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 82
    More: Obvious, seat belt laws, electrical equipment, irrigation sprinklers, effects of global warming, catastrophe theory, economic values, extreme weather, foils  
•       •       •

12361 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»



Voting Results (Smartest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Archived thread
2012-10-31 01:32:45 PM
9 votes:
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 01:40:44 PM
8 votes:
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 05:05:57 PM
6 votes:

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 02:15:26 PM
6 votes:
Someone who can afford a beach house can afford another beach house.
2012-10-31 04:33:21 PM
5 votes:
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 05:07:41 PM
4 votes:

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 02:40:03 PM
4 votes:
I hope this thread gets washed out to sea and isn't rebuilt.
2012-10-31 02:26:56 PM
4 votes:
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 02:00:50 PM
4 votes:

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 06:21:47 PM
3 votes:
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 05:27:09 PM
3 votes:
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 05:06:06 PM
3 votes:

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 04:44:06 PM
3 votes:
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 04:40:01 PM
3 votes:
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 04:34:43 PM
3 votes:
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 04:34:32 PM
3 votes:

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 03:15:47 PM
3 votes:
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 02:24:12 PM
3 votes:

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 01:41:38 PM
3 votes:

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 01:30:22 PM
3 votes:
Once.
2012-11-01 01:14:58 AM
2 votes:
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.
2012-10-31 08:51:06 PM
2 votes:
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 07:28:24 PM
2 votes:
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 06:24:40 PM
2 votes:

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 05:32:05 PM
2 votes:

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 05:20:08 PM
2 votes:

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 05:03:50 PM
2 votes:

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 05:02:38 PM
2 votes:

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 04:55:01 PM
2 votes:
In Texas they build beach houses on stilts.


imagesus.homeaway.com
/not rocket science people
2012-10-31 04:46:35 PM
2 votes:
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 04:39:21 PM
2 votes:

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 04:36:06 PM
2 votes:

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 04:35:47 PM
2 votes:

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 04:35:44 PM
2 votes:
MOVE TO WHERE THE FOOD IS


/OH! OHHHHHHHH!
2012-10-31 03:57:01 PM
2 votes:
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 02:33:24 PM
2 votes:

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.
2012-11-01 01:19:29 PM
1 votes:
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 12:19:00 PM
1 votes:

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 11:40:21 AM
1 votes:
Quick solution: Stop subsidizing their flood insurance

Problem solved.
2012-11-01 01:56:03 AM
1 votes:

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 01:29:50 AM
1 votes:
Fine with me.

Make the whole area a state park that everyone can enjoy. What a concept.
2012-10-31 09:23:54 PM
1 votes:

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 08:16:37 PM
1 votes:

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 08:15:53 PM
1 votes:

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 07:00:57 PM
1 votes:

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 06:48:14 PM
1 votes:
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 06:16:20 PM
1 votes:

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 06:15:41 PM
1 votes:

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 06:11:39 PM
1 votes:
We have teh technology.

msnbcmedia1.msn.com
www.domeincorporated.com
2012-10-31 05:55:57 PM
1 votes:

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 05:33:42 PM
1 votes:

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 05:32:02 PM
1 votes:

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 05:26:33 PM
1 votes:
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 05:25:22 PM
1 votes:
If mankind can't figure out how to cope with an ocean that is 1" deeper, it deserves to perish.
2012-10-31 05:20:31 PM
1 votes:

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 05:12:22 PM
1 votes:

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 05:12:12 PM
1 votes:

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 05:11:52 PM
1 votes:

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 05:09:35 PM
1 votes:

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 05:09:30 PM
1 votes:
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 05:07:36 PM
1 votes:

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 05:06:01 PM
1 votes:
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 05:02:15 PM
1 votes:

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 04:56:38 PM
1 votes:

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 04:55:19 PM
1 votes:
www.worldofstock.com

The morons that built or bought these deserve every last thing that happens to them.
2012-10-31 04:50:57 PM
1 votes:

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 04:42:35 PM
1 votes:
"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 04:41:33 PM
1 votes:
So is the Party of Personal Responsibility suggesting the State decree where and where not private citizens may build homes?
2012-10-31 04:41:00 PM
1 votes:
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 04:39:42 PM
1 votes:
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 04:39:26 PM
1 votes:
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 04:32:23 PM
1 votes:
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 03:51:41 PM
1 votes:
The answer, my friend, is blowin in the wind
2012-10-31 03:51:20 PM
1 votes:

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 03:15:26 PM
1 votes:

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 02:49:21 PM
1 votes:

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 02:38:42 PM
1 votes:

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 02:28:12 PM
1 votes:
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 02:11:28 PM
1 votes:

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 01:48:22 PM
1 votes:

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 01:42:17 PM
1 votes:
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 01:41:02 PM
1 votes:
As resident of Iowa during the 2001 floods, I will ask: Why don't NY/NJ build a 30' floodwall?
 
Displayed 82 of 82 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report