Why rebuild at all???

originally posted by: ClovenSky
Did you see all of the structures that survived the full impact? Did you notice how they were built?

I think it would be very easy to build a structure that would weather the impact just fine. But you would need to get rid of fast profits and greed. You would have to mandate a vastly superior building code for this area and that would be expensive. You couldn't run up crap shacks and make loads of easy money off of it.

Do we have the fortitude to even suggest this much less implement it?

Somehow I missed your reply earlier. I agree in another reply that cheaper lodgings should be a thing of the past in these high risk areas. But that means that only the wealthy can live in these ''most of the time'' beautiful areas.

originally posted by: TerryMcGuire

originally posted by: DigginFoTroof

originally posted by: TerryMcGuire
a reply to: DigginFoTroof

This is really a sensitive issue. Few people want to admit that we may have to re-evaluate or entire conceptions of value. Yes, these places are home to many and many cannot afford to move. And the issue is so sensitive that I have not heard of any congressional representatives addressing these possibilities at all. I think that they are all to afraid to do so as it will offend constituents.

But sooner or later it will be addressed if not by government then by insurance companies that will begin to quit offering insurence or at least demanding unaffordable premiums.

I think that it needs to be done by insurance companies, at least they NEED to re-evaluate the rates for all areas with current data. Areas that have been hit, or have been in the path of past storms need to be sent information about the issue by the insurance companies so that they are informed that it is a major issue. This way the people who are effected by this can have time to think about what to do, make plans if something were to happen (or at least have it as a "presence" in their mind - not be totally shocked if something happens).

The agency that deals with Federal flood/disaster insurance/recovery and also FEMA need to re-evaluate the data as well and inform Congress of the issues. Having the departments that handle this make the announcements that this is a major issue would take the heat of the elected officials a bit as if they bring it up, they have cover by saying they are doing their job by talking about an official release. What do you think?

I tend to agree here. Yes, I can surmise that it will be the insurance companies that start putting pressure on the government and on the consumer. They have a bottom line that cannot be altered in the manner that the government can just print more money or run up the deficit. Insurgence companies have a hard bottom line. When we see them begin to make whiny noises then maybe things will begin to be addressed.

I wonder if insurance companies have contingencies developed around the speculations that these storms are not just random fluxuations in our yearly weather patterns but in reality are part of climate change.

I recall when Bush was running for Potus, a small news event that emerged and which was quickly looked past was that the Pentagon did a study and that study clearly stated that climate change was a prime threat to the safety of America.
Now I"m not saying one way or the other on that issue as I am not expert. But one might assume that these big insurance companies would have that whole scenario scoped out for their own protection either way.

I'd like to see the studies done by all the major insurance companies and underwriters for flood and natural disaster and see if they expect the premium to rise drastically and how their data corresponds to past data and the talk about GW/CC.

The thing about global warming and climate change is that if you talk about it long enough and always say that the weather is caused by this, then the younger generations will believe it b/c they don't have previous weather to compare it to - thus automatically believing it - and the older generations may tend to forget how bad it was in the past (either from not experiencing & only seeing on TV or just forgetting..) and begin to buy into the GW/CC hype. It's like people always saying that the current generation "is the worst" but they just kind of forget how bad they were when young (and didn't have anything to compare it to - experience from old age) - so it's basically the same in one way and the opposite from GW/CC.

originally posted by: angeldoll


On some site once, probably here, a woman was blasting a person all to hell and back for continuing to live in Florida because of the hurricanes.

She later said she lived in California. Seriously? California with it mudslides, wildfires, draughts and earthquakes, and she's blasting someone in Florida?

The people in Florida stay for the same reason people in California, Kansas and Oklahoma stay.

IT'S HOME.

People don't understand how big Cali is. It's the 3rd largest state and almost 3x larger than Florida. It also has some of the least populated areas in some parts that are very safe, so just living in Cali doesn't mean the area is unsafe. It'd be like someone saying they sell items on ebay and you thinking they are a scammer b/c a small % of people on Ebay scam.

originally posted by: TerryMcGuire
a reply to: norhoc

Yep. It is that ''both ways'' that perplexes me. And I wonder about all the insurences that people hold. Are not those premiums escalating for all of us due to those who wish to live the good life in overly fragile locations?

I have to have ''flood plain'' insurance. I also need to have surveys done and pay an extra price for installing any new buildings or even replacing a furnace just because of my location on a river.

I think rates are rising across the board and I'm guessing that they are effected by those in high risk areas the most. What I don't know is if the rates rise proportionately to the raised amount of risk in the area, which should be how it works, instead of everyone paying more so some people can live in the "pretty places".

a reply to: TerryMcGuire

As for the insurance companies... they're not getting hurt as much as one might think. Yes, a swath of Florida was obliterated, but they don't just insure that area.... the damage is severe and to us appears widespread, but compared to the entire Florida coastline it is a pittance of area. Compared to the Southeastern coastline it is even less. The premiums may rise, but they will rise across all of the hurricane-susceptible areas. Individual premiums will not be affected badly, if at all.

That's kinda what insurance companies do. If they have to pay out a billion dollars, they'll make back 5 billion on overall premiums. In the meantime, the homeowner that had the $100,000 claim only paid maybe $20,000 in premiums. There are so many paying their $20,000 in premiums and not making a claim, it all works out.

Those are made-up numbers, of course, but they illustrate the principle.

The only problem will come if there are an excessive number of hurricanes every year for an extended period. This was the worst one to ever hit that particular area.

Now, as to the tax dollars... I could be wrong here, but as I understand it, FEMA does not directly pay for anything to be rebuilt. They provide food and temporary shelter, maybe clothing, but as for personal property they provide loan guarantees. That means the homeowners can apply for a loan to rebuild and the government will guarantee the repayment, Think of it as Uncle Sam co-signing the loan to make it easy to get approved. Since most of the loans will be repaid, and since the homeowner is the one risking foreclosure, the government is actually on the hook for a tiny percentage of the money guaranteed.

I know I have never heard of anyone getting a grant to rebuild... it is always a loan.

TheRedneck

a reply to: TerryMcGuire

I didn't read all the posts (yet), so if this is a repeat...my apologies.

The insurance companies are already working on your concept...without anyone's approval! There are many places where insurance companies refuse to insure any property. You're welcome to buy it, but they won't insure it so you're on your own. A number of these places are in Florida too.

I'd much rather deal with a hurricane once in a while here in S. Florida. Then live up north during winter months with icy roads, which imo is more dangerous. If you live in the northeast you can get hurricanes & icy roads. I've been through hurricanes Andrew, Wilma & Irma plus several others which were not as dangerous. Everything down here is built stronger than before the hurricanes. Almost everyone has hurricane windows or storm shutters now, as well as, updated roofs/roof joints & reinforced swimming pool screen enclosures. New home construction has higher building code requirements to mitigate hurricane issues. All gas stations are also now required to have generators if the power goes out. Mexico beach will come back stronger then it was before the hurricane. People will be more prepared next time. As long as banks continue to make money off mortgages, insurance companies continue to profit & both are bailed out by our governmemt during bad financial times, homes will continue to be built in these areas. Now is probably a good time to buy real estate @ Mexico Beach.

Just like the military industrial complex profits from wars, military & police, so do rehab construction companies, metal recyclers, etc. from hurricanes. Or how private prisons, government, police & lawyers profit off the drug war.

The homes in S. Florida right now are @ 15% less expensive as right before the financial crisis. To get a decent home down here costs @ $350K. The ones on the water start at $500K in areas like Deerfield Beach, in popular areas like Miami & Fort lauderdale waterfront homes start @ 1 million. Just for a regular house not some crazy mansion. The banks, insurance companies & government are profiting & have no worries about climate change. Imo, insurance companies and mortgages should be made illegal. They artificially drive up the price of houses/automobiles/healthcare & allow people to live beyond what they can actually afford.

originally posted by: DigginFoTroof

originally posted by: angeldoll


On some site once, probably here, a woman was blasting a person all to hell and back for continuing to live in Florida because of the hurricanes.

She later said she lived in California. Seriously? California with it mudslides, wildfires, draughts and earthquakes, and she's blasting someone in Florida?

The people in Florida stay for the same reason people in California, Kansas and Oklahoma stay.

IT'S HOME.

People don't understand how big Cali is. It's the 3rd largest state and almost 3x larger than Florida. It also has some of the least populated areas in some parts that are very safe, so just living in Cali doesn't mean the area is unsafe. It'd be like someone saying they sell items on ebay and you thinking they are a scammer b/c a small % of people on Ebay scam.

Really? I would think anyone who has ever seen a map of the U.S. would realize how big it is.

originally posted by: DigginFoTroof
This is a really tough call on what to do. I do get frustrated when I hear about people, often in flood plains, that rebuild 3-4x in like 20 years, all with federal $$! It really makes me mad.

There should be something where there is a limit on how many times you can rebuild. If hit once, rebuild, hit again then rebuilding there seems like a real questionable idea and maybe after that the location would be deemed ineligible for further federal assistance.

More government control?

No thanks.

originally posted by: angeldoll


On some site once, probably here, a woman was blasting a person all to hell and back for continuing to live in Florida because of the hurricanes.

She later said she lived in California. Seriously? California with it mudslides, wildfires, draughts and earthquakes, and she's blasting someone in Florida?

The people in Florida stay for the same reason people in California, Kansas and Oklahoma stay.

IT'S HOME

Might have been me they were responding to if I recall. "Because it's HOME!" that's why they say..really chewed me out.

If it was and they were in Cali....wonder how they feel about it now 5-6 yrs later?
Wildfires, mudslides, El ninio, earthquakes, water shortages, rolling electrical brownouts sometimes for days.

ETA: I do understand one's relationship to their homes wherever they live...I have one too

a reply to: JBIZZ


Mortgages should be illegal? Not sure where you are going with that one. Are you saying no one should be allowed to get a mortgage to buy a house? That sounds like a brilliant idea.

originally posted by: TerryMcGuire
a reply to: norhoc

Yep. It is that ''both ways'' that perplexes me. And I wonder about all the insurences that people hold. Are not those premiums escalating for all of us due to those who wish to live the good life in overly fragile locations?

I have to have ''flood plain'' insurance. I also need to have surveys done and pay an extra price for installing any new buildings or even replacing a furnace just because of my location on a river.

Interestingly....a lot of River edge living folks cannot GET flood insurance...BECAUSE of living so close to the water....insurance won't pay.

We have some beautiful rivers in S.E. Michigan. The Huron, Raisin..up north the Rifle, Au Sable.

We have a log cabin on the Au Sable in the Huron National Forest....but we are 65 ft above overlooking down on it.

a reply to: norhoc

That's exactly what I'm saying. Homes, automobiles and healthcare would be @ 90% more affordable without mortgages and insurance. Lots of money laundering is done through mortgages too, which also drives up home prices.

a reply to: TerryMcGuire

I live in Miami, FL, in a house that was built in 1927. It has survived every storm that has come this way. The foundation is strong, it's elevated to avoid flooding, and the walls are solid. This house was built when people took construction seriously. The houses the get demolished during hurricanes are either very poorly built, or not well maintained.

The exception would be tornados. A tornado can pretty much tear through anything, but tornados can happen almost anywhere.

originally posted by: angeldoll

originally posted by: DigginFoTroof

originally posted by: angeldoll


On some site once, probably here, a woman was blasting a person all to hell and back for continuing to live in Florida because of the hurricanes.

She later said she lived in California. Seriously? California with it mudslides, wildfires, draughts and earthquakes, and she's blasting someone in Florida?

The people in Florida stay for the same reason people in California, Kansas and Oklahoma stay.

IT'S HOME.

People don't understand how big Cali is. It's the 3rd largest state and almost 3x larger than Florida. It also has some of the least populated areas in some parts that are very safe, so just living in Cali doesn't mean the area is unsafe. It'd be like someone saying they sell items on ebay and you thinking they are a scammer b/c a small % of people on Ebay scam.

Really? I would think anyone who has ever seen a map of the U.S. would realize how big it is.

Well then that makes your post ragging on the person from CCali kind of dumb then doesn't it, if you knew how large the state is.. Or did you just want someone to put down.

a reply to: JBIZZ

Yep, insurance is pretty much BS. Its a false sense of security that comes at a ridiculous price, and it drive up the cost of living in so many ways.

a reply to: TerryMcGuire

Life is dangerous, and i have never heard of anybody who was able to survive it.
You could live anywhere on the planet, and go outside and get struck by lightning, hit by a car, killed by a psycho or a million other things.

If we evacuated ALL places that was dangerous to live in, we wouldnt have much space to live. You gonna have a real hard time, just moving 1 million people, where are they gonna live, where are they gonna work? Places with many people living close, has a lot higher death rate than places with few people, cause of all the problems that follows a high and dense population.

I agree some places seems crazy to settle down, but truth is, NO place is really safe, everything can happen.
Dont fear death, and more importen, dont fear to live.

originally posted by: IAMNOTYOU
a reply to: TerryMcGuire

Life is dangerous, and i have never heard of anybody who was able to survive it.
You could live anywhere on the planet, and go outside and get struck by lightning, hit by a car, killed by psycho or a million other things.

If we evacuated ALL places that was dangerous to live in, we wouldnt have much space to live. You gonna have a real hard time, just moving 1 million people, where are they gonna live, where are they gonna work?

I agree some places seems crazy to settle down, but truth is, NO place is really safe, everything can happen.
Dont fear death, and more importen, dont fear to live.

Bravo! *Gives standing Ovation*

As long as people are bailed out and there are no financial repercussions for stupidity, people will continue to build in disaster prone areas.

You can't really get insurance when you are in a flood zone. The government provides it. No private company is that stupid. So people continue to build in flood zone areas along rivers, oceanfronts, etc to enjoy the views and then mother nature decides to flood them out, they get to run to Uncle Sam and rebuild.

Don't feel like googling it right now, but there are cases where people have literally had their homes rebuilt several times in like a decade. At some point, you have to say we are not bailing you out.

At a minimum, there should be some very expensive building codes put in place so that when a property is destroyed, it has to be either rebuilt in such a manner that it would likely survive another disaster.

a reply to: Edumakated

At a minimum, there should be some very expensive building codes put in place so that when a property is destroyed, it has to be either rebuilt in such a manner that it would likely survive another disaster.

There already are... but expensive does not equal safer.

There are these things called "hurricane ties" (we call them "tornado ties" here) that aren't expensive, but have to be installed when the house is built. They're just metal ties that attach the rafters (or trusses) to the walls. They're not expensive, and can even be fabbed out of sheet metal on the job. But most people here don't use them... most people here don't know about them. I do think they're required in Florida now.

That's one example of many: glue/screw construction instead of nails at stress points, inlaid bracing... there's a long list. My point, though, is that expense does not make a home safer... it only makes it harder for people to afford.

TheRedneck