Page 8 of 10 FirstFirst ... 678910 LastLast
Results 71 to 80 of 98

Thread: Hurricaines and the US

  1. #71
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    639

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by flylo View Post
    Only if we have a Noah type flood. I taught my sons to always buy property well above the road because the county engineer knows more than they do about flooding. I did live in a flood plane in our 1st house & had to have the insurance but I don't agree the I should pay because people keep living in places they know are going to keep being damaged or destroyed again & again!
    We're in the Noah floodzone ourselves. With heavy rain and saturated ground, we do occasionally get water in the basement. Technically it's a flood, but I don't know how the insurance company would handle it... A box fan and time took care of the last one.

  2. #72
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    12,532

    Default

    Yeah in fact I think technically everyone is in the fictitious "noah floodzone" are they not? you know - where water gets "created" out of nowhere and engulfs the entire globe mountains and all... back when minds were simple enough to "believe" --------- and in fact many still remain...

  3. #73
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    High, Wide and Handsome, Montana
    Posts
    720

    Default

    I'll put the popcorn on...

  4. #74
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Independent principality of Sinquefieldia (formerly Missouri in the USA)
    Posts
    25,802

    Default

    If all the bad areas were depopulated, you would have a lot of neighbors cramming the tops of hills.... OH, wait, that's at obvious risk of lightning and wind..... Risk is part of life. No matter where you live, you are at risk of some sort of disaster.

    That some game the system I will not deny. But those who say " I want no part of paying for anyone else's disaster" should live in a different country. We here in the US will keep helping those who do not game the system. The "not on my dime" folks don't belong here, and should leave.

    If a person lives in a regular city, they should not be considered to be taking big risks. Be different if they went off and lived in lowlands out somewhere. Cities are people banded together to reduce risks, and responsibility to avoid flood risk is shared between the city and the individual. As the more "informed" party, the city government bears more responsibility, but the individual bears some also. Flood zones are not a secret.

    The city etc bears responsibility for providing good info. If folks rely on the info that their area is NOT a flood zone, AND they have a flood, the city bears at least as much responsibility as the people do, probably much more, for providing bad information.

    As long as there is flood insurance, the rates should end up paying the costs, or it is welfare and not insurance. If it floods every 5 years, the payments should be more than 1/5 of the average cläim. (or enough to fund the payout), every year. Any less is actuarily irresponsible, and is basically welfare.
    Last edited by J Tiers; 09-13-2017 at 12:43 AM.
    1601

    Keep eye on ball.
    Hashim Khan

  5. #75
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    SW Michigan
    Posts
    8,024

    Default

    I agree with that. The rates should pay the cost but they do not that's why our tax $$ are subsidizing the program because insurance companies won't touch floods as they don't try to lose money. So let me reword it. The FEMA rates should rise enough to get back into the black & stop subsidizing people who choose to live in places they know are going to flood over & over & maybe only cover part of the loss so people will choose the location better and/or build better as they are sharing the cost of the loss. That sounds nicer.
    You can lead people to knowledge but you can't make them think.
    "Lead, follow, or get out of the way."-Thomas Paine

  6. #76
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    South Louisiana
    Posts
    496

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by flylo View Post
    I agree with that. The rates should pay the cost but they do not that's why our tax $$ are subsidizing the program because insurance companies won't touch floods as they don't try to lose money. So let me reword it. The FEMA rates should rise enough to get back into the black & stop subsidizing people who choose to live in places they know are going to flood over & over & maybe only cover part of the loss so people will choose the location better and/or build better as they are sharing the cost of the loss. That sounds nicer.
    Having a 90 IQ must be hard in life. Where to move to again genius?

  7. #77
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Woodinville, WA
    Posts
    8,116

    Default

    The map is massively misleading... I've lived in many "red" zones and never any flooding. A "county" doesn't mean it all floods. Heck, in mine maybe 2% floods in the valley (and the county - not Feds- is slowly stopping rebuilding ); the rest is high ground.

  8. #78
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Stevens Point, WI
    Posts
    6,700

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by lakeside53 View Post
    The map is massively misleading... I've lived in many "red" zones and never any flooding. A "county" doesn't mean it all floods. Heck, in mine maybe 2% floods in the valley (and the county - not Feds- is slowly stopping rebuilding ); the rest is high ground.
    I agree. From the map I live in a red area but have never ever been flooded or even close to it.
    Andy

  9. #79
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Kansas City area
    Posts
    5,117

    Default

    Yep- same here.

  10. #80
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Stevens Point, WI
    Posts
    6,700

    Default

    Here is a better map to look at.

    Andy

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •