|
|
From: Richard Goodwin (no email)
Date: Tue Oct 04 2005 - 19:17:27 EDT
Hi Judy,
> Dick,
>
> Read again what you wrote earlier:
>
> > And then they certainly can't afford to live in
> > areas
> > that cost more due to potential periodic flooding
> or
> > other disasters.
> >
> > There's plenty of room in other parts of the
> country
> > that don't have these problems.
> >
> > Dick
>
> That sounds like you are advocating that those who
> cannot afford to live in
> the flood-prone or disaster-prone areas should move
> elsewhere where
> disasters or floods are not likely to occur.
As I pointed out in another email, I can't afford a
home on the ocean in New England, because of the high
prices of waterfront property, high taxes, and high
insurance rates.
But I can afford a home several houses or a block or
two from the water, which is both far above the flood
danger, and far below the cost of ownership of a
waterfront home.
I don't have to choose to live in a different part of
the country. I just have to choose to live above the
flood zone.
I don't understand why you are getting so riled up
about that concept.
> There are a whole lot of the people from those
> flooded areas temporarily
> sheltered in this part of the country right now.
> This area also floods.
> Would you like them moved up near you where these
> floods and disasters do not occur?
There are already a lot of them living in various
places in New England, an abandoned air base on Cape
Cod for one example. It had all the housing and other
facilities necessary, and locals were more than happy
to provide supplies and other help.
Is this a problem? If so, for whom?
> Face it, all property owners nationwide who carry
> insurance subsidize much
> more than just hurricane-prone areas.
Yes, that's the whole idea of insurance -- share the
financial load of recovering from unexpected
disasters.
But this was not an unexpected disaster, which is why
regular insurance doesn't cover it.
> And all taxpayers subsidize the flood
> insurance programs nationwide.
Used to be that way, but more and more the premiums
are going up, Up, UP for waterfront homeowners,
especially in the worst flood zones. I have seen this
first hand working with real estate people on the
south coast of Mass.
> Ice storm in Boston recently? Fires in New
> Mexico last year? Fires in California now?
> Flooding on the Missouri and
> Mississippi Rivers too many times to count? How
> many earthquakes in
> California during the past century? Eruption of Mt.
> St. Helens?
All of these things are unusual and unpredictable, and
happen rarely in the same place.
But coastal storm flooding often wipes out houses on
the same waterfront lots every few years. It is very
predictable and not the least unusual. That's the big
difference.
> The insurance rates always are increased for the
> affected areas for each
> disaster, but the entire country also shares in the
> true financial insurance cost.
Well, yeah, it's insurance.
> Best that I personally hope results from severe
> damage of the two most
> recent hurricanes is that the building codes in the
> coastal areas be
> ratcheted up to the Florida construction codes. But
> that, I'm sure, is just
> a pipe dream. The shoddy, cheap houses will
> continue to be built.
Yet another reason for the entire country not to help
them rebuild. If they don't even want to take the
simplest steps to try to help themselves, why should
anyone else help?
In Mass, Maine, NH, and every other coastal area I
have heard of, building codes, or at least insurance
codes, have changed to require much higher standards
for waterfront property that is in flood zones. If my
friend's house on the ocean ever gets wiped out, or if
my friend even wants to add onto it, the whole house
has to be raised up on stilts. These are hard and
fast rules.
Makes sense to me.
Dick
__________________________________
Yahoo! Mail - PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005
http://mail.yahoo.com
___________________________________________________________________________
|| The Live-Aboard List : send a "subscribe" or "unsubscribe" request ||
|| in body of message to: ||
|