CDZ Big government in Texas makes America less competitive

HereWeGoAgain

Diamond Member
Joined
Dec 15, 2010
Messages
63,508
Reaction score
12,970
Points
2,210
Location
Fuck Y'all I'm From Texas!
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?
So you want to abandon our ports?
The port of Houston being the largest port in the U.S. in regards to foreign tonnage,second largest in the U.S. and tenth largest in the world.
 

oldsoul

Gold Member
Joined
Oct 12, 2015
Messages
2,763
Reaction score
415
Points
140
Location
Standing with Covington Kids
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?
So you want to abandon our ports?
The port of Houston being the largest port in the U.S. in regards to foreign tonnage,second largest in the U.S. and tenth largest in the world.
OMG. Are you being serious? Tell me, is it difficult to be THAT obtuse, or does it come naturally? Go back and re-read my post #4. You know what, don't I'll just copy and paste it for your convenience:

I agree. It really comes down to a cost-benefit analysis for me. We need ports in good locations, San Fran. comes to mind. However, with today's infrastructure technology, do we really need large metro areas to support them in immediate proximity? In some cases we likely do. In some, the proximity of housing, shopping, industry, etc. is far less important. In those cases, when the inevitable disaster occurs, would it not be prudent, as a society, to move what we can to safer ground? Preserve history by moving the structures, and preserve human life by re-building in a safer location that is less prone to disasters.

Take New Orleans as an example. When the next hurricane/flood strikes (and it's a question of when, not if) and the city is effectively destroyed, would it make more sense to move the structures that are of historical importance and rebuild somewhere else (like maybe ABOVE sea level?), or should we just endlessly rebuild in the same spot that, inevitably, WILL flood again (it's below sea level, and next to a flood prone river too)?
Get a damn grip dude.
 

HereWeGoAgain

Diamond Member
Joined
Dec 15, 2010
Messages
63,508
Reaction score
12,970
Points
2,210
Location
Fuck Y'all I'm From Texas!
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?
So you want to abandon our ports?
The port of Houston being the largest port in the U.S. in regards to foreign tonnage,second largest in the U.S. and tenth largest in the world.
OMG. Are you being serious? Tell me, is it difficult to be THAT obtuse, or does it come naturally? Go back and re-read my post #4. You know what, don't I'll just copy and paste it for your convenience:

I agree. It really comes down to a cost-benefit analysis for me. We need ports in good locations, San Fran. comes to mind. However, with today's infrastructure technology, do we really need large metro areas to support them in immediate proximity? In some cases we likely do. In some, the proximity of housing, shopping, industry, etc. is far less important. In those cases, when the inevitable disaster occurs, would it not be prudent, as a society, to move what we can to safer ground? Preserve history by moving the structures, and preserve human life by re-building in a safer location that is less prone to disasters.

Take New Orleans as an example. When the next hurricane/flood strikes (and it's a question of when, not if) and the city is effectively destroyed, would it make more sense to move the structures that are of historical importance and rebuild somewhere else (like maybe ABOVE sea level?), or should we just endlessly rebuild in the same spot that, inevitably, WILL flood again (it's below sea level, and next to a flood prone river too)?
Get a damn grip dude.
You obviously have no idea how much infrastructure is needed to support these ports.
Workers,machine shops,petro chemical and all the other businesses that support those businesses.
You cant expect people to drive 75 miles to work everyday nore can you expect the petro chem plants to have to wait for parts that are hours away.
As someone who worked in that support roll in the petrochemical and oil and gas industry I know that it's not feasible.
When a waste flare goes out it costs the refinery millions of dollars a day.
These are called cost plus jobs. In other words these parts are worked on 24 hours a day until they're completed.
Close proximity to these plants is necessary to avoid huge losses.
 
OP
Toronado3800

Toronado3800

Gold Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2009
Messages
7,608
Reaction score
559
Points
140
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?
So you want to abandon our ports?
The port of Houston being the largest port in the U.S. in regards to foreign tonnage,second largest in the U.S. and tenth largest in the world.
OMG. Are you being serious? Tell me, is it difficult to be THAT obtuse, or does it come naturally? Go back and re-read my post #4. You know what, don't I'll just copy and paste it for your convenience:

I agree. It really comes down to a cost-benefit analysis for me. We need ports in good locations, San Fran. comes to mind. However, with today's infrastructure technology, do we really need large metro areas to support them in immediate proximity? In some cases we likely do. In some, the proximity of housing, shopping, industry, etc. is far less important. In those cases, when the inevitable disaster occurs, would it not be prudent, as a society, to move what we can to safer ground? Preserve history by moving the structures, and preserve human life by re-building in a safer location that is less prone to disasters.

Take New Orleans as an example. When the next hurricane/flood strikes (and it's a question of when, not if) and the city is effectively destroyed, would it make more sense to move the structures that are of historical importance and rebuild somewhere else (like maybe ABOVE sea level?), or should we just endlessly rebuild in the same spot that, inevitably, WILL flood again (it's below sea level, and next to a flood prone river too)?
Get a damn grip dude.
No one is saying abandon the port.

I'll say zone right and build proper housing near the port.

Are there no houses near the port which weren't destroyed or flooded?
 

oldsoul

Gold Member
Joined
Oct 12, 2015
Messages
2,763
Reaction score
415
Points
140
Location
Standing with Covington Kids
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?
So you want to abandon our ports?
The port of Houston being the largest port in the U.S. in regards to foreign tonnage,second largest in the U.S. and tenth largest in the world.
OMG. Are you being serious? Tell me, is it difficult to be THAT obtuse, or does it come naturally? Go back and re-read my post #4. You know what, don't I'll just copy and paste it for your convenience:

I agree. It really comes down to a cost-benefit analysis for me. We need ports in good locations, San Fran. comes to mind. However, with today's infrastructure technology, do we really need large metro areas to support them in immediate proximity? In some cases we likely do. In some, the proximity of housing, shopping, industry, etc. is far less important. In those cases, when the inevitable disaster occurs, would it not be prudent, as a society, to move what we can to safer ground? Preserve history by moving the structures, and preserve human life by re-building in a safer location that is less prone to disasters.

Take New Orleans as an example. When the next hurricane/flood strikes (and it's a question of when, not if) and the city is effectively destroyed, would it make more sense to move the structures that are of historical importance and rebuild somewhere else (like maybe ABOVE sea level?), or should we just endlessly rebuild in the same spot that, inevitably, WILL flood again (it's below sea level, and next to a flood prone river too)?
Get a damn grip dude.
You obviously have no idea how much infrastructure is needed to support these ports.
Workers,machine shops,petro chemical and all the other businesses that support those businesses.
You cant expect people to drive 75 miles to work everyday nore can you expect the petro chem plants to have to wait for parts that are hours away.
As someone who worked in that support roll in the petrochemical and oil and gas industry I know that it's not feasible.
When a waste flare goes out it costs the refinery millions of dollars a day.
These are called cost plus jobs. In other words these parts are worked on 24 hours a day until they're completed.
Close proximity to these plants is necessary to avoid huge losses.
You are correct, I am not familiar with the specifics. I, therefore, am ASKING A QUESTION. So, it would seem, from your post, that the idea of moving the support further away in the case of Houston, may not be feasible. However, I still wonder if it would be feasible to employ mass transit type systems to facilitate moving the residential aspects, as well as the commercial and industrial aspects of the city that are not as intrinsically tied to time sensitive portions of the petrochemical industry of Houston. Or even (and I have no idea about the feasibility of this) moving the entire petrochemical industry to a less flood prone area. Again, I have no idea if this is possible, let alone feasible. I do, however, believe that simply pouring more tax dollars at each disaster is not the best solution we can come up with. Too many peoples' lives are lost, and too much money is spent. At what point does it become unsustainable?
 

HereWeGoAgain

Diamond Member
Joined
Dec 15, 2010
Messages
63,508
Reaction score
12,970
Points
2,210
Location
Fuck Y'all I'm From Texas!
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?
So you want to abandon our ports?
The port of Houston being the largest port in the U.S. in regards to foreign tonnage,second largest in the U.S. and tenth largest in the world.
OMG. Are you being serious? Tell me, is it difficult to be THAT obtuse, or does it come naturally? Go back and re-read my post #4. You know what, don't I'll just copy and paste it for your convenience:

I agree. It really comes down to a cost-benefit analysis for me. We need ports in good locations, San Fran. comes to mind. However, with today's infrastructure technology, do we really need large metro areas to support them in immediate proximity? In some cases we likely do. In some, the proximity of housing, shopping, industry, etc. is far less important. In those cases, when the inevitable disaster occurs, would it not be prudent, as a society, to move what we can to safer ground? Preserve history by moving the structures, and preserve human life by re-building in a safer location that is less prone to disasters.

Take New Orleans as an example. When the next hurricane/flood strikes (and it's a question of when, not if) and the city is effectively destroyed, would it make more sense to move the structures that are of historical importance and rebuild somewhere else (like maybe ABOVE sea level?), or should we just endlessly rebuild in the same spot that, inevitably, WILL flood again (it's below sea level, and next to a flood prone river too)?
Get a damn grip dude.
You obviously have no idea how much infrastructure is needed to support these ports.
Workers,machine shops,petro chemical and all the other businesses that support those businesses.
You cant expect people to drive 75 miles to work everyday nore can you expect the petro chem plants to have to wait for parts that are hours away.
As someone who worked in that support roll in the petrochemical and oil and gas industry I know that it's not feasible.
When a waste flare goes out it costs the refinery millions of dollars a day.
These are called cost plus jobs. In other words these parts are worked on 24 hours a day until they're completed.
Close proximity to these plants is necessary to avoid huge losses.
You are correct, I am not familiar with the specifics. I, therefore, am ASKING A QUESTION. So, it would seem, from your post, that the idea of moving the support further away in the case of Houston, may not be feasible. However, I still wonder if it would be feasible to employ mass transit type systems to facilitate moving the residential aspects, as well as the commercial and industrial aspects of the city that are not as intrinsically tied to time sensitive portions of the petrochemical industry of Houston. Or even (and I have no idea about the feasibility of this) moving the entire petrochemical industry to a less flood prone area. Again, I have no idea if this is possible, let alone feasible. I do, however, believe that simply pouring more tax dollars at each disaster is not the best solution we can come up with. Too many peoples' lives are lost, and too much money is spent. At what point does it become unsustainable?
The petro chem plants have to near the coast for shipping purposes both in and out going.

About all you can do is improve flood control measures which they're doing by requiring retention ponds on new construction that covers more than a certain amount of acreage,widening bayous and improving the dams.

Personally I think dredging out the reservoirs so they'd have more capacity would be a good idea.

With a coverage area of 43 square miles a few feet would have made the difference between flooding and not flooding.
 

oldsoul

Gold Member
Joined
Oct 12, 2015
Messages
2,763
Reaction score
415
Points
140
Location
Standing with Covington Kids
Exactly. More to the point of the OP, why would we continue to use taxpayer money to rebuild those homes?
So you want to abandon our ports?
The port of Houston being the largest port in the U.S. in regards to foreign tonnage,second largest in the U.S. and tenth largest in the world.
OMG. Are you being serious? Tell me, is it difficult to be THAT obtuse, or does it come naturally? Go back and re-read my post #4. You know what, don't I'll just copy and paste it for your convenience:

I agree. It really comes down to a cost-benefit analysis for me. We need ports in good locations, San Fran. comes to mind. However, with today's infrastructure technology, do we really need large metro areas to support them in immediate proximity? In some cases we likely do. In some, the proximity of housing, shopping, industry, etc. is far less important. In those cases, when the inevitable disaster occurs, would it not be prudent, as a society, to move what we can to safer ground? Preserve history by moving the structures, and preserve human life by re-building in a safer location that is less prone to disasters.

Take New Orleans as an example. When the next hurricane/flood strikes (and it's a question of when, not if) and the city is effectively destroyed, would it make more sense to move the structures that are of historical importance and rebuild somewhere else (like maybe ABOVE sea level?), or should we just endlessly rebuild in the same spot that, inevitably, WILL flood again (it's below sea level, and next to a flood prone river too)?
Get a damn grip dude.
You obviously have no idea how much infrastructure is needed to support these ports.
Workers,machine shops,petro chemical and all the other businesses that support those businesses.
You cant expect people to drive 75 miles to work everyday nore can you expect the petro chem plants to have to wait for parts that are hours away.
As someone who worked in that support roll in the petrochemical and oil and gas industry I know that it's not feasible.
When a waste flare goes out it costs the refinery millions of dollars a day.
These are called cost plus jobs. In other words these parts are worked on 24 hours a day until they're completed.
Close proximity to these plants is necessary to avoid huge losses.
You are correct, I am not familiar with the specifics. I, therefore, am ASKING A QUESTION. So, it would seem, from your post, that the idea of moving the support further away in the case of Houston, may not be feasible. However, I still wonder if it would be feasible to employ mass transit type systems to facilitate moving the residential aspects, as well as the commercial and industrial aspects of the city that are not as intrinsically tied to time sensitive portions of the petrochemical industry of Houston. Or even (and I have no idea about the feasibility of this) moving the entire petrochemical industry to a less flood prone area. Again, I have no idea if this is possible, let alone feasible. I do, however, believe that simply pouring more tax dollars at each disaster is not the best solution we can come up with. Too many peoples' lives are lost, and too much money is spent. At what point does it become unsustainable?
The petro chem plants have to near the coast for shipping purposes both in and out going.

About all you can do is improve flood control measures which they're doing by requiring retention ponds on new construction that covers more than a certain amount of acreage,widening bayous and improving the dams.

Personally I think dredging out the reservoirs so they'd have more capacity would be a good idea.

With a coverage area of 43 square miles a few feet would have made the difference between flooding and not flooding.
Is Houston the ONLY place where these plants can exist? Is it not feasible to just encourage more growth in the industry elsewhere? Don't get me wrong, I am not advocating forcing anyone to endure the expense of relocating. I am informed enough to realise that would take years, and billions of dollars (if not decades, and trillions). What I am suggesting is encouraging the industry to invest in other locations to gradually phase-out the dependance on the Houston port. I remember quite clearly how it affected prices where I live, well over a thousand miles away. I was devastating to the entire industry, thankfully, they were able to recover pretty quickly. My worry is, what happens next time? will they be able to recover? If so, how long will it take?

As for increasing flood mitigation, I'm all for it...as a stopgap. It is not a long term solution, IMHO. The same is true in places like San Francisco, and Los Angeles. It's not a question of if an earthquake hits, but how much damage will result when one does. Would it not make more sense to change how these ports are accessed, supported, and used to reduce the likelihood of catastrophic damage?
 

HereWeGoAgain

Diamond Member
Joined
Dec 15, 2010
Messages
63,508
Reaction score
12,970
Points
2,210
Location
Fuck Y'all I'm From Texas!
So you want to abandon our ports?
The port of Houston being the largest port in the U.S. in regards to foreign tonnage,second largest in the U.S. and tenth largest in the world.
OMG. Are you being serious? Tell me, is it difficult to be THAT obtuse, or does it come naturally? Go back and re-read my post #4. You know what, don't I'll just copy and paste it for your convenience:

I agree. It really comes down to a cost-benefit analysis for me. We need ports in good locations, San Fran. comes to mind. However, with today's infrastructure technology, do we really need large metro areas to support them in immediate proximity? In some cases we likely do. In some, the proximity of housing, shopping, industry, etc. is far less important. In those cases, when the inevitable disaster occurs, would it not be prudent, as a society, to move what we can to safer ground? Preserve history by moving the structures, and preserve human life by re-building in a safer location that is less prone to disasters.

Take New Orleans as an example. When the next hurricane/flood strikes (and it's a question of when, not if) and the city is effectively destroyed, would it make more sense to move the structures that are of historical importance and rebuild somewhere else (like maybe ABOVE sea level?), or should we just endlessly rebuild in the same spot that, inevitably, WILL flood again (it's below sea level, and next to a flood prone river too)?
Get a damn grip dude.
You obviously have no idea how much infrastructure is needed to support these ports.
Workers,machine shops,petro chemical and all the other businesses that support those businesses.
You cant expect people to drive 75 miles to work everyday nore can you expect the petro chem plants to have to wait for parts that are hours away.
As someone who worked in that support roll in the petrochemical and oil and gas industry I know that it's not feasible.
When a waste flare goes out it costs the refinery millions of dollars a day.
These are called cost plus jobs. In other words these parts are worked on 24 hours a day until they're completed.
Close proximity to these plants is necessary to avoid huge losses.
You are correct, I am not familiar with the specifics. I, therefore, am ASKING A QUESTION. So, it would seem, from your post, that the idea of moving the support further away in the case of Houston, may not be feasible. However, I still wonder if it would be feasible to employ mass transit type systems to facilitate moving the residential aspects, as well as the commercial and industrial aspects of the city that are not as intrinsically tied to time sensitive portions of the petrochemical industry of Houston. Or even (and I have no idea about the feasibility of this) moving the entire petrochemical industry to a less flood prone area. Again, I have no idea if this is possible, let alone feasible. I do, however, believe that simply pouring more tax dollars at each disaster is not the best solution we can come up with. Too many peoples' lives are lost, and too much money is spent. At what point does it become unsustainable?
The petro chem plants have to near the coast for shipping purposes both in and out going.

About all you can do is improve flood control measures which they're doing by requiring retention ponds on new construction that covers more than a certain amount of acreage,widening bayous and improving the dams.

Personally I think dredging out the reservoirs so they'd have more capacity would be a good idea.

With a coverage area of 43 square miles a few feet would have made the difference between flooding and not flooding.
Is Houston the ONLY place where these plants can exist? Is it not feasible to just encourage more growth in the industry elsewhere? Don't get me wrong, I am not advocating forcing anyone to endure the expense of relocating. I am informed enough to realise that would take years, and billions of dollars (if not decades, and trillions). What I am suggesting is encouraging the industry to invest in other locations to gradually phase-out the dependance on the Houston port. I remember quite clearly how it affected prices where I live, well over a thousand miles away. I was devastating to the entire industry, thankfully, they were able to recover pretty quickly. My worry is, what happens next time? will they be able to recover? If so, how long will it take?

As for increasing flood mitigation, I'm all for it...as a stopgap. It is not a long term solution, IMHO. The same is true in places like San Francisco, and Los Angeles. It's not a question of if an earthquake hits, but how much damage will result when one does. Would it not make more sense to change how these ports are accessed, supported, and used to reduce the likelihood of catastrophic damage?
Where would you put em? Anywhere on the Gulf Coast is susceptible to hurricanes. Which is the only feasible place to put them and still use the Panama canal.
You need a deepwater port near the refineries and Houston is it.
 
OP
Toronado3800

Toronado3800

Gold Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2009
Messages
7,608
Reaction score
559
Points
140
OMG. Are you being serious? Tell me, is it difficult to be THAT obtuse, or does it come naturally? Go back and re-read my post #4. You know what, don't I'll just copy and paste it for your convenience:

Get a damn grip dude.
You obviously have no idea how much infrastructure is needed to support these ports.
Workers,machine shops,petro chemical and all the other businesses that support those businesses.
You cant expect people to drive 75 miles to work everyday nore can you expect the petro chem plants to have to wait for parts that are hours away.
As someone who worked in that support roll in the petrochemical and oil and gas industry I know that it's not feasible.
When a waste flare goes out it costs the refinery millions of dollars a day.
These are called cost plus jobs. In other words these parts are worked on 24 hours a day until they're completed.
Close proximity to these plants is necessary to avoid huge losses.
You are correct, I am not familiar with the specifics. I, therefore, am ASKING A QUESTION. So, it would seem, from your post, that the idea of moving the support further away in the case of Houston, may not be feasible. However, I still wonder if it would be feasible to employ mass transit type systems to facilitate moving the residential aspects, as well as the commercial and industrial aspects of the city that are not as intrinsically tied to time sensitive portions of the petrochemical industry of Houston. Or even (and I have no idea about the feasibility of this) moving the entire petrochemical industry to a less flood prone area. Again, I have no idea if this is possible, let alone feasible. I do, however, believe that simply pouring more tax dollars at each disaster is not the best solution we can come up with. Too many peoples' lives are lost, and too much money is spent. At what point does it become unsustainable?
The petro chem plants have to near the coast for shipping purposes both in and out going.

About all you can do is improve flood control measures which they're doing by requiring retention ponds on new construction that covers more than a certain amount of acreage,widening bayous and improving the dams.

Personally I think dredging out the reservoirs so they'd have more capacity would be a good idea.

With a coverage area of 43 square miles a few feet would have made the difference between flooding and not flooding.
Is Houston the ONLY place where these plants can exist? Is it not feasible to just encourage more growth in the industry elsewhere? Don't get me wrong, I am not advocating forcing anyone to endure the expense of relocating. I am informed enough to realise that would take years, and billions of dollars (if not decades, and trillions). What I am suggesting is encouraging the industry to invest in other locations to gradually phase-out the dependance on the Houston port. I remember quite clearly how it affected prices where I live, well over a thousand miles away. I was devastating to the entire industry, thankfully, they were able to recover pretty quickly. My worry is, what happens next time? will they be able to recover? If so, how long will it take?

As for increasing flood mitigation, I'm all for it...as a stopgap. It is not a long term solution, IMHO. The same is true in places like San Francisco, and Los Angeles. It's not a question of if an earthquake hits, but how much damage will result when one does. Would it not make more sense to change how these ports are accessed, supported, and used to reduce the likelihood of catastrophic damage?
Where would you put em? Anywhere on the Gulf Coast is susceptible to hurricanes. Which is the only feasible place to put them and still use the Panama canal.
You need a deepwater port near the refineries and Houston is it.
Then I guess they have to be there. Create a special taxing district where they can pay for their own water rescues, environmental disasters and what not so we don't make them welfare dependants and I'm thrilled.
 

New Topics

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top