Having one's priorities straight

Gato_Solo said:
I think letting them know that they lived in a bowl, and had the distinct danger of , one day, being flooded out, would be a much better use for the money. If they accept the risk, then they shouldn't hold their hand out when the risk manifests itself. That's what insurance is for...Of course...insurance is also for another thread. ;)
Click to expand...
The same can be said about people living along the west coast (earthquakes), or the Bible-belt (tornados), or...well, you get the idea.
 
Yep. If you choose to live in Buffalo NY, do not bitch to me about snow. Or hurricanes in Miami, earthquakes and mudslides and wildfires in Cali, tornadoes in Nebraska...
 
Gato_Solo said:
I think letting them know that they lived in a bowl, and had the distinct danger of , one day, being flooded out, would be a much better use for the money. If they accept the risk, then they shouldn't hold their hand out when the risk manifests itself. That's what insurance is for...Of course...insurance is also for another thread. ;)
Click to expand...

They did let 'em know, Gato. The Corps of Engineers was in the midst of a study on how much it would cost to fix the current (and currently yet to be finished) flood control system to handle a storm stronger than category 3. Fema did a study during the 90s that predicted this exact scenario. Everyone knew that anything bigger would do exactly what it has done. They refused to believe it. Now, do you just want to stand aside and do nothing? I could understand the reasoning, but it would never happen. :shrug:
 
SouthernN'Proud said:
Yep. If you choose to live in Buffalo NY, do not bitch to me about snow. Or hurricanes in Miami, earthquakes and mudslides and wildfires in Cali, tornadoes in Nebraska...
Click to expand...
Many of the people living in those areas, and in New Orleans, were born there and few people choose to move from one state to the other, providing they have the mean$ and the job waiting for them once they get there. Moving to a whole new state and/or city is a difficult choice in the best of times. I'm not all that surprised that people don't do it more often.
 
Gato_Solo said:
And there-in lies the rub. The government is not here to help you. That's your job. If people took that bit seriously, then the debacle we saw in NO would never have happened. ;)
Click to expand...

You see I'm all for limited gov't, however this is what the governtment should be used for...to help those that are truely screwed.
 
Gato_Solo said:
The government is not here to help you. That's your job. If people took that bit seriously, then the debacle we saw in NO would never have happened. ;)
Click to expand...

(Not as much as Tonks for obvious reasons) but, I love you man :D
 
MrBishop said:
... that takes more than just 'the people'.
Click to expand...


Man are you on a roll...

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity,
Click to expand...
 
MrBishop said:
I think that putting a few mil$ into reinforcing those levees prior to Katrina would've helped
Click to expand...

We the people tried. The Dem controlled government in Louisiana said no. Repeatedly.
 
rrfield said:
You see I'm all for limited gov't, however this is what the governtment should be used for...to help those that are truely screwed.
Click to expand...

After spending a week in the south, listening to local & national radio & watching news in the hotel rooms I've come to the conclusion that three kinds of peopl ewere in New Orleans duing & immediately following the hurricane...

The infirmed, the elderly & criminals.
 
Gonz said:
After spending a week in the south, listening to local & national radio & watching news in the hotel rooms I've come to the conclusion that three kinds of peopl ewere in New Orleans duing & immediately following the hurricane...

The infirmed, the elderly & criminals.
Click to expand...

There's a fourth group, Gonz. People who thought they could ride it out. By far the largest group initially, although I suspect most of them have left by now. I understand the sentiment. Leave my home with no guarantee of when I would come back? It would be very trying for sure.
 
chcr said:
There's a fourth group, Gonz. People who thought they could ride it out. By far the largest group initially, although I suspect most of them have left by now. I understand the sentiment. Leave my home with no guarantee of when I would come back? It would be very trying for sure.
Click to expand...


Psst...one word...INSURANCE...Thank you for your cooperation.
 
Gato_Solo said:
Psst...one word...INSURANCE...Thank you for your cooperation.
Click to expand...

Insurance can't replace everything. Note that I would have left, I just understand people who wouldn't.
 
Gato_Solo said:
Psst...one word...INSURANCE...Thank you for your cooperation.
Click to expand...


"act of God" insurance is moot,of course they could always sue the Corp. of Engineers for faulty workmanship,I gues the Courts could be considered an "Insurance". :confused:
 
A.B.Normal said:
"act of God" insurance is moot,of course they could always sue the Corp. of Engineers for faulty workmanship,I gues the Courts could be considered an "Insurance". :confused:
Click to expand...

But that's the problem. The workmanship wasn't faulty. There was even a plan to strengthen the levees that money was going to be applied for, but the state legislature said no. The federal government can't force anybody to do anything unless a crime is involved. Moral bankruptcy is not a crime.

Now...the right insurance policy will replace everything...from the foundation to the attic, and everything inside. The problem for most people is that they balk at the cost. Now that the storm hit, they're crying about replacement?
 
Always assuming the adjuster says "wind" instead of water, unless, of course, you have FLOOD INSURANCE, which few carry due to it's expense (it doubles the cost of my standard homeowners policy, minus $3.00 to add it & I don't live in a flood plain)
 
they should have left the city flooded and just relocated everyone. it would probably be cheaper than tearing down the city and rebuilding it. every building that was flooded will have to be torn down due to contaminants in the water. it wouldnt be a stretch to say the topsoil has to be removed too for the same reasons.
 
http://news.independent.co.uk/business/news/article311704.ece

Insurers balk at paying out to 1 million Katrina flood victims
By Jason Nisse and Tim Webb
Published: 11 September 2005

Millions of people forced out of New Orleans by Hurricane Katrina may not be insured for the damage to their homes.

More than half of the properties in the city are understood to be insured only for hurricane damage, with insurers insisting that it was a flood that forced the evacuation of the city.

If US courts agree, this could save the insurance industry as much as $10bn (£5.4bn) and leave more than a million people destitute.
Click to expand...
 
I agree that the flood was a seperate incident. New Orleans survived Katrina failry well.
 
Spot said:
they should have left the city flooded and just relocated everyone. it would probably be cheaper than tearing down the city and rebuilding it. every building that was flooded will have to be torn down due to contaminants in the water. it wouldnt be a stretch to say the topsoil has to be removed too for the same reasons.
Click to expand...

You are most likely correct. Only the places where the flood didn't reach, or reached minimally, will ever be habitable again in the foreseeable future.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top