In future storms, we're fucked no matter who is in office...

In a previous thread, I wrote about moving folks inland and refusing to help rebuild house on the beachfront or close to it. But it was kind of OT, so I figured I would start a thread for this article. Read it before you comment:

http://www.cnn.com/2012/11/02/us/coa...html?hpt=hp_t2

Populations living in coastal counties have exploded over the last 30-40 years. Some relevant points:

1) Ocean County in NJ (hit by Sandy) has grown from 208K to 576K from 1970 to 2010.

2) Population of coastal shore-line counties will reach 133 million by 2020, compared to 33 million in 1980. SHIT!!!! Growth of 100 million.

3) One-quarter of all seasonal or second homes are in coastal Florida

4) More than 60% of homes/buildings within 500 feet of shore are on the Atlantic and Gulf coasts.

I think the first major warning we had about this was in the 1990 when Hurricane Andrew hit Florida and did 10s of billions of dollars in damage - significantly more than any of the many previous hurricanes to hit Florida.

It seems to me that the damage ramps up exponentially within about 1/4 mile of the water.

So, unless we begin to institute policies that greatly discourage building homes and businesses near the water, these coastal storms causing major damage are going to be happening at least once a decade, maybe more.

And it won't matter which party is in power. They are guaranteed to be caught short-handed. You can make plans to evacuate people and save lives. You cannot evacuate property.

You have to avoid building it - or rebuilding it - in the first place.

Strategic Relocation—Third Edition



A true empire in decline.
Pay your taxes...
America and the corporate bankers have more countries to invade and occupy!
Enjoy the drones, the currency debasement and Americas third world infrastructure.

Yep, for the most part.
It looks like an extremely big problem when disaster strikes and you are totally dependent upon your government.....good luck.

Democrats should be really happy since those hated corporations will have to un-ass some money to fix things up.....the union locals will be praising Obama for bringing them this windfall........and in the end, the people that will bear the burden, will not have even lived anywhere near there.

Yep, for the most part.
It looks like an extremely big problem when disaster strikes and you are totally dependent upon your government.....good luck. Originally Posted by The2Dogs

you are a idiot two pups a fucking.

With everything you wrote can I get you to say that Bush did the best he could but New Orleans was a disastor waiting to happen. The people couldn't do anything for themselves. They were like sheep being lead to the slaughter. The government failed them on all levels. So go ahead and write that for us.

Yeah until we elect a president who can part the red sea, turn water into wine, or make it rain in a drought. We will just have to accept the fact that whoever is president really doesn't influence the weather.

Although, I did find it interesting that one of the first things Obama did after the storm to aid in speedy recovery was suspend burdensome government regulations. If he had agreed to get rid of them for good I may have voted for him.

Ok wait ekim, why is he stupid? Really, really, I just want to know because I totally agree with him, but If you think he's stupid, there has to be a reason. Are we wrong? Where are we wrong? I'm not being a smartass, I really want to know.

Anyone see Stossell on Fox (FBN?) a couple of nights ago? He said that he bought a seaside house and bought flood insurance. He said the govt paid for two 'basements' on his house and finally overpaid him when the house was washed away. He was admittedly hypocritical.

when the it hits the fan, reality is that if you are living in high risk areas - those that chose to live in earthqauke areas, sides of mountains prone to landslides from massive amounts of rain, tornado alley in the midwest, anywhere near a river / large body of water and inside of it's 100 yr flood plain, in heavily wooded areas with little access to roads and water, you are gonna get screwed every so often... and no matter how well you plan, you are gonna miss something (like the folks that had a nat gas fired generator for their home as a power outage back up - and had it at ground level so it got flooded)

what kills me is the federal flood insurance plan (aka the taxpayers) that, as noted in prior posts, encourages people to replace their home in the same place that it was destroyed...

Insurance companys don't always lead homeowners on the right path.In Joplin if there was anything left of a home you had to use what was left to rebuild when it would be more cost effective to doze it and rebuild from scratch.Not gov regs insurance

when the it hits the fan, reality is that if you are living in high risk areas - those that chose to live in earthqauke areas, sides of mountains prone to landslides from massive amounts of rain, tornado alley in the midwest, anywhere near a river / large body of water and inside of it's 100 yr flood plain, in heavily wooded areas with little access to roads and water, you are gonna get screwed every so often... and no matter how well you plan, you are gonna miss something (like the folks that had a nat gas fired generator for their home as a power outage back up - and had it at ground level so it got flooded)

what kills me is the federal flood insurance plan (aka the taxpayers) that, as noted in prior posts, encourages people to replace their home in the same place that it was destroyed... Originally Posted by Roothead

No, it doesn't. The National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) was put in place to offset some of the catastrophic losses that people suffer during and after a flood, mostly because private insurers refused to write flood insurance. It was not put in place to encourage people to rebuild in the same place; rather it was put in place to make it possible for people to rebuild. It's a subtle, but important, distinction.
-
What most people don't realize is that the NFIP is for most an actual cash value (ACV) policy, and it carries huge deductibles, like $5,000 for personal property and $10,000 for residence buildings. It generally doesn't cover other structures such as fences, gazebos, and storage sheds.
-
For those of you who aren't familiar, let me explain. There are two types of insurance policies, replacement cost value, or RCV, and actual cash value, or ACV. The vast majority of NFIP policies are ACV. Actual cash value is calculated by determining the replacement cost of an item or structure, then applying depreciation for age or wear and tear. So if your home is not new, you're not going to get nearly what it will cost to rebuild when you file your claim.
-
The same thing goes for your personal property, what the insurance companies and the NFIP refer to as 'Contents.' Depreciation on contents, especially clothing, is very high, since the real value of any garment plummets after it's been worn. So your $500 Brooks Brothers suit that you purchased four years ago is only worth about fifty bucks (if that). Other things like books also depreciate at a terribly quick and high rate.
-
And even if you have paid for additional coverage in the form of Replacement Cost, you actually have to go out and replace the item or items; you don't just get a check for the value of the property.
-
People replace their homes because they can, because they've lived there all their lives, because their families, friends, and jobs are there and they don't want to have to start over somewhere else. In the absence of NFIP coverage, some people would still have the financial means to replace their homes; others wouldn't, but in abandoning or selling their land, there are plenty of people who will buy it and build on it, taking the chance that another devastating storm won't be in the offing any time soon. [/I][/I]

Mike, you got some references for that?
What does it matter how a private company and an individual that have entered into a contract resolve their claims.
If your contract dictates how things will be done and you have agreed to it, because they had the LOWEST price, why should you expect something that you did not contract for?

Disasters are horrible things which is why we insure ourselves and have a personal plan on what to do should disaster strike. The inability of people to be responsible for themselves has become a greater burden than the disaster itself. On a personal note, after Ike hit Houston, my family managed to live without electricity for 10 days, no generator, and no assistance. Yeah the showers sure were cold but we stay prepared.

Mike, you got some references for that?
What does it matter how a private company and an individual that have entered into a contract resolve their claims.
If your contract dictates how things will be done and you have agreed to it, because they had the LOWEST price, why should you expect something that you did not contract for?

Disasters are horrible things which is why we insure ourselves and have a personal plan on what to do should disaster strike. The inability of people to be responsible for themselves has become a greater burden than the disaster itself. On a personal note, after Ike hit Houston, my family managed to live without electricity for 10 days, no generator, and no assistance. Yeah the showers sure were cold but we stay prepared. Originally Posted by The2Dogs

You were prepared; most weren't, and you're absolutely right about people choosing not to be responsible for themselves, thinking someone will bail them out. I worked at TWIA during the aftermath of Ike; I worked on the famous Slab Team handling the devastation on the Bolivar Peninsula. It amazed me how many people were living without insurance, or without sufficient insurance, and then crying about not being able to stay and rebuild.

Mike, you got some references for that?
What does it matter how a private company and an individual that have entered into a contract resolve their claims.
If your contract dictates how things will be done and you have agreed to it, because they had the LOWEST price, why should you expect something that you did not contract for?

Disasters are horrible things which is why we insure ourselves and have a personal plan on what to do should disaster strike. The inability of people to be responsible for themselves has become a greater burden than the disaster itself. On a personal note, after Ike hit Houston, my family managed to live without electricity for 10 days, no generator, and no assistance. Yeah the showers sure were cold but we stay prepared. Originally Posted by The2Dogs

Friend of mine worked Joplin it was the way it was.If a inside wall was still good everything around ir had to be taken down then the house rebuilt around it.would have been faster to have dozed it and then rebuilt .more labor and slower.