- Joined
- 29 Dec 08
- Moves
- 6788
15 Dec 12
1 edit
Originally posted by normbenignSticking to the thread topic, on the subject of living in a floodplain, of course in exchange for disaster relief, people should expect some additional government limitation on where they can live, based on what the taxpayer will permit them to do, via our old friend the political process. Such regulations exist.
We have to understand that humans act based on expectations. If people are repeatedly bailed out of flood scenarios in the Mississippi basin, they continue to go back and rebuild homes that are in areas that will predictably flood again.
Whether before or after, bail outs are going to be politically based, that is how many people will vote for me based o make up for the risky choices of others, even if they didn't appear that risky at the time.
http://www.floods.org/NoAdverseImpact/FLOODPLAIN_REG_IN_COURTS_050604.pdf
PS having grown up on the Gulf of Mexico I am aware of increasing regulatory limitations on beachside living.
15 Dec 12
Originally posted by JS357I've summed up my beliefs earlier, but I repeat. Some disaster relief is a good and natural thing to get people started again, but indemnification is out of the question.
Sticking to the thread topic, on the subject of living in a floodplain, of course in exchange for disaster relief, people should expect some additional government limitation on where they can live, based on what the taxpayer will permit them to do, via our old friend the political process. Such regulations exist.
http://www.floods.org/NoAdverseImpact/FLOODP ...[text shortened]... wn up on the Gulf of Mexico I am aware of increasing regulatory limitations on beachside living.
Back in 1954 I rode out two cat3 hurricanes, Carol and Edna in Rockport, MA in my great grandmother's 200 year old house. It was situated less than a quarter mile from the ocean, but on substantial high ground. Some homes nearer the ocean on lower land were wiped out, and boats in the harbor were deposited all over the town.
There was no FEMA but somehow in a week or two nearly everything was back to normal, until Edna blew in, and the same scenario was repeated.
16 Dec 12
1 edit
Originally posted by moon1969The democrats harp about hurting the rich but have no problem with things like corporate welfare.
What demogoguery are you referring to? I only responded to you pressing about federal expenditures I did not agree with. Further, it is you who has been spouting demagoguery thoughout this entire thread.
Let's face it, the DNC is dependent on their money. It's not like they make money themselves.
- Joined
- 29 Dec 08
- Moves
- 6788
16 Dec 12
Originally posted by normbenignThat must have been quite a ride. Or two. Is there any movement for government to indemnify property owners against storm damage no matter where they decide to buy? I have been in contract relationships that involve indemnification, but well, it seems like the right time to ask. We may be in agreement on that.
I've summed up my beliefs earlier, but I repeat. Some disaster relief is a good and natural thing to get people started again, but indemnification is out of the question.
Back in 1954 I rode out two cat3 hurricanes, Carol and Edna in Rockport, MA in my great grandmother's 200 year old house. It was situated less than a quarter mile from the ocean, but ...[text shortened]... nearly everything was back to normal, until Edna blew in, and the same scenario was repeated.
16 Dec 12
Originally posted by moon1969Coastlines shift, rivers cut new channels, and many forests out West burn on a regular basis. These are natural processes.
The proposed 2013 budget for FEMA is $13 billion which is equal to the cost of six B2 bombers. Keep in mind this FEMA is much more than disaster relief but also disaster prep, and also having nothing to do with disasters but with security and other homeland issues. Of course, in any year, the President and Congress can vote to give additional money for na ...[text shortened]... ankruptcy, and really the only entity that can adequately handle such is the federal government.
But once people build a home, they think they can build a levee, or construct on a sandbar, or stop the burning and everything will be OK somehow. Well, it won't. They will get wiped out -- it's only a matter of time.
People who build in these areas have to accept the risk of having done something rather foolhardy. The government should not be in the business of encouraging risky behavior.
Some people will build anyway and then try to insure. That's costly because events that are entirely predictable carry huge premiums. But it will also force people to build stronger buildings, in less marginal places, and do maintenance they don't want to do, e.g. regular burns.
17 Dec 12
Originally posted by JS357I don't know if there are specific programs for indemnification, but every disaster brings cries for what amounts to that. The big awards to families of the 9/11 attack smacked of that. More and more people gripe if they aren't "back to normal" fairly quickly.
That must have been quite a ride. Or two. Is there any movement for government to indemnify property owners against storm damage no matter where they decide to buy? I have been in contract relationships that involve indemnification, but well, it seems like the right time to ask. We may be in agreement on that.
18 Dec 12
Originally posted by whodeyIndded, all politicians are slave to the system. Citizens United by the Republican-nominee majority Court really helped.
The democrats harp about hurting the rich but have no problem with things like corporate welfare.
Let's face it, the DNC is dependent on their money. It's not like they make money themselves.
18 Dec 12
3 edits
Originally posted by normbenignFEMA does not do full indemnification, that's for sure. And much of the assistance which quite often supplements inadequate insurance payouts (which FEMA considers) and which both FEMA + insurance total is still usually less that the value of property -- is loans that must be paid back.
I've summed up my beliefs earlier, but I repeat. Some disaster relief is a good and natural thing to get people started again, but indemnification is out of the question.
Back in 1954 I rode out two cat3 hurricanes, Carol and Edna in Rockport, MA in my great grandmother's 200 year old house. It was situated less than a quarter mile from the ocean, but ...[text shortened]... nearly everything was back to normal, until Edna blew in, and the same scenario was repeated.
FEMA does help with stuff like temporary housing and food stipends, but when giving $ for property replacement or rebuild, there is some grant money but much is a loan that must be paid back. People still lose big time, but FEMA is a great thing we have as "insurance" to make it less traumatic, not full indemnification. We are all glad we have the federal assisatance, when we need it. Makes a huge difference in the devastation aftermath and rebuild.
Also for the local government entities like the cities and counties who would otherwise go bankrupt. Just because that is the way it was a long time ago does that mean it is smart or good. The old way is actually an inefficient waste.
18 Dec 12
Originally posted by moon1969The problem is that as government steps in to help, more and more people complain it isn't enough.
FEMA does not do full indemnification, that's for sure. And much of the assistance which quite often supplements inadequate insurance payouts (which FEMA considers) and which both FEMA + insurance total is still usually less that the value of property -- is loans that must be paid back.
FEMA does help with stuff like temporary housing and food stipends, ...[text shortened]... g time ago does that mean it is smart or good. The old way is actually an inefficient waste.