CDZ Big government in Texas makes America less competitive

[HereWeGoAgain]

What do you think the dams are?
Which they've been upgrading.

These reservoirs dont have water in them in normal times and only fill up under unusually heavy rains.
They encompass 26,000 acres or 43 square miles.

Wow, how much money has been invested in them dams that cover 43 square miles?

The dams dont cover 43 square miles,they provide 43 square miles of water retainment.
Houston is the fourth largest city in America and has the largest foreign port in the U.S.
You think we should abandon that port?

Nope I don't think we should abandon the port. Like Donald would say, if it makes us money keep doing it.

I think them dams are quite the undertaking and the land they protect is more costly to develop than land that just happens to be up the hill. Not to mention when one fails its going to create tragic instances where children die because of the ignorance or mistakes of their parents.

Me, I'd just want to recollect on their parent's rescue.

In St Louis should we abandon the river front? No.

People just don't need to live within walking distance or a horse ride of the river front though. I suspect Houston is largely the same. Also we've shown how building levees raises the rivers elsewhere and speeds up flooding thus pushing the cost of our poor development choices onto others.

Buy outs not 1,000 years protection is my motto. Let's spur the home construction industry for everyone who wants to work.

You dont seem to understand the manner in which Houston floods.
There's no rushing waters it's a slow climb.
And again there are no rivers or lakes near Houston.
We have Buffalo bayou and thats it.

The manner in which Houston floods is irrelevant to the point here. Let's remove all of the specifics and see if we can come to an understanding here.

There is a fictional city (we'll call it "Megatown" for ease of reference) you don't live in, and have no connection to, because it's fictional. This city is in an area that, history has shown, is prone to a certain type of disaster. The current reaction to said disaster is to rebuild, with Federal tax dollars in part. What the OP is suggesting is, why don't we just move Megatown to a different site, just a few miles away, where the area is less prone to disasters? Of course it's not quite that easy, because, in most cases, that new site would be owned by someone(s). Let's just say, for argument's sake, that in the case of Megatown, there is a piece of federal land 20 miles away, that is roughly the same size, has usable topography, and has little chance of experiencing a natural disaster. Would you be in favor of looking into the idea of moving the city instead of rebuilding?

Is this some kinda joke?

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

What do you think the dams are?
Which they've been upgrading.

These reservoirs dont have water in them in normal times and only fill up under unusually heavy rains.
They encompass 26,000 acres or 43 square miles.

Wow, how much money has been invested in them dams that cover 43 square miles?

The dams dont cover 43 square miles,they provide 43 square miles of water retainment.
Houston is the fourth largest city in America and has the largest foreign port in the U.S.
You think we should abandon that port?

Nope I don't think we should abandon the port. Like Donald would say, if it makes us money keep doing it.

I think them dams are quite the undertaking and the land they protect is more costly to develop than land that just happens to be up the hill. Not to mention when one fails its going to create tragic instances where children die because of the ignorance or mistakes of their parents.

Me, I'd just want to recollect on their parent's rescue.

In St Louis should we abandon the river front? No.

People just don't need to live within walking distance or a horse ride of the river front though. I suspect Houston is largely the same. Also we've shown how building levees raises the rivers elsewhere and speeds up flooding thus pushing the cost of our poor development choices onto others.

Buy outs not 1,000 years protection is my motto. Let's spur the home construction industry for everyone who wants to work.

You dont seem to understand the manner in which Houston floods.
There's no rushing waters it's a slow climb.
And again there are no rivers or lakes near Houston.
We have Buffalo bayou and thats it.

So there is no point in spending that money retaining them 43 square miles of water because its slow and peaceable?

The land is not developed,it's nothing but woods.
How bad would it have been without the dams?

 

[oldsoul]

Wow, how much money has been invested in them dams that cover 43 square miles?

The dams dont cover 43 square miles,they provide 43 square miles of water retainment.
Houston is the fourth largest city in America and has the largest foreign port in the U.S.
You think we should abandon that port?

Nope I don't think we should abandon the port. Like Donald would say, if it makes us money keep doing it.

I think them dams are quite the undertaking and the land they protect is more costly to develop than land that just happens to be up the hill. Not to mention when one fails its going to create tragic instances where children die because of the ignorance or mistakes of their parents.

Me, I'd just want to recollect on their parent's rescue.

In St Louis should we abandon the river front? No.

People just don't need to live within walking distance or a horse ride of the river front though. I suspect Houston is largely the same. Also we've shown how building levees raises the rivers elsewhere and speeds up flooding thus pushing the cost of our poor development choices onto others.

Buy outs not 1,000 years protection is my motto. Let's spur the home construction industry for everyone who wants to work.

You dont seem to understand the manner in which Houston floods.
There's no rushing waters it's a slow climb.
And again there are no rivers or lakes near Houston.
We have Buffalo bayou and thats it.

The manner in which Houston floods is irrelevant to the point here. Let's remove all of the specifics and see if we can come to an understanding here.

There is a fictional city (we'll call it "Megatown" for ease of reference) you don't live in, and have no connection to, because it's fictional. This city is in an area that, history has shown, is prone to a certain type of disaster. The current reaction to said disaster is to rebuild, with Federal tax dollars in part. What the OP is suggesting is, why don't we just move Megatown to a different site, just a few miles away, where the area is less prone to disasters? Of course it's not quite that easy, because, in most cases, that new site would be owned by someone(s). Let's just say, for argument's sake, that in the case of Megatown, there is a piece of federal land 20 miles away, that is roughly the same size, has usable topography, and has little chance of experiencing a natural disaster. Would you be in favor of looking into the idea of moving the city instead of rebuilding?

Is this some kinda joke?

Have you forgotten what was posted in the OP? You seem to want to get bogged down in debating the specifics of New Orleans and Houston, while completely ignoring the premise of the thread. Then you want to know if I'm joking when I attempt to get the thread back on track. So, I guess I must then ask you:

Are you some kind of troll? Are you even capable of discussing the topic at hand? Are only concerned with telling people how they are wrong, or do you have real solutions to the issues presented?

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

The dams dont cover 43 square miles,they provide 43 square miles of water retainment.
Houston is the fourth largest city in America and has the largest foreign port in the U.S.
You think we should abandon that port?

Nope I don't think we should abandon the port. Like Donald would say, if it makes us money keep doing it.

I think them dams are quite the undertaking and the land they protect is more costly to develop than land that just happens to be up the hill. Not to mention when one fails its going to create tragic instances where children die because of the ignorance or mistakes of their parents.

Me, I'd just want to recollect on their parent's rescue.

In St Louis should we abandon the river front? No.

People just don't need to live within walking distance or a horse ride of the river front though. I suspect Houston is largely the same. Also we've shown how building levees raises the rivers elsewhere and speeds up flooding thus pushing the cost of our poor development choices onto others.

Buy outs not 1,000 years protection is my motto. Let's spur the home construction industry for everyone who wants to work.

You dont seem to understand the manner in which Houston floods.
There's no rushing waters it's a slow climb.
And again there are no rivers or lakes near Houston.
We have Buffalo bayou and thats it.

The manner in which Houston floods is irrelevant to the point here. Let's remove all of the specifics and see if we can come to an understanding here.

There is a fictional city (we'll call it "Megatown" for ease of reference) you don't live in, and have no connection to, because it's fictional. This city is in an area that, history has shown, is prone to a certain type of disaster. The current reaction to said disaster is to rebuild, with Federal tax dollars in part. What the OP is suggesting is, why don't we just move Megatown to a different site, just a few miles away, where the area is less prone to disasters? Of course it's not quite that easy, because, in most cases, that new site would be owned by someone(s). Let's just say, for argument's sake, that in the case of Megatown, there is a piece of federal land 20 miles away, that is roughly the same size, has usable topography, and has little chance of experiencing a natural disaster. Would you be in favor of looking into the idea of moving the city instead of rebuilding?

Is this some kinda joke?

Have you forgotten what was posted in the OP? You seem to want to get bogged down in debating the specifics of New Orleans and Houston, while completely ignoring the premise of the thread. Then you want to know if I'm joking when I attempt to get the thread back on track. So, I guess I must then ask you:

Are you some kind of troll? Are you even capable of discussing the topic at hand? Are only concerned with telling people how they are wrong, or do you have real solutions to the issues presented?

Well considering this thread was woken from the dead forgive me for forgetting the fine points.
As a fifty year resident of the Houston area I'm well aware of the flooding issues.
There are certain areas that flood,personally in my fifty years in Houston I've never had floodwaters in my home.

 

[Toronado3800]

Nope I don't think we should abandon the port. Like Donald would say, if it makes us money keep doing it.

I think them dams are quite the undertaking and the land they protect is more costly to develop than land that just happens to be up the hill. Not to mention when one fails its going to create tragic instances where children die because of the ignorance or mistakes of their parents.

Me, I'd just want to recollect on their parent's rescue.

In St Louis should we abandon the river front? No.

People just don't need to live within walking distance or a horse ride of the river front though. I suspect Houston is largely the same. Also we've shown how building levees raises the rivers elsewhere and speeds up flooding thus pushing the cost of our poor development choices onto others.

Buy outs not 1,000 years protection is my motto. Let's spur the home construction industry for everyone who wants to work.

You dont seem to understand the manner in which Houston floods.
There's no rushing waters it's a slow climb.
And again there are no rivers or lakes near Houston.
We have Buffalo bayou and thats it.

The manner in which Houston floods is irrelevant to the point here. Let's remove all of the specifics and see if we can come to an understanding here.

There is a fictional city (we'll call it "Megatown" for ease of reference) you don't live in, and have no connection to, because it's fictional. This city is in an area that, history has shown, is prone to a certain type of disaster. The current reaction to said disaster is to rebuild, with Federal tax dollars in part. What the OP is suggesting is, why don't we just move Megatown to a different site, just a few miles away, where the area is less prone to disasters? Of course it's not quite that easy, because, in most cases, that new site would be owned by someone(s). Let's just say, for argument's sake, that in the case of Megatown, there is a piece of federal land 20 miles away, that is roughly the same size, has usable topography, and has little chance of experiencing a natural disaster. Would you be in favor of looking into the idea of moving the city instead of rebuilding?

Is this some kinda joke?

Have you forgotten what was posted in the OP? You seem to want to get bogged down in debating the specifics of New Orleans and Houston, while completely ignoring the premise of the thread. Then you want to know if I'm joking when I attempt to get the thread back on track. So, I guess I must then ask you:

Are you some kind of troll? Are you even capable of discussing the topic at hand? Are only concerned with telling people how they are wrong, or do you have real solutions to the issues presented?

Well considering this thread was woken from the dead forgive me for forgetting the fine points.
As a fifty year resident of the Houston area I'm well aware of the flooding issues.
There are certain areas that flood,personally in my fifty years in Houston I've never had floodwaters in my home.

So, would we all be better off if they just quit rebuilding those certain areas which do flood and built in the areas that did not flood?

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

You dont seem to understand the manner in which Houston floods.
There's no rushing waters it's a slow climb.
And again there are no rivers or lakes near Houston.
We have Buffalo bayou and thats it.

The manner in which Houston floods is irrelevant to the point here. Let's remove all of the specifics and see if we can come to an understanding here.

There is a fictional city (we'll call it "Megatown" for ease of reference) you don't live in, and have no connection to, because it's fictional. This city is in an area that, history has shown, is prone to a certain type of disaster. The current reaction to said disaster is to rebuild, with Federal tax dollars in part. What the OP is suggesting is, why don't we just move Megatown to a different site, just a few miles away, where the area is less prone to disasters? Of course it's not quite that easy, because, in most cases, that new site would be owned by someone(s). Let's just say, for argument's sake, that in the case of Megatown, there is a piece of federal land 20 miles away, that is roughly the same size, has usable topography, and has little chance of experiencing a natural disaster. Would you be in favor of looking into the idea of moving the city instead of rebuilding?

Is this some kinda joke?

Have you forgotten what was posted in the OP? You seem to want to get bogged down in debating the specifics of New Orleans and Houston, while completely ignoring the premise of the thread. Then you want to know if I'm joking when I attempt to get the thread back on track. So, I guess I must then ask you:

Are you some kind of troll? Are you even capable of discussing the topic at hand? Are only concerned with telling people how they are wrong, or do you have real solutions to the issues presented?

Well considering this thread was woken from the dead forgive me for forgetting the fine points.
As a fifty year resident of the Houston area I'm well aware of the flooding issues.
There are certain areas that flood,personally in my fifty years in Houston I've never had floodwaters in my home.

So, would we all be better off if they just quit rebuilding those certain areas which do flood and built in the areas that did not flood?

So you wanna tear down 1/4 of the city for a 1000 year flood?

 

[Toronado3800]

The manner in which Houston floods is irrelevant to the point here. Let's remove all of the specifics and see if we can come to an understanding here.

There is a fictional city (we'll call it "Megatown" for ease of reference) you don't live in, and have no connection to, because it's fictional. This city is in an area that, history has shown, is prone to a certain type of disaster. The current reaction to said disaster is to rebuild, with Federal tax dollars in part. What the OP is suggesting is, why don't we just move Megatown to a different site, just a few miles away, where the area is less prone to disasters? Of course it's not quite that easy, because, in most cases, that new site would be owned by someone(s). Let's just say, for argument's sake, that in the case of Megatown, there is a piece of federal land 20 miles away, that is roughly the same size, has usable topography, and has little chance of experiencing a natural disaster. Would you be in favor of looking into the idea of moving the city instead of rebuilding?

Is this some kinda joke?

Have you forgotten what was posted in the OP? You seem to want to get bogged down in debating the specifics of New Orleans and Houston, while completely ignoring the premise of the thread. Then you want to know if I'm joking when I attempt to get the thread back on track. So, I guess I must then ask you:

Are you some kind of troll? Are you even capable of discussing the topic at hand? Are only concerned with telling people how they are wrong, or do you have real solutions to the issues presented?

Well considering this thread was woken from the dead forgive me for forgetting the fine points.
As a fifty year resident of the Houston area I'm well aware of the flooding issues.
There are certain areas that flood,personally in my fifty years in Houston I've never had floodwaters in my home.

So, would we all be better off if they just quit rebuilding those certain areas which do flood and built in the areas that did not flood?

So you wanna tear down 1/4 of the city for a 1000 year flood?

No.

First, I don't believe it was a 1,000 flood. Remember the links to the three 500 year floods I gave, one from the same newspaper.

Second, we aren't gonna afford all of this at once. First we'll buy out (give one time welfare to, not continious levee welfare) the folks who flood all the time.

Third, I'd just not rebuild troublesome areas or rebuild their levees. That way we don't displace 10,000 ppl at once. More like "you got your insurance money here is an additional 20k, go rebuild someplace smart and consult a topographical map this time, we don't deal with repeat victims".

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

Is this some kinda joke?

Have you forgotten what was posted in the OP? You seem to want to get bogged down in debating the specifics of New Orleans and Houston, while completely ignoring the premise of the thread. Then you want to know if I'm joking when I attempt to get the thread back on track. So, I guess I must then ask you:

Are you some kind of troll? Are you even capable of discussing the topic at hand? Are only concerned with telling people how they are wrong, or do you have real solutions to the issues presented?

Well considering this thread was woken from the dead forgive me for forgetting the fine points.
As a fifty year resident of the Houston area I'm well aware of the flooding issues.
There are certain areas that flood,personally in my fifty years in Houston I've never had floodwaters in my home.

So, would we all be better off if they just quit rebuilding those certain areas which do flood and built in the areas that did not flood?

So you wanna tear down 1/4 of the city for a 1000 year flood?

No.

First, I don't believe it was a 1,000 flood. Remember the links to the three 500 year floods I gave, one from the same newspaper.

Second, we aren't gonna afford all of this at once. First we'll buy out (give one time welfare to, not continious levee welfare) the folks who flood all the time.

Third, I'd just not rebuild troublesome areas or rebuild their levees. That way we don't displace 10,000 ppl at once. More like "you got your insurance money here is an additional 20k, go rebuild someplace smart and consult a topographical map this time, we don't deal with repeat victims".

There are no homes on the outskirts of the levee system that flood all the time.
I've lived on the outskirts of both reservoirs for fifty years and have never been flooded.
The neighborhoods that flood the most often are the older sections of Houston where the old drainage systems cant keep up.

What insurance money? Most dont carry flood insurance and if you live in a flood prone area the insurance companies wont cover you for that anyway.

Here's the thing....while we get street flooding somewhat regularly we dont normally get house flooding.

 

[Toronado3800]

Have you forgotten what was posted in the OP? You seem to want to get bogged down in debating the specifics of New Orleans and Houston, while completely ignoring the premise of the thread. Then you want to know if I'm joking when I attempt to get the thread back on track. So, I guess I must then ask you:

Are you some kind of troll? Are you even capable of discussing the topic at hand? Are only concerned with telling people how they are wrong, or do you have real solutions to the issues presented?

Well considering this thread was woken from the dead forgive me for forgetting the fine points.
As a fifty year resident of the Houston area I'm well aware of the flooding issues.
There are certain areas that flood,personally in my fifty years in Houston I've never had floodwaters in my home.

So, would we all be better off if they just quit rebuilding those certain areas which do flood and built in the areas that did not flood?

So you wanna tear down 1/4 of the city for a 1000 year flood?

No.

First, I don't believe it was a 1,000 flood. Remember the links to the three 500 year floods I gave, one from the same newspaper.

Second, we aren't gonna afford all of this at once. First we'll buy out (give one time welfare to, not continious levee welfare) the folks who flood all the time.

Third, I'd just not rebuild troublesome areas or rebuild their levees. That way we don't displace 10,000 ppl at once. More like "you got your insurance money here is an additional 20k, go rebuild someplace smart and consult a topographical map this time, we don't deal with repeat victims".

There are no homes on the outskirts of the levee system that flood all the time.
I've lived on the outskirts of both reservoirs for fifty years and have never been flooded.
The neighborhoods that flood the most often are the older sections of Houston where the old drainage systems cant keep up.

What insurance money? Most dont carry flood insurance and if you live in a flood prone area the insurance companies wont cover you for that anyway.

Here's the thing....while we get street flooding somewhat regularly we dont normally get house flooding.

I don't believe that is true. Houston makes the news too often for flooding (just like the idiots here to be fair).

Either way, if the houses don't flood and we're not paying to protect them because the people who live there are more special than those of us on high ground, fine.

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

Well considering this thread was woken from the dead forgive me for forgetting the fine points.
As a fifty year resident of the Houston area I'm well aware of the flooding issues.
There are certain areas that flood,personally in my fifty years in Houston I've never had floodwaters in my home.

So, would we all be better off if they just quit rebuilding those certain areas which do flood and built in the areas that did not flood?

So you wanna tear down 1/4 of the city for a 1000 year flood?

No.

First, I don't believe it was a 1,000 flood. Remember the links to the three 500 year floods I gave, one from the same newspaper.

Second, we aren't gonna afford all of this at once. First we'll buy out (give one time welfare to, not continious levee welfare) the folks who flood all the time.

Third, I'd just not rebuild troublesome areas or rebuild their levees. That way we don't displace 10,000 ppl at once. More like "you got your insurance money here is an additional 20k, go rebuild someplace smart and consult a topographical map this time, we don't deal with repeat victims".

There are no homes on the outskirts of the levee system that flood all the time.
I've lived on the outskirts of both reservoirs for fifty years and have never been flooded.
The neighborhoods that flood the most often are the older sections of Houston where the old drainage systems cant keep up.

What insurance money? Most dont carry flood insurance and if you live in a flood prone area the insurance companies wont cover you for that anyway.

Here's the thing....while we get street flooding somewhat regularly we dont normally get house flooding.

I don't believe that is true. Houston makes the news too often for flooding (just like the idiots here to be fair).

Either way, if the houses don't flood and we're not paying to protect them because the people who live there are more special than those of us on high ground, fine.

I really dont care what you believe.
I live here and know the score. As I said,I've lived near the reservoir for fifty years and have never been flooded.

 

[Toronado3800]

So, would we all be better off if they just quit rebuilding those certain areas which do flood and built in the areas that did not flood?

So you wanna tear down 1/4 of the city for a 1000 year flood?

No.

First, I don't believe it was a 1,000 flood. Remember the links to the three 500 year floods I gave, one from the same newspaper.

Second, we aren't gonna afford all of this at once. First we'll buy out (give one time welfare to, not continious levee welfare) the folks who flood all the time.

Third, I'd just not rebuild troublesome areas or rebuild their levees. That way we don't displace 10,000 ppl at once. More like "you got your insurance money here is an additional 20k, go rebuild someplace smart and consult a topographical map this time, we don't deal with repeat victims".

There are no homes on the outskirts of the levee system that flood all the time.
I've lived on the outskirts of both reservoirs for fifty years and have never been flooded.
The neighborhoods that flood the most often are the older sections of Houston where the old drainage systems cant keep up.

What insurance money? Most dont carry flood insurance and if you live in a flood prone area the insurance companies wont cover you for that anyway.

Here's the thing....while we get street flooding somewhat regularly we dont normally get house flooding.

I don't believe that is true. Houston makes the news too often for flooding (just like the idiots here to be fair).

Either way, if the houses don't flood and we're not paying to protect them because the people who live there are more special than those of us on high ground, fine.

I really dont care what you believe.
I live here and know the score. As I said,I've lived near the reservoir for fifty years and have never been flooded.

Cool, congratulations on picking your home well. Not everyone does. Let's buy out the ones that do flood, not yours.

Does the reservoir protect your home?

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

So you wanna tear down 1/4 of the city for a 1000 year flood?

No.

First, I don't believe it was a 1,000 flood. Remember the links to the three 500 year floods I gave, one from the same newspaper.

Second, we aren't gonna afford all of this at once. First we'll buy out (give one time welfare to, not continious levee welfare) the folks who flood all the time.

Third, I'd just not rebuild troublesome areas or rebuild their levees. That way we don't displace 10,000 ppl at once. More like "you got your insurance money here is an additional 20k, go rebuild someplace smart and consult a topographical map this time, we don't deal with repeat victims".

There are no homes on the outskirts of the levee system that flood all the time.
I've lived on the outskirts of both reservoirs for fifty years and have never been flooded.
The neighborhoods that flood the most often are the older sections of Houston where the old drainage systems cant keep up.

What insurance money? Most dont carry flood insurance and if you live in a flood prone area the insurance companies wont cover you for that anyway.

Here's the thing....while we get street flooding somewhat regularly we dont normally get house flooding.

I don't believe that is true. Houston makes the news too often for flooding (just like the idiots here to be fair).

Either way, if the houses don't flood and we're not paying to protect them because the people who live there are more special than those of us on high ground, fine.

I really dont care what you believe.
I live here and know the score. As I said,I've lived near the reservoir for fifty years and have never been flooded.

Cool, congratulations on picking your home well. Not everyone does. Let's buy out the ones that do flood, not yours.

Does the reservoir protect your home?

Not home...."homes" as in six of them.
And not one flooded.

 

[Toronado3800]

No.

First, I don't believe it was a 1,000 flood. Remember the links to the three 500 year floods I gave, one from the same newspaper.

Second, we aren't gonna afford all of this at once. First we'll buy out (give one time welfare to, not continious levee welfare) the folks who flood all the time.

Third, I'd just not rebuild troublesome areas or rebuild their levees. That way we don't displace 10,000 ppl at once. More like "you got your insurance money here is an additional 20k, go rebuild someplace smart and consult a topographical map this time, we don't deal with repeat victims".

There are no homes on the outskirts of the levee system that flood all the time.
I've lived on the outskirts of both reservoirs for fifty years and have never been flooded.
The neighborhoods that flood the most often are the older sections of Houston where the old drainage systems cant keep up.

What insurance money? Most dont carry flood insurance and if you live in a flood prone area the insurance companies wont cover you for that anyway.

Here's the thing....while we get street flooding somewhat regularly we dont normally get house flooding.

I don't believe that is true. Houston makes the news too often for flooding (just like the idiots here to be fair).

Either way, if the houses don't flood and we're not paying to protect them because the people who live there are more special than those of us on high ground, fine.

I really dont care what you believe.
I live here and know the score. As I said,I've lived near the reservoir for fifty years and have never been flooded.

Cool, congratulations on picking your home well. Not everyone does. Let's buy out the ones that do flood, not yours.

Does the reservoir protect your home?

Not home...."homes" as in six of them.
And not one flooded.

Cool. I live in another area which makes the national news for flooding and home I have ever lived in has flooded. Even grandma knew to buy on the hill so to say.

If I buy that nice cheap house in the bottomland will you raise your taxes to build me a better levee (forcing the next guy to do so also), and help rebuild my flooded house?

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

There are no homes on the outskirts of the levee system that flood all the time.
I've lived on the outskirts of both reservoirs for fifty years and have never been flooded.
The neighborhoods that flood the most often are the older sections of Houston where the old drainage systems cant keep up.

What insurance money? Most dont carry flood insurance and if you live in a flood prone area the insurance companies wont cover you for that anyway.

Here's the thing....while we get street flooding somewhat regularly we dont normally get house flooding.

I don't believe that is true. Houston makes the news too often for flooding (just like the idiots here to be fair).

Either way, if the houses don't flood and we're not paying to protect them because the people who live there are more special than those of us on high ground, fine.

I really dont care what you believe.
I live here and know the score. As I said,I've lived near the reservoir for fifty years and have never been flooded.

Cool, congratulations on picking your home well. Not everyone does. Let's buy out the ones that do flood, not yours.

Does the reservoir protect your home?

Not home...."homes" as in six of them.
And not one flooded.

Cool. I live in another area which makes the national news for flooding and home I have ever lived in has flooded. Even grandma knew to buy on the hill so to say.

If I buy that nice cheap house in the bottomland will you raise your taxes to build me a better levee (forcing the next guy to do so also), and help rebuild my flooded house?

Why would you buy a house in a flood prone area?

 

[candycorn]

$2.5 billion Harris County Proposition A flood bond approved

So what I'm reading here is folks in Houston have signed up to make America less competitive by using big government taxes to fight mother nature instead of using knowledge to build their homes the right way in the right places.

Full disclosure. I live in Missouri where we very much do the same embarrassing thing. So, I can recognize problems other places that we have here. Next thing you know some big government President will approve money to rebuild New Orleans!

This isn't 1875, we have Roman technology and don't need to build homes within walking distance of the river.

What can be done to discourage this type of thing? We are not Japan or Belgium. We have a large country with many perfectly fine places to build homes and businesses and we should take advantage of it instead of setting ourselves up for repeated disasters.

Walking distance from water in Houston?

How about just build where the public doesn't need to give your subdivision welfare to exist safely if my prose was too flowery.

Harvey was a once in a thousand year flood.
Harvey is a 1,000-year flood event unprecedented in scale

Again, don't misunderstand what I am saying. Something is going to happen for the first time someplace. Floods aren't meteorite strikes though, they are predictable and will happen again.

Maybe you are an expert on Houston and it has never flooded before. I'll make them a deal, they get aid for flooding this time because no one remembers any of them locations ever flooding before. Next time they have to pay cash for every FEMA blanked, MRE and helicopter rescue before they get plucked off a roof.

Maybe I'm older, maybe I've just lived through more than my share of once in a lifetime how could we see this coming flooding events.

2013
This Houston street's almost completely underwater: The monster Halloween storm fallout continues

2012
"100-year rainfall event" drenches Houston area - CBS News

2015
https://www.bizjournals.com/houston...-in-review-floods-hammer-houston-in-2015.html

Look, at the Washington Post, this guy noticed it, 3rd 500 year flood in 5 years
Analysis | Houston is experiencing its third ‘500-year’ flood in 3 years. How is that possible?

Mark me cynical. Around here it seems we bail out the same flood victim neighborhoods with the same disaster aid sucking mayors and the same failed infrastructure every 3 years.

Remember, Fox and CNN make more money the more special they can make things seem because more people will watch.

100 year flood events have a strange way of happening in Houston every 15 years or so:

This TS Allison from 2001:

I lived almost directly under that "28.79"....

It likely would not settle the issue but there should have been a "Manhattan project" type of effort to build canals from about Matagorda to Houston to channel the water elsewhere so water would not be pushed into the neighborhoods. But that would mean raising taxes and Texas doesn't do that. So you have major flooding every 10 years or so.

 

[Toronado3800]

$2.5 billion Harris County Proposition A flood bond approved

So what I'm reading here is folks in Houston have signed up to make America less competitive by using big government taxes to fight mother nature instead of using knowledge to build their homes the right way in the right places.

Full disclosure. I live in Missouri where we very much do the same embarrassing thing. So, I can recognize problems other places that we have here. Next thing you know some big government President will approve money to rebuild New Orleans!

This isn't 1875, we have Roman technology and don't need to build homes within walking distance of the river.

What can be done to discourage this type of thing? We are not Japan or Belgium. We have a large country with many perfectly fine places to build homes and businesses and we should take advantage of it instead of setting ourselves up for repeated disasters.

Walking distance from water in Houston?

How about just build where the public doesn't need to give your subdivision welfare to exist safely if my prose was too flowery.

Harvey was a once in a thousand year flood.
Harvey is a 1,000-year flood event unprecedented in scale

Again, don't misunderstand what I am saying. Something is going to happen for the first time someplace. Floods aren't meteorite strikes though, they are predictable and will happen again.

Maybe you are an expert on Houston and it has never flooded before. I'll make them a deal, they get aid for flooding this time because no one remembers any of them locations ever flooding before. Next time they have to pay cash for every FEMA blanked, MRE and helicopter rescue before they get plucked off a roof.

Maybe I'm older, maybe I've just lived through more than my share of once in a lifetime how could we see this coming flooding events.

2013
This Houston street's almost completely underwater: The monster Halloween storm fallout continues

2012
"100-year rainfall event" drenches Houston area - CBS News

2015
https://www.bizjournals.com/houston...-in-review-floods-hammer-houston-in-2015.html

Look, at the Washington Post, this guy noticed it, 3rd 500 year flood in 5 years
Analysis | Houston is experiencing its third ‘500-year’ flood in 3 years. How is that possible?

Mark me cynical. Around here it seems we bail out the same flood victim neighborhoods with the same disaster aid sucking mayors and the same failed infrastructure every 3 years.

Remember, Fox and CNN make more money the more special they can make things seem because more people will watch.

100 year flood events have a strange way of happening in Houston every 15 years or so:

This TS Allison from 2001:
View attachment 214571

View attachment 214572

View attachment 214573

I lived almost directly under that "28.79"....

It likely would not settle the issue but there should have been a "Manhattan project" type of effort to build canals from about Matagorda to Houston to channel the water elsewhere so water would not be pushed into the neighborhoods. But that would mean raising taxes and Texas doesn't do that. So you have major flooding every 10 years or so.

I agree with most of what you typed.

Instead of a Big Government Manhatten Project sized project to help a few ppl at the expense of the many how about we just relocate the few ppl?

Relocating doesn't create a subclass of folks who need tax dollar help to keep their houses from flooding forever.

 

[Toronado3800]

I don't believe that is true. Houston makes the news too often for flooding (just like the idiots here to be fair).

Either way, if the houses don't flood and we're not paying to protect them because the people who live there are more special than those of us on high ground, fine.

I really dont care what you believe.
I live here and know the score. As I said,I've lived near the reservoir for fifty years and have never been flooded.

Cool, congratulations on picking your home well. Not everyone does. Let's buy out the ones that do flood, not yours.

Does the reservoir protect your home?

Not home...."homes" as in six of them.
And not one flooded.

Cool. I live in another area which makes the national news for flooding and home I have ever lived in has flooded. Even grandma knew to buy on the hill so to say.

If I buy that nice cheap house in the bottomland will you raise your taxes to build me a better levee (forcing the next guy to do so also), and help rebuild my flooded house?

Why would you buy a house in a flood prone area?

My last reply was too hastily typed.

Got me why ppl buy houses in flood prone areas. I have a decent eye for water runoff areas and elevation changes. Even if I did not, topographical maps aren't that difficult to find. My favorite residence was probably 6 miles from the confluence of this continent's two largest rivers. It was quite uphill from there though and so were the roads leading to it. No flooding issues for me.

These folks "down the hill" the next interstate exit over though flooded predictably. When I was young and things seemed special and tragic I helped sandbag. Now when it floods I play with the model railroad and think they should have moved 25 years ago instead of putting us all in position to have to pay for shelters, rebuilding and helicopter rescues

 

[eagle1462010]

33 Trillion gallons of water dumped on the area in Hurricane Harvey.........

A lot of water...................The city isn't going anywhere.............it's in a flood zone...........so measures are needed to lessen the damage when it floods...............

Not sure what projects are proposed..........but they are going to need some very big Resevoirs to handle that much water............

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

33 Trillion gallons of water dumped on the area in Hurricane Harvey.........

A lot of water...................The city isn't going anywhere.............it's in a flood zone...........so measures are needed to lessen the damage when it floods...............

Not sure what projects are proposed..........but they are going to need some very big Resevoirs to handle that much water............

I think the best bet would be to remove some of the trees and dig out the reservoir.

 

[oldsoul]

I don't believe that is true. Houston makes the news too often for flooding (just like the idiots here to be fair).

Either way, if the houses don't flood and we're not paying to protect them because the people who live there are more special than those of us on high ground, fine.

I really dont care what you believe.
I live here and know the score. As I said,I've lived near the reservoir for fifty years and have never been flooded.

Cool, congratulations on picking your home well. Not everyone does. Let's buy out the ones that do flood, not yours.

Does the reservoir protect your home?

Not home...."homes" as in six of them.
And not one flooded.

Cool. I live in another area which makes the national news for flooding and home I have ever lived in has flooded. Even grandma knew to buy on the hill so to say.

If I buy that nice cheap house in the bottomland will you raise your taxes to build me a better levee (forcing the next guy to do so also), and help rebuild my flooded house?

Why would you buy a house in a flood prone area?

Exactly. More to the point of the OP, why would we continue to use taxpayer money to rebuild those homes?