CDZ Infrastructure: H2O sits for days in Houston; or Fluid dynamics for city planning dummies

[usmbguest5318]

"14 days after Harvey, some West Houston homes remain under water."​

Source​

So here we are in 2017 and there are a host of facts that are immutable:

• Regardless of why the planet is warming, it's pretty certain that global warming produces more intense hurricanes. [1]
  • Knutson and Tuleya cite the rough order of magnitude of the sensitivity of hurricanes to climate warming to be about 4% per deg C SST warming for maximum intensities and about 12% per deg C for near-storm (100 km radius) rainfall rates.
    
  • Daniel B. Wright et al examined the frequency of landfalling tropical cyclones and associated rainfall properties over the eastern United States using Zetac [2]. Their simulations project maximum rainfall increases of ~15 %, and nominal increases of 10%, over the eastern United States are projected in the late twenty-first century.
    
  • Kenneth E. Kunkel documents observed trends in rainfall and temperature. He and his team of researchers also report in "Recent increases in U.S. heavy precipitation associated with tropical cyclones" that "tropical cyclones (hurricanes) account for 30% or more of all such extreme events at a number of stations and about 6% of the national annual total. During 1994–2008, the number of TC-associated events was more than double the long-term average while the total annual national number of events was about 25% above the long-term (1895–2008) average....While there has been a recent increase in the number of landfalling U.S. hurricanes, the increase in TC-associated heavy events is much higher than would be expected from the pre-1994 association between the two."

For this thread, the point of my sharing the above is to establish that it's reasonable to infer that areas of the U.S. susceptible to hurricanes and other "huge"/long lasting rainstorms that result in widescale flooding are, in comparison to prior decades and scores, more likely rather than less likely to experience costly flooding.

Having thus reasoned, obvious questions are:

1. Normative --> Should anything be done to attenuate the duration, thus the impact, of "massive" scale flooding?
2. Positive and normative --> If "yes," what implementation approach(s) should be used to do so?

My Answer to Question 1:

To question one, my answer is "yes." Why? Well, because over some 30 years of managing case studies of my share of Fortune 500 (or similar) companies (a mix of commodities producers/sellers and differentiated goods producers/sellers), it's become very clear to me that "everything goes retro except prices," the axiom "an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure" bears heeding.

Flooding is the costliest and most common natural disaster in the U.S., claiming lives, inflicting financial losses on households and businesses, and straining the government agencies that provide flood response and relief. From 1980 to 2013, flooding cost Americans more than $260 billion in damage [3]; from 2006 to 2015, federal flood insurance claims averaged $1.9 billion annually. The pattern continued in 2016, with the federal government declaring 36 disasters involving floods or hurricanes. As of the end of December, the damage from four of the storms that triggered those declarations was estimated to exceed $1 billion each.

As a result, the Federal Emergency Management Agency on Jan. 17 reported a $4 billion loss for 2016 and revealed that it had borrowed $1.6 billion from the federal Treasury to pay National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) claims. As a result, FEMA commenced 2017 $23B in debt.

It is critical for the nation to prepare before natural disasters occur in order to increase safety, protect property, and decrease costs. At the federal level, Congress must support increased investment in pre-disaster mitigation as well as in innovative strategies to help reduce costs and save lives in an era of catastrophic weather.​

My Answer to Question 2:

Well, I'm no engineer or physicist, but I don't need to be for my suggested attenuation approach.

Insofar as there is currently an appetite for infrastructure rehabilitation, I think part of that effort should, when repaving/upgrading surface roads, (1) drop the plane of roads, with regard to that of surrounding structures, so they sit lower than they currently do, (2) increase the incline of the roads (to something around 3.5 to 5 degrees) [4] so water flows more rapidly than it currently does along them, and (3) design and implement the incline increases so as to create coherently coordinated city-and-suburb-wide water dispersal paths. [5]

Quite simply, two weeks for the water to drain off is at least ten days too long given the area of land upon which the water fell. Most of us surely heard the metric whereby Harvey was reported to have dropped enough water -- 33 trillion gallons -- to "fuel" Niagara Falls for about 15 days. That's a lot of water, but that water disperses over the width of the falls which is about 2,200 feet. Houston, in contrast covers an area whereby water has some 630 square miles over which it has a diameter of 23 miles (over 121K feet) across which the water can drain to the Gulf of Mexico.

Even without an omnibus infrastructure bill, the suggestions above can, as part of routine road maintenance, be implemented over time. Appropriating the money as part of an infrastructure bill would get it done faster, which given the rate at which we've been seeing increasing flood damage and the ever increasing cost of flooding, seems something best achieved sooner rather than later.

I can say the approach used in the wake of the Great Mississippi Flood to "make people whole" or somehow better is not what I would undertake. That was "okay" to do in 1992. Now that we have more data about the nature, extent and timing of "major" flooding events [6] that we should expect for the remainder of the 21st century, it is absolutely not what we should do going forward.
​

Flooding is going to happen; I'm not in any way trying to stop it from happening. I am saying, however, that once an area floods, it shouldn't stay flooded for days and weeks on end.

​

Notes:

1. This thread is not about the veracity of anthropogenic global warming (AGW) theory, research or models. Do not post about AGW. Whether humans have caused the warming is irrelevant for this thread. You AGW folks -- regardless of what side you take -- should get on that "soapbox" in a thread other than this one. If you do post about AGW, and I see the post, I will request it be deleted for being off-topic.
2. See also: NASA GISS: Science Briefs: The Physics of Climate Modeling.
3. Some perspective on how much $260B is:
   • Trump requested that the House/Congress increase the DoD's budget by $37B, bringing it to $640B.
   • Trump requested that the House/Congress establish a $65B "set aside" war budget.
   • The U.S. spends about $105B on food assistance.
   • See this -- US Federal Budget Spending Estimate vs. Actual for FY2016 - Charts -- for actual fedeal spending figures for 2016.
4. I'm not here going to explain the vagaries of fluid dynamics, but for those who didn't take physics in high school, I will provide some reference materials they can use to evaluate water flow on roads of a given incline and width.
   • Basic fluid dynamics
   • Basic flow equations
   • Uniform flow
   • Lagrange and Euler flow compared and contrasted
   • Manning equation of open channel flows
     • CalcTool: Open water flow rate calculator
       
     • Manning's Slope and Sensitivity Demo
   • Viscosity and the Transfer of Momentum in a Fluid
5. One may debate about whether the dispersal rates should be predominantly curvilinear (slowing the rate of water flow) or predominantly linear (hastening the rate of flow). Neither, however, do I need to for that a tactical matter, and the discussion here is overwhelmingly strategic: mitigating the duration and extent of flooding. I'm sure there's a balance to be obtained between the rate of water recession and accumulation. I don't currently have a coherent position on the tactical aspect of the matter. What I know is that two weeks is at least 10 days too long for an area to remain flooded after the cause of the flooding has passed.
   
6. See also: U.S. Billion-Dollar Weather & Climate Disasters 1980-2017

 

[Mousterian]

We are seeing the 'benefits' of relaxed regulation. Unfettered 'development' has paved millions of acres of land that were essential to the natural flows that have dissipated flooding until recently.
Regulations are never instigated without solid evidence, but one side of politics sees regulations as a hindrance to profits, and therefore 'unAmerican'.

 

[Andylusion]

I have no problem with local governments putting in place regulations. I have a problem with the Federal Government, dictating to all citizens.

There is no authority in the constitution for the Federal government, to dictate to Utah, how a patch of ground is used. Now if Utah, and the citizens thereof, decide... .fine. No problem.

What is really the problem, is that the Federal Government is bailing out people in flood zones.

That's the real issue.

In a true Free-market system, people in flood zones (or hurricane prone areas), would not be bailed out by the Federal Government.

Insurance companies would charge a premium high enough to compensate for the risks.

This would force people to either build homes that are up off the ground, and thus less of a flood risk, and/or build homes with brick or stone, and thus be able to stand hurricane force winds.

The end result would be that people would either build homes able to deal with the risks, or pay premiums high enough to offset the risk..... OR... not build in disaster prone areas.

There is a famous picture from 2005 after Katrina wiped out entire neighborhoods, of a single house built of concrete, that was completely intact.

While shingles were ripped off the roof, and of course the windows blown out... otherwise the entire structure was fine. All the other houses, not even a single wood stud, was left standing.

There was another picture from Hurricane Andrew in the 1990s, where entire sub-divisions were wiped out, and others were completely fine with only minor damage.

It all boils down to, the public wants a bailout from the government, and because they get bailed out, they can keep building crap homes.

 

[usmbguest5318]

We are seeing the 'benefits' of relaxed regulation. Unfettered 'development' has paved millions of acres of land that were essential to the natural flows that have dissipated flooding until recently.
Regulations are never instigated without solid evidence, but one side of politics sees regulations as a hindrance to profits, and therefore 'unAmerican'.

And...???

I don't have anything substantive to say in response to the comments above because though I see in them introductions to a variety of ideas, insofar as the above are your remarks, you're going to need to develop the ideas they foreshadow. I care neither to put words in your mouth nor to spend time discussing something you haven't in mind and didn't mean.

 

[usmbguest5318]

I have no problem with local governments putting in place regulations. I have a problem with the Federal Government, dictating to all citizens.

There is no authority in the constitution for the Federal government, to dictate to Utah, how a patch of ground is used. Now if Utah, and the citizens thereof, decide... .fine. No problem.

What is really the problem, is that the Federal Government is bailing out people in flood zones.

That's the real issue.

In a true Free-market system, people in flood zones (or hurricane prone areas), would not be bailed out by the Federal Government.

Insurance companies would charge a premium high enough to compensate for the risks.

This would force people to either build homes that are up off the ground, and thus less of a flood risk, and/or build homes with brick or stone, and thus be able to stand hurricane force winds.

The end result would be that people would either build homes able to deal with the risks, or pay premiums high enough to offset the risk..... OR... not build in disaster prone areas.

There is a famous picture from 2005 after Katrina wiped out entire neighborhoods, of a single house built of concrete, that was completely intact.

View attachment 148804

While shingles were ripped off the roof, and of course the windows blown out... otherwise the entire structure was fine. All the other houses, not even a single wood stud, was left standing.

There was another picture from Hurricane Andrew in the 1990s, where entire sub-divisions were wiped out, and others were completely fine with only minor damage.

It all boils down to, the public wants a bailout from the government, and because they get bailed out, they can keep building crap homes.

I have no problem with local governments putting in place regulations. I have a problem with the Federal Government, dictating to all citizens.

Well, perhaps you and I differ there.

If a locality expects federal disaster relief, the federal government certainly has a reasonable basis for stipulating that the locality in question, assuming it receives federal infrastructure funds, implement relevant impact mitigation and abatement measures and techniques that minimize the nature and extent of "bailing out" the feds may have to undertake when disaster strikes. For example:

• Infrastructure money doled to, say, SF might be reasonably given on condition of using it bring SF bridges to a degree of "toughness" so they can withstand an earthquake of "X" magnitude; however, given SF's natural terrain, inclining the roads to facilitate rapid water drainage may not be necessary.
• New Orleans, on the other hand, need not have a constraint pertaining to mitigating the impact of earthquakes.

Quite simply, I don't believe any locality should receive and imprudently, given the situation, use money from the federal government. Now, how a locality spends its own money is entirely their decision.

You later in your post mentioned the notion of free market rationale. Tell me, then. Do you think individuals and businesses might, over time, come to eschew investing in/moving to localities that don't act sagely to ameliorate the most pressing of natural threats they face, particularly if the nature of how those locales use their resources is widely publicized?

What is really the problem, is that the Federal Government is bailing out people in flood zones. That's the real issue.

(see above)

In a true Free-market system, people in flood zones (or hurricane prone areas), would not be bailed out by the Federal Government.

Insurance companies would charge a premium high enough to compensate for the risks.

(see above)

Presumably they already do.

You can only purchase flood insurance through an insurance agent or an insurer participation in the NFIP. You cannot buy it directly from the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP). If your insurance agent does not sell flood insurance, you can contact the NFIP Referral Call Center at 1-800-427-4661 to request an agent referral.
Source

It all boils down to, the public wants a bailout from the government, and because they get bailed out, they can keep building crap homes.

This thread isn't about what private entities and individuals opt to build. It's about how governments can and should collaborate (1) to do the best they can for the citizenry and, a lesser extent, (2) to catalyze perspicacious behavior on the part of private entities and individuals.

For example, if a homebuilder is of mind to offer a poorly constructed home, given the situation where the home is built, and someone's willing to buy it, that's fine with me. The free market will cause home insurers to charge in accordance with the structural integrity of the building. Home buyers will have to weigh the added costs of a pricier dwelling against the risk of more likely losing a less well built one being lost in the event of the types of disasters to which the location is most prone. That's the free market system at work and working as its supposed to.

 

[Fishlore]

As our technologies increase environmental impact to global proportions, the breadth and depth of necessary government policies has grown alongside them. Alas, in irritated reaction there has sprung up a "libertarian" movement driven by economic issues of white resentment which attempts to offer a program of reactionary anarchism just when the danger of such political nonsense has reached a new peak. Alas for my poor country!

 

[Toronado3800]

I have no problem with local governments putting in place regulations. I have a problem with the Federal Government, dictating to all citizens.

There is no authority in the constitution for the Federal government, to dictate to Utah, how a patch of ground is used. Now if Utah, and the citizens thereof, decide... .fine. No problem.

What is really the problem, is that the Federal Government is bailing out people in flood zones.

That's the real issue.

In a true Free-market system, people in flood zones (or hurricane prone areas), would not be bailed out by the Federal Government.

Insurance companies would charge a premium high enough to compensate for the risks.

This would force people to either build homes that are up off the ground, and thus less of a flood risk, and/or build homes with brick or stone, and thus be able to stand hurricane force winds.

The end result would be that people would either build homes able to deal with the risks, or pay premiums high enough to offset the risk..... OR... not build in disaster prone areas.

There is a famous picture from 2005 after Katrina wiped out entire neighborhoods, of a single house built of concrete, that was completely intact.

View attachment 148804

While shingles were ripped off the roof, and of course the windows blown out... otherwise the entire structure was fine. All the other houses, not even a single wood stud, was left standing.

There was another picture from Hurricane Andrew in the 1990s, where entire sub-divisions were wiped out, and others were completely fine with only minor damage.

It all boils down to, the public wants a bailout from the government, and because they get bailed out, they can keep building crap homes.

I share you sentiment.

To use Utah for an example, the public outcry when the good ppl of Utah are holed up in a stadium getting no relief from their fellow Americans could dog a President for a decade. Much like hospitals can't exactly refuse service to those who can't pay (in this kinder gentler socialist country of the last 75 years), it may be politically impossible for D.C. to do the right thing and watch the Utahonians suffer.

Perhaps we can still save the Utahonians but charge the counties or states for the Federal aid they receive?

 

[Picaro]

Federal aid for disaster relief is a brand new idea; there was no such aid for most of our history, yet stuff still got rebuilt, many times within weeks.

 

[usmbguest5318]

History of disaster relief

During the period from 1803 to 1950, Congress passed 128 separate laws dealing with disaster relief. Because there was no comprehensive legislation covering disaster relief, Congress had to pass a separate law to provide Federal funds for each major disaster that occurred. The system was a cumbersome one.

After nearly 150 years (1803–1947) of ad hoc disaster responses and limited mitigation activities, the federal government has incrementally expanded relief, recovery, and preparedness policies through permanent funding and institutions, but policy reform has remained largely reactive to large-scale disasters or clusters of disasters.
Source

The federal government has long paid to aid disaster victims. What is relatively new in its efforts to do so is FEMA.

 

[Picaro]

History of disaster relief

During the period from 1803 to 1950, Congress passed 128 separate laws dealing with disaster relief. Because there was no comprehensive legislation covering disaster relief, Congress had to pass a separate law to provide Federal funds for each major disaster that occurred. The system was a cumbersome one.

After nearly 150 years (1803–1947) of ad hoc disaster responses and limited mitigation activities, the federal government has incrementally expanded relief, recovery, and preparedness policies through permanent funding and institutions, but policy reform has remained largely reactive to large-scale disasters or clusters of disasters.
Source

The federal government has long paid to aid disaster victims. What is relatively new in its efforts to do so is FEMA.

Nothing like FEMA. It was the military that provided temporary aid to local civilian efforts, assisting the Red Cross and private charities, and some temporary housing on bases and in tents for refugees, not huge grants for rebuilding private property or even roads other than those necessary, nothing comparable to FEMA subsidies. All of the rebuilding was done privately, and most of the aid was private donations. Example:

1906 Earthquake: Relief Efforts - Presidio of San Francisco (U.S. National Park Service)

As noted in the article, this aid was considered extraordinary, and done on a case by case basis.

 

[Andylusion]

I have no problem with local governments putting in place regulations. I have a problem with the Federal Government, dictating to all citizens.

There is no authority in the constitution for the Federal government, to dictate to Utah, how a patch of ground is used. Now if Utah, and the citizens thereof, decide... .fine. No problem.

What is really the problem, is that the Federal Government is bailing out people in flood zones.

That's the real issue.

In a true Free-market system, people in flood zones (or hurricane prone areas), would not be bailed out by the Federal Government.

Insurance companies would charge a premium high enough to compensate for the risks.

This would force people to either build homes that are up off the ground, and thus less of a flood risk, and/or build homes with brick or stone, and thus be able to stand hurricane force winds.

The end result would be that people would either build homes able to deal with the risks, or pay premiums high enough to offset the risk..... OR... not build in disaster prone areas.

There is a famous picture from 2005 after Katrina wiped out entire neighborhoods, of a single house built of concrete, that was completely intact.

View attachment 148804

While shingles were ripped off the roof, and of course the windows blown out... otherwise the entire structure was fine. All the other houses, not even a single wood stud, was left standing.

There was another picture from Hurricane Andrew in the 1990s, where entire sub-divisions were wiped out, and others were completely fine with only minor damage.

It all boils down to, the public wants a bailout from the government, and because they get bailed out, they can keep building crap homes.

I have no problem with local governments putting in place regulations. I have a problem with the Federal Government, dictating to all citizens.

Well, perhaps you and I differ there.

If a locality expects federal disaster relief, the federal government certainly has a reasonable basis for stipulating that the locality in question, assuming it receives federal infrastructure funds, implement relevant impact mitigation and abatement measures and techniques that minimize the nature and extent of "bailing out" the feds may have to undertake when disaster strikes. For example:

• Infrastructure money doled to, say, SF might be reasonably given on condition of using it bring SF bridges to a degree of "toughness" so they can withstand an earthquake of "X" magnitude; however, given SF's natural terrain, inclining the roads to facilitate rapid water drainage may not be necessary.
• New Orleans, on the other hand, need not have a constraint pertaining to mitigating the impact of earthquakes.

Quite simply, I don't believe any locality should receive and imprudently, given the situation, use money from the federal government. Now, how a locality spends its own money is entirely their decision.

You later in your post mentioned the notion of free market rationale. Tell me, then. Do you think individuals and businesses might, over time, come to eschew investing in/moving to localities that don't act sagely to ameliorate the most pressing of natural threats they face, particularly if the nature of how those locales use their resources is widely publicized?

What is really the problem, is that the Federal Government is bailing out people in flood zones. That's the real issue.

(see above)

In a true Free-market system, people in flood zones (or hurricane prone areas), would not be bailed out by the Federal Government.

Insurance companies would charge a premium high enough to compensate for the risks.

(see above)

Presumably they already do.

You can only purchase flood insurance through an insurance agent or an insurer participation in the NFIP. You cannot buy it directly from the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP). If your insurance agent does not sell flood insurance, you can contact the NFIP Referral Call Center at 1-800-427-4661 to request an agent referral.
Source

It all boils down to, the public wants a bailout from the government, and because they get bailed out, they can keep building crap homes.

This thread isn't about what private entities and individuals opt to build. It's about how governments can and should collaborate (1) to do the best they can for the citizenry and, a lesser extent, (2) to catalyze perspicacious behavior on the part of private entities and individuals.

For example, if a homebuilder is of mind to offer a poorly constructed home, given the situation where the home is built, and someone's willing to buy it, that's fine with me. The free market will cause home insurers to charge in accordance with the structural integrity of the building. Home buyers will have to weigh the added costs of a pricier dwelling against the risk of more likely losing a less well built one being lost in the event of the types of disasters to which the location is most prone. That's the free market system at work and working as its supposed to.

"If a locality expects federal disaster relief"

There is no constitutional power given to the Federal Government for disaster relief.

Moreover, just because some people in Congress, elected by idiots, choose to give money stolen from working people, to those who made bad choices.... that does not automatically give the Federal Government the right to start dictating to people.

Your whole argument boils down to, the Federal Government is acting in an unconstitutional way, therefore they must have even more unconstitutional powers.

If you break down on the side of the road, and I stop and offer you a lift... does that magically give me the right to start dictating what car you drive?

Can I say to you "Ok now since you apparently expect me to offer you a ride, I have the right to tell you how to live your life!"?

Of course not.

You do realize this mindset is how every dictatorship starts. Every dictatorship starts off with "I'm doing to do thus and so, for you" and then ends up "well since we did this for you, now you have to follow our edicts".

That might make perfect sense from a left-wing perspective, but that is not how this country was built. Although it might be how it is destroyed.

Quite simply, I don't believe any locality should receive and imprudently, given the situation, use money from the federal government. Now, how a locality spends its own money is entirely their decision.

Agreed. The only difference is, no locality should be given any money from the Federal Government. Instead, cut taxes. Stop taking money from the states.

You later in your post mentioned the notion of free market rationale. Tell me, then. Do you think individuals and businesses might, over time, come to eschew investing in/moving to localities that don't act sagely to ameliorate the most pressing of natural threats they face, particularly if the nature of how those locales use their resources is widely publicized?

As things are, no. The local governments have no need to act wisely, because both individuals and businesses, know that the Federal Government will step in.

So it really does not matter how badly local governance is, as long as people are confident the Feds will step in to restore their loss.

This is true universally. How many people check up on the soundness of local banks? Almost none. Why? FDIC. As long as it is Federally insured, no one bothers to check up on any of their banks.

In fact, I have a report from 2006, in the UK. One of the oversight commissioners in the UK government, Lord Andrew if I remember right.... was meeting with a dozen of the top bankers, and reviewing their contingency plans in case the economy failed. He was baffled by how small their plans were, and started pressing them on why they didn't have larger plans in place.

After badgering them for an answer, one spoke up that if the economy went really bad, the government would bail them out. ... implying... so why bother with large contingency plans. Amusingly all... all the people at the meeting from the government denied they would bailout banks with poor planning. Of course truth was, the banks were right. The government did bail them out.

So in reality their refusal to put in place large contingency planning, was justified. They didn't need to.

Same is true in the context of our discussion. Why would they need to avoid disaster prone areas, when they know the government will step in if Harvey and Irma hit?

Presumably they already do.

No, they don't. In fact, if you want to really see just how badly government intervention can screw up markets, just go do some research on average flood insurance premiums by state, or compare private flood insurance, to government flood insurance.

The average government subsidized flood insurance is only $700 a year. But private insurance for a flood zoned "A", is over $2,000. Private insurance for a flood zoned "V" (highest risk), is $13,000 a year.

To be even more ridiculous... some of the highest risk prone states, like Texas and Florida have the lowest average insurance premiums. While some of the least risk prone states, have the highest premiums.

So why does this happen? Just look at what happened after Hurricane Sandy. The government immediately passed disaster relief that allowed people living in the disaster area to rebuild, even if they had chosen to not have insurance.

Again, I would wager that if we had a free market system, where government was not subsidizing insurance on poorly built homes... the market would naturally change to deal with the higher risk.

I would bet we would see different insurance rates, based on how high off the ground homes were built.

I think would see different insurance rates based on quality and durability of construction.

And people unable to afford well built, disaster resistant homes, would simply not live there.

But as long as the government is going to pass disaster relief every single time something happens, then people have no reason to change their ways.

And even if....... and I do not.... but let us even say I bought the argument that government can just pass laws regulating every aspect of our lives, because they hand out tax payer money.....

That still won't happen. Because we now live in a democracy, instead of a republic... those people are voters. You start passing laws that cause people to be forced out of their homes because of a regulations by government... and the result will be that every single news agency will have cameras on every single person in those areas, and women will be weeping on camera about how they are being forced out by regulations that make it too expensive for them to live there, and on and on and on... and how will little Timmy feel being forced out of his home!

Point being, even if I did by the dictatorship rationalization, it isn't going to happen.

California tried to pass a law that required all roofs in fire zones, be made of slate instead of shingles. Because they found the primary way a house burns down, is not from the sides, but because of kindling landing on the roof, and catching it on fire.

Of course slate is literally twice as expensive as shingles. Home owners fought it bitterly until it failed to pass.

Democracy in action. The better solution is, not have government bail people out. If they lose their home in a fire, they just lose their home. That will force them to buy insurance. Have the insurance not subsidized by government... and you will see fire proof homes. People will adapt to the market incentives. The cost of fire insurance will be so high, that they will fire proof the home.

Same with flood and hurricanes.

 

[usmbguest5318]

I have no problem with local governments putting in place regulations. I have a problem with the Federal Government, dictating to all citizens.

There is no authority in the constitution for the Federal government, to dictate to Utah, how a patch of ground is used. Now if Utah, and the citizens thereof, decide... .fine. No problem.

What is really the problem, is that the Federal Government is bailing out people in flood zones.

That's the real issue.

In a true Free-market system, people in flood zones (or hurricane prone areas), would not be bailed out by the Federal Government.

Insurance companies would charge a premium high enough to compensate for the risks.

This would force people to either build homes that are up off the ground, and thus less of a flood risk, and/or build homes with brick or stone, and thus be able to stand hurricane force winds.

The end result would be that people would either build homes able to deal with the risks, or pay premiums high enough to offset the risk..... OR... not build in disaster prone areas.

There is a famous picture from 2005 after Katrina wiped out entire neighborhoods, of a single house built of concrete, that was completely intact.

View attachment 148804

While shingles were ripped off the roof, and of course the windows blown out... otherwise the entire structure was fine. All the other houses, not even a single wood stud, was left standing.

There was another picture from Hurricane Andrew in the 1990s, where entire sub-divisions were wiped out, and others were completely fine with only minor damage.

It all boils down to, the public wants a bailout from the government, and because they get bailed out, they can keep building crap homes.

I have no problem with local governments putting in place regulations. I have a problem with the Federal Government, dictating to all citizens.

Well, perhaps you and I differ there.

If a locality expects federal disaster relief, the federal government certainly has a reasonable basis for stipulating that the locality in question, assuming it receives federal infrastructure funds, implement relevant impact mitigation and abatement measures and techniques that minimize the nature and extent of "bailing out" the feds may have to undertake when disaster strikes. For example:

• Infrastructure money doled to, say, SF might be reasonably given on condition of using it bring SF bridges to a degree of "toughness" so they can withstand an earthquake of "X" magnitude; however, given SF's natural terrain, inclining the roads to facilitate rapid water drainage may not be necessary.
• New Orleans, on the other hand, need not have a constraint pertaining to mitigating the impact of earthquakes.

Quite simply, I don't believe any locality should receive and imprudently, given the situation, use money from the federal government. Now, how a locality spends its own money is entirely their decision.

You later in your post mentioned the notion of free market rationale. Tell me, then. Do you think individuals and businesses might, over time, come to eschew investing in/moving to localities that don't act sagely to ameliorate the most pressing of natural threats they face, particularly if the nature of how those locales use their resources is widely publicized?

What is really the problem, is that the Federal Government is bailing out people in flood zones. That's the real issue.

(see above)

In a true Free-market system, people in flood zones (or hurricane prone areas), would not be bailed out by the Federal Government.

Insurance companies would charge a premium high enough to compensate for the risks.

(see above)

Presumably they already do.

You can only purchase flood insurance through an insurance agent or an insurer participation in the NFIP. You cannot buy it directly from the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP). If your insurance agent does not sell flood insurance, you can contact the NFIP Referral Call Center at 1-800-427-4661 to request an agent referral.
Source

It all boils down to, the public wants a bailout from the government, and because they get bailed out, they can keep building crap homes.

This thread isn't about what private entities and individuals opt to build. It's about how governments can and should collaborate (1) to do the best they can for the citizenry and, a lesser extent, (2) to catalyze perspicacious behavior on the part of private entities and individuals.

For example, if a homebuilder is of mind to offer a poorly constructed home, given the situation where the home is built, and someone's willing to buy it, that's fine with me. The free market will cause home insurers to charge in accordance with the structural integrity of the building. Home buyers will have to weigh the added costs of a pricier dwelling against the risk of more likely losing a less well built one being lost in the event of the types of disasters to which the location is most prone. That's the free market system at work and working as its supposed to.

"If a locality expects federal disaster relief"

There is no constitutional power given to the Federal Government for disaster relief.

Moreover, just because some people in Congress, elected by idiots, choose to give money stolen from working people, to those who made bad choices.... that does not automatically give the Federal Government the right to start dictating to people.

Your whole argument boils down to, the Federal Government is acting in an unconstitutional way, therefore they must have even more unconstitutional powers.

If you break down on the side of the road, and I stop and offer you a lift... does that magically give me the right to start dictating what car you drive?

Can I say to you "Ok now since you apparently expect me to offer you a ride, I have the right to tell you how to live your life!"?

Of course not.

You do realize this mindset is how every dictatorship starts. Every dictatorship starts off with "I'm doing to do thus and so, for you" and then ends up "well since we did this for you, now you have to follow our edicts".

That might make perfect sense from a left-wing perspective, but that is not how this country was built. Although it might be how it is destroyed.

Quite simply, I don't believe any locality should receive and imprudently, given the situation, use money from the federal government. Now, how a locality spends its own money is entirely their decision.

Agreed. The only difference is, no locality should be given any money from the Federal Government. Instead, cut taxes. Stop taking money from the states.

You later in your post mentioned the notion of free market rationale. Tell me, then. Do you think individuals and businesses might, over time, come to eschew investing in/moving to localities that don't act sagely to ameliorate the most pressing of natural threats they face, particularly if the nature of how those locales use their resources is widely publicized?

As things are, no. The local governments have no need to act wisely, because both individuals and businesses, know that the Federal Government will step in.

So it really does not matter how badly local governance is, as long as people are confident the Feds will step in to restore their loss.

This is true universally. How many people check up on the soundness of local banks? Almost none. Why? FDIC. As long as it is Federally insured, no one bothers to check up on any of their banks.

In fact, I have a report from 2006, in the UK. One of the oversight commissioners in the UK government, Lord Andrew if I remember right.... was meeting with a dozen of the top bankers, and reviewing their contingency plans in case the economy failed. He was baffled by how small their plans were, and started pressing them on why they didn't have larger plans in place.

After badgering them for an answer, one spoke up that if the economy went really bad, the government would bail them out. ... implying... so why bother with large contingency plans. Amusingly all... all the people at the meeting from the government denied they would bailout banks with poor planning. Of course truth was, the banks were right. The government did bail them out.

So in reality their refusal to put in place large contingency planning, was justified. They didn't need to.

Same is true in the context of our discussion. Why would they need to avoid disaster prone areas, when they know the government will step in if Harvey and Irma hit?

Presumably they already do.

No, they don't. In fact, if you want to really see just how badly government intervention can screw up markets, just go do some research on average flood insurance premiums by state, or compare private flood insurance, to government flood insurance.

The average government subsidized flood insurance is only $700 a year. But private insurance for a flood zoned "A", is over $2,000. Private insurance for a flood zoned "V" (highest risk), is $13,000 a year.

To be even more ridiculous... some of the highest risk prone states, like Texas and Florida have the lowest average insurance premiums. While some of the least risk prone states, have the highest premiums.

So why does this happen? Just look at what happened after Hurricane Sandy. The government immediately passed disaster relief that allowed people living in the disaster area to rebuild, even if they had chosen to not have insurance.

Again, I would wager that if we had a free market system, where government was not subsidizing insurance on poorly built homes... the market would naturally change to deal with the higher risk.

I would bet we would see different insurance rates, based on how high off the ground homes were built.

I think would see different insurance rates based on quality and durability of construction.

And people unable to afford well built, disaster resistant homes, would simply not live there.

But as long as the government is going to pass disaster relief every single time something happens, then people have no reason to change their ways.

And even if....... and I do not.... but let us even say I bought the argument that government can just pass laws regulating every aspect of our lives, because they hand out tax payer money.....

That still won't happen. Because we now live in a democracy, instead of a republic... those people are voters. You start passing laws that cause people to be forced out of their homes because of a regulations by government... and the result will be that every single news agency will have cameras on every single person in those areas, and women will be weeping on camera about how they are being forced out by regulations that make it too expensive for them to live there, and on and on and on... and how will little Timmy feel being forced out of his home!

Point being, even if I did by the dictatorship rationalization, it isn't going to happen.

California tried to pass a law that required all roofs in fire zones, be made of slate instead of shingles. Because they found the primary way a house burns down, is not from the sides, but because of kindling landing on the roof, and catching it on fire.

Of course slate is literally twice as expensive as shingles. Home owners fought it bitterly until it failed to pass.

Democracy in action. The better solution is, not have government bail people out. If they lose their home in a fire, they just lose their home. That will force them to buy insurance. Have the insurance not subsidized by government... and you will see fire proof homes. People will adapt to the market incentives. The cost of fire insurance will be so high, that they will fire proof the home.

Same with flood and hurricanes.

"If a locality expects federal disaster relief"

There is no constitutional power given to the Federal Government for disaster relief.

That was definitely the wrong way to entreat with me for a discussion of this matter. You need to spew that strict constructionist madness with someone who'll countenance it.

• The Constitutional Framework for All-Hazards Disaster Management
  
• “This ‘Who Shot John Thing’” Disaster Relief as an Entitlement in the 20th Century
  
• Stafford Act Declarations 1953-2014: Trends, Analyses, and Implications for Congress

I've been down the "circular BS" road with you before. I'll not be led there again.

 

[Andylusion]

I have no problem with local governments putting in place regulations. I have a problem with the Federal Government, dictating to all citizens.

There is no authority in the constitution for the Federal government, to dictate to Utah, how a patch of ground is used. Now if Utah, and the citizens thereof, decide... .fine. No problem.

What is really the problem, is that the Federal Government is bailing out people in flood zones.

That's the real issue.

In a true Free-market system, people in flood zones (or hurricane prone areas), would not be bailed out by the Federal Government.

Insurance companies would charge a premium high enough to compensate for the risks.

This would force people to either build homes that are up off the ground, and thus less of a flood risk, and/or build homes with brick or stone, and thus be able to stand hurricane force winds.

The end result would be that people would either build homes able to deal with the risks, or pay premiums high enough to offset the risk..... OR... not build in disaster prone areas.

There is a famous picture from 2005 after Katrina wiped out entire neighborhoods, of a single house built of concrete, that was completely intact.

View attachment 148804

While shingles were ripped off the roof, and of course the windows blown out... otherwise the entire structure was fine. All the other houses, not even a single wood stud, was left standing.

There was another picture from Hurricane Andrew in the 1990s, where entire sub-divisions were wiped out, and others were completely fine with only minor damage.

It all boils down to, the public wants a bailout from the government, and because they get bailed out, they can keep building crap homes.

I have no problem with local governments putting in place regulations. I have a problem with the Federal Government, dictating to all citizens.

Well, perhaps you and I differ there.

If a locality expects federal disaster relief, the federal government certainly has a reasonable basis for stipulating that the locality in question, assuming it receives federal infrastructure funds, implement relevant impact mitigation and abatement measures and techniques that minimize the nature and extent of "bailing out" the feds may have to undertake when disaster strikes. For example:

• Infrastructure money doled to, say, SF might be reasonably given on condition of using it bring SF bridges to a degree of "toughness" so they can withstand an earthquake of "X" magnitude; however, given SF's natural terrain, inclining the roads to facilitate rapid water drainage may not be necessary.
• New Orleans, on the other hand, need not have a constraint pertaining to mitigating the impact of earthquakes.

Quite simply, I don't believe any locality should receive and imprudently, given the situation, use money from the federal government. Now, how a locality spends its own money is entirely their decision.

You later in your post mentioned the notion of free market rationale. Tell me, then. Do you think individuals and businesses might, over time, come to eschew investing in/moving to localities that don't act sagely to ameliorate the most pressing of natural threats they face, particularly if the nature of how those locales use their resources is widely publicized?

What is really the problem, is that the Federal Government is bailing out people in flood zones. That's the real issue.

(see above)

In a true Free-market system, people in flood zones (or hurricane prone areas), would not be bailed out by the Federal Government.

Insurance companies would charge a premium high enough to compensate for the risks.

(see above)

Presumably they already do.

You can only purchase flood insurance through an insurance agent or an insurer participation in the NFIP. You cannot buy it directly from the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP). If your insurance agent does not sell flood insurance, you can contact the NFIP Referral Call Center at 1-800-427-4661 to request an agent referral.
Source

It all boils down to, the public wants a bailout from the government, and because they get bailed out, they can keep building crap homes.

This thread isn't about what private entities and individuals opt to build. It's about how governments can and should collaborate (1) to do the best they can for the citizenry and, a lesser extent, (2) to catalyze perspicacious behavior on the part of private entities and individuals.

For example, if a homebuilder is of mind to offer a poorly constructed home, given the situation where the home is built, and someone's willing to buy it, that's fine with me. The free market will cause home insurers to charge in accordance with the structural integrity of the building. Home buyers will have to weigh the added costs of a pricier dwelling against the risk of more likely losing a less well built one being lost in the event of the types of disasters to which the location is most prone. That's the free market system at work and working as its supposed to.

"If a locality expects federal disaster relief"

There is no constitutional power given to the Federal Government for disaster relief.

Moreover, just because some people in Congress, elected by idiots, choose to give money stolen from working people, to those who made bad choices.... that does not automatically give the Federal Government the right to start dictating to people.

Your whole argument boils down to, the Federal Government is acting in an unconstitutional way, therefore they must have even more unconstitutional powers.

If you break down on the side of the road, and I stop and offer you a lift... does that magically give me the right to start dictating what car you drive?

Can I say to you "Ok now since you apparently expect me to offer you a ride, I have the right to tell you how to live your life!"?

Of course not.

You do realize this mindset is how every dictatorship starts. Every dictatorship starts off with "I'm doing to do thus and so, for you" and then ends up "well since we did this for you, now you have to follow our edicts".

That might make perfect sense from a left-wing perspective, but that is not how this country was built. Although it might be how it is destroyed.

Quite simply, I don't believe any locality should receive and imprudently, given the situation, use money from the federal government. Now, how a locality spends its own money is entirely their decision.

Agreed. The only difference is, no locality should be given any money from the Federal Government. Instead, cut taxes. Stop taking money from the states.

You later in your post mentioned the notion of free market rationale. Tell me, then. Do you think individuals and businesses might, over time, come to eschew investing in/moving to localities that don't act sagely to ameliorate the most pressing of natural threats they face, particularly if the nature of how those locales use their resources is widely publicized?

As things are, no. The local governments have no need to act wisely, because both individuals and businesses, know that the Federal Government will step in.

So it really does not matter how badly local governance is, as long as people are confident the Feds will step in to restore their loss.

This is true universally. How many people check up on the soundness of local banks? Almost none. Why? FDIC. As long as it is Federally insured, no one bothers to check up on any of their banks.

In fact, I have a report from 2006, in the UK. One of the oversight commissioners in the UK government, Lord Andrew if I remember right.... was meeting with a dozen of the top bankers, and reviewing their contingency plans in case the economy failed. He was baffled by how small their plans were, and started pressing them on why they didn't have larger plans in place.

After badgering them for an answer, one spoke up that if the economy went really bad, the government would bail them out. ... implying... so why bother with large contingency plans. Amusingly all... all the people at the meeting from the government denied they would bailout banks with poor planning. Of course truth was, the banks were right. The government did bail them out.

So in reality their refusal to put in place large contingency planning, was justified. They didn't need to.

Same is true in the context of our discussion. Why would they need to avoid disaster prone areas, when they know the government will step in if Harvey and Irma hit?

Presumably they already do.

No, they don't. In fact, if you want to really see just how badly government intervention can screw up markets, just go do some research on average flood insurance premiums by state, or compare private flood insurance, to government flood insurance.

The average government subsidized flood insurance is only $700 a year. But private insurance for a flood zoned "A", is over $2,000. Private insurance for a flood zoned "V" (highest risk), is $13,000 a year.

To be even more ridiculous... some of the highest risk prone states, like Texas and Florida have the lowest average insurance premiums. While some of the least risk prone states, have the highest premiums.

So why does this happen? Just look at what happened after Hurricane Sandy. The government immediately passed disaster relief that allowed people living in the disaster area to rebuild, even if they had chosen to not have insurance.

Again, I would wager that if we had a free market system, where government was not subsidizing insurance on poorly built homes... the market would naturally change to deal with the higher risk.

I would bet we would see different insurance rates, based on how high off the ground homes were built.

I think would see different insurance rates based on quality and durability of construction.

And people unable to afford well built, disaster resistant homes, would simply not live there.

But as long as the government is going to pass disaster relief every single time something happens, then people have no reason to change their ways.

And even if....... and I do not.... but let us even say I bought the argument that government can just pass laws regulating every aspect of our lives, because they hand out tax payer money.....

That still won't happen. Because we now live in a democracy, instead of a republic... those people are voters. You start passing laws that cause people to be forced out of their homes because of a regulations by government... and the result will be that every single news agency will have cameras on every single person in those areas, and women will be weeping on camera about how they are being forced out by regulations that make it too expensive for them to live there, and on and on and on... and how will little Timmy feel being forced out of his home!

Point being, even if I did by the dictatorship rationalization, it isn't going to happen.

California tried to pass a law that required all roofs in fire zones, be made of slate instead of shingles. Because they found the primary way a house burns down, is not from the sides, but because of kindling landing on the roof, and catching it on fire.

Of course slate is literally twice as expensive as shingles. Home owners fought it bitterly until it failed to pass.

Democracy in action. The better solution is, not have government bail people out. If they lose their home in a fire, they just lose their home. That will force them to buy insurance. Have the insurance not subsidized by government... and you will see fire proof homes. People will adapt to the market incentives. The cost of fire insurance will be so high, that they will fire proof the home.

Same with flood and hurricanes.

"If a locality expects federal disaster relief"

There is no constitutional power given to the Federal Government for disaster relief.

Dude, spew that strict constructionist madness with someone who'll countenance it.

• The Constitutional Framework for All-Hazards Disaster Management
  
• “This ‘Who Shot John Thing’” Disaster Relief as an Entitlement in the 20th Century
  
• Stafford Act Declarations 1953-2014: Trends, Analyses, and Implications for Congress

I've been down the "circular BS" road with you before. I'll not be led there again.

First, don't post me a paper for FEMA, on the constitutionality of disaster relief.

That's like citing a paper smoking doesn't cause cancer, for a cigarette company.

Or promotion of prostitution, paid for by pimps.

Second, do you know the history of this quote:

“I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents.” -James Madison.

Do you know where he came to make that statement?

It was in reference to a bill to give money to a group of people for disaster relief.

So a guy who wrote the constitution, says there isn't anything in there that gives power to the Federal Government, to give money for this purpose.

 

[deanrd]

We are seeing the 'benefits' of relaxed regulation. Unfettered 'development' has paved millions of acres of land that were essential to the natural flows that have dissipated flooding until recently.
Regulations are never instigated without solid evidence, but one side of politics sees regulations as a hindrance to profits, and therefore 'unAmerican'.

Don't forget toxic chemicals. They only add to the "fun".

 

[Toronado3800]

I have no problem with local governments putting in place regulations. I have a problem with the Federal Government, dictating to all citizens.

There is no authority in the constitution for the Federal government, to dictate to Utah, how a patch of ground is used. Now if Utah, and the citizens thereof, decide... .fine. No problem.

What is really the problem, is that the Federal Government is bailing out people in flood zones.

That's the real issue.

In a true Free-market system, people in flood zones (or hurricane prone areas), would not be bailed out by the Federal Government.

Insurance companies would charge a premium high enough to compensate for the risks.

This would force people to either build homes that are up off the ground, and thus less of a flood risk, and/or build homes with brick or stone, and thus be able to stand hurricane force winds.

The end result would be that people would either build homes able to deal with the risks, or pay premiums high enough to offset the risk..... OR... not build in disaster prone areas.

There is a famous picture from 2005 after Katrina wiped out entire neighborhoods, of a single house built of concrete, that was completely intact.

View attachment 148804

While shingles were ripped off the roof, and of course the windows blown out... otherwise the entire structure was fine. All the other houses, not even a single wood stud, was left standing.

There was another picture from Hurricane Andrew in the 1990s, where entire sub-divisions were wiped out, and others were completely fine with only minor damage.

It all boils down to, the public wants a bailout from the government, and because they get bailed out, they can keep building crap homes.

I have no problem with local governments putting in place regulations. I have a problem with the Federal Government, dictating to all citizens.

Well, perhaps you and I differ there.

If a locality expects federal disaster relief, the federal government certainly has a reasonable basis for stipulating that the locality in question, assuming it receives federal infrastructure funds, implement relevant impact mitigation and abatement measures and techniques that minimize the nature and extent of "bailing out" the feds may have to undertake when disaster strikes. For example:

• Infrastructure money doled to, say, SF might be reasonably given on condition of using it bring SF bridges to a degree of "toughness" so they can withstand an earthquake of "X" magnitude; however, given SF's natural terrain, inclining the roads to facilitate rapid water drainage may not be necessary.
• New Orleans, on the other hand, need not have a constraint pertaining to mitigating the impact of earthquakes.

Quite simply, I don't believe any locality should receive and imprudently, given the situation, use money from the federal government. Now, how a locality spends its own money is entirely their decision.

You later in your post mentioned the notion of free market rationale. Tell me, then. Do you think individuals and businesses might, over time, come to eschew investing in/moving to localities that don't act sagely to ameliorate the most pressing of natural threats they face, particularly if the nature of how those locales use their resources is widely publicized?

What is really the problem, is that the Federal Government is bailing out people in flood zones. That's the real issue.

(see above)

In a true Free-market system, people in flood zones (or hurricane prone areas), would not be bailed out by the Federal Government.

Insurance companies would charge a premium high enough to compensate for the risks.

(see above)

Presumably they already do.

You can only purchase flood insurance through an insurance agent or an insurer participation in the NFIP. You cannot buy it directly from the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP). If your insurance agent does not sell flood insurance, you can contact the NFIP Referral Call Center at 1-800-427-4661 to request an agent referral.
Source

It all boils down to, the public wants a bailout from the government, and because they get bailed out, they can keep building crap homes.

This thread isn't about what private entities and individuals opt to build. It's about how governments can and should collaborate (1) to do the best they can for the citizenry and, a lesser extent, (2) to catalyze perspicacious behavior on the part of private entities and individuals.

For example, if a homebuilder is of mind to offer a poorly constructed home, given the situation where the home is built, and someone's willing to buy it, that's fine with me. The free market will cause home insurers to charge in accordance with the structural integrity of the building. Home buyers will have to weigh the added costs of a pricier dwelling against the risk of more likely losing a less well built one being lost in the event of the types of disasters to which the location is most prone. That's the free market system at work and working as its supposed to.

"If a locality expects federal disaster relief"

There is no constitutional power given to the Federal Government for disaster relief.

Moreover, just because some people in Congress, elected by idiots, choose to give money stolen from working people, to those who made bad choices.... that does not automatically give the Federal Government the right to start dictating to people.

Your whole argument boils down to, the Federal Government is acting in an unconstitutional way, therefore they must have even more unconstitutional powers.

If you break down on the side of the road, and I stop and offer you a lift... does that magically give me the right to start dictating what car you drive?

Can I say to you "Ok now since you apparently expect me to offer you a ride, I have the right to tell you how to live your life!"?

Of course not.

You do realize this mindset is how every dictatorship starts. Every dictatorship starts off with "I'm doing to do thus and so, for you" and then ends up "well since we did this for you, now you have to follow our edicts".

That might make perfect sense from a left-wing perspective, but that is not how this country was built. Although it might be how it is destroyed.

Quite simply, I don't believe any locality should receive and imprudently, given the situation, use money from the federal government. Now, how a locality spends its own money is entirely their decision.

Agreed. The only difference is, no locality should be given any money from the Federal Government. Instead, cut taxes. Stop taking money from the states.

You later in your post mentioned the notion of free market rationale. Tell me, then. Do you think individuals and businesses might, over time, come to eschew investing in/moving to localities that don't act sagely to ameliorate the most pressing of natural threats they face, particularly if the nature of how those locales use their resources is widely publicized?

As things are, no. The local governments have no need to act wisely, because both individuals and businesses, know that the Federal Government will step in.

So it really does not matter how badly local governance is, as long as people are confident the Feds will step in to restore their loss.

This is true universally. How many people check up on the soundness of local banks? Almost none. Why? FDIC. As long as it is Federally insured, no one bothers to check up on any of their banks.

In fact, I have a report from 2006, in the UK. One of the oversight commissioners in the UK government, Lord Andrew if I remember right.... was meeting with a dozen of the top bankers, and reviewing their contingency plans in case the economy failed. He was baffled by how small their plans were, and started pressing them on why they didn't have larger plans in place.

After badgering them for an answer, one spoke up that if the economy went really bad, the government would bail them out. ... implying... so why bother with large contingency plans. Amusingly all... all the people at the meeting from the government denied they would bailout banks with poor planning. Of course truth was, the banks were right. The government did bail them out.

So in reality their refusal to put in place large contingency planning, was justified. They didn't need to.

Same is true in the context of our discussion. Why would they need to avoid disaster prone areas, when they know the government will step in if Harvey and Irma hit?

Presumably they already do.

No, they don't. In fact, if you want to really see just how badly government intervention can screw up markets, just go do some research on average flood insurance premiums by state, or compare private flood insurance, to government flood insurance.

The average government subsidized flood insurance is only $700 a year. But private insurance for a flood zoned "A", is over $2,000. Private insurance for a flood zoned "V" (highest risk), is $13,000 a year.

To be even more ridiculous... some of the highest risk prone states, like Texas and Florida have the lowest average insurance premiums. While some of the least risk prone states, have the highest premiums.

So why does this happen? Just look at what happened after Hurricane Sandy. The government immediately passed disaster relief that allowed people living in the disaster area to rebuild, even if they had chosen to not have insurance.

Again, I would wager that if we had a free market system, where government was not subsidizing insurance on poorly built homes... the market would naturally change to deal with the higher risk.

I would bet we would see different insurance rates, based on how high off the ground homes were built.

I think would see different insurance rates based on quality and durability of construction.

And people unable to afford well built, disaster resistant homes, would simply not live there.

But as long as the government is going to pass disaster relief every single time something happens, then people have no reason to change their ways.

And even if....... and I do not.... but let us even say I bought the argument that government can just pass laws regulating every aspect of our lives, because they hand out tax payer money.....

That still won't happen. Because we now live in a democracy, instead of a republic... those people are voters. You start passing laws that cause people to be forced out of their homes because of a regulations by government... and the result will be that every single news agency will have cameras on every single person in those areas, and women will be weeping on camera about how they are being forced out by regulations that make it too expensive for them to live there, and on and on and on... and how will little Timmy feel being forced out of his home!

Point being, even if I did by the dictatorship rationalization, it isn't going to happen.

California tried to pass a law that required all roofs in fire zones, be made of slate instead of shingles. Because they found the primary way a house burns down, is not from the sides, but because of kindling landing on the roof, and catching it on fire.

Of course slate is literally twice as expensive as shingles. Home owners fought it bitterly until it failed to pass.

Democracy in action. The better solution is, not have government bail people out. If they lose their home in a fire, they just lose their home. That will force them to buy insurance. Have the insurance not subsidized by government... and you will see fire proof homes. People will adapt to the market incentives. The cost of fire insurance will be so high, that they will fire proof the home.

Same with flood and hurricanes.

"If a locality expects federal disaster relief"

There is no constitutional power given to the Federal Government for disaster relief.

Dude, spew that strict constructionist madness with someone who'll countenance it.

• The Constitutional Framework for All-Hazards Disaster Management
  
• “This ‘Who Shot John Thing’” Disaster Relief as an Entitlement in the 20th Century
  
• Stafford Act Declarations 1953-2014: Trends, Analyses, and Implications for Congress

I've been down the "circular BS" road with you before. I'll not be led there again.

First, don't post me a paper for FEMA, on the constitutionality of disaster relief.

That's like citing a paper smoking doesn't cause cancer, for a cigarette company.

Or promotion of prostitution, paid for by pimps.

Second, do you know the history of this quote:

“I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents.” -James Madison.

Do you know where he came to make that statement?

It was in reference to a bill to give money to a group of people for disaster relief.

So a guy who wrote the constitution, says there isn't anything in there that gives power to the Federal Government, to give money for this purpose.

Bleh. In the end I want a charge put on this disaster aid. Also some powers of FEMA may be unconstitutional.

You also can't convince me if we were a Democracy the majority woyld not vote for aid. So as a Republic our representatives or Trump are doing their job.

They should charge Harris County for the aid but still provide it IMO.

 

[Andylusion]

I have no problem with local governments putting in place regulations. I have a problem with the Federal Government, dictating to all citizens.

There is no authority in the constitution for the Federal government, to dictate to Utah, how a patch of ground is used. Now if Utah, and the citizens thereof, decide... .fine. No problem.

What is really the problem, is that the Federal Government is bailing out people in flood zones.

That's the real issue.

In a true Free-market system, people in flood zones (or hurricane prone areas), would not be bailed out by the Federal Government.

Insurance companies would charge a premium high enough to compensate for the risks.

This would force people to either build homes that are up off the ground, and thus less of a flood risk, and/or build homes with brick or stone, and thus be able to stand hurricane force winds.

The end result would be that people would either build homes able to deal with the risks, or pay premiums high enough to offset the risk..... OR... not build in disaster prone areas.

There is a famous picture from 2005 after Katrina wiped out entire neighborhoods, of a single house built of concrete, that was completely intact.

View attachment 148804

While shingles were ripped off the roof, and of course the windows blown out... otherwise the entire structure was fine. All the other houses, not even a single wood stud, was left standing.

There was another picture from Hurricane Andrew in the 1990s, where entire sub-divisions were wiped out, and others were completely fine with only minor damage.

It all boils down to, the public wants a bailout from the government, and because they get bailed out, they can keep building crap homes.

I have no problem with local governments putting in place regulations. I have a problem with the Federal Government, dictating to all citizens.

Well, perhaps you and I differ there.

If a locality expects federal disaster relief, the federal government certainly has a reasonable basis for stipulating that the locality in question, assuming it receives federal infrastructure funds, implement relevant impact mitigation and abatement measures and techniques that minimize the nature and extent of "bailing out" the feds may have to undertake when disaster strikes. For example:

• Infrastructure money doled to, say, SF might be reasonably given on condition of using it bring SF bridges to a degree of "toughness" so they can withstand an earthquake of "X" magnitude; however, given SF's natural terrain, inclining the roads to facilitate rapid water drainage may not be necessary.
• New Orleans, on the other hand, need not have a constraint pertaining to mitigating the impact of earthquakes.

Quite simply, I don't believe any locality should receive and imprudently, given the situation, use money from the federal government. Now, how a locality spends its own money is entirely their decision.

You later in your post mentioned the notion of free market rationale. Tell me, then. Do you think individuals and businesses might, over time, come to eschew investing in/moving to localities that don't act sagely to ameliorate the most pressing of natural threats they face, particularly if the nature of how those locales use their resources is widely publicized?

What is really the problem, is that the Federal Government is bailing out people in flood zones. That's the real issue.

(see above)

In a true Free-market system, people in flood zones (or hurricane prone areas), would not be bailed out by the Federal Government.

Insurance companies would charge a premium high enough to compensate for the risks.

(see above)

Presumably they already do.

You can only purchase flood insurance through an insurance agent or an insurer participation in the NFIP. You cannot buy it directly from the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP). If your insurance agent does not sell flood insurance, you can contact the NFIP Referral Call Center at 1-800-427-4661 to request an agent referral.
Source

It all boils down to, the public wants a bailout from the government, and because they get bailed out, they can keep building crap homes.

This thread isn't about what private entities and individuals opt to build. It's about how governments can and should collaborate (1) to do the best they can for the citizenry and, a lesser extent, (2) to catalyze perspicacious behavior on the part of private entities and individuals.

For example, if a homebuilder is of mind to offer a poorly constructed home, given the situation where the home is built, and someone's willing to buy it, that's fine with me. The free market will cause home insurers to charge in accordance with the structural integrity of the building. Home buyers will have to weigh the added costs of a pricier dwelling against the risk of more likely losing a less well built one being lost in the event of the types of disasters to which the location is most prone. That's the free market system at work and working as its supposed to.

"If a locality expects federal disaster relief"

There is no constitutional power given to the Federal Government for disaster relief.

Moreover, just because some people in Congress, elected by idiots, choose to give money stolen from working people, to those who made bad choices.... that does not automatically give the Federal Government the right to start dictating to people.

Your whole argument boils down to, the Federal Government is acting in an unconstitutional way, therefore they must have even more unconstitutional powers.

If you break down on the side of the road, and I stop and offer you a lift... does that magically give me the right to start dictating what car you drive?

Can I say to you "Ok now since you apparently expect me to offer you a ride, I have the right to tell you how to live your life!"?

Of course not.

You do realize this mindset is how every dictatorship starts. Every dictatorship starts off with "I'm doing to do thus and so, for you" and then ends up "well since we did this for you, now you have to follow our edicts".

That might make perfect sense from a left-wing perspective, but that is not how this country was built. Although it might be how it is destroyed.

Quite simply, I don't believe any locality should receive and imprudently, given the situation, use money from the federal government. Now, how a locality spends its own money is entirely their decision.

Agreed. The only difference is, no locality should be given any money from the Federal Government. Instead, cut taxes. Stop taking money from the states.

You later in your post mentioned the notion of free market rationale. Tell me, then. Do you think individuals and businesses might, over time, come to eschew investing in/moving to localities that don't act sagely to ameliorate the most pressing of natural threats they face, particularly if the nature of how those locales use their resources is widely publicized?

As things are, no. The local governments have no need to act wisely, because both individuals and businesses, know that the Federal Government will step in.

So it really does not matter how badly local governance is, as long as people are confident the Feds will step in to restore their loss.

This is true universally. How many people check up on the soundness of local banks? Almost none. Why? FDIC. As long as it is Federally insured, no one bothers to check up on any of their banks.

In fact, I have a report from 2006, in the UK. One of the oversight commissioners in the UK government, Lord Andrew if I remember right.... was meeting with a dozen of the top bankers, and reviewing their contingency plans in case the economy failed. He was baffled by how small their plans were, and started pressing them on why they didn't have larger plans in place.

After badgering them for an answer, one spoke up that if the economy went really bad, the government would bail them out. ... implying... so why bother with large contingency plans. Amusingly all... all the people at the meeting from the government denied they would bailout banks with poor planning. Of course truth was, the banks were right. The government did bail them out.

So in reality their refusal to put in place large contingency planning, was justified. They didn't need to.

Same is true in the context of our discussion. Why would they need to avoid disaster prone areas, when they know the government will step in if Harvey and Irma hit?

Presumably they already do.

No, they don't. In fact, if you want to really see just how badly government intervention can screw up markets, just go do some research on average flood insurance premiums by state, or compare private flood insurance, to government flood insurance.

The average government subsidized flood insurance is only $700 a year. But private insurance for a flood zoned "A", is over $2,000. Private insurance for a flood zoned "V" (highest risk), is $13,000 a year.

To be even more ridiculous... some of the highest risk prone states, like Texas and Florida have the lowest average insurance premiums. While some of the least risk prone states, have the highest premiums.

So why does this happen? Just look at what happened after Hurricane Sandy. The government immediately passed disaster relief that allowed people living in the disaster area to rebuild, even if they had chosen to not have insurance.

Again, I would wager that if we had a free market system, where government was not subsidizing insurance on poorly built homes... the market would naturally change to deal with the higher risk.

I would bet we would see different insurance rates, based on how high off the ground homes were built.

I think would see different insurance rates based on quality and durability of construction.

And people unable to afford well built, disaster resistant homes, would simply not live there.

But as long as the government is going to pass disaster relief every single time something happens, then people have no reason to change their ways.

And even if....... and I do not.... but let us even say I bought the argument that government can just pass laws regulating every aspect of our lives, because they hand out tax payer money.....

That still won't happen. Because we now live in a democracy, instead of a republic... those people are voters. You start passing laws that cause people to be forced out of their homes because of a regulations by government... and the result will be that every single news agency will have cameras on every single person in those areas, and women will be weeping on camera about how they are being forced out by regulations that make it too expensive for them to live there, and on and on and on... and how will little Timmy feel being forced out of his home!

Point being, even if I did by the dictatorship rationalization, it isn't going to happen.

California tried to pass a law that required all roofs in fire zones, be made of slate instead of shingles. Because they found the primary way a house burns down, is not from the sides, but because of kindling landing on the roof, and catching it on fire.

Of course slate is literally twice as expensive as shingles. Home owners fought it bitterly until it failed to pass.

Democracy in action. The better solution is, not have government bail people out. If they lose their home in a fire, they just lose their home. That will force them to buy insurance. Have the insurance not subsidized by government... and you will see fire proof homes. People will adapt to the market incentives. The cost of fire insurance will be so high, that they will fire proof the home.

Same with flood and hurricanes.

"If a locality expects federal disaster relief"

There is no constitutional power given to the Federal Government for disaster relief.

Dude, spew that strict constructionist madness with someone who'll countenance it.

• The Constitutional Framework for All-Hazards Disaster Management
  
• “This ‘Who Shot John Thing’” Disaster Relief as an Entitlement in the 20th Century
  
• Stafford Act Declarations 1953-2014: Trends, Analyses, and Implications for Congress

I've been down the "circular BS" road with you before. I'll not be led there again.

First, don't post me a paper for FEMA, on the constitutionality of disaster relief.

That's like citing a paper smoking doesn't cause cancer, for a cigarette company.

Or promotion of prostitution, paid for by pimps.

Second, do you know the history of this quote:

“I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents.” -James Madison.

Do you know where he came to make that statement?

It was in reference to a bill to give money to a group of people for disaster relief.

So a guy who wrote the constitution, says there isn't anything in there that gives power to the Federal Government, to give money for this purpose.

Bleh. In the end I want a charge put on this disaster aid. Also some powers of FEMA may be unconstitutional.

You also can't convince me if we were a Democracy the majority woyld not vote for aid. So as a Republic our representatives or Trump are doing their job.

They should charge Harris County for the aid but still provide it IMO.

We ARE a democracy now. Under a republic, we should never be voting for the president, or our Senators. That's how the constitution was written.

We changed from being a republic, to being a democracy. Which is exactly why we have this problem. People of course demand federal money. And people demand we don't regulate people's homes in disaster zones.

You can't charge Harris County for aid. Primarily because Harris County doesn't have a fraction of hte money to pay for that aid.

If they did pay, then something would have to be cut. Roads? Police? Schools?

Where are they going to get money to pay your fees?

Can you imagine the fire storm on the TV, and the out cry from the public, if Palm Beach county Florida canceled school, to pay a disaster relief FEMA bill?

In a Representative Republic, that could happen. In a democracy... not a chance. To many Senators and House Members, elected by the public would lose their jobs.

In a Republic, their jobs would be appointed by the congress of the states... not the people. So they could do what is best for the country.

But in a Democracy, you don't give the people what they demand, and you end up voted out, and replaced with someone else who will do what they demand. That's how a democracy works. So those political in Washington, are only worried about one thing... what keeps their jobs safe. The country can burn, but they'll be elected.

That's what you saw in Greece. Politicians voted in favor of what would get them elected, not what was best for the country. And if you think about it from their perspective, they made the right choice. Yes the country is in ruins, but they are still even now, voted for by the public, because they stuck it to Germany.

 

[Picaro]

Their tax base is essentially zilch for a while, so they have a lot less to build with.

 

[usmbguest5318]

I have no problem with local governments putting in place regulations. I have a problem with the Federal Government, dictating to all citizens.

There is no authority in the constitution for the Federal government, to dictate to Utah, how a patch of ground is used. Now if Utah, and the citizens thereof, decide... .fine. No problem.

What is really the problem, is that the Federal Government is bailing out people in flood zones.

That's the real issue.

In a true Free-market system, people in flood zones (or hurricane prone areas), would not be bailed out by the Federal Government.

Insurance companies would charge a premium high enough to compensate for the risks.

This would force people to either build homes that are up off the ground, and thus less of a flood risk, and/or build homes with brick or stone, and thus be able to stand hurricane force winds.

The end result would be that people would either build homes able to deal with the risks, or pay premiums high enough to offset the risk..... OR... not build in disaster prone areas.

There is a famous picture from 2005 after Katrina wiped out entire neighborhoods, of a single house built of concrete, that was completely intact.

View attachment 148804

While shingles were ripped off the roof, and of course the windows blown out... otherwise the entire structure was fine. All the other houses, not even a single wood stud, was left standing.

There was another picture from Hurricane Andrew in the 1990s, where entire sub-divisions were wiped out, and others were completely fine with only minor damage.

It all boils down to, the public wants a bailout from the government, and because they get bailed out, they can keep building crap homes.

I have no problem with local governments putting in place regulations. I have a problem with the Federal Government, dictating to all citizens.

Well, perhaps you and I differ there.

If a locality expects federal disaster relief, the federal government certainly has a reasonable basis for stipulating that the locality in question, assuming it receives federal infrastructure funds, implement relevant impact mitigation and abatement measures and techniques that minimize the nature and extent of "bailing out" the feds may have to undertake when disaster strikes. For example:

• Infrastructure money doled to, say, SF might be reasonably given on condition of using it bring SF bridges to a degree of "toughness" so they can withstand an earthquake of "X" magnitude; however, given SF's natural terrain, inclining the roads to facilitate rapid water drainage may not be necessary.
• New Orleans, on the other hand, need not have a constraint pertaining to mitigating the impact of earthquakes.

Quite simply, I don't believe any locality should receive and imprudently, given the situation, use money from the federal government. Now, how a locality spends its own money is entirely their decision.

You later in your post mentioned the notion of free market rationale. Tell me, then. Do you think individuals and businesses might, over time, come to eschew investing in/moving to localities that don't act sagely to ameliorate the most pressing of natural threats they face, particularly if the nature of how those locales use their resources is widely publicized?

What is really the problem, is that the Federal Government is bailing out people in flood zones. That's the real issue.

(see above)

In a true Free-market system, people in flood zones (or hurricane prone areas), would not be bailed out by the Federal Government.

Insurance companies would charge a premium high enough to compensate for the risks.

(see above)

Presumably they already do.

You can only purchase flood insurance through an insurance agent or an insurer participation in the NFIP. You cannot buy it directly from the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP). If your insurance agent does not sell flood insurance, you can contact the NFIP Referral Call Center at 1-800-427-4661 to request an agent referral.
Source

It all boils down to, the public wants a bailout from the government, and because they get bailed out, they can keep building crap homes.

This thread isn't about what private entities and individuals opt to build. It's about how governments can and should collaborate (1) to do the best they can for the citizenry and, a lesser extent, (2) to catalyze perspicacious behavior on the part of private entities and individuals.

For example, if a homebuilder is of mind to offer a poorly constructed home, given the situation where the home is built, and someone's willing to buy it, that's fine with me. The free market will cause home insurers to charge in accordance with the structural integrity of the building. Home buyers will have to weigh the added costs of a pricier dwelling against the risk of more likely losing a less well built one being lost in the event of the types of disasters to which the location is most prone. That's the free market system at work and working as its supposed to.

"If a locality expects federal disaster relief"

There is no constitutional power given to the Federal Government for disaster relief.

Moreover, just because some people in Congress, elected by idiots, choose to give money stolen from working people, to those who made bad choices.... that does not automatically give the Federal Government the right to start dictating to people.

Your whole argument boils down to, the Federal Government is acting in an unconstitutional way, therefore they must have even more unconstitutional powers.

If you break down on the side of the road, and I stop and offer you a lift... does that magically give me the right to start dictating what car you drive?

Can I say to you "Ok now since you apparently expect me to offer you a ride, I have the right to tell you how to live your life!"?

Of course not.

You do realize this mindset is how every dictatorship starts. Every dictatorship starts off with "I'm doing to do thus and so, for you" and then ends up "well since we did this for you, now you have to follow our edicts".

That might make perfect sense from a left-wing perspective, but that is not how this country was built. Although it might be how it is destroyed.

Quite simply, I don't believe any locality should receive and imprudently, given the situation, use money from the federal government. Now, how a locality spends its own money is entirely their decision.

Agreed. The only difference is, no locality should be given any money from the Federal Government. Instead, cut taxes. Stop taking money from the states.

You later in your post mentioned the notion of free market rationale. Tell me, then. Do you think individuals and businesses might, over time, come to eschew investing in/moving to localities that don't act sagely to ameliorate the most pressing of natural threats they face, particularly if the nature of how those locales use their resources is widely publicized?

As things are, no. The local governments have no need to act wisely, because both individuals and businesses, know that the Federal Government will step in.

So it really does not matter how badly local governance is, as long as people are confident the Feds will step in to restore their loss.

This is true universally. How many people check up on the soundness of local banks? Almost none. Why? FDIC. As long as it is Federally insured, no one bothers to check up on any of their banks.

In fact, I have a report from 2006, in the UK. One of the oversight commissioners in the UK government, Lord Andrew if I remember right.... was meeting with a dozen of the top bankers, and reviewing their contingency plans in case the economy failed. He was baffled by how small their plans were, and started pressing them on why they didn't have larger plans in place.

After badgering them for an answer, one spoke up that if the economy went really bad, the government would bail them out. ... implying... so why bother with large contingency plans. Amusingly all... all the people at the meeting from the government denied they would bailout banks with poor planning. Of course truth was, the banks were right. The government did bail them out.

So in reality their refusal to put in place large contingency planning, was justified. They didn't need to.

Same is true in the context of our discussion. Why would they need to avoid disaster prone areas, when they know the government will step in if Harvey and Irma hit?

Presumably they already do.

No, they don't. In fact, if you want to really see just how badly government intervention can screw up markets, just go do some research on average flood insurance premiums by state, or compare private flood insurance, to government flood insurance.

The average government subsidized flood insurance is only $700 a year. But private insurance for a flood zoned "A", is over $2,000. Private insurance for a flood zoned "V" (highest risk), is $13,000 a year.

To be even more ridiculous... some of the highest risk prone states, like Texas and Florida have the lowest average insurance premiums. While some of the least risk prone states, have the highest premiums.

So why does this happen? Just look at what happened after Hurricane Sandy. The government immediately passed disaster relief that allowed people living in the disaster area to rebuild, even if they had chosen to not have insurance.

Again, I would wager that if we had a free market system, where government was not subsidizing insurance on poorly built homes... the market would naturally change to deal with the higher risk.

I would bet we would see different insurance rates, based on how high off the ground homes were built.

I think would see different insurance rates based on quality and durability of construction.

And people unable to afford well built, disaster resistant homes, would simply not live there.

But as long as the government is going to pass disaster relief every single time something happens, then people have no reason to change their ways.

And even if....... and I do not.... but let us even say I bought the argument that government can just pass laws regulating every aspect of our lives, because they hand out tax payer money.....

That still won't happen. Because we now live in a democracy, instead of a republic... those people are voters. You start passing laws that cause people to be forced out of their homes because of a regulations by government... and the result will be that every single news agency will have cameras on every single person in those areas, and women will be weeping on camera about how they are being forced out by regulations that make it too expensive for them to live there, and on and on and on... and how will little Timmy feel being forced out of his home!

Point being, even if I did by the dictatorship rationalization, it isn't going to happen.

California tried to pass a law that required all roofs in fire zones, be made of slate instead of shingles. Because they found the primary way a house burns down, is not from the sides, but because of kindling landing on the roof, and catching it on fire.

Of course slate is literally twice as expensive as shingles. Home owners fought it bitterly until it failed to pass.

Democracy in action. The better solution is, not have government bail people out. If they lose their home in a fire, they just lose their home. That will force them to buy insurance. Have the insurance not subsidized by government... and you will see fire proof homes. People will adapt to the market incentives. The cost of fire insurance will be so high, that they will fire proof the home.

Same with flood and hurricanes.

"If a locality expects federal disaster relief"

There is no constitutional power given to the Federal Government for disaster relief.

Dude, spew that strict constructionist madness with someone who'll countenance it.

• The Constitutional Framework for All-Hazards Disaster Management
  
• “This ‘Who Shot John Thing’” Disaster Relief as an Entitlement in the 20th Century
  
• Stafford Act Declarations 1953-2014: Trends, Analyses, and Implications for Congress

I've been down the "circular BS" road with you before. I'll not be led there again.

First, don't post me a paper for FEMA, on the constitutionality of disaster relief.

That's like citing a paper smoking doesn't cause cancer, for a cigarette company.

Or promotion of prostitution, paid for by pimps.

Second, do you know the history of this quote:

“I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents.” -James Madison.

Do you know where he came to make that statement?

It was in reference to a bill to give money to a group of people for disaster relief.

So a guy who wrote the constitution, says there isn't anything in there that gives power to the Federal Government, to give money for this purpose.

So a guy who wrote the constitution, says there isn't anything in there that gives power to the Federal Government, to give money for this purpose.

And for as long as there has been a FEMA, the nine people whose job is to determine what the Constitution does and does not legally authorize have yet to concur with him.

 

[hadit]

We are seeing the 'benefits' of relaxed regulation. Unfettered 'development' has paved millions of acres of land that were essential to the natural flows that have dissipated flooding until recently.
Regulations are never instigated without solid evidence, but one side of politics sees regulations as a hindrance to profits, and therefore 'unAmerican'.

Then the regulations were relaxed under Obama, because Trump hasn't been in office nearly long enough for 'unfettered development' to have taken place.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Toronado3800]

Well, perhaps you and I differ there.

If a locality expects federal disaster relief, the federal government certainly has a reasonable basis for stipulating that the locality in question, assuming it receives federal infrastructure funds, implement relevant impact mitigation and abatement measures and techniques that minimize the nature and extent of "bailing out" the feds may have to undertake when disaster strikes. For example:

• Infrastructure money doled to, say, SF might be reasonably given on condition of using it bring SF bridges to a degree of "toughness" so they can withstand an earthquake of "X" magnitude; however, given SF's natural terrain, inclining the roads to facilitate rapid water drainage may not be necessary.
• New Orleans, on the other hand, need not have a constraint pertaining to mitigating the impact of earthquakes.

Quite simply, I don't believe any locality should receive and imprudently, given the situation, use money from the federal government. Now, how a locality spends its own money is entirely their decision.

You later in your post mentioned the notion of free market rationale. Tell me, then. Do you think individuals and businesses might, over time, come to eschew investing in/moving to localities that don't act sagely to ameliorate the most pressing of natural threats they face, particularly if the nature of how those locales use their resources is widely publicized?

(see above)

(see above)

Presumably they already do.

​

This thread isn't about what private entities and individuals opt to build. It's about how governments can and should collaborate (1) to do the best they can for the citizenry and, a lesser extent, (2) to catalyze perspicacious behavior on the part of private entities and individuals.

For example, if a homebuilder is of mind to offer a poorly constructed home, given the situation where the home is built, and someone's willing to buy it, that's fine with me. The free market will cause home insurers to charge in accordance with the structural integrity of the building. Home buyers will have to weigh the added costs of a pricier dwelling against the risk of more likely losing a less well built one being lost in the event of the types of disasters to which the location is most prone. That's the free market system at work and working as its supposed to.

"If a locality expects federal disaster relief"

There is no constitutional power given to the Federal Government for disaster relief.

Moreover, just because some people in Congress, elected by idiots, choose to give money stolen from working people, to those who made bad choices.... that does not automatically give the Federal Government the right to start dictating to people.

Your whole argument boils down to, the Federal Government is acting in an unconstitutional way, therefore they must have even more unconstitutional powers.

If you break down on the side of the road, and I stop and offer you a lift... does that magically give me the right to start dictating what car you drive?

Can I say to you "Ok now since you apparently expect me to offer you a ride, I have the right to tell you how to live your life!"?

Of course not.

You do realize this mindset is how every dictatorship starts. Every dictatorship starts off with "I'm doing to do thus and so, for you" and then ends up "well since we did this for you, now you have to follow our edicts".

That might make perfect sense from a left-wing perspective, but that is not how this country was built. Although it might be how it is destroyed.

Quite simply, I don't believe any locality should receive and imprudently, given the situation, use money from the federal government. Now, how a locality spends its own money is entirely their decision.

Agreed. The only difference is, no locality should be given any money from the Federal Government. Instead, cut taxes. Stop taking money from the states.

You later in your post mentioned the notion of free market rationale. Tell me, then. Do you think individuals and businesses might, over time, come to eschew investing in/moving to localities that don't act sagely to ameliorate the most pressing of natural threats they face, particularly if the nature of how those locales use their resources is widely publicized?

As things are, no. The local governments have no need to act wisely, because both individuals and businesses, know that the Federal Government will step in.

So it really does not matter how badly local governance is, as long as people are confident the Feds will step in to restore their loss.

This is true universally. How many people check up on the soundness of local banks? Almost none. Why? FDIC. As long as it is Federally insured, no one bothers to check up on any of their banks.

In fact, I have a report from 2006, in the UK. One of the oversight commissioners in the UK government, Lord Andrew if I remember right.... was meeting with a dozen of the top bankers, and reviewing their contingency plans in case the economy failed. He was baffled by how small their plans were, and started pressing them on why they didn't have larger plans in place.

After badgering them for an answer, one spoke up that if the economy went really bad, the government would bail them out. ... implying... so why bother with large contingency plans. Amusingly all... all the people at the meeting from the government denied they would bailout banks with poor planning. Of course truth was, the banks were right. The government did bail them out.

So in reality their refusal to put in place large contingency planning, was justified. They didn't need to.

Same is true in the context of our discussion. Why would they need to avoid disaster prone areas, when they know the government will step in if Harvey and Irma hit?

Presumably they already do.

No, they don't. In fact, if you want to really see just how badly government intervention can screw up markets, just go do some research on average flood insurance premiums by state, or compare private flood insurance, to government flood insurance.

The average government subsidized flood insurance is only $700 a year. But private insurance for a flood zoned "A", is over $2,000. Private insurance for a flood zoned "V" (highest risk), is $13,000 a year.

To be even more ridiculous... some of the highest risk prone states, like Texas and Florida have the lowest average insurance premiums. While some of the least risk prone states, have the highest premiums.

So why does this happen? Just look at what happened after Hurricane Sandy. The government immediately passed disaster relief that allowed people living in the disaster area to rebuild, even if they had chosen to not have insurance.

Again, I would wager that if we had a free market system, where government was not subsidizing insurance on poorly built homes... the market would naturally change to deal with the higher risk.

I would bet we would see different insurance rates, based on how high off the ground homes were built.

I think would see different insurance rates based on quality and durability of construction.

And people unable to afford well built, disaster resistant homes, would simply not live there.

But as long as the government is going to pass disaster relief every single time something happens, then people have no reason to change their ways.

And even if....... and I do not.... but let us even say I bought the argument that government can just pass laws regulating every aspect of our lives, because they hand out tax payer money.....

That still won't happen. Because we now live in a democracy, instead of a republic... those people are voters. You start passing laws that cause people to be forced out of their homes because of a regulations by government... and the result will be that every single news agency will have cameras on every single person in those areas, and women will be weeping on camera about how they are being forced out by regulations that make it too expensive for them to live there, and on and on and on... and how will little Timmy feel being forced out of his home!

Point being, even if I did by the dictatorship rationalization, it isn't going to happen.

California tried to pass a law that required all roofs in fire zones, be made of slate instead of shingles. Because they found the primary way a house burns down, is not from the sides, but because of kindling landing on the roof, and catching it on fire.

Of course slate is literally twice as expensive as shingles. Home owners fought it bitterly until it failed to pass.

Democracy in action. The better solution is, not have government bail people out. If they lose their home in a fire, they just lose their home. That will force them to buy insurance. Have the insurance not subsidized by government... and you will see fire proof homes. People will adapt to the market incentives. The cost of fire insurance will be so high, that they will fire proof the home.

Same with flood and hurricanes.

"If a locality expects federal disaster relief"

There is no constitutional power given to the Federal Government for disaster relief.

Dude, spew that strict constructionist madness with someone who'll countenance it.

• The Constitutional Framework for All-Hazards Disaster Management
  
• “This ‘Who Shot John Thing’” Disaster Relief as an Entitlement in the 20th Century
  
• Stafford Act Declarations 1953-2014: Trends, Analyses, and Implications for Congress

I've been down the "circular BS" road with you before. I'll not be led there again.

First, don't post me a paper for FEMA, on the constitutionality of disaster relief.

That's like citing a paper smoking doesn't cause cancer, for a cigarette company.

Or promotion of prostitution, paid for by pimps.

Second, do you know the history of this quote:

“I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents.” -James Madison.

Do you know where he came to make that statement?

It was in reference to a bill to give money to a group of people for disaster relief.

So a guy who wrote the constitution, says there isn't anything in there that gives power to the Federal Government, to give money for this purpose.

Bleh. In the end I want a charge put on this disaster aid. Also some powers of FEMA may be unconstitutional.

You also can't convince me if we were a Democracy the majority woyld not vote for aid. So as a Republic our representatives or Trump are doing their job.

They should charge Harris County for the aid but still provide it IMO.

We ARE a democracy now. Under a republic, we should never be voting for the president, or our Senators. That's how the constitution was written.

We changed from being a republic, to being a democracy. Which is exactly why we have this problem. People of course demand federal money. And people demand we don't regulate people's homes in disaster zones.

You can't charge Harris County for aid. Primarily because Harris County doesn't have a fraction of hte money to pay for that aid.

If they did pay, then something would have to be cut. Roads? Police? Schools?

Where are they going to get money to pay your fees?

Can you imagine the fire storm on the TV, and the out cry from the public, if Palm Beach county Florida canceled school, to pay a disaster relief FEMA bill?

In a Representative Republic, that could happen. In a democracy... not a chance. To many Senators and House Members, elected by the public would lose their jobs.

In a Republic, their jobs would be appointed by the congress of the states... not the people. So they could do what is best for the country.

But in a Democracy, you don't give the people what they demand, and you end up voted out, and replaced with someone else who will do what they demand. That's how a democracy works. So those political in Washington, are only worried about one thing... what keeps their jobs safe. The country can burn, but they'll be elected.

That's what you saw in Greece. Politicians voted in favor of what would get them elected, not what was best for the country. And if you think about it from their perspective, they made the right choice. Yes the country is in ruins, but they are still even now, voted for by the public, because they stuck it to Germany.

I do not totally disagree.

My contention is we slap Harris county with paying back the bill over 20 years and fewer people will want to move back there. Fewer people there, less problems next year when the next hundred year storm hits them and an more competitive America.

I want to charge them because that is the "capitalistic" way of doing it, not regulating intelligent building on them from D.C. and not socialistically saving them again and again.