Why Federal Storm Coverage??

[gallantwarrior]

Confessions of a Welfare Queen - Reason.com

Getting some money up front is not the primary reason the government offers dirt cheap insurance coverage for stupid people doing stupid shit. Government does this because banks will not mortgage places like this without insurance coverage. The banks always get their "cut" when government pays off on these policies, and there's enough left over for the homeowner, too. This is also the reason why there are no limits on how many times the government pays big bucks on the same property for the same losses.

 

[oldfart]

I used o live in an area that had a potential for flash flooding (I still own a rental there). When I bought the house it had not ever been close to flooding and I was not required to have flood insurnce by my mortgage company. Some local developers decided to build a monstrous 300 unit apartmentment complex adjacent to my property and raised the elevation nine feet. When I bought my house all building on their site was banned as it was in a flood plain. The resulting impoundment causes the yard to flood on a regular basis. What is the conservative politically correct lesson for this? The builder had the law changed and deprived me of a substantial property right for which I have no legal recourse. I guess ths is unfettered fre enterprise.

How exactly did this one builder get the law changed? What law would that have been exactly? I would also be curious in which municipality this happened. I understand if you prefer not to share.

The municipality was Jackson MS. The plot was zoned as a flood plain. The zoning board held a public meeting which I attended. After the developer failed to file a site map which would have indicated any flood mitigation plans (which is what the neighborhood association was asking for) the zoning board turned down the variance request. The developer appealed to the city council, which in a closed session voted to waive all further requirements and issue the building permits.

Mississippi is not unique. Corruption is commonplace in many local governments. It doesn't seem to be the property of any political party. The more local the government, the more often you are to see both the verybest nd worst of public officials.

Most of my business career I have dealt with governmental abuses at the state and federal level (I primarily represent taxpayers in disputes with the IRS). I have been involved in cases worse than any of the "horror stories" people read in the papers, but that is a topic for another time. But anyone who thinks that America does not have a major problem with public corruption at all levels is beng intentionally blind.

 

[alan1]

Let em rebuild all they want but no federal ins or aid.
Let them get private ins or none.

Personal responsibility.

I feel the same way.

And the same way when it comes to health insurance and medical care.

 

[AmyNation]

Let em rebuild all they want but no federal ins or aid.
Let them get private ins or none.

Personal responsibility.

I feel the same way.

And the same way when it comes to health insurance and medical care.

You are in the minority in the latter, however the former I agree with. High risk areas should be zoned as such and any building done on those sites a "build at your own risk" type of deal.

 

[uscitizen]

Let em rebuild all they want but no federal ins or aid.
Let them get private ins or none.

Personal responsibility.

I feel the same way.

And the same way when it comes to health insurance and medical care.

I differ on health insurance and medical care. NOt the same thing as choosing to build in a flood or hurricane prone zone.

 

[Grandma]

I watched one of those hurricane shows they put on the Weather Channel, there was this one scene where officials ordered a family to evacuate their trailer. The mom answered the door with a couple of very young kids and said that her husband insisted that the family ride out the storm in the trailer. Being a good submissive wife she obeyed him, and the kids were kept there too. After the hurricane passed the officials went bak - the trailer was smashed and the family was gone, washed away.

Does personal responsibilty allow for putting minor children in danger? What about good, submissive wives?

 

[Politico]

I said the same thing about rebuilding the fish bowl in Louisiana.

 

[Two Thumbs]

1. LONG BEACH TOWNSHIP, N.J. -Some environmentalists say New Jersey should consider not rebuilding everything lost to Superstorm Sandy.

He and other shoreline advocates say officials should consider restricting development to reduce the harm storms can do. They suggest relocating homes and businesses farther from the ocean, building more seawalls and keeping sand dunes high."
Battered NJ agonizes over whether to rebuild shore - DC Breaking Local News Weather Sports FOX 5 WTTG


How much is the taxpayer on the hook for??

And why??




2. If you want to really make your blood boil, check out the transfer payments to owners of beachfront properties. Between 1979 and 2005, Alabama’s Dauphin Island was hammered six times by hurricanes, which destroyed some five hundred pricey vacation home and rental properties. Owners kept rebuilding, and the government paid more than $21 million in insurance.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wpdyn/content/article/2005/10/10/AR2005101001465.html

a. The flood program pays every claim, doesn’t raise premiums after multiple claims, and promises to keep doing so.

b. A USA TODAY review of FEMA records found that the owners of 19,600 homes and commercial buildings worth $25,000 or more have collected insurance payments that exceed the value of their property. The records exclude property addresses. In Fairhope, Ala., the owner of a $153,000 house has received $2.3 million in claims. A $116,000 Houston home has received $1.6 million. The payments are for damage to homes and what's inside….USA TODAY also found that the owners of 370,000 second homes and rental houses get huge insurance discounts. Wealthy resort areas such as Hilton Head Island, S.C., and Longboat Key, Naples and Sanibel, Fla., have some of the largest numbers of second homes and rentals getting the discounts. USATODAY.com






3. 'In 1887,... several counties in Texas faced a long drought and some farmers lost their crops. Texas politicians helped cajole Congress into granting $10,000 worth of free seeds for these distressed farmers in Texas.

After the bill passed the Senate and House, [President Grover] Cleveland vetoed it, saying, 'I can find no warrant for such an appropriating in the Constitution,' Cleveland said. Such aid would 'destroy the partitions between proper subjects of Federal and local care and regulation.'

He added, 'Federal aid, in such cases, encourages the expectations of paternal care on the part of the Government and weakens the sturdiness of our national character.'" Cleveland believed the American people would not abandon its fellow citizens in the Lone Star state. ...Cleveland's response, "the friendliness and charity of our countrymen can always be relied upon to relieve their fellow citizens in misfortune."


a. Cleveland could not be more accurate in his predictions. People not only gave, but did so at a level beyond the imagination of the Texas farmers and the politicians who represented them. Fellow Americans from all over the country gave gifts exceeding $100,000. That amount was more than ten times the amount Congress had tried to take from the taxpayers. The Founding Fathers never saw a "charity" role for government, that perspective was validated in both word and deed by Cleveland's courageous veto and his belief in the American people.
Hurricane Sandy, presidential candidates, and Grover Cleveland

forcing people to move, taking away property rights.

good
frigging
lord

I thought obama was blathering on about FORWARD?

Turns out liberals want to go back to pre-Constitution days of no property rights

 

[rightwinger]

They should not be allowed to rebuild so close to the high water mark.

Again it is a progressive that shows his propensity for fascism.

In New Jersey they are talking about not letting many areas rebuild and those that do rebuild will have much stricter building codes

But as in most things New Jersey, those with the multi-million dollar shorefront homes will be able to do as they wish and those with the tiny two bedroom shore cottages will be told to go away

 

[rightwinger]

I live in the Jersey Shore region but not near enough to beachfront to be immediately vulnerable to these storms -- nor would I live close to the beach. The reason for that is I am cautious by nature and I tend to acknowledge past lessons learned.

I was spared any damage or inconvenience from this storm but it definitely imparted the metaphorical fear of god to this atheist and I intend to buy a generator. I firmly believe ongoing climate change (global warming) is the cause of both Katrina and Sandy and more of the same will be coming.

Bottom line is I fully agree with your opinion that beachfronts are no longer friendly and building there is a bad idea. Living close to an ocean or in or near a forest should be avoided if possible.

The Jersey beaches will always be there. It is mother nature.

However, it is the massive buildups of oceanfront housing, restaurants, boardwalks, arcades, rides etc that are vulnerable. Let mother nature take her course with the beaches. People will still come to the beach.

But move all that other infrastructure a safe distance away

 

[Dreamy]

I used o live in an area that had a potential for flash flooding (I still own a rental there). When I bought the house it had not ever been close to flooding and I was not required to have flood insurnce by my mortgage company. Some local developers decided to build a monstrous 300 unit apartmentment complex adjacent to my property and raised the elevation nine feet. When I bought my house all building on their site was banned as it was in a flood plain. The resulting impoundment causes the yard to flood on a regular basis. What is the conservative politically correct lesson for this? The builder had the law changed and deprived me of a substantial property right for which I have no legal recourse. I guess ths is unfettered fre enterprise.

How exactly did this one builder get the law changed? What law would that have been exactly? I would also be curious in which municipality this happened. I understand if you prefer not to share.

The municipality was Jackson MS. The plot was zoned as a flood plain. The zoning board held a public meeting which I attended. After the developer failed to file a site map which would have indicated any flood mitigation plans (which is what the neighborhood association was asking for) the zoning board turned down the variance request. The developer appealed to the city council, which in a closed session voted to waive all further requirements and issue the building permits.

Mississippi is not unique. Corruption is commonplace in many local governments. It doesn't seem to be the property of any political party. The more local the government, the more often you are to see both the verybest nd worst of public officials.

Most of my business career I have dealt with governmental abuses at the state and federal level (I primarily represent taxpayers in disputes with the IRS). I have been involved in cases worse than any of the "horror stories" people read in the papers, but that is a topic for another time. But anyone who thinks that America does not have a major problem with public corruption at all levels is beng intentionally blind.

Thank you for the details. Yes I know about the scandals and corruption local government can bring. Not to get too off track but it is hard to believe the zoning board got overruled on this by the city council but it happens I am sure. The devil is often in the details so thanks for sharing them.

I just wish people would wake up, drop the partisan pretense and realize that abuse and corruption of power within government knows no party lines. We are all caught up in fighting each other while these jerks pick our pockets and laugh at us.

Make them all EARN your vote! And if they do not vote and break their many campaign promises then out. We truly do get the government we deserve.

 

[gallantwarrior]

I watched one of those hurricane shows they put on the Weather Channel, there was this one scene where officials ordered a family to evacuate their trailer. The mom answered the door with a couple of very young kids and said that her husband insisted that the family ride out the storm in the trailer. Being a good submissive wife she obeyed him, and the kids were kept there too. After the hurricane passed the officials went bak - the trailer was smashed and the family was gone, washed away.

Does personal responsibilty allow for putting minor children in danger? What about good, submissive wives?

Yes. Otherwise you get a lot of know-it-all busybodies who will step in for just about any perceived 'threat' to children and others they consider incapable. "It's for the children" has been a lame-assed battle cry for all those intent on inserting government intrusion into personal decisions and responsibility.

 

[gallantwarrior]

I live in the Jersey Shore region but not near enough to beachfront to be immediately vulnerable to these storms -- nor would I live close to the beach. The reason for that is I am cautious by nature and I tend to acknowledge past lessons learned.

I was spared any damage or inconvenience from this storm but it definitely imparted the metaphorical fear of god to this atheist and I intend to buy a generator. I firmly believe ongoing climate change (global warming) is the cause of both Katrina and Sandy and more of the same will be coming.

Bottom line is I fully agree with your opinion that beachfronts are no longer friendly and building there is a bad idea. Living close to an ocean or in or near a forest should be avoided if possible.

The Jersey beaches will always be there. It is mother nature.

However, it is the massive buildups of oceanfront housing, restaurants, boardwalks, arcades, rides etc that are vulnerable. Let mother nature take her course with the beaches. People will still come to the beach.

But move all that other infrastructure a safe distance away

What do you consider to be a safe distance?