I have to agree. While the article says that they may have some time of flood insurance, some of them don’t, so the taxpayers (FEMA) are the ones paying for them to rebuild.
I understand being emotionally tied to your home. However, it is not up to the tax payers who subsidize flood insurance to have to bail you out over and over. Two large loss payments should be plenty if the government then comes and offers to buy you out at a fair price , no lowballing. If you say no, you are on your own. No FEMA aid, No low cost government loans, no government supported flood insurance. That’s it, it’s over, move or take the risk yourself. It can’t be pleasant to keep getting flooded over and over, why woud you stay when offered a viable alternative?
And this is exactly why I fled from Iowa as soon as I could: small-minded, befuddled elderly ignoramuses rule the landscape. At least their kids are all moving away as fast as they can – those houses will be vacant in another decade and we can move on reasonably…
Everybody can’t live on the top of the mountain. Emotional and community investments shouldn’t be minimized because they’re not our investments. Flooding is not only inevitable, it’s increasing at an alarming rate (12 fold increase since 1950). Just because the flooding is inevitable the damage from flooding is not.
New technologies and engineered solutions for emergency flood protection are now available for the first time in our countries history. For every dollar spent on emergency flood protection the savings are between $7 and $15, for each flood. Some of the new emergency flood protection systems are reusable for years. They cost less per use than buyouts, provide excellent protection and can be in place in weeks instead of years, with no environmental damage, no significant clean-up and no disposal requirements. With the minimal cost and the savings from clean-up and repair it ends up a net positive for the taxpayer and the communities. See one of the systems at http://www.floodwalls.com
Absolutely right, there are some places that are just not fit for human habitation. Those might include any area within maybe a mile of any coast or shoreline, places close to volcanoes, and areas prone to earthquakes come to mind. That means we shouldn’t have anyone living in Oregon, Washington State, California, most of the East Coast including New York City, Boston or within 300 miles of Cape Fear, in any direction.
~53% of the US population lives in a county protected by a levee and roughly 70% live in within just a few miles of either the East or West coastline. Should we move all of those folks to….where is it you want them to move to again?
We’re not talking about 6 or 10 or even 100 houses out there in Iowa, we’re talking about over 200 million people in almost 900 counties and 43 different States.
The people that choose to live at the bottom of the wash & get flooded out EVERY year can pay a dollar in emergency flood preparedness and save the rest of the country $7 to $15 EVERY year??? Boy, I fell better now!!
Not to belabor a point or beat a dead horse, but we’re talking about over 200,000,000 people in the US, that are regularly threatened by flooding. That’s not one or two knuckleheads that obstinately refuse to move out of the “bottom of the wash”. Flood insurance payments total between $6 and $30 billion annually. Insurance (federal or otherwise) only covers about 20% of the actual damages. The rest of that either comes out of the taxpayer’s pocket or gets chalked up as a loss in productivity for the whole country. Now some may not see spending $1 to save the whole country $15 as a good decision, but I suspect that most would see it as a pretty good investment and a well mediated choice.
I’m posting a comment late in case someone runs across this article online. Having observed 2008 flooding, the the cities and state’s employees seem to be costing taxpayers a lot more than ordinary taxpayers. Sometimes it seems as those these employees not only see a chance to help people but a chance to grab federal dollars to enhance parks and roads and provide job security for themselves. Disaster recovery is big business for local government employees and developers. FEMA seems well run compared to the HUD disaster programs. HUD needs a lot more oversight.
But do these people buy flood insurance or do I continue to pay for them to rebuild each time they flood out?
No Flood Insurance, no money from the US tax payers. Then see how fast they sell out.
I have to agree. While the article says that they may have some time of flood insurance, some of them don’t, so the taxpayers (FEMA) are the ones paying for them to rebuild.
I understand being emotionally tied to your home. However, it is not up to the tax payers who subsidize flood insurance to have to bail you out over and over. Two large loss payments should be plenty if the government then comes and offers to buy you out at a fair price , no lowballing. If you say no, you are on your own. No FEMA aid, No low cost government loans, no government supported flood insurance. That’s it, it’s over, move or take the risk yourself. It can’t be pleasant to keep getting flooded over and over, why woud you stay when offered a viable alternative?
One word: Stupidity.
And this is exactly why I fled from Iowa as soon as I could: small-minded, befuddled elderly ignoramuses rule the landscape. At least their kids are all moving away as fast as they can – those houses will be vacant in another decade and we can move on reasonably…
If they say “no”, then that’s what they should get…no help from anyone except themselves. Now that’s cost effectiveness in action!
Everybody can’t live on the top of the mountain. Emotional and community investments shouldn’t be minimized because they’re not our investments. Flooding is not only inevitable, it’s increasing at an alarming rate (12 fold increase since 1950). Just because the flooding is inevitable the damage from flooding is not.
New technologies and engineered solutions for emergency flood protection are now available for the first time in our countries history. For every dollar spent on emergency flood protection the savings are between $7 and $15, for each flood. Some of the new emergency flood protection systems are reusable for years. They cost less per use than buyouts, provide excellent protection and can be in place in weeks instead of years, with no environmental damage, no significant clean-up and no disposal requirements. With the minimal cost and the savings from clean-up and repair it ends up a net positive for the taxpayer and the communities. See one of the systems at http://www.floodwalls.com
oh come on! There are some places where we are just not meant to build. Let’s stop fighting mother nature.
Absolutely right, there are some places that are just not fit for human habitation. Those might include any area within maybe a mile of any coast or shoreline, places close to volcanoes, and areas prone to earthquakes come to mind. That means we shouldn’t have anyone living in Oregon, Washington State, California, most of the East Coast including New York City, Boston or within 300 miles of Cape Fear, in any direction.
~53% of the US population lives in a county protected by a levee and roughly 70% live in within just a few miles of either the East or West coastline. Should we move all of those folks to….where is it you want them to move to again?
We’re not talking about 6 or 10 or even 100 houses out there in Iowa, we’re talking about over 200 million people in almost 900 counties and 43 different States.
The people that choose to live at the bottom of the wash & get flooded out EVERY year can pay a dollar in emergency flood preparedness and save the rest of the country $7 to $15 EVERY year??? Boy, I fell better now!!
Not to belabor a point or beat a dead horse, but we’re talking about over 200,000,000 people in the US, that are regularly threatened by flooding. That’s not one or two knuckleheads that obstinately refuse to move out of the “bottom of the wash”. Flood insurance payments total between $6 and $30 billion annually. Insurance (federal or otherwise) only covers about 20% of the actual damages. The rest of that either comes out of the taxpayer’s pocket or gets chalked up as a loss in productivity for the whole country. Now some may not see spending $1 to save the whole country $15 as a good decision, but I suspect that most would see it as a pretty good investment and a well mediated choice.
I’m posting a comment late in case someone runs across this article online. Having observed 2008 flooding, the the cities and state’s employees seem to be costing taxpayers a lot more than ordinary taxpayers. Sometimes it seems as those these employees not only see a chance to help people but a chance to grab federal dollars to enhance parks and roads and provide job security for themselves. Disaster recovery is big business for local government employees and developers. FEMA seems well run compared to the HUD disaster programs. HUD needs a lot more oversight.