Why rebuild at all???

I have no answers here so I am tossing it out for anyone interested in thinking about it.

Why rebuild ANYWHERE in the South East. Without getting into the climate change issue as that is always so contentious, is it not evident that the South East is becoming more and more of a liability to the rest of the country?

Season after season these monster hurricanes come rolling in from the ocean wrecking havoc from one community, one city to the next. Year after year this seems to be happening.

When one of these huge monsters is spotted in the ocean, authorities get on the media and urge for residents to evacuate. They are given warning for this hurricane or this flood a week or two in advance. Many leave and many don't. The monster comes, destroys and then people come back to ''rebuild''. Why don't authorities just say, ''Hey, this is going to happen if not now then maybe next year or the next so you should evacuate now.

I have noticed that some municipalities have told residents that if you stay then we will likely not be available to come and save your life. MIght those municipalities just say across the board, ''here is your warning now. Evacuate to somewhere else because if you stay you are on your own, be it this year or somewhere down the line.

When will developers and money lenders and insurerers quit forking out money for all these rebuilds? Why do authorities not just say hell with it. Why rebuild when it seems that catastrophy could easily be back to any specific area in another year or two.

This goes for CAlifornia too. All those fires that engulf large swaths of land. More and more every season. Why rebuild when the likelihood of another conflagration can easily be expected to visit a couple of seasons down the line.

LIke I say, I have no answers, just questions as to how long can our monetary system continue to put money back into destroyed areas when the likelihood future destruction can be assumed to be somewhere in the near future?

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?

a reply to: TerryMcGuire

You're spot on. I left Florida in the 70s. There is a hurricane season EVERY year. One can lose everything home family treasures...and while taking 6-8 or more months to rebuild at great stress and costs...you're only months away from the NEXT season.

I have friends on a beautiful river who were flooded out completely in the flood, rain season spring and fall. Asked them how they could lose everything, possessions, treasures...every year.

"Oh! But it was so beautiful here!"...10 feet from the river. They moved...

a reply to: TerryMcGuire


I was thinking the same thing. These people rebuild right up on the shore or, in new orleans, in a bowl that on its best days needs pumps to keep the city from flooding, or in the flood plains of rivers or earthquake zones, or in area highly prone to tornadoes, then they bitch and moan and want the government to come in and bail them out, and a lot of these same people that want government assistance are the same people that rail against government bail outs and government programs. You have insurance, get your insurance money and rebuild it yourself. I am at least consistent, I hate government programs and assistance and I also don't want or expect government help when I suffer a personal tragedy. Can't have it both ways people.

a reply to: ClovenSky


Not to mention ,let's face it, much of mexico city beach are trailers and shacks.

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.

a reply to: TerryMcGuire

One could say the same thing about the tornadoes in the Midwest... the Nor'easters in New England...

There is nowhere on the planet that is immune from natural disasters. I don't have hurricanes, but we do get a twister from time to time... an F-5 can make a pretty bad mess!

People rebuild because they want to live there... they like the climate, the culture, the scenery, sometimes just the neighbors. They're insured (hopefully) so it's not like tax dollars are going to rebuild. Even if FEMA helps out the non-insured, it's through insured loans.

As for those who choose to say behind... if they don't survive until help can safely arrive, I'm sorry. They were warned. I still think it behooves us as a nation to try and help even those who make bad decisions though.

TheRedneck

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.

a reply to: mysterioustranger

That is my situation as well. I live right on a river. Own half of the river on my side. Every year there is the threat of flooding though luckily in my 15 years here it has not flooded enough to reach my house, just my yard. Should we get flooded I won't rebuild, just sell the property to anyone who wants to take the next chance. It's a gamble. And the gamble that is the South East now seems to maybe be to large a gamble to keep tossing state, federal and insurance money into.

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.

because they feel ties to their hometowns. their parents lived there, their kid's school is there..they can build houses with wheels maybe.i dont know. just an idea.

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.

a reply to: Damla

I could be wrong here, as usual, but from some of the pictures I saw of this latest devestation, a fair portion of the destruction was to lower income type living, trailers and or modular homes, placed in ''prime'', close to the ocean type of parks. Maybe the building codes need to be increased. Build expensive stone or brick homes that cannot be destroyed so easily.

This of course would bennefit only those who could afford to do so. The more wealthy who can afford to pay a couple of million for a home that will not get blown away from the coming storms. As I said, I have no answers either. I am only capable of brain storming.

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?

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: TerryMcGuire

One could say the same thing about the tornadoes in the Midwest... the Nor'easters in New England...

There is nowhere on the planet that is immune from natural disasters. I don't have hurricanes, but we do get a twister from time to time... an F-5 can make a pretty bad mess!

People rebuild because they want to live there... they like the climate, the culture, the scenery, sometimes just the neighbors. They're insured (hopefully) so it's not like tax dollars are going to rebuild. Even if FEMA helps out the non-insured, it's through insured loans.

As for those who choose to say behind... if they don't survive until help can safely arrive, I'm sorry. They were warned. I still think it behooves us as a nation to try and help even those who make bad decisions though.

TheRedneck

And this of course is the country we hope ourselves to be. That we come to the aid of our brethren when they are in need.
However, how long will insurance companies continue to insure these ''high risk'' areas of habitation. And how long will the government continue to pay out tax dollars for those who choose to live in them when their areas are predictably hit by one more catastrophe? I'm not saying that I have the answers to this conundrum.

And you mention, '' I still think it behooves us as a nation to try and help even those who make bad decisions though.'' And to what degree do we help those who make bad decisions in other areas? Should we not seek to help those who make bad decisions while voting rather than condemning them as libtards or alt-rightests? Or those who are addicted to meth when it has been public knowledge for years and years that doing meth will kill you? Or offering heroin needles to those who have made the bad decision to do heroin so they can at least be free of contaminated needles?

To me Neck, these question run to the heart of or liberal and conservative divide. How much can we help others without endangering the health of those who are doing the helping. Where do we draw these lines?

You ask "why do they keep lending"? BECAUSE IT ISN'T THEIR MONEY!! The banks know they will be bailed out. The home owner knows that they can walk away from the debt (bankruptcy), etc.

What they need to do is re-evaluate all the areas hit in the SE and create a map with different designations. Banks would need to look at these maps to see where they can lend $$ and in the high risk areas, maybe those loans won't be garunteed if the owner walks away or if the house is damaged.

Maybe if a person builds a house in high risk area and they claim bankruptcy, that debt isn't forgiven and the bank isn't covered by federal bailouts. I think that is wishful thinking as the banks seem to get what they want. I also don't know how banks could designate loans that were issued in high risk areas so that they wouldn't be covered under bailouts. I guess it could be similar to how they classified high risk borrower loans (pre 2008).

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?

I think this is a much more palatable solution.

If a building is damaged by natural disaster then the rebuild MUST meet current federal building regulations (as per structural integrity for that area) upon completion. They should issue checks AFTER the rebuild but issue a governement voucher prior to build which can be used to show there is $$ available for a job completed to specification. After completion then an inspector checks to make sure it is up to spec, if it is, the check is issued.

Over time, the number of under-spec buildings will fall as the ones that aren't will either be torn down or destroyed in storms, so over time, they can be replaced with adequate buildings.

I think this is kind of what is supposed to be done now but the problem might be that the standards need to be raised to sustain the damage of storms.

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 have to say that I lived in the SE on a coastal Island for a while and have had family that lived there for a long time. They have been hit by a hurricane a few times and the island usually does extremely well because of the conservation of the island - it wasn't stripped down to nothing but sand and concrete/pavement - it is largely wooded with LOTS of underbrush and large dunes and the people there understand the importance of the trees and vegetation to the island. They have also been lucky to not have many direct hits either.

a reply to: DigginFoTroof

Good points. Yes, that guaranteed bailout for the banks should be addressed, but also as you say, we know how that has gone before.