Can a conservative explain to me why i should be paying for Texas' disaster relief when ...

[K1052]

What building codes could be put in place to handle several feet of rain in a day?

Not building thousands of structures inside the 100 year flood plain would be a place to start.

 

[s0me0nesmind1]

so, to you, "fine" = "hey, as long as it can be rebuilt dozens of times!"

to me, "fine" = something that is not demonstrably stupid in the face of geography and environmental reality. I would easily expand into your definition, however, if we make flood insurance so preposterously unaffordable as to make the concept of building in those areas completely irrational to even the most irrational of humans.

Pricesely what I was going for lol. But there is a lot of factors - and I'm not an insurance company to make those calculations, but I would think the probability of a hurricane/flood hitting, size of the town, population of the town, how high the home is built, etc... all play a factor. But yes, $10k for a year of flood insurance - whatever it takes to deter it. At the end of the day, insurance needs to get (at minimum) the amount to be able to cover for all the losses (as well as a profit, god knows we need moar insurance profits). So if it takes $10k flood insurance bill is what it takes, so be it. If someone wants to pay that then let them.

 

[zinfamous]

Pricesely what I was going for lol. But there is a lot of factors - and I'm not an insurance company to make those calculations, but I would think the probability of a hurricane/flood hitting, size of the town, population of the town, how high the home is built, etc... all play a factor. But yes, $10k for a year of flood insurance - whatever it takes to deter it. At the end of the day, insurance needs to get (at minimum) the amount to be able to cover for all the losses (as well as a profit, god knows we need moar insurance profits). So if it takes $10k flood insurance bill is what it takes, so be it. If someone wants to pay that then let them.

well, the problem I already see with this, even though I agree with it, is that it would just create another ultra-lux-premium experience for the MINO dickscarfs of the world--basically Trump--to create their little islands of extreme, gated, hyper secure wealth on the coastal areas, restricting all public access to resources. ....so, there's that.

But then it would be yet another stone in the road towards the kind of Marxist revolution that no one wants to see here.

 

[realibrad]

well, the problem I already see with this, even though I agree with it, is that it would just create another ultra-lux-premium experience for the MINO dickscarfs of the world--basically Trump--to create their little islands of extreme, gated, hyper secure wealth on the coastal areas, restricting all public access to resources. ....so, there's that.

But then it would be yet another stone in the road towards the kind of Marxist revolution that no one wants to see here.

So what is the alternative? If the rich get bailed out by everyone, the poor get access, but if we don't bail them out, only they get access.

So why not have the beaches public access, but let people build where they want and cover the costs? Just do what may states have done and make the beach itself public access?

 

[UglyCasanova]

so, to you, "fine" = "hey, as long as it can be rebuilt dozens of times!"

to me, "fine" = something that is not demonstrably stupid in the face of geography and environmental reality. I would easily expand into your definition, however, if we make mandatory flood insurance, without the expectation of federal assistance, so preposterously unaffordable as to make the concept of building in those areas completely irrational to even the most irrational of humans.

How do you feel about SF? A major earthquake would decimate the area (it has before). They have building codes for such but it would still be a catastrophe. Gulf / Atlantic cities are at risk of hurricanes (NO especially so), California cities are at risk of earthquakes. Both would have widespread devastation and the risks of such are well known.

 

[UglyCasanova]

Not building thousands of structures inside the 100 year flood plain would be a place to start.

Or build adequate pumps, levees, drainage to accommodate. There's nothing inherently wrong with development so long as the infrastructure is there and maintained (no one likes to do that part). Nowhere is equipped to handle what Houston just went through though and it would be unrealistic to expect any place too. Lessons will be learned, hopefully infrastructure spending will occur, and they can lessen the risk for next time, but that was an unimaginable amount of rain and the damned thing stalled over the area.

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

What building codes could be put in place to handle several feet of rain in a day?

 

[realibrad]

How do you feel about SF? A major earthquake would decimate the area (it has before). They have building codes for such but it would still be a catastrophe. Gulf / Atlantic cities are at risk of hurricanes (NO especially so), California cities are at risk of earthquakes. Both would have widespread devastation and the risks of such are well known.

Having lived in CA and lived through multiple earthquakes, unless there is a mega earthquake the cost of damage would be very low to other natural disasters. I think Florida (where I live now) is the better example here. Many of the insurance agencies pulled out because the rates the state wanted them to charge was below what they thought they needed. They literally said it was not worth being in Florida even with the rate increases they were allowed to have.

When private companies cannot justify being a place because its too expensive, then there is a problem.

 

[fskimospy]

Or build adequate pumps, levees, drainage to accommodate. There's nothing inherently wrong with development so long as the infrastructure is there and maintained (no one likes to do that part). Nowhere is equipped to handle what Houston just went through though and it would be unrealistic to expect any place too. Lessons will be learned, hopefully infrastructure spending will occur, and they can lessen the risk for next time, but that was an unimaginable amount of rain and the damned thing stalled over the area.

I don't think anyone is saying Houston could have entirely prevented this disaster, but smarter regulation, zoning, and building codes could have mitigated it. It's like California with earthquakes, while a major earthquake would still do tons of damage, California has strict building codes designed specifically to mitigate that damage if/when a major earthquake occurs.

 

[Fanatical Meat]

Good riddance, fuck em. Though they will likely get a bail out because of the ol' "It's not MY Fault!" argument. As if they should be responsible for their own property and insuring it. Instead they want to piggy-back on the public as their insurance and bitch until everyone else cleans up their mess. Typical liberal fashion.

The truth of the matter is that it's even more ugly because you know they are paying bare minimum on their mortgage, so what they will end up with essentially is a 2nd mortgage payment.

I'm all favor of requiring people to have them if they have a mortgage and certain credentials (e.g. less than 200 mles from the coast OR if your home is at a certain level in relation to sea level). Regardless of if your house is near storm surge, flash flooding is always possible if you live at the short end of the stick and all the rain naturally flows to your area.

Think twice before saying this. Many parts of the country have expanding flood zones because of rising tides & rainfall plus droughts that decrease absorption.
I don't want to make this about climate change so let's stay off that topic.
Sure would suck to have a home get flooded because the flood zone increased and have no insurance options.

 

[theeedude]

Conservatives should be more taught that FYGM is a two way street.

 

[UglyCasanova]

unless there is a mega earthquake

It's only a matter of time, that will occur.

 

[zinfamous]

How do you feel about SF? A major earthquake would decimate the area (it has before). They have building codes for such but it would still be a catastrophe. Gulf / Atlantic cities are at risk of hurricanes (NO especially so), California cities are at risk of earthquakes. Both would have widespread devastation and the risks of such are well known.

earthquakes occur very frequently in CA with some ~95% of them causing little to no damage...because of strict building codes. Much like a flood like this, of course, there isn't a whole lot that can be done about the worst of the worst earthquakes. One major difference is that you can't and won't know wtf the next quake will strike and if it will ever end when it starts, and what the damage will be. To follow a similar strategy in earthquake zones where they could likely occur, would leave vast swaths of territory uninhabited. That just wouldn't work. At least with hurricanes, you can prepare well ahead of time through evacuation and with earthquake-like building codes that prevent development in specific areas that are known and designated to be flood mitigation zones (you can never know these things with an earthquake). IIRC, Houston has zero zoning laws, right? It's not like critics have been silent about this, either, for the previous decade and longer. Of course, those critics were always "alarmists" that "hate capitalism" and evil "tree huggers" or what have you. And now.."where were you guys???" or, even worse: "No, paving over prairie and wetland would not have helped." etc etc. I am pessimistic enough about the average human to believe that nothing will change here.

and back to earthquakes...one of the reasons I happily left CA was: fuck earthquakes. I can't stand those things. Nothing more terrifying than the world around you suddenly shaking and you have no idea when it will end.

 

[zinfamous]

Or build adequate pumps, levees, drainage to accommodate. There's nothing inherently wrong with development so long as the infrastructure is there and maintained (no one likes to do that part). Nowhere is equipped to handle what Houston just went through though and it would be unrealistic to expect any place too. Lessons will be learned, hopefully infrastructure spending will occur, and they can lessen the risk for next time, but that was an unimaginable amount of rain and the damned thing stalled over the area.

A lot of the drainage is there, in Houston...they just decided to build on top of it.

 

[K1052]

Or build adequate pumps, levees, drainage to accommodate. There's nothing inherently wrong with development so long as the infrastructure is there and maintained (no one likes to do that part). Nowhere is equipped to handle what Houston just went through though and it would be unrealistic to expect any place too. Lessons will be learned, hopefully infrastructure spending will occur, and they can lessen the risk for next time, but that was an unimaginable amount of rain and the damned thing stalled over the area.

No city is equipped to handle that volume of water but the situation was made worse by development in places there should be none (like places in the 100 year plain flooded out the last three consecutive years) and massive underinvestment of flood mitigation (active and passive) schemes. Tropical Storm Allison should have been a good warning of what was possible but it seems few really took note and the city continued to sprawl without concern.

 

[JSt0rm]

so after 16 pages did any conservative answer the initial question?

 

[Starbuck1975]

I think you mean Democrats in general, not the DNC, as the DNC is just a party fundraising organ that doesn't make or direct policy. Overall though, Democrats spend extremely little time on things like renaming Columbus Day. It's basically a policy nonfactor. The news media spends lots of time on that stuff because it's sensationalistic, but that's about it. Democratic policy is overwhelmingly geared towards expanding free trade while strengthening the safety net, better immigration policy, and infrastructure investment. That stuff isn't sexy though, so nobody pays attention.

Politicians in general use identity politics to distract from broader failures. Look at NYC. The citizens there are starting to pay a whole lot of attention to the failing subway system.

 

[Starbuck1975]

so after 16 pages did any conservative answer the initial question?

It was a stupid question so we repurposed the thread.

 

[fskimospy]

Politicians in general use identity politics to distract from broader failures. Look at NYC. The citizens there are starting to pay a whole lot of attention to the failing subway system.

I'm confused, what identity politics do you think Cuomo is using to distract from MTA failures?

 

[Starbuck1975]

I'm confused, what identity politics do you think Cuomo is using to distract from MTA failures?

I am talking about the decades leading up to this point. NYC, the greatest city in the world, with no overarching vision for its crumbling rail system, complicated further by the clueless bureaucrats in Albany.

Although to be fair, the Tappan Zee replacement project went surprisingly well. Shame to name it after a Cuomo though.

 

[JSt0rm]

I am talking about the decades leading up to this point. NYC, the greatest city in the world, with no overarching vision for its crumbling rail system, complicated further by the clueless bureaucrats in Albany.

Although to be fair, the Tappan Zee replacement project went surprisingly well. Shame to name it after a Cuomo though.

nyc subway works pretty good.

 

[dphantom]

so after 16 pages did any conservative answer the initial question?

several times

 

[fskimospy]

I am talking about the decades leading up to this point. NYC, the greatest city in the world, with no overarching vision for its crumbling rail system, complicated further by the clueless bureaucrats in Albany.

Although to be fair, the Tappan Zee replacement project went surprisingly well. Shame to name it after a Cuomo though.

I mean it's not really 'complicated' by Albany, it's entirely due to Albany. The setup is stupid as the state controls the MTA but large portions of state government come from areas not serviced by it. They, not unreasonably, don't want to spend lots of money on something their constituents don't use. I don't see how any of this relates to identity politics.

 

[Fanatical Meat]

I mean it's not really 'complicated' by Albany, it's entirely due to Albany. The setup is stupid as the state controls the MTA but large portions of state government come from areas not serviced by it. They, not unreasonably, don't want to spend lots of money on something their constituents don't use. I don't see how any of this relates to identity politics.

Because da blacks and queers use those services and the country folk don't

 

[1sikbITCH]

The fringe left are those who keep steering the DNC towards solving first world problems like renaming Columbus Day as opposed to real world problems such as pension reform, crumbling infrastructure, inmigration and loss of jobs to globalization.

There is a reason why Charlie Baker, a Republican leading a blue state in the Trump age, is the most popular governor in America.

Trump's incompetence and lack of moral character does not change the underlying issues that enabled his victory.

Not being an economic major I don't know all the nuances. However, I don't automatically see globalization as "loss of jobs". Those jobs still exist they just go to people willing to work for less money. I thought that was capitalism and the free market. Telling companies where they can work and who they can hire seems communist to me quite frankly and the government stepping in to enforce its will on these companies is an extremely liberal position. After all, companies are people too.