Quantcast

What should people expect from "govt"

Damn True

Monkey Pimp
Sep 10, 2001
4,016
3
Between a rock and a hard place.
This whole deal with the 200 gazillion dollars demanded by LA for rebuilding got me thinking about what responsibility the govt should bear in all of this.

Now, if you own your home, it seems incumbent upon you (and required if you have yet to pay off your home loan) to have homeowners insurance. That insurance is supposed to pay for damage as a result of disaster (provided you bought insurance against that particular form of disaster). FEMA will grant up to $200k I suppose to cover deductibles and other sort of stuff.

If you own a home or apartment that people rent you would also have to have insurance right?

I don't currently own a home, I rent, but I have renters insurance against my possesions and insurance on my car. The dude that owns the house has insurance on the house I live in.

So what are we going to rebuild (on your dime and mine)? Are we going to pay to rebuild homes that are insured and absove the insurance companies of their contractural responsibility? Are we going to hand someone a check for the value of the home regardless if their insurance is already paying to rebuild it?

If someone owned a home and did not have insurance are we going to rebuild it? If so, why?

If someone is renting are we going to hand them a check too?

These are answers I think we need to have before we start mailing blank checks to individuals in Louisiana. Even more so before we hand $$ over to the state and local govt. down there. That place is not known for repute in its govt spending.

Seems to me that if someone did not have enough sense of personal responsibility to insure their belongings then it is they, not us, who is liable for the replacement.
 

ohio

The Fresno Kid
Nov 26, 2001
6,638
4
SF, CA
Damn True said:
Seems to me that if someone did not have enough sense of personal responsibility to insure their belongings then it is they, not us, who is liable for the replacement.
As good Christians, are we going to turn those in need out into the cold because of mistakes they've made in the past? How about their families, especially children, who aren't responsible for the mistake, but that will bear the brunt of the suffering if they are turned out into the cold?
 

Damn True

Monkey Pimp
Sep 10, 2001
4,016
3
Between a rock and a hard place.
I don't disagree with your point. If someone cannot help themselves I have no problem helping them. But clearly there are those who can and should, but probably wont.

Another question that comes to mind is this. Prior to the hurricane the median home price in NO was $123,000. If someone was living in a home valued at $75k how much home are we going to build for them? Another $75k home?
 

ohio

The Fresno Kid
Nov 26, 2001
6,638
4
SF, CA
How about low/no interest mortgages with no down payment. Let's them get right back to where they were, minus the equity, but holds them responsible for the payback?
 

sanjuro

Tube Smuggler
Sep 13, 2004
17,411
0
SF
Besides the personal losses, don't forget about the roads, highways, and other public works (like the levees) which will need to be replaced.

If you don't understand, just leave your house for a month by Monday, and you will know what my friends are suffering through.
 

Damn True

Monkey Pimp
Sep 10, 2001
4,016
3
Between a rock and a hard place.
Well I think if they had a $75k house and for some reason did not have appropriate insurance (ie they had hurricane coverage, but not flood coverage though if you are living in NO....duh!) we could by all means return them to a home valued at $75k since FEMA will pay up to $200k. But if they want more home than that. Something like what you suggest would probably be ok, though IMO they ought to get a check for the differential between what their insurance will cover and the apprasied value of the home and nothing more.

Here's the kicker though. If the median price was $123k and the individuals home was, for the sake of argument, a 2000sq' 3/2 worth only $75k. The reason it is worth only $75k is because it was a dump or in a lousy area. It will most likely cost more than $75k to erect a similar house.

.....and what about renters? If they home they were renting for $600 a month is destroyed and the owner erects a new home on the site, its value as a brand new home will most likely warrant a higher rent. What then? Are we to require the owner to rent the home he owns for less than it's value?

If someone is renting, what if anything do they get?

This whole thing absolutely terrifies me in terms of how much money might be tossed at that place.
 

PonySoldier

Monkey
May 5, 2004
823
0
Woodland Park Colorado
I suspect the amount will run into the Billions..on the Insurance note..many homeowner policies do not cover flood damage..typically if you live in a federally designated Flood Zone ( As designated by FEMA) you purchase flood insurance through the NFIP ( National Flood Insurance Program) as normal insurers will not write insurance for these areas or make it prohibitively expensive...just my 2 cents
 

kidwoo

Celebrating No-Pants Day
Aug 25, 2003
22,803
2,434
In my pants
Changleen said:

Exactly. I want my tax money spent on keeping butt sex from happening legally and spreading freedom (for oil drilling.....not the butt sex part...cuz that's wrong)
 

DirtyDog

Gang probed by the Golden Banana
Aug 2, 2005
6,599
0
We have a government that encourages development under any circumstances because the folks with the money are always right. So when the rich developers build subdivisions on protective wetlands with the governments endorsement, how is the average citizen supposed to know they have purchased an impending disaster?
 

Damn True

Monkey Pimp
Sep 10, 2001
4,016
3
Between a rock and a hard place.
BeerDemon said:
We have a government that encourages development under any circumstances because the folks with the money are always right. So when the rich developers build subdivisions on protective wetlands with the governments endorsement, how is the average citizen supposed to know they have purchased an impending disaster?
Dude, if your supposed "average citizen" chooses to live in a place with an ocean on one side, a lake on the other, with a river running through the middle of it and the whole thing protected by an aging levee system AND they are on average 6' below sea level and dosen't realize that the aforementioned is a recipe for soggy carpet then frankly, that person is probably a democrat.

We have a government that encourages absurd levels of pork. Our Federal legislature and that of the state of Louisiana is the group that should be carrying the most blame in this whole deal. It infuriates me that while Pelozi, Schumer, Kennedy and the rest of those dipwads were bloviating about who should be blamed (instead of worrying about saving people who needed help) that nobody and I MEAN NOBODY brought up this simple fact: It is the legislative branch of government (state and federal) that is charged with appropriating funds for public works projects. Instead they funded a myriad of self serving pork projects.

Leading the charge is Sen. Robert (KKK) Byrd of WV (d) who is the first Senator in the history of our great Nation to secure over $1 billion for his state. A mark he surpassed way back in 1999. This year he appropriated $399 million in funding for WV "projects" which works out to $220 for every resident of his home state. Some of these federally funded excercises in narcissism are:

Robert C. Byrd Drive, from Beckley to Sophia (Byrd's hometown)
Robert C. Byrd National Technology Transfer Center at Wheeling Jesuit University
Robert C. Byrd Highway
Robert C. Byrd Federal Correctional Institution
Robert C. Byrd High School
Robert C. Byrd Freeway
Robert C. Byrd Center for Hospitality and Tourism
Robert C. Byrd Science Center
Robert C. Byrd Health Sciences Center of West Virginia
Robert C. Byrd Cancer Research Center
Robert C. Byrd Technology Center at Alderson-Broaddus College
Robert C. Byrd Hardwood Technologies Center, near Princeton
Robert C. Byrd Bridge between Huntington and Chesapeake, Ohio
Robert C. Byrd addition to the lodge at Oglebay Park, Wheeling
Robert C. Byrd Community Center, Pine Grove
Robert C. Byrd Honors Scholarships
Robert C. Byrd Expressway, U.S. 52 near Weirton
Robert C. Byrd Institute in Charleston
Robert C. Byrd Institute for Advanced Flexible Manufacturing
Robert C. Byrd Visitor Center at Harpers Ferry National Historic Park
Robert C. Byrd Federal Courthouse
Robert C. Byrd Academic and Technology Center
Robert C. Byrd United Technical Center
Robert C. Byrd Federal Building (there are two)
Robert C. Byrd Hilltop Office Complex
Robert C. Byrd Library and Robert C. Byrd Learning Resource Center
Robert C. Byrd Rural Health Center
Robert C. Byrd Clinical Addition to the veteran's hospital in Huntington
Robert C. Byrd Industrial Park, Hardy County
Robert C. Byrd Scholastic Recognition Award
Robert C. Byrd Community Center in the naval station, Sugar Grove

This is not to say that Byrd is the only one doing this. They all do it, on both sides of the aisle. But he is by far the worst of the lot.

You wanna be pi$$ed at someone Beer Demon, don't be pi$$ed at business (for without which you'd likely lack the luxury of the PC you are sitting at) be pi$$ed at your elected officials.
 

PonySoldier

Monkey
May 5, 2004
823
0
Woodland Park Colorado
BeerDemon said:
We have a government that encourages development under any circumstances because the folks with the money are always right. So when the rich developers build subdivisions on protective wetlands with the governments endorsement, how is the average citizen supposed to know they have purchased an impending disaster?

In part the FEMA Flood Insurance program attempts to address this...you cannot purchase a house without knowing the level of flood exposure the property has..
 

DirtyDog

Gang probed by the Golden Banana
Aug 2, 2005
6,599
0
Damn True said:
Dude, if your supposed "average citizen" chooses to live in a place with an ocean on one side, a lake on the other, with a river running through the middle of it and the whole thing protected by an aging levee system AND they are on average 6' below sea level and dosen't realize that the aforementioned is a recipe for soggy carpet then frankly, that person is probably a democrat.
The democrat comment is obviously dumb but I understand what you are saying about the rest. But this is just one example. Here in Oregon we have dumbasses building homes up on the cliffs at the beach. Every few years we get heavy rains that cause these homes to slide off the hill. The government bails them out, "reform" is promised but within a few years the homes are being rebuilt.

The problem is that goverment (yes both dems and repubs) ALWAYS tailor policy to fit the wants of greedy business interests. I don't really want to pay to rebuild the coastline down south either. However, I think more blame should be assigned to developers and the government that supports their unbridled profiteering rather than the individual that is just trying to get by in life.
 

MTB_Rob_NC

What do I have to do to get you in this car TODAY?
Nov 15, 2002
3,430
0
Charlotte, NC
BeerDemon said:
The problem is that goverment (yes both dems and repubs) ALWAYS tailor policy to fit the wants of greedy business interests.
I really dislike this argument. It is so bunk. Who should policy be "tailored" to if not the "greedy" business interests that make this country revolve? Maybe they should be tailored to the poor or loathing crime element? Maybe treehugging greenpeacers?

Greed is good, business is good, making a profit is good. There certainly are people that take advantage of every situation. Personally I do not have a problem with anyone tailoring towards "business." Business is regulated, watched and is the most level playing field we have.
 

fluff

Monkey Turbo
Sep 8, 2001
5,672
0
Feeling the lag
Mtb_Rob_FL said:
I really dislike this argument. It is so bunk. Who should policy be "tailored" to if not the "greedy" business interests that make this country revolve? Maybe they should be tailored to the poor or loathing crime element? Maybe treehugging greenpeacers?

Greed is good, business is good, making a profit is good. There certainly are people that take advantage of every situation. Personally I do not have a problem with anyone tailoring towards "business." Business is regulated, watched and is the most level playing field we have.
The people perhaps?

Not all business is good, not all business generates jobs, not all business produces something, not all profit is good.

Greed most certainly is not good

Anyone remember Ken Lay, Bernie Ebbers?
 

DirtyDog

Gang probed by the Golden Banana
Aug 2, 2005
6,599
0
Mtb_Rob_FL said:
I really dislike this argument. It is so bunk. Who should policy be "tailored" to if not the "greedy" business interests that make this country revolve? Maybe they should be tailored to the poor or loathing crime element? Maybe treehugging greenpeacers?

Greed is good, business is good, making a profit is good. There certainly are people that take advantage of every situation. Personally I do not have a problem with anyone tailoring towards "business." Business is regulated, watched and is the most level playing field we have.
Allowing developers to build on land prone to natural disaster is good for the economy? LOL, good luck defending that idea. :p
 

DirtyDog

Gang probed by the Golden Banana
Aug 2, 2005
6,599
0
Only people that know nothing of history claim that all business is good. If we still had unbridled capitalism in this country most people would be wage slaves barely getting by each month. Pure capitalism conentrates all the wealth at the top and leaves little for the majority of the population.
 

MTB_Rob_NC

What do I have to do to get you in this car TODAY?
Nov 15, 2002
3,430
0
Charlotte, NC
fluff said:
The people perhaps?

Not all business is good, not all business generates jobs, not all business produces something, not all profit is good.
Who are the "people" you suggest? Where do they go? How do they get there? How do they pay for it all?

fluff said:
Anyone remember Ken Lay, Bernie Ebbers?
Are they a part of "The People?" For every bad person, business headline you read there are hundreds/thousands/millions of good people and business practices happening that are doing "good". Hell I just bought a can of soda out of a vending machine, I am sure some greedy bastard is making $0.25 off of me!


BeerDemon said:
Allowing developers to build on land prone to natural disaster is good for the economy? LOL, good luck defending that idea. :p
Absolutely. Business is about taking calculated risk. Who gets to decide what is a good risk and a bad risk? The majority of the CA population is on the wrong side of a fault line. Colorado is prone to wildfires. SE Coastal communities are bound to get hit by a hurricane. Heck scientists say that it is inevitable that an astroid WILL hit the earth and change things forever(ok that is pushing it, but you see where it could go). Its all a risk.

Developers wouldnt build if there wasnt someone to buy it. There wouldnt be someone to buy it, if there wasnt someone to lend the money and to insure it etc etc.

When something becomes unprofitable is when it will stop.
 

MTB_Rob_NC

What do I have to do to get you in this car TODAY?
Nov 15, 2002
3,430
0
Charlotte, NC
BeerDemon said:
Only people that know nothing of history claim that all business is good. If we still had unbridled capitalism in this country most people would be wage slaves barely getting by each month. Pure capitalism conentrates all the wealth at the top and leaves little for the majority of the population.

I didnt say "ALL" as a matter of fact I specifically said there will always be people\businesses that will take advantage(in a bad way) of given situations.

However the model we have in place now is the best that is out there.
 

fluff

Monkey Turbo
Sep 8, 2001
5,672
0
Feeling the lag
The people are the populace.

Not all business is bad.

Business men are people.

People do business.

Government for the people will not therefore be government against the people.

It will however, put people before business.

People have lives, needs, feelings, intelligence, compassion, ideas etc; they ca be touched, they are concrete.

Businesses are abstract entities, you cannot touch a business.

People create business

Business does not create people (yet..)

See why people should come before business yet?
 

fluff

Monkey Turbo
Sep 8, 2001
5,672
0
Feeling the lag
Mtb_Rob_FL said:
I didnt say "ALL" as a matter of fact I specifically said there will always be people\businesses that will take advantage(in a bad way) of given situations.
Which is why people need to come before business

Mtb_Rob_FL said:
However the model we have in place now is the best that is out there.
Actually Norway has the best model, according to the UN.
 

ohio

The Fresno Kid
Nov 26, 2001
6,638
4
SF, CA
Mtb_Rob_FL said:
Greed is good
Hi Gordon Gecko. How's it going. Say hi to Martin and Charlie for me.

You know economic theories have changed a bit since 1985?... something to do with crashes in the late 80s and fall 2001.
 

MTB_Rob_NC

What do I have to do to get you in this car TODAY?
Nov 15, 2002
3,430
0
Charlotte, NC
ohio said:
Hi Gordon Gecko. How's it going. Say hi to Martin and Charlie for me.

You know economic theories have changed a bit since 1985?... something to do with crashes in the late 80s and fall 2001.

Actually I think the Wealth of Nations was published in 1776 and is still very applicapable. But hey I am not knocking your method of education :eviltongu
 

Damn True

Monkey Pimp
Sep 10, 2001
4,016
3
Between a rock and a hard place.
BeerDemon said:
The democrat comment is obviously dumb but I understand what you are saying about the rest. But this is just one example. Here in Oregon we have dumbasses building homes up on the cliffs at the beach. Every few years we get heavy rains that cause these homes to slide off the hill. The government bails them out, "reform" is promised but within a few years the homes are being rebuilt.

The problem is that goverment (yes both dems and repubs) ALWAYS tailor policy to fit the wants of greedy business interests. I don't really want to pay to rebuild the coastline down south either. However, I think more blame should be assigned to developers and the government that supports their unbridled profiteering rather than the individual that is just trying to get by in life.
Given the political landscape of the state of Louisians over the last 50-odd years I'd say the democrat comment was right on target.

It isn't the developer, it is the individual that buys the house that is to blame. People that own homes on North Carolina's outer banks (its a sandbar idiot), people that own homes along the cliffs in Malibu (how do you think those rolling hills became cliffs idiot) they are to blame. IMO FEMA should not pay to rebuild homes in such places. There ought to be a mandate that if you own a home in certain "high-risk" area's you and only you (in the form of insurance) are responsible.
 

ohio

The Fresno Kid
Nov 26, 2001
6,638
4
SF, CA
Mtb_Rob_FL said:
Actually I think the Wealth of Nations was published in 1776 and is still very applicapable. But hey I am not knocking your method of education :eviltongu
Very applicable, yes. Adam Smith was a smart guy. Completely perfect? No.

Like Newton... very smart guy. Laid the foundation. Ideas still very applicable. But perfect? No. The first guy with the idea can't anticipate everything.

(By the way, I mentioned 1985, because the phrase "greed is good" was made famous the Michael Douglas character, Gordon Gecko, in the film "Wallstreet" as the prototypical 1980s churn-and-burn banker... figured most folks would catch that)
 

MTB_Rob_NC

What do I have to do to get you in this car TODAY?
Nov 15, 2002
3,430
0
Charlotte, NC
ohio said:
Very applicable, yes. Adam Smith was a smart guy. Completely perfect? No.

Like Newton... very smart guy. Laid the foundation. Ideas still very applicable. But perfect? No. The first guy with the idea can't anticipate everything.
Agreed. I never said it was perfect. Only I am perfect :p

ohio said:
(By the way, I mentioned 1985, because the phrase "greed is good" was made famous the Michael Douglas character, Gordon Gecko, in the film "Wallstreet" as the prototypical 1980s churn-and-burn banker... figured most folks would catch that)
You said it, therefore it was my job to exploit it. :eviltongu
 

Silver

find me a tampon
Jul 20, 2002
10,846
0
Orange County, CA
Mtb_Rob_FL said:
Actually I think the Wealth of Nations was published in 1776 and is still very applicapable. But hey I am not knocking your method of education :eviltongu
Have you read the Wealth of Nations? It's very much like the Bible. People seem to have a vague idea of what it's all about, and are surprised when they actually read the damn thing.

Adam Smith would be horrified with modern corporations, for example.
 

MTB_Rob_NC

What do I have to do to get you in this car TODAY?
Nov 15, 2002
3,430
0
Charlotte, NC
Silver said:
Have you read the Wealth of Nations? It's very much like the Bible. People seem to have a vague idea of what it's all about, and are surprised when they actually read the damn thing.
Just as much as I read a myriad of other books in college. Ie.. I hightlighted what I thought was important to pass exams. It is very much a "Big picture" book

Silver said:
Adam Smith would be horrified with modern corporations, for example.
For example you are guessing and that holds just as much water as me saying he would be a corporate raider for sure.
 

DRB

unemployed bum
Oct 24, 2002
15,243
0
Watchin' you. Writing it all down.
Silver said:
Have you read the Wealth of Nations? It's very much like the Bible. People seem to have a vague idea of what it's all about, and are surprised when they actually read the damn thing.

Adam Smith would be horrified with modern corporations, for example.
Anyone from the 18th century would be horrified by modern society. Doesn't make it wrong. Just different.

Though I'm not sure Smith if given time to digest today's economy would be surprised at its evolution. And in many ways he would be proven correct. Especially regarding guilds (read unions) and their roles.
 

ohio

The Fresno Kid
Nov 26, 2001
6,638
4
SF, CA
Damn True said:
There ought to be a mandate that if you own a home in certain "high-risk" area's you and only you (in the form of insurance) are responsible.
How about a mandate that sellers of real-estate in those areas are required to fully disclose known risks of living in the area? Or a mandate for construction techniques that are based on the known risks in the area rather than using the absolute cheapest method for getting a roof off the ground? A land developer is in a much better position to understand and weigh these risks than the average home buyer, but right now the developer needs only gauge the short term risk, while an uninformed (or at least non-expert) buyer is expected to weigh long term risk, a much more difficult calculation.

People are EASY to take advantage of. Half of the population is dumber than the other half of the population... they shouldn't be rewarded for ignorance, but they also shouldn't be preyed on because of it.
 

DRB

unemployed bum
Oct 24, 2002
15,243
0
Watchin' you. Writing it all down.
ohio said:
How about a mandate that sellers of real-estate in those areas are required to fully disclose known risks of living in the area? Or a mandate for construction techniques that are based on the known risks in the area rather than using the absolute cheapest method for getting a roof off the ground? A land developer is in a much better position to understand and weigh these risks than the average home buyer, but right now the developer needs only gauge the short term risk, while an uninformed (or at least non-expert) buyer is expected to weigh long term risk, a much more difficult calculation.

People are EASY to take advantage of. Half of the population is dumber than the other half of the population... they shouldn't be rewarded for ignorance, but they also shouldn't be preyed on because of it.
Bought a house lately? Flood plains and flood insurance requirements are spelled out in great detail. I can't speak to wildfires, earthquakes and other natural diasters.
 

Silver

find me a tampon
Jul 20, 2002
10,846
0
Orange County, CA
Mtb_Rob_FL said:
For example you are guessing and that holds just as much water as me saying he would be a corporate raider for sure.
Let's see what Mr. Smith had to say about corporations (it's all on Project Gutenberg now):

He's talking about joint stock companies here:

The directors of such companies, however,
being the managers rather of other people's money than of their own,
it cannot well be expected that they should watch over it with the
same anxious vigilance with which the partners in a private copartnery
frequently watch over their own. Like the stewards of a rich man, they
are apt to consider attention to small matters as not for their
master's honour, and very easily give themselves a dispensation from
having it. Negligence and profusion, therefore, must always prevail,
more or less, in the management of the affairs of such a company. It
is upon this account, that joint-stock companies for foreign trade
have seldom been able to maintain the competition against private
adventurers. They have, accordingly, very seldom succeeded without an
exclusive privilege; and frequently have not succeeded with one.
Without an exclusive privilege, they have commonly mismanaged the
trade. With an exclusive privilege, they have both mismanaged and
confined it.


This goes on for a few pages. He makes exceptions for banking and insurance industries, with some reseravtion.

My point is (to DRB as well) that you can't point to Adam Smith and assume or invoke his blessing on modern corporate economics. That includes unions (but again, you can't slam unions without slamming their counterpart, the corporation.)
 

MTB_Rob_NC

What do I have to do to get you in this car TODAY?
Nov 15, 2002
3,430
0
Charlotte, NC
ohio said:
How about a mandate that sellers of real-estate in those areas are required to fully disclose known risks of living in the area? Or a mandate for construction techniques that are based on the known risks in the area rather than using the absolute cheapest method for getting a roof off the ground? A land developer is in a much better position to understand and weigh these risks than the average home buyer, but right now the developer needs only gauge the short term risk, while an uninformed (or at least non-expert) buyer is expected to weigh long term risk, a much more difficult calculation.
Ya because "those poor average multi-million dollar homes" on the cliff sides are often purchase by really dumb people :think:

ohio said:
People are EASY to take advantage of. Half of the population is dumber than the other half of the population... they shouldn't be rewarded for ignorance, but they also shouldn't be preyed on because of it.
Yes and 1/2 the population is taller then the other 1/2 what the heck is your point?

Was it to save the world from all those evil mart people :think: :think:
 

ohio

The Fresno Kid
Nov 26, 2001
6,638
4
SF, CA
Mtb_Rob_FL said:
what the heck is your point?
My point is that people are easy to take advantage of, and when there's a financial incentive, people in a position to know more about a situation will take advantage of people in less of a position to understand a situation. Greed is NOT good when it harms people. Greed is NOT good when a short term gain for one party means a later long term net loss.

People DO need a certain degree of protection (from others and from themselves), becaus they can't know all things about everything. Yes, it it up to them to weigh risks and make decisions for themselves, but they can't do that if they don't know the risks.
 

splat

Nam I am
Silver said:
Have you read the Wealth of Nations? It's very much like the Bible. People seem to have a vague idea of what it's all about, and are surprised when they actually read the damn thing.

Adam Smith would be horrified with modern corporations, for example.
as would some of our founding fathers who wrote the constitiuon about how it is being interpeted.

as for flood insurance it is spelled out quite clearly and most places that require it , thre is no way you are going to get a mortgage with out it.

I had Flood insurance on my Place for 7 years , before my insurance agent was able to get it removed.

also the flood insurance was more expensive than my Homeowners insurance.

and the Reason I had flood insurance was I have a drainage ditch next to my house , that is 8 feet below the level of the house. and then I live on a hill at 250 above Sea level.
 

ohio

The Fresno Kid
Nov 26, 2001
6,638
4
SF, CA
DRB said:
Bought a house lately? Flood plains and flood insurance requirements are spelled out in great detail. I can't speak to wildfires, earthquakes and other natural diasters.
No, I haven't bought a house. I live in the Bay Area. But yes this is also the case for earthquakes (in SF)... don't know about wildfires. It is not the case for tornadoes (at least in Ohio). But it doesn't address minimum building standards, nor do I think that there's the level of detail needed. For example, in SF if you decline earthquake insurance, you sign a simple waiver... there's no overt explanation of the fact that if you live in a house built on bedrock (e.g. Pacific Heights) you're MUCH safer than if you live in a house built on landfill (e.g. Marina).
 

Damn True

Monkey Pimp
Sep 10, 2001
4,016
3
Between a rock and a hard place.
ohio said:
How about a mandate that sellers of real-estate in those areas are required to fully disclose known risks of living in the area? Or a mandate for construction techniques that are based on the known risks in the area rather than using the absolute cheapest method for getting a roof off the ground? A land developer is in a much better position to understand and weigh these risks than the average home buyer, but right now the developer needs only gauge the short term risk, while an uninformed (or at least non-expert) buyer is expected to weigh long term risk, a much more difficult calculation.

People are EASY to take advantage of. Half of the population is dumber than the other half of the population... they shouldn't be rewarded for ignorance, but they also shouldn't be preyed on because of it.
Disclosure is already mandated. You have to tell a home buyer if the home is in a high risk area for flood, mud-slide etc.

You mean to tell me that you think that people who are smart enough to earn enough to own a home in the outer banks (90% of which are second vacation homes) or on the cliffs of Malibu are not smart enough to know that those are high risk areas?

C'mon, you would have to have lived in a cave since before the television age to have not seen video of homes along beachfronts destroyed by hurricanes or winter storms. People buy those homes because it's a luxury to do so and they know that despite the fact that their insurance will not entirely cover the cost of replacement that FEMA will hand them a check for $200k to cover the discrepancy.
 

ohio

The Fresno Kid
Nov 26, 2001
6,638
4
SF, CA
Damn True said:
on the cliffs of Malibu are not smart enough to know that those are high risk areas?
I think the folks buying homes on the beaches of Malibu are in a slightly different situation than folks buying a $50-70k home in Louisiana. And no, I don't see any need to have FEMA bail them out if they're unwilling to pay for insurance.