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  
•       •       •

12368 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
 
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.
 
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