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  
•       •       •

12367 clicks; posted to Main » on 31 Oct 2012 at 4:29 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all
 
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.
 
Displayed 50 of 233 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report