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.

(TreeHugger)   Question: Why do Americans keep insisting on building homes in the middle of flood and fire zones?   (treehugger.com) divider line 88
    More: Stupid, Americans, Kate Sheppard, perverse incentives, disaster recovery, floods, fire suppression  
•       •       •

4829 clicks; posted to Main » on 31 Jul 2013 at 9:41 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-07-31 07:45:42 AM
Cheap land + Lack of accountability = externalities

Poor people have little choice but to be kicked to the margins of inhabitability. They lack the capital to fight back.

The middle classes can sometimes afford to build for themselves, selecting the site, materials, architectural plan, etc., but they may act on imperfect information. Rich people, in which class most contractors and developers are found, just don't care if you drown or are blown away, as long as they get their money.

And then theres the Great American Consumer, who is price-conscious but not necessarily quality-conscious. The stupid, greedy contractors and developers aren't going to gve the GAC anything she isn't willing to pay for, so you can forget about top-quality insulation, quality construction techniques. The little crap boxes built out of ticky-tacky are just going to be flipped as soon as the asking price is found any way.

Then there's the Great American Taxpayer. The GAT pays for all.

Because of this, even rich people will build on a stupid site, knowing full well they will be repeatedly reimbursed by the taxpayer for their losses and probably even turn a tidy profit, allowing them to rebuild bigger and better just like that schmuck from the Bush administration, Whozit, did after Hurricane Katrina.

In other words, consumers are not paying for their stupid decisions, builders are not paying for their stupid decisions. The only people paying for their stupid decisions are taxpayers but the stupid decision is twenty or thirty years removed from the bill, so they aren't conscious of how they are being screwed any more than the schmucks in the flying trailer parks are.

Conscious voters? Bwa-ha-ha-ha!

It's a contradiction in terms. The people who run things not only think you are stupid, they count on it.
 
2013-07-31 07:54:53 AM
Be like Japanese.

If CEO of construction company builds shiatty little boxes that get destroyed in the first earthquake to come along, hand him a seppuku sword.

It's not just Americans who are as dumb as half a brick. The British live in some of the most cramped, unhealthy, and expensive housing in the world for the same bootstrapy reasons. Not only is this criminally irresponsible, it has been going on forr centuries. Adam Smith noted that the British live like hermit crabs--the discarded shells of he rich being occupied by the middle classes and then the poor tenants.

Meanwhile, it is colder and damper in much of the ancient stock of housing than it is outdoors.

I blame the Germans. Snug in their properly insulated, bright, new and cheery wind and solar powered passivhaus, they just don't bomb the British enough to clean up London, let alone the countryside where the white people increasingly live thanks to belated White Flight.

England needs more terrorists, not fewer. Scotland, of course, is an uninhabitable bit of Canada that scrapped off the last time the continents colllded and is therefore a housing write-off.

The moral of the story is that people just don't think. If you are a dumbass Creationist looking for the missing link between ape and man, look around you. Or, if you are alone, take a selfie and look at that. A mirror will do if all you want to know is who is the greatest fool in your life.
 
2013-07-31 08:54:00 AM
For floods, it's because it would require moving tens of millions of people, homes, and businesses away from coasts, rivers, lakes, valleys, estuaries, generally low lying areas, places with higher water tables, and so on, and putting them in areas which are either relatively inhospitable, or already in use for other purposes, as well as rebuilding the infrastructure necessary to connect those people to society and markets around the country, while having the rest of the country's towns and cities having to deal with a truly massive migration of people from these areas.

In short, getting people out of those areas permanently would cause for more disruption, chaos, and costs than even the largest disasters could.

Natural disasters can strike damn near anywhere. Thinking you can totally avoid them is beyond moronic, and demonstrative of a mind incapable of thinking of any sort of consequences.
 
2013-07-31 09:26:16 AM
*sigh*

If a flood happened in a flood zone, but nobody was there to see it, how would we know it was a flood zone? Huh?

Similarly, if a fire burned a fire zone, but nobody was there to fight it, how would we know it was a fire zone and not just a random fire?

Think, subby. Think.
 
2013-07-31 09:34:54 AM

Aarontology: Natural disasters can strike damn near anywhere. Thinking you can totally avoid them is beyond moronic, and demonstrative of a mind incapable of thinking of any sort of consequences.


Understood.  But to support part of brantgoose's rant - Take the West end of Galveston island here in Texas.  There are multimillion dollar homes and luxury condos built *maybe* 2 feet about tide pool.  A weak tropical storm puts water into their driveways.  They can't get storm insurance so who pays when a storm comes by and blows their shiat to and fro?
 
2013-07-31 09:46:42 AM
Because we socialize risk but privatize reward.

A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the majority discovers it can vote itself largess out of the public treasury. After that, the majority always votes for the candidate promising the most benefits with the result the democracy collapses because of the loose fiscal policy ensuing, always to be followed by a dictatorship, then a monarchy.   -AdT
 
2013-07-31 09:47:07 AM
Because they are often in scenic locations and insurance is relatively cheap.
 
2013-07-31 09:47:15 AM
You build enough homes, it's no longer a wildfire zone.
 
2013-07-31 09:49:20 AM
Because that is where nature is.
 
2013-07-31 09:50:39 AM
New Jersey and FEMA are actually providing grants to landlords who own rental property in the beach towns effected by hurricane Sandy on the condition that the housing is for low-income residents. I heard this on the local news and just could not stop thinking of the logical problems in this program.
 
2013-07-31 09:50:49 AM
I'm lucky. According to FEMA data, the local flood zone ends one house away from mine. So if there is a flood I will be safe.
 
2013-07-31 09:50:58 AM
Every square inch of the US is a potential disaster zone.  We have tornadoes, earthquakes, fires, hurricanes, blizzards, terrorism, zombies, toddlers, armadillos, that creepy guy who always follows me in the mall, and Ashton Kutcher.  Where the hell do you expect us to build?  It's why we have insurance.
 
2013-07-31 09:51:18 AM
because they know that the u.s. tax payers will give them cheaper than dirt insurance and absolve them of any responsibility when they lose everything in a flood.
 
2013-07-31 09:51:44 AM
Because Merikuh, FREEDOM, these colors don't run, etc.

/Actually it's: Banks, Insurance, Legislators, oh my!
 
2013-07-31 09:51:47 AM
Let their homes get destroyed, get handout from government.
 
2013-07-31 09:52:06 AM
No. If there's one thing I know from Fark, it's that the answer, to any headline that is a question, is "no."
 
2013-07-31 09:53:18 AM
Because all the good land is protected by the gubermintz?
 
2013-07-31 09:53:24 AM

brantgoose: Cheap land + Lack of accountability = externalities

Poor people have little choice but to be kicked to the margins of inhabitability. They lack the capital to fight back.

The middle classes can sometimes afford to build for themselves, selecting the site, materials, architectural plan, etc., but they may act on imperfect information. Rich people, in which class most contractors and developers are found, just don't care if you drown or are blown away, as long as they get their money.

And then theres the Great American Consumer, who is price-conscious but not necessarily quality-conscious. The stupid, greedy contractors and developers aren't going to gve the GAC anything she isn't willing to pay for, so you can forget about top-quality insulation, quality construction techniques. The little crap boxes built out of ticky-tacky are just going to be flipped as soon as the asking price is found any way.

Then there's the Great American Taxpayer. The GAT pays for all.

Because of this, even rich people will build on a stupid site, knowing full well they will be repeatedly reimbursed by the taxpayer for their losses and probably even turn a tidy profit, allowing them to rebuild bigger and better just like that schmuck from the Bush administration, Whozit, did after Hurricane Katrina.

In other words, consumers are not paying for their stupid decisions, builders are not paying for their stupid decisions. The only people paying for their stupid decisions are taxpayers but the stupid decision is twenty or thirty years removed from the bill, so they aren't conscious of how they are being screwed any more than the schmucks in the flying trailer parks are.

Conscious voters? Bwa-ha-ha-ha!

It's a contradiction in terms. The people who run things not only think you are stupid, they count on it.


It's even worse when they've been told not to build in an area again, but a decade after Hurricane Floyd there's new housing developments where the old ones were washed away (and of course no insurance policy wants to cover a 100-year flood plain unless the premium is sky-high).
 
2013-07-31 09:53:36 AM
Meanwhile, look at areas of the country that are less disaster-prone.

For instance - the Great Lakes region.  Plenty of freshwater availability, so droughts are rare, as are wildfires.  Not near any major fault lines, so earthquakes are very rare and very minor when they do happen.  Tornados are extremely rare.  Far enough inland to be protected from hurricanes and tsunamis.  The presence of the Lakes moderates temperatures so it never gets extremely hot in summer (eg. Arizona) or extremely cold in winter (eg. North Dakota).

The only bad thing climate-wise is some snow in the wintertime, which generally doesn't kill many people.

And yet when you look at demographic trends, people have been leaving the Rust Belt cities of the Great Lakes region (Detroit, Cleveland, Buffalo, Pittsburgh, etc.) en masse, and generally moving to much more disaster-prone areas of the country.
 
2013-07-31 09:55:07 AM
I'm in San Francisco. This town was wiped out a hundred years ago. It's one of the most densely packed cities in the world. We just get over it, I guess.
 
2013-07-31 09:55:10 AM
When I built my house upon the sand,
the waves came in and washed my home away.
So the government gave me a trailer and a $2000 debit card.

Now, I built my house upon the rock,
so when the flames come in and burn my home away,
the government will put me up in a swanky hotel and gave me forgivable loan to rebuild my house upon the rock.
 
2013-07-31 09:55:55 AM

Aarontology: Natural disasters can strike damn near anywhere. Thinking you can totally avoid them is beyond moronic, and demonstrative of a mind incapable of thinking of any sort of consequences.


Nobody's asking to totally avoid natural disasters. There are plenty of disasters you can build to anticipate - that's why when something like magnitude-7 quake hits in California it kills 35 people, but the same quake in Iran kills 35,000.

As for coastal communities...TFA says 123 million people live in "coastal" counties, but here's the list - and it includes people in places like LA and the Great Lakes that are never going to be hit by hurricanes. It includes the county where I live. I'm over 100 miles inland and will only be in danger if the Hudson rises 160 feet over its banks. But I count as "coastal".

Shiat, that list counts the farking Adirondacks as coastal.

In short, getting people out of those areas permanently would cause for more disruption, chaos, and costs than even the largest disasters could.

A lot of them already live lives in disruption and chaos, and one more forced move isn't much of a difference...just a different reason for moving. Tons of people bailed out of the Deep South after the 1926-27 floods along the Mississippi - and never came back, because as it turned out the opportunities were far better elsewhere what with no hurricanes in Ohio and not hardly as many crazy rednecks trying to string people up for being black.

And if you were a poor person living in New Orleans under the governance of idiots and crooks who made New Orleans into Detroit with better food, music and titty bars (none of which you could afford), why the hell would you go back?
 
2013-07-31 09:56:06 AM
The ones I just get tickled by, are the folks from California, who built a nice house on the side of a canyon for the view, cut down the trees in front of said house, because they were blocking the view, and consequently lose their house to a mudslide, because there are no trees to prevent erosion... Then they take that insurance money, move here to the mountains, buy a verrrry nice house in a high end subdivision, yet again on the side of a mountain..  Again, they cut the trees from in front of their house because they are blocking that million dollar view, and oops shiat, first really good rain, and the house slides down the side of the mountain again..

It just seems that if you have enough money to invest in a multi-million dollar house, you'd have enough sense to know about things such as erosion and tree TRIMMING...


Like I said, people like that crack me up.
 
2013-07-31 09:56:28 AM
Why would people build homes near water or away from it?
 
2013-07-31 09:56:42 AM
What about the highway they built to the danger zone?
Right into the danger zone.
 
2013-07-31 09:57:20 AM

Aarontology: Natural disasters can strike damn near anywhere. Thinking you can totally avoid them is beyond moronic, and demonstrative of a mind incapable of thinking of any sort of consequences.


Move to Phoenix.

The number of natural disasters here damn near approaches 0.
 
2013-07-31 09:58:49 AM
So, next year, when all those space rocks start falling out of the sky, you're gonna ask "Why did you build your house on a planet that goes through a giant devastating meteor field every coupla million years?

And I'll say "Well, how do you like your space rocks?" And you'll say "A little meteor!"
 
2013-07-31 09:59:32 AM

Begoggle: What about the highway they built to the danger zone?
Right Ride into the danger zone.


FTFY....so close
 
2013-07-31 09:59:58 AM
It's mostly corruption on the part of businessmen and the local government types.  Swamp land costs a lot less than land that drains properly, which means much bigger profits for the developers, and much bigger kickbacks for local officials.

Case in point:

I used to live in a town in Jersey,  not too far from NYC, where 1/3 of the houses were in a flood zone.  The flood zone houses were built back in the 1950s  My house was not in the flood zone,  it was smaller and older than the houses built in the swamp, but cost about the same amount of money.  Anyway, when Hurricane Floyd blew through the Northeast, the low side of town ended up under 4 feet of water,  we didn't get a drop of water in the basement.

While I was living in said town, I became friendly with an elderly neighbor who grew up in town.   Elderly people like to tell their life stories and this guy had some interesting stories to tell.  One day he was telling me about how he and his school friends would hunt rabbits in the low side of town before it was developed.  I assumed the land belonged to a farmer.  His reply, "Farmer's field?  Nah, it was a farking swamp."  I asked him if the people who ran the town at the time knew that land was a flood zone.  He replied that everyone knew it was a swamp.  I asked him why the town gave permission to a developer to build hundreds of houses in a swamp.  The old dude said, "Because someone got a big bag of cash under the table."

Of course we don't need any regulations to prevent this kind of thing in the future, because the market will take care of everything.  It's a well known fact that in the 1950s the USA was not a free market economy.
 
2013-07-31 10:00:02 AM

Begoggle: What about the highway they built to the danger zone?
Right into the danger zone.


PHRASING!
 
2013-07-31 10:01:01 AM
Jobs of course duh.
 
2013-07-31 10:01:25 AM
Why do people still build timber-framed houses in Tornado Alley?
 
2013-07-31 10:02:07 AM
Simple answer here - You live in a flood plain, you have flood insurance.  If you house gets washed away, insurance gives you a check. Except - You have two choices: use the check to buy a new house in a non-flood plain area, or rebuild - but after that, you're on your own.  Property is deemed uninsurable, and this must be disclosed to any potential buyer. You flood again, you pay.  Change that rule, and the problem would sort itself out in a 100 year flood cycle.
 
2013-07-31 10:02:43 AM

Aarontology: Natural disasters can strike damn near anywhere. Thinking you can totally avoid them is beyond moronic, and demonstrative of a mind incapable of thinking of any sort of consequences


Yes, but the probability is greater in certain areas.  People used to farm in lowlands, because the soil was rich and it flooded occasionally.  Communities built there and then complained about the flooding, which led to levee-building, which exacerbated flooding (and a number of other bad effects).  People saw how beautiful the California coast is, and build homes in areas where fire and flood are common (more mudslides after the ground cover burns off, really).  People think it's great to live along the coast because of the view (and then the jobs that support all that recreation).  Low-lying coastal areas are prone to floods.

You can reduce your chances by making good choices and having good habits.  In a fire area, don't use flammable building materials and keep plants away from the house.  Don't build in a natural flood zone, or if you do (like along the coast) build up high or build cheap, so it's not a big hit when it floods.  Stop messing with rivers and understand that they have their own flood-control system.  When they flooded before, you'd get tens of thousands of acres under a foot of water.  By confining the river, you get catastrophic levee breaks and thousands of acres under ten feet of water.  The federal government finally got a bit wise about fire control in national parks.  Before they tried to extinguish every one right away, without understanding that fire is part of the lifecycle of the forest.  As a result, a huge amount of fuel built up, and when a fire did occur, damage was much more severe than it would have been if a "let-it-burn" strategy had been employed (not to mention that by eliminating fire, we were disrupting the very ecosystem we were trying to preserve.  Also, to the extent that the govt subsidizes flood and earthquake insurance, and provides disaster relief without looking at underlying causes, we're subsidizing bad choices and setting ourselves up for greater payouts down the road.  Not to say that we shouldn't provide disaster relief, but we should limit the number of times we provide it to a community before moving them or forcing other changes that will help solve the problem (like changes to building codes that require houses to be built a certain height above the ground in flood-prone zones, like they did in New Orleans.  Actually, back in the day people did build up high because of the floods, but when the levees were built people relaxed their guard and built low.  When the levees were breached, people in older homes fared much better than those in more modern homes.)
 
2013-07-31 10:04:46 AM

Nana's Vibrator: Every square inch of the US is a potential disaster zone.  We have tornadoes, earthquakes, fires, hurricanes, blizzards, terrorism, zombies, toddlers, armadillos, that creepy guy who always follows me in the mall, and Ashton Kutcher.  Where the hell do you expect us to build?  It's why we have insurance.


I think people are asking things more like 'okay, you live in high desert, and you built your house on the  floor of a giant farking canyon on the valley floor. Why the hell did you do that?'.

/Because people do that out here.
//A little more caution would be a good thing in building.
 
2013-07-31 10:05:15 AM

kidgenius: Aarontology: Natural disasters can strike damn near anywhere. Thinking you can totally avoid them is beyond moronic, and demonstrative of a mind incapable of thinking of any sort of consequences.

Move to Phoenix.

The number of natural disasters here damn near approaches 0.


Heat waves and droughts count as natural disasters.

Heat waves you can handle if you keep moving from air conditioned house to air conditioned car to air conditioned work.  Droughts in the Colorado River watershed, combined with the fact that Arizona joined the water allotment from the river after all the other states, means that if the water in the river gets too low, Arizona gets cut off from its water supply first.  Overnight Arizona would lose 1/3 of its water supply.
 
2013-07-31 10:06:47 AM

UNC_Samurai: It's even worse when they've been told not to build in an area again, but a decade after Hurricane Floyd there's new housing developments where the old ones were washed away (and of course no insurance policy wants to cover a 100-year flood plain unless the premium is sky-high).


Aw, you can mitigate those insurance costs by forming a state-level Insurance Commission that makes sure the folks in Charlotte get to subsidize the condos on the north end of Wrightsville Beach, which is an inlet zone.

And every ten years or so, you can petition the state to pay for the dredging of that inlet even though the conditional-use permit for those condos was given on the understanding that the condo owners would pay for that dredging. But you can claim that since "everyone" uses the inlet and the beach (well, except for all those "No Parking" "No Trespassing" and "No Public Access" signs) the taxpayers should pay for it. Then you get a friendly legislator to hide those funds in a bill supporting something else.

Meanwhile, continue having "accidental" discharges of sewage into the waterway. When the feds finally notice and demand an upgrade of your poorly-designed and -maintained system, demand the state pay for that, too.

The moral of the story is: invest in a business that makes "No Public Access" signs. And be sure to have plenty of guess access cards for members of the legislature.
 
2013-07-31 10:06:49 AM

Nana's Vibrator: Every square inch of the US is a potential disaster zone.  We have tornadoes, earthquakes, fires, hurricanes, blizzards, terrorism, zombies, toddlers, armadillos, that creepy guy who always follows me in the mall, and Ashton Kutcher.  Where the hell do you expect us to build?  It's why we have insurance.


Actually, that's the problem.  You have people building houses in flood zones but not buying flood insurance and people building houses in hurricane zones where they either don't have sufficient insurance or the insurance is heavily subsidized.

The point of the article is that we need to stop subsidizing people from insuring houses more likely to be destroyed and start requiring that the people who live in these houses have sufficient insurance.  Failing to do that means more property damage and more death.
 
2013-07-31 10:07:00 AM
just as Boy Scouts are taught the difference between a wise and a foolish site upon which to pitch a tent there is a boatload of professionals who are educated on where is more desirable to build.
the problem starts right in Small Town USA with the crooked politicians at the helm. these are people who are connected, have businesses and have money (most of the time). they run for office so they can assure growth of wealth for themselves and their friends. they value money over all other things. they could care less that one of their friends is building condos where you and your family may be washed away in a flash flood.
America has millions of pussies with millions of guns they only use to masturbate with or shoot kritters so the rich will continue to get richer building in areas where someone with common sense would not do so. politicians just get more wealthy, powerful and greedy as you go up the ladder. and it all starts right in our little towns. it's not going to change because no one ever calls them out on it.
 
2013-07-31 10:07:42 AM
Did someone say danger zone?
media57.podbean.com
 
2013-07-31 10:11:07 AM
What I got out of this is that we shouldn't build in any place that can be effected by natural disaster.

Which means that we shouldn't build anything, anywhere, ever.
 
2013-07-31 10:11:21 AM
As I said, the Great Lakes region.

No droughts, no wildfires, no earthquakes, no hurricanes, no tsunamis.  Flooding rare, tornadoes rare.  No extreme heat, no extreme cold.

When we start having a water crisis in this country, people are going to realize the foolishness of building huge cities in the desert, and start moving back to the Rust Belt cities.
 
2013-07-31 10:12:36 AM
What do you mean?  My house isn't even in the 500 year flood plain.

Then again, cam you name a single area of the country that isn't in the line of fire for some sort of natural disaster--hurricanes, tornado, flood, earthquake, blizzard, volcano, wildfire, etc?  Maybe the Pacific Northwest, unless you consider crippling depression.  Maybe Arizona desert.  So really, we should move the entire populace there.  That seems sustainable.
 
2013-07-31 10:14:43 AM

Nana's Vibrator: Every square inch of the US is a potential disaster zone. We have tornadoes, earthquakes, fires, hurricanes, blizzards, terrorism, zombies, toddlers, armadillos, that creepy guy who always follows me in the mall, and Ashton Kutcher. Where the hell do you expect us to build? It's why we have insurance.


Bullshiat.

Some areas are a whole lot more susceptible than others. Take the New Orleans area. You've got part of the city below sea level, the Mississippi on one side and the Gulf on the other and coming closer all the time, even without hurricanes. It's essential function is for transport. The rest was not sustainable.

Some disasters like blizzards and quakes lend themselves more easily to preparation and damage-mitigation...but water is the real motherfarker. If your house is too low in relation to the water, the water will take your house and whatever the water doesn't take the mold will.
 
2013-07-31 10:17:25 AM
Subby, I think the tag itself answers your question quite succinctly.
 
2013-07-31 10:21:31 AM

Fissile: I used to live in a town in Jersey


...
...

Of course we don't need any regulations to prevent this kind of thing in the future, because the market will take care of everything.  It's a well known fact that in the 1950s the USA was not a free market economy.


Are you seeing the contradiction in your statement?

One thing New Jersey has been renowned for over the years is its insanely thick layer of government redundancy, with politicians holding multiple positions and drawing multiple salaries. And taking multiple bribes to look the other way when all those various governments' regulations were being violated.

You can have all the regulation in the world and it it won't be worth shiat if it's administered by crooks and political hacks.
 
2013-07-31 10:22:15 AM

ariseatex: kidgenius: Aarontology: Natural disasters can strike damn near anywhere. Thinking you can totally avoid them is beyond moronic, and demonstrative of a mind incapable of thinking of any sort of consequences.

Move to Phoenix.

The number of natural disasters here damn near approaches 0.

Heat waves and droughts count as natural disasters.

Heat waves you can handle if you keep moving from air conditioned house to air conditioned car to air conditioned work.  Droughts in the Colorado River watershed, combined with the fact that Arizona joined the water allotment from the river after all the other states, means that if the water in the river gets too low, Arizona gets cut off from its water supply first.  Overnight Arizona would lose 1/3 of its water supply.


AZ was in a drought for close to a decade, and it just "ended" a few years ago. The "drought" thing is pretty much under control. And thanks to modern tech, heat waves can be dealt with. Or heck, you can build houses like they do in the middle east, and then you don't even need AC.
 
2013-07-31 10:22:34 AM

ariseatex: kidgenius: Aarontology: Natural disasters can strike damn near anywhere. Thinking you can totally avoid them is beyond moronic, and demonstrative of a mind incapable of thinking of any sort of consequences.

Move to Phoenix.

The number of natural disasters here damn near approaches 0.

Heat waves and droughts count as natural disasters.

Heat waves you can handle if you keep moving from air conditioned house to air conditioned car to air conditioned work.  Droughts in the Colorado River watershed, combined with the fact that Arizona joined the water allotment from the river after all the other states, means that if the water in the river gets too low, Arizona gets cut off from its water supply first.  Overnight Arizona would lose 1/3 of its water supply.


Not to mention mile-high dust storms.

To be fair, though, Phoenix doesn't have as many home-destroying disasters. Just the kind that kill people.
 
2013-07-31 10:33:17 AM
>when will we start investing billions of dollars to decrease risk rather than simply continuing this expensive loop of disaster recovery?

When will journalists do even the slightest bit of research prior to writing articles? We are investing to decrease risk (probably billions, but I can't be bothered to google for exact numbers). FEMA's mitigation grant program gives "Project Grants to implement measures to reduce flood losses, such as elevation, acquisition, or relocation of [National Flood Insurance Program]-insured structures." [emphasis added] Here's an example from NY, where they give preference to "Removing structures from a floodplain, or relocating them to higher ground."

TFA is bad, and the author should feel bad.
 
2013-07-31 10:36:51 AM

kidgenius: Aarontology: Natural disasters can strike damn near anywhere. Thinking you can totally avoid them is beyond moronic, and demonstrative of a mind incapable of thinking of any sort of consequences.

Move to Phoenix.

The number of natural disasters here damn near approaches 0.


The number of natural disasters in Phoenix is near 1,469,000.  I've been there.  I know.
 
Displayed 50 of 88 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report