Most Fargo flood victims did not have flood insurance.

[elvis]

because it was their dream to own property on the river.

Choices have consequences.

Yes, agreed. I just don't like passing judgement that as quickly as some around here.

 

[elvis]

Federal flood insurance is the stupidest thing the government does.

They are subsidizing insurance so people will build in flood zones.

What they should do is tear down houses in flood zones and turn them into parks.

more Stalinist rhetoric from chrissy.

He's actually correct.

People who build multimillion dollar estates on the coast and then expect the taxpayers to foot the bill because they are uninsurable...same as welfare, only worse.

No, no, no. I'm not saying we should bail them out.

 

[auditor0007]

Federal flood insurance is the stupidest thing the government does.

They are subsidizing insurance so people will build in flood zones.

What they should do is tear down houses in flood zones and turn them into parks.

Had planning been better, maybe some flood zones never would have been built on. However, many of these communities were built before it was realized how dangerous the area really is. Secondly, there were other reasons for building near water such as transportation. At this point, your suggestion would encompass tearing down entire cities and turning them into parks, something that is not very realistic, although many might agree that is what we should do with New Orleans.

 

[Againsheila]

Federal flood insurance is the stupidest thing the government does.

They are subsidizing insurance so people will build in flood zones.

What they should do is tear down houses in flood zones and turn them into parks.

more Stalinist rhetoric from chrissy.

He's actually correct.

People who build multimillion dollar estates on the coast and then expect the taxpayers to foot the bill because they are uninsurable...same as welfare, only worse.

Here's an idea, if you can't get flood insurance in a flood area, make it illegal to build there. Then we won't have the problem of bailing out the rich in their waterfront homes.

 

[WorldAHope]

so in other words, the idiots DESERVE to go bankrupt? lose their houses?

what a jackass you are.

I'm just wondering why all the conservatives aren't hear yelling about their lack of personal responsibility. I mean - they knew they lived next to a river, right? And their state government had been urging them to get flood insurance for a decade, right? And then they had the convenience of being able to learn from the mistakes of others - Katrina, right? Yet, still no flood insurance? In areas where you are not required by law to have it, its not that expensive at all.

funny no looting or murders either......

All too tired from sandbagging all week. PLus, its a small city. Everyone knows each other.

 

[WorldAHope]

Federal flood insurance is the stupidest thing the government does.

They are subsidizing insurance so people will build in flood zones.

What they should do is tear down houses in flood zones and turn them into parks.

Had planning been better, maybe some flood zones never would have been built on. However, many of these communities were built before it was realized how dangerous the area really is. Secondly, there were other reasons for building near water such as transportation. At this point, your suggestion would encompass tearing down entire cities and turning them into parks, something that is not very realistic, although many might agree that is what we should do with New Orleans.

Also, this was an extraordinarily high water event. The Red River hadn't gotten that high

 

[AnnECUCherry]

Federal flood insurance is the stupidest thing the government does.

They are subsidizing insurance so people will build in flood zones.

What they should do is tear down houses in flood zones and turn them into parks.

Had planning been better, maybe some flood zones never would have been built on. However, many of these communities were built before it was realized how dangerous the area really is. Secondly, there were other reasons for building near water such as transportation. At this point, your suggestion would encompass tearing down entire cities and turning them into parks, something that is not very realistic, although many might agree that is what we should do with New Orleans.

Also, this was an extraordinarily high water event. The Red River hadn't gotten that high

That's a good point, World. Flood hazard areas receive that designation because they are considered 100-year flood plains.

Red River tops historic marker, undermines dike
By NATE JENKINS and DAVE KOLPACK – Mar 27, 2009

FARGO, N.D. (AP) — The Red River rose to a 112-year high early Friday, breaching a dike south of downtown and forcing authorities to order the evacuations of about 150 homes.

The river had risen to 40.32 feet early Friday — more than 22 feet above flood stage and inches more than the previous high water mark of 40.1 feet set April 7, 1897. It was expected to crest as high as 43 feet on Saturday....

Several unusual factors sent the Red River surging to historic heights this year. The winter was unusually cold and snowy, which left a large snowpack sitting on top of frozen ground that couldn't absorb it. Then a warm snap and heavy rain quickly melted the snow and sent it into toward the river.

And it all happened to a river that flows north. When most rivers in the United States melt, they send the extra water south toward warmer, open water. When the Red breaks up, it sends hunks of ice north into colder water that is often still frozen....

The Associated Press: Red River tops historic marker, undermines dike

 

[GennieRaider]

I just wanted to say that despite what the press said following Katrina more property was covered for flood in one zip code (lakeview) than in the rest of the country combined. As a city New Orleans was tied with Miami for having the most number of homes covered under the federal flood program.