA loan -- I'll take the loan and repay it along with the interest.
 
2012-10-31 09:07:23 PM  

Rent Party: mcreadyblue: Rent Party: The morons that built or bought these deserve every last thing that happens to them.

They are still standing and not flooded.

You do understand that when those were built, they were built on dry land.

The thing about sand bars is that they move. Those places are going to be hundreds of yards out to sea in a few more years.


Dry land and sand bars are two different things.
 
2012-10-31 09:17:57 PM  

Ashrams: And now idiots!

"well I may be an idiot but I'm no fool"


"I'm no fool."
 
2012-10-31 09:23:54 PM  

JackieRabbit: dj_bigbird: Who cares where someone builds their house at? If they (along with their insurance co.) want to accept the risk, I say let them. But don't expect any help from the government.

You should care, that's who. Where do you think insurance companies go to recover their losses? To YOU. That's what insurance is all about: sharing risks. If someone is engaging in risky behavior that causes your insurance company huge losses, losses that you have to help pay for with higher premiums and lower coverages, you should speak up.


Well if the underwriter failed to set the premium based upon a risky location, that's not the policy holder's fault.

It used to be that underwrites and loan officers protected the capital and savings of those participating in the pool of risk or investment, then they deregulated everything and allowed them to engage risky loans and policies then repackage them as Grade AAA investment vehicles (and hiding the risk from the suckers who bought the lies) so that they gained a quick profit and offloaded the risk.

In the old days, that was called "fraud", now it's called the "Financial Services Modernization Act of 1999"
 
2012-10-31 09:32:06 PM  

Eddie Adams from Torrance: Why can't we just move New York, Boston, New Orleans, Los Angeles, San Francisco, Chicago, Miami, San Diego, Charleston, Houston and Tampa 10 miles further inland? There can't be more than 50 million people living near the coast.


There are 60 million in the floodplain between the Great Lakes and the Atlantic; and some 26 million living in Coastal California. It's predicted that with droughts and collapse of farming and industry in the nation's interior, 80% of us will be living within 40 miles of a coast by 2020.

Of course, not all coasts are alike, but the Atlantic Seaboard doesn't have much of a rapid rise in elevation in most of its urban areas (compared to San Francisco, where they can all go stand on their many hills).
 
2012-10-31 09:36:05 PM  

Girion47: The Great Gazoo: As for NJ, this is by far the worst coastal flooding in anyone's living memory. The vast majority of those houses have never experienced any type of flooding, and many of them were built 50, 60, 70 years ago or more. The only area that I'm aware of along the shore that has been seriously devastated by storm flooding in the last 50 years is Harvey Cedars on Long Beach Island, and since then it's been a municipal code requirement that new houses in flood zones be built on stilts. Seriously, the most damage that happens to the shore year after year is damage to local boardwalks and piers, and those are owned by the municipalities - and yet no one minds when they get rebuilt year after year.

As far as rebuilding someone's vacation home, a lot of those NJ shore communities have a decent percentage of year-round residents whose houses are their only homes.

And if you seriously think that houses shouldn't exist in storm flood areas then don't rent that next shore house, since you're only reinforcing the financial incentive for people to build them there.

It's okay if the houses exist, but their risk shouldn't be socialized.


But it is, in oh so many ways.
 
2012-10-31 09:46:03 PM  

orbister: Dear America

Why not stop building houses out of wood and start using things like "brick", "cement" or even "stone"? Then your residential areas might stop turning into lumber yards every time the wind blows.

Love

The Rest of the World


images.wikia.com

FTFY
 
2012-10-31 10:16:10 PM  
i14.photobucket.com
 
2012-10-31 10:29:16 PM  

wookiee cookie: InitialCommentGuy: wookiee cookie: InitialCommentGuy: revrendjim: Someone who can afford a beach house can afford another beach house.

Used to be a time when we didn't build million dollar homes in hurricane prone areas. My grandfather was a skilled trade carpenter, and built himself a little cottage on a nice slice of beachfront property he gained due to having money set aside during the Depression. I loved that place as a kid: roughing it, a little Black and White TV, old deisel genny, a couple radios.

It was where my dad was conceived, and where my gramps finally ended life with a little bit of salt wind blowing in off the Atlantic. We had to sell off the land due to his illness and my grandmother and uncle being injured in a car accident. I always wondered what had happened to the place after we got rid of it, and it was where my grandmother wanted to be spread along with gramp's ashes.

Went to the place about six months after she passed to find someone you've probably listened to on the radio had purchased the lot along with ten or so others to build a nice little seaside palace.

They saw me roll up in Gramp's old beat down pickup and thought I was a bum. Explained the situation, and asked if I could just lay them to rest. Buried them with my great grandfather's shovel from his days building the railroads, said a prayer, and went off. Guy put a little marker there out of his own pocket and we went out for drinks.

When he asked about the story of my family... That look of contempt, that was when I went off and didn't look back.

Went a few years ago to find the little town I knew was pretty much all multimillion dollar houses, and the little shops and boardwalk had been replaced with coffee houses, t-shirt shops, and whiny rich tourist. It is amazing to watch when the socioeconomic trends of such a lifestyle change so much in so short of time.

boo hoo

Awesome response.

one other thing, at first i sympathized with you when you mentioned the dude's lo ...


You sound quite bootstrappy and unable to understand the point. Good job.
 
2012-10-31 10:55:10 PM  

revrendjim: Someone who can afford a beach house can afford another beach house.

 
2012-10-31 11:41:25 PM  
New Mexico takes in more money than it pays back to the Federal Government.

I guess Los Alamos, White Sands, etc. only benefits New Mexico?

Same applies to Texas....NASA only helps Texas, and Ft. Hood only deploys troops to defend Texas.
 
2012-10-31 11:44:01 PM  

orbister: Dear America

Why not stop building houses out of wood and start using things like "brick", "cement" or even "stone"? Then your residential areas might stop turning into lumber yards every time the wind blows.

Love

The Rest of the World


Wood-framed house in an earthquake zone = cracks in the plaster.

Unreinforced masonry in an earthquake zone = house in the basement.

See: San Francisco, 1906, 1989, etc.; Los Angeles-Long Beach, 1933, 1994; etc. etc.
 
2012-11-01 12:00:04 AM  
I'm guessing that many parts of lower Manhattan (that flooded) were not considered in the highest risk flood zone for insurance purposes.
 
2012-11-01 12:13:17 AM  

forgotmydamnusername: phrawgh: We have teh technology.

[msnbcmedia1.msn.com image 474x326]
[www.domeincorporated.com image 584x392]

"Far-out" architecture almost always seems to have more issues with keeping the elements out. Most of Frank lloyd Wright's shiat developed structural issues. Geodesic dome? Fark no. Difficult to waterproof to begin with. Very nearly impossible to keep waterproof for more than a couple of seasons. Spectacularly wasteful of materials, too.


check yourself!

These concrete domes have already survived multiple hurricanes.

Google hurricane proof domes

They are good in tornado, earthquake and fire zones as well. Proven technology that is also energy efficient, cost effective, low maintenance, and quite waterproof. These aren't your fathers whimsical Frank Lloyd Wright creations. The engineering is solid.
 
2012-11-01 12:28:21 AM  

vernonFL: The answer, my friend, is blowin in the wind


This
 
2012-11-01 01:14:58 AM  
For a country with a such a hard-on for the free market I am amazed that it is acceptable for the government to fork out billions to compensate for these bad decisions. I suppose it is one thing to leave poorer people to fend for themselves and quite another to suggest that the homeowner middle class pay their own way.

If the market finds it uninsurable, there's a reason. I remember a while back someone was complaining that the government needed to help them because the insurance company wanted 5% of the value of their house every year...in an area that gets wiped out about every 20 years.

For the government to step in and pin that cost on the backs of other taxpayers is madness. Take that out of the equation and the problem can start to solve itself.
 
2012-11-01 01:29:50 AM  
Fine with me.

Make the whole area a state park that everyone can enjoy. What a concept.
 
2012-11-01 01:56:03 AM  

whidbey: Fine with me.

Make the whole area a state park that everyone can enjoy. What a concept.


Like this?

This is a map of what WAS downtown Hilo's waterfrontdistrict until it was taken out in 1960 by a tsunami. They moved downtown to somewhat higher ground, built a breakwater to take some energy out of a direct hit.

It's now a public park.
 
2012-11-01 02:22:19 AM  

Bladel: As resident of Iowa during the 2001 floods, I will ask: Why don't NY/NJ build a 30' floodwall?


my sister lives at Highland Lakes, New Jersey ... Elevation, 1,217 ft

i'll be sure to inquire about that 30' flood wall
 
2012-11-01 06:20:24 AM  

Rent Party: revrendjim: Someone who can afford a beach house can afford another beach house.

They can also afford a city council member or two to ensure their zoning doesn't change. They can also afford a congressman or three to ensure that federal aid is there when they want to bootstrap up another house built on a sand bar in a hurricane zone.

This isn't going to change because it directly effects the people in control of the system.


yep.
my first thought about the article was:
"cool! at least greedy A-holes will stop to keep nices places for themselves"
but no, they won't.
They are just gona waist even more resources to do so.
 
2012-11-01 06:30:06 AM  

muck4doo: The wise man built his house upon the Rock,
The wise man built his house upon the Rock,
The wise man built his house upon the Rock,
And the rains came tumbling down.
The rains came down and the floods came up,
The rains came down and the floods came up,
The rains came down and the floods came up,
But the house on the Rock stood firm.
The foolish man built his house upon the sand,
The foolish man built his house upon the sand,
The foolish man built his house upon the sand,
And the rains came tumbling down.
The rains came down and the floods came up,
The rains came down and the floods came up,
The rains came down and the floods came up,
And the house on the sand fell flat.
So build your life on the Lord Jesus Christ,
So build your life on the Lord Jesus Christ,
So build your life on the Lord Jesus Christ,
And the blessings will come down.
The blessings come down as your prayers go up,
The blessings come down as your prayers go up,
The blessings come down as your prayers go up,
So build your life on the Lord.


drgullo.com
 
2012-11-01 06:38:56 AM  
If we are talking about rich people building beachfront houses and expecting them to be rebuilt at someone else's expense, that's a fairly narrow issue.
The general issue of society subsidizing people who live and work in risky places is a little more complex. Civilization has a vested interest in some of it's members living and working in risky places.
Risky places get settled for economic reasons. Society as a whole benefits when people farm volcanic fields or alluvial planes, or create seaports at river floodplains. Of necessity, both rewards and risks end up getting shared. It isn't simple, except to the simple-minded.
 
2012-11-01 06:51:13 AM  
*makes sure every base has these*
i.imgur.com 

*convinces council to melt the polar caps*
 
2012-11-01 07:23:55 AM  

amoral: Bontesla:
Finally, if you have all of this evidence to support your argument then you should provide it.

Says the guy who cites no evidence, and uses insults to further his arguments.


I asked for evidence
He did not.
Your argument is invalid based on the exchange.
I'm a woman.

:)
 
2012-11-01 07:31:29 AM  

Rent Party: Dear Rest of the World,

Regarding your latest inquiry. It is because we have trees here.

Sincerely,

America.


Dear America

Trees are not unknown elsewhere in the world. As, however, Little Piggy #2 discovered the hard way, while delightful to look at and of undoubted utility in the manufacture of certain housing components, they are of limited utility when the Big Band Wolf huffs and puffs.

Regards

Your friends in the end house. The one still standing.
 
2012-11-01 07:34:36 AM  

LibertyHiller: orbister: Dear America

Why not stop building houses out of wood and start using things like "brick", "cement" or even "stone"? Then your residential areas might stop turning into lumber yards every time the wind blows.

Love

The Rest of the World

Wood-framed house in an earthquake zone = cracks in the plaster.

Unreinforced masonry in an earthquake zone = house in the basement.

See: San Francisco, 1906, 1989, etc.; Los Angeles-Long Beach, 1933, 1994; etc. etc.


How big is the earthquake problem in Noo Joisey?
 
2012-11-01 07:43:50 AM  

Fade2black: Bontesla: knbber2: Bontesla: I don't insult everyone immediately. Only those willfully ignorant at the expense of others. This is what you are.

Once again, immediately to the insult to try to demean me. There is a significant portion of the scientific community that disagrees with the causes of global warming. As far as fracking goes, the percentage is higher. And no, I am not going to search around for the numbers, as you did not either, that is not my point. You have your opinions, which is your right, I have mine. Fark is a place to express those opinions. If you need to tell someone who disagrees with your opinions to be ignorant in the corner, you need to get a thicker skin. Have a nice day, no hard feelings from this side.

I respectfully disagree with many.

I'm simply being honest. Yes - calling you ignorant is insulting. But that doesn't mean I'm wrong. I can offend a thief by calling them a thief - but does that make me wrong? No. Could I find a more polite way to call you ignorant? Probably.

But what incentive do I have to politely search for a word to call you ignorant when your ignorance attributes to a dangerous situation?

Finally, if you have all of this evidence to support your argument then you should provide it.

You could just man up like all the other liberal douches and call someone hitler to shut them down when your counter-argument has no validity. Or go for the non-passé and just use correlation/causation...either way without numbers for YOUR argument, you're just as ignorant as you make everyone out to be.


Why would I call someone Hitler? I didn't see Hitler in the thread.

You don't understand nuance so I'm also calling you ignorant.

If you want to be descripted as something more positive then be something more positive.
 
2012-11-01 08:52:37 AM  
The real question is:

How many times do we have to hear of falling trees leading to death and destruction before we go and remove any tree within 30 yards of any human frequented area.

Seriously... falling trees are #2 in damage output during storms next to floods at #1. Sandy proved it. Of all the deaths I heard about on the news I think only 1 was not related to a tree falling.
 
2012-11-01 08:56:25 AM  

Bladel: As resident of Iowa during the 2001 floods, I will ask: Why don't NY/NJ build a 30' floodwall?


NYC is talking about levees.
 
2012-11-01 09:07:20 AM  

Bontesla: amoral: Bontesla:
Finally, if you have all of this evidence to support your argument then you should provide it.

Says the guy who cites no evidence, and uses insults to further his arguments.

I asked for evidence
He did not.
Your argument is invalid based on the exchange.
I'm a woman.

:)


There are no girls on the internet.
 
2012-11-01 10:03:11 AM  

Bontesla: knbber2: Bontesla: I don't insult everyone immediately. Only those willfully ignorant at the expense of others. This is what you are.

Once again, immediately to the insult to try to demean me. There is a significant portion of the scientific community that disagrees with the causes of global warming. As far as fracking goes, the percentage is higher. And no, I am not going to search around for the numbers, as you did not either, that is not my point. You have your opinions, which is your right, I have mine. Fark is a place to express those opinions. If you need to tell someone who disagrees with your opinions to be ignorant in the corner, you need to get a thicker skin. Have a nice day, no hard feelings from this side.

I respectfully disagree with many.

I'm simply being honest. Yes - calling you ignorant is insulting. But that doesn't mean I'm wrong. I can offend a thief by calling them a thief - but does that make me wrong? No. Could I find a more polite way to call you ignorant? Probably.

But what incentive do I have to politely search for a word to call you ignorant when your ignorance attributes to a dangerous situation?

Finally, if you have all of this evidence to support your argument then you should provide it.


Many scientists do not believe in global warming. They HAVE presented their side. Don't expect people to spend so much time presenting you with evidence that is easily research by you. Google is your friend. You are stuck in your belief system. It is your resposibility to educate yourself. Not ours.
 
2012-11-01 10:07:54 AM  

Bontesla: Now - say the same about all homes in Tornado Valley, near a fault line, near a fracking site, or near an area vulnerable for forest fires.

Also - many of these homes vulnerable to natural disaster weren't in an area considered to be disaster prone a few decades ago. Global warming will continue to rezone areas and create new water front property. Fracking will create new homes vulnerable to disasters as we expand that practice.


This.

Not literally beachfront but I'm in the historic district of Savannah, in a house at least 100 years old, surrounded by tons of other tall 100+ year old homes, all still standing.

Also, the small town I was from that flooded all the time, flooded because it was in this tiny deep little wrinkle wedged between steep hills. Caused flooding, but made the chances of a tornado hitting our home much lower. (And the flooding made for amazing veggie gardens--I never knew dirt was something you had to work to fertilize until recently.)
 
2012-11-01 10:10:08 AM  

revrendjim: Someone who can afford a beach house can afford another beach house.


Or the poor person willing to find a way to live on the beach because they like it that much will find a way to recover.

If Tybee Island doesn't end up submerged, I'd love for my parents to be able to retire there,
 
2012-11-01 10:21:03 AM  
Hilarious how the article leans on global warming to make its point.

The rest of the piece is very persuasive ... leaving that dubious theory out would have strengthened it so much.
 
2012-11-01 10:45:08 AM  

Mija: Bontesla: knbber2: Bontesla: I don't insult everyone immediately. Only those willfully ignorant at the expense of others. This is what you are.

Once again, immediately to the insult to try to demean me. There is a significant portion of the scientific community that disagrees with the causes of global warming. As far as fracking goes, the percentage is higher. And no, I am not going to search around for the numbers, as you did not either, that is not my point. You have your opinions, which is your right, I have mine. Fark is a place to express those opinions. If you need to tell someone who disagrees with your opinions to be ignorant in the corner, you need to get a thicker skin. Have a nice day, no hard feelings from this side.

I respectfully disagree with many.

I'm simply being honest. Yes - calling you ignorant is insulting. But that doesn't mean I'm wrong. I can offend a thief by calling them a thief - but does that make me wrong? No. Could I find a more polite way to call you ignorant? Probably.

But what incentive do I have to politely search for a word to call you ignorant when your ignorance attributes to a dangerous situation?

Finally, if you have all of this evidence to support your argument then you should provide it.

Many scientists do not believe in global warming. They HAVE presented their side. Don't expect people to spend so much time presenting you with evidence that is easily research by you. Google is your friend. You are stuck in your belief system. It is your resposibility to educate yourself. Not ours.


Interesting.
So, I have Googled and the results are consistent with my argument and not yours (et al). Hence I asked to see the specific credible evidence as it still remains a mystery. The burden of proof was placed on you (et al) because citations and examples were requested.

I feel like I'm arguing with the same person under multiple handles because each one of you seem to struggle with rather elementary logic.
 
2012-11-01 10:47:04 AM  

Girion47: Bontesla: amoral: Bontesla:
Finally, if you have all of this evidence to support your argument then you should provide it.

Says the guy who cites no evidence, and uses insults to further his arguments.

I asked for evidence
He did not.
Your argument is invalid based on the exchange.
I'm a woman.

:)

There are no girls on the internet.


Lol that may be. I'm a woman and not a girl.

I've been meaning to ask you if you've heard of Macklemore!
 
2012-11-01 10:51:15 AM  
Same reason why people live in the desert. Building cities in the desert is the stupidest idea mankind ever did
 
2012-11-01 10:53:28 AM  

Bontesla: Girion47: Bontesla: amoral: Bontesla:
Finally, if you have all of this evidence to support your argument then you should provide it.

Says the guy who cites no evidence, and uses insults to further his arguments.

I asked for evidence
He did not.
Your argument is invalid based on the exchange.
I'm a woman.

:)

There are no girls on the internet.

Lol that may be. I'm a woman and not a girl.

I've been meaning to ask you if you've heard of Macklemore!


Never heard of it.
 
2012-11-01 11:07:21 AM  

Girion47: Bontesla: Girion47: Bontesla: amoral: Bontesla:
Finally, if you have all of this evidence to support your argument then you should provide it.

Says the guy who cites no evidence, and uses insults to further his arguments.

I asked for evidence
He did not.
Your argument is invalid based on the exchange.
I'm a woman.

:)

There are no girls on the internet.

Lol that may be. I'm a woman and not a girl.

I've been meaning to ask you if you've heard of Macklemore!

Never heard of it.


Their style is extremely similar to Childish Gambino. Check out The Heist (song and album). 10,000 Hours is also extremely similar. Their entire album though is incredible.
 
2012-11-01 11:40:21 AM  
Quick solution: Stop subsidizing their flood insurance

Problem solved.
 
2012-11-01 11:56:24 AM  
Couple of reasons:
1) Many of these same insurance companies also insure mortgages too, so they are also making a crapload of money off the huge sale prices that these beachfront properties command.
2) The big bosses at these insurance companies have beachfront houses themselves and they'll be damned if they are going to lose out.
3) If they did the responsible thing and refused to cover these properties at all, it's likely the govt would pass panic legislation that could have even worse negative effects.
4) They spread that risk into YOUR insurance costs, so it's not like they're losing money.
 
2012-11-01 12:10:22 PM  
3) If they did the responsible thing and refused to cover these properties at all, it's likely the govt would pass panic legislation that could have even worse negative effects.
4) They spread that risk into YOUR insurance costs, so it's not like they're losing money.


I'm sorry, you're wrong.

The first $250,000 of any flood insurance is paid by the federal gov't. That's why people can get mortgages at the beach.

w/o the National Flood Insurance Program, it wouldn't be cost effective for most people to buy homes in flood prone areas, because insuring them would be VERY expensive and you wouldn't get a mortgage without insurance.
 
2012-11-01 12:14:16 PM  

MugzyBrown: 3) If they did the responsible thing and refused to cover these properties at all, it's likely the govt would pass panic legislation that could have even worse negative effects.
4) They spread that risk into YOUR insurance costs, so it's not like they're losing money.

I'm sorry, you're wrong.

The first $250,000 of any flood insurance is paid by the federal gov't. That's why people can get mortgages at the beach.

w/o the National Flood Insurance Program, it wouldn't be cost effective for most people to buy homes in flood prone areas, because insuring them would be VERY expensive and you wouldn't get a mortgage without insurance.


and that's a bad thing why?
 
2012-11-01 12:17:45 PM  
Girion47: and that's a bad thing why?

Is what a bad thing?
 
2012-11-01 12:19:00 PM  

MugzyBrown: Girion47: and that's a bad thing why?

Is what a bad thing?


Most people not being able to afford homes in flood plains/on the beach.

Risk shouldn't be socialized.
 
2012-11-01 12:20:44 PM  

Girion47: MugzyBrown: Girion47: and that's a bad thing why?

Is what a bad thing?

Most people not being able to afford homes in flood plains/on the beach.

Risk shouldn't be socialized.



MugzyBrown: Quick solution: Stop subsidizing their flood insurance

Problem solved.


Seriously, read like 3 posts up.
 
2012-11-01 01:09:18 PM  

Girion47: MugzyBrown: Girion47: and that's a bad thing why?

Is what a bad thing?

Most people not being able to afford homes in flood plains/on the beach.

Risk shouldn't be socialized.


So insurance companies should be abolished then?
 
2012-11-01 01:19:29 PM  
So insurance companies should be abolished then?

Insurance isn't socializing risk. When you buy an insurance contract you are transferring your risk and paying a premium.

NFIP is socializing risk because it comes out of tax revenue. I don't own a house in a flood plain, but am paying for everybody who does.
 
2012-11-01 01:45:47 PM  

MugzyBrown: So insurance companies should be abolished then?

Insurance isn't socializing risk. When you buy an insurance contract you are transferring your risk and paying a premium.

NFIP is socializing risk because it comes out of tax revenue. I don't own a house in a flood plain, but am paying for everybody who does.


The question is, by underwriting the NFIP with a large tax pool, What do the number look like? From what I could quickly find, it raises much more in premiums then it pays in claims.

Link
 
2012-11-01 01:57:09 PM  

mcreadyblue: In Texas they build beach houses on stilts.


[imagesus.homeaway.com image 300x225]
/not rocket science people


Dude was the only one left after Ike hit.

cdn.abclocal.go.com

I'm bettin' every one of those slabs has been rebuilt.
 
2012-11-01 02:01:17 PM  

Eddie Adams from Torrance:

We just need to move everyone to Corvallis OR.


Map is bullshiate if it doesn't include the West Coast volcanoes.

Seattle would be screwed if Rainier blew its top.
Same for Oregon if Mt. Hood busts loose.
 
2012-11-01 02:18:32 PM  

orbister: Dear America

Why not stop building houses out of wood and start using things like "brick", "cement" or even "stone"? Then your residential areas might stop turning into lumber yards every time the wind blows.

Love

The Rest of the World


Ya mean like this?

3.bp.blogspot.com

Wanker.

Love,
Texas
 
2012-11-01 02:46:19 PM  

Ashrams: Leopold Stotch: We need to be near water to survive. Drinking, raising crops, sanitation, and commerce all rely on access to water. Sorry, but we're not going anywhere.

If you are drinking the water there then you are going to die. Buy imported water.
[www.nodeju.com image 500x351]


near water yes... near SALT water.. not so much though?
 
2012-11-01 03:14:25 PM  

lohphat: The question is, by underwriting the NFIP with a large tax pool, What do the number look like? From what I could quickly find, it raises much more in premiums then it pays in claims.


I took a look at the numbers since 1990 and it's at a 93% loss ratio, which is unprofitable by insurance standards. Loss ratio doesn't take into account any expenses. A good loss ratio would be below 60% for sure.

Not to mention the link you sent shows the program is $17.75 Billion in debt
 
2012-11-01 04:56:41 PM  

MugzyBrown: lohphat: The question is, by underwriting the NFIP with a large tax pool, What do the number look like? From what I could quickly find, it raises much more in premiums then it pays in claims.

I took a look at the numbers since 1990 and it's at a 93% loss ratio, which is unprofitable by insurance standards. Loss ratio doesn't take into account any expenses. A good loss ratio would be below 60% for sure.

Not to mention the link you sent shows the program is $17.75 Billion in debt


It's in debt due to that one interesting spike on the graph when there was a large payout year. FromThe number of properties covered, $17B isn't bad given the costs of other government programs which have no income component.
 
2012-11-01 05:26:44 PM  

orbister: LibertyHiller: orbister: Dear America

Why not stop building houses out of wood and start using things like "brick", "cement" or even "stone"? Then your residential areas might stop turning into lumber yards every time the wind blows.

Love

The Rest of the World

Wood-framed house in an earthquake zone = cracks in the plaster.

Unreinforced masonry in an earthquake zone = house in the basement.

See: San Francisco, 1906, 1989, etc.; Los Angeles-Long Beach, 1933, 1994; etc. etc.

How big is the earthquake problem in Noo Joisey?


Depends on where you are:

earthquake.usgs.gov

and for NY, since it's easy enough to find:

earthquake.usgs.gov 

Note the greenish area near NYC. That's pretty good by California standards, but still enough that I'd not want to be near unreinforced masonry for anything more than a 5.something.
 
2012-11-01 10:14:51 PM  
This practice would stop if poor people could build near the sea.

Bullets.

Faces.

Fark you Tories.
 
2012-11-02 08:03:33 AM  

muck4doo: So build your life on the Lord.


I'm afraid to say that the Lord failed the core sample tests required. We fully intended to build the structure on the Lord per request, but after drilling to standard depth, the Lord promptly lost structural integrity and collapsed. Recent statements from locals mentioned that Jesus is their foundation, however, upon closer inspection it appears that they fastened wood to his side rather than his top. This has been corrected. With Jesus lying face down, he briefly acted as a foundation. When a reasonable load was placed upon this foundation, the foundation quickly dispersed. The locals seem disappointed. They had put their trust in a carpenter instead of a civil engineer.
 
2012-11-02 12:54:53 PM  
WAT would be the impact to the economy and taxpayers if NFIP and FEMA weren't there and all those people lost their homes and would ave to go on some form of other longer-term assistance like section 8 housing, welfare, unemployment? Or are to return to 1870 ad envy one for themselves while other countries continue to progress with modern, stable infrastructure and society?
 
2012-11-02 04:12:52 PM  

HailRobonia: When I first came here, this was all swamp. Everyone said I was daft to build a castle on a swamp, but I built in all the same, just to show them. It sank into the swamp. So I built a second one. That sank into the swamp. So I built a third. That burned down, fell over, then sank into the swamp. But the fourth one stayed up. And that's what you're going to get, Lad, the strongest castle in all of England.


I had odd visions of the history of the Babylon stations in B5 when reading that....

/the lesson here is, don't build spacestations near spacegates
//or something
 
2012-11-02 05:48:23 PM  

lohphat: WAT would be the impact to the economy and taxpayers if NFIP and FEMA weren't there and all those people lost their homes and would ave to go on some form of other longer-term assistance like section 8 housing, welfare, unemployment? Or are to return to 1870 ad envy one for themselves while other countries continue to progress with modern, stable infrastructure and society?


Frikking mobile keybord. I suck.
 
Displayed 233 of 233 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report