New Bern NC.

[Viper1j]

They were warned. They had been through it before. MANDATORY evacuations were ordered. They were told that they would not be rescued.

And apparently, the government lied, because they're forcing police officers and firemen to go out to and rescue 150 people.

They couldn't force me to do that after all the warnings, for any amount of money. Sometimes you just have to get out of Darwin's way, and let nature take its course.

What say you?

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

What say you?

Er, feel the Bern?

 

[MomentsofSanity]

As I understand it they give discretion to the first responders at the time to determine if they are willing to go out. They don't force them. Some will do it regardless of the risk to themselves and the decisions of others.

 

[zinfamous]

What's her name on NPR this morning was talking to a woman that stayed with her family in their house, in some high ground suburban neighborhood.

asked her a bit directly: "When you decided to stay, did you consider that emergency rescuers will then be put in a position to risk their own lives to save yours?"

"Um, well, no. heh....uh."

Ouch.

 

[HomerJS]

Not sure if it was this town but saw interview where people said they couldn't afford to leave. They were offered a place to stay but couldn't buy gas and other necessities to get there.

 

[Bitek]

It's a terrible and foolish situation to be in no doubt, but there are a number of people that just have nowhere to go as well. No family to retreat to, hotels are full or unaffordable, and they may have pets or special needs that shelters can't accommodate. So they stay.

I think what is needed is rethinking public policy on this.

-Reform/ending federal flood insurance (to not taxpayer subsidize building in dangerous locations or unsafe building codes)

-Potentially making building shelters/evacuation zones more of a govt priority

- Any other efforts needed to face the rising threats of catastrophic storms and events.


Or we can just give tax cuts to billionaires and pretend the dead and destroyed from storms never existed, so no need for change.

 

[balloonshark]

I think much of the reason people stay is because it's much harder and it takes much longer to get back. They don't let people come back until it's safe and to prevent looting. If you left for a previous storm and was kept from your home for a week or weeks I can kind of understand why people stay.

With that said those people on barrier islands and the coast are crazy. All of them knew the risk and I don't blame any rescuer if they stayed put but that's not what will happen. Maybe they should fine people $100,000 per person rescued that stay in an dangerous evacuation area. That might make people think twice.

 

[UglyCasanova]

Time to send in the baws

Edit: really good write up on them

https://www.washingtonpost.com/nati...187f427e253_story.html?utm_term=.2795b9fd7e59

 

[Thebobo]

Yet the continue to build house out on the banks and in dangerous flood areas. Remember the massive floods along the Mississippi probably 10+ years back? Some of the small towns were completely raised and moved.

 

[UglyCasanova]

Gubment continues to provide flood insurance which encourages development in high risk areas. People will always want to build on the coast though.


Edit: found this from last year

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/31/opinion/flood-insurance-program-.html

 

[Darwin333]

-Reform/ending federal flood insurance (to not taxpayer subsidize building in dangerous locations or unsafe building codes)

You do that and the vast majority of housing and buildings, including the most expensive ones in the country, are immediately wiped out. Most cities/towns are built near a water source or the coast because it just makes sense, 40% of the population lives in counties that are directly on the shoreline. Loans require you to have flood insurance, now they don't want to foreclose on all of them but I bet they could renegotiate interest rates. Loans on new sales would be virtually non-existent or way too expensive due to absurdly expensive insurance. That isn't counting the counties that aren't touching the coast but just inland, then you have tons of people living near rivers that are in flood plains so those are out too, property value instantly worth virtually zero.

You'd wipe out hundreds of trillions of wealth in one fell swoop, most of which the bankers will take on the chin because people/businesses aren't going to keep making the payments. This will be the great recession times 1,000. The government wouldn't be able to give the banks enough money to bail them out and the entire economy would be fucked beyond repair. There is just no possible way that it could be done.

 

[Bitek]

You do that and the vast majority of housing and buildings, including the most expensive ones in the country, are immediately wiped out. Most cities/towns are built near a water source or the coast because it just makes sense, 40% of the population lives in counties that are directly on the shoreline. Loans require you to have flood insurance, now they don't want to foreclose on all of them but I bet they could renegotiate interest rates. Loans on new sales would be virtually non-existent or way too expensive due to absurdly expensive insurance. That isn't counting the counties that aren't touching the coast but just inland, then you have tons of people living near rivers that are in flood plains so those are out too, property value instantly worth virtually zero.

You'd wipe out hundreds of trillions of wealth in one fell swoop, most of which the bankers will take on the chin because people/businesses aren't going to keep making the payments. This will be the great recession times 1,000. The government wouldn't be able to give the banks enough money to bail them out and the entire economy would be fucked beyond repair. There is just no possible way that it could be done.

Obviously you can't just pull the plug overnight, but clearly there are problems with the current system and the insurance program is not sustainable.

Look at Houston. Even NC.

Local govts are not planning and building properly and since the flood insurance program is federal, they have little disincentive to build for safety/longevity.

This is a classic case where govt intervention has distorted the market, and now broken, there is pressure to keep taxpayer money to support a poorly designed system.

If the homeowner, the local/state government and the mortgage holders bore the cost of their decisions, you would bet building codes would change drastically.

 

[Jhhnn]

Obviously you can't just pull the plug overnight, but clearly there are problems with the current system and the insurance program is not sustainable.

Look at Houston. Even NC.

Local govts are not planning and building properly and since the flood insurance program is federal, they have little disincentive to build for safety/longevity.

This is a classic case where govt intervention has distorted the market, and now broken, there is pressure to keep taxpayer money to support a poorly designed system.

If the homeowner, the local/state government and the mortgage holders bore the cost of their decisions, you would bet building codes would change drastically.

That's extremely inaccurate. Very few victims in Houston even had flood insurance & I doubt N Carolina is any different-

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...surance/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.43e28cd80582

 

[UglyCasanova]

Cajun Navy training themselves for search and rescue

Mad respect for these guys. Volunteering their time and resources to help others in need.

 

[Puffnstuff]

Speaking of New Bern...
https://www.cnn.com/videos/weather/...-orig-mg.cnn/video/playlists/top-news-videos/

 

[Viper1j]

Speaking of New Bern...
https://www.cnn.com/videos/weather/...-orig-mg.cnn/video/playlists/top-news-videos/

They knew enough to GTFO.

Florence has nothing on sh!tstorm Donny.

 

[Bitek]

That's extremely inaccurate. Very few victims in Houston even had flood insurance & I doubt N Carolina is any different-

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...surance/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.43e28cd80582

Which part? I don't disagree that there are large numbers of flooded homes that don't get insured, but I would simply add that to the case for change.

Some part of that is due to outdated flood maps and poor public policy. States that disallow consideration of climate change impacts make this even worse.

Houston is notorious for having the largess of repetitive loss properties and insurance payouts because they have no zoning laws. How does that decision look now in wake of Harvey?

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/08/congress-flood-insurance/535731/

"The structural, some even say moral, flaws of NFIP are vast and varied. Roughly one out of five properties pays premiums too low for the risks involved. ..“Grandfathered” properties that for whatever reason are reclassified into a higher-risk zone also enjoy artificially low rates, subsidized by other policyholders in the area.

Flood-zone maps are outdated and inadequate, leading to shoddy risk assessment. Subsidies are “hidden” within policy premiums, making it hard for consumers to gauge a property’s real risk. The way rates are set—based on average home prices within a zone, not the cost of individual structures—leads to cross-subsidies of rich property owners by poor ones. “Repetitive loss” properties make up around 1 percent of policies but account for 30 percent of payouts. And there are substantial barriers to private insurers entering the market.


On and on the list goes. The end result: An irrational system that encourages people to hunker down in areas where Mother Nature clearly does not want them. It is, critics argue, completely bonkers.

“The most basic purpose of government going back millennia is to protect its citizenry,” said Steve Ellis, vice president of the nonpartisan budget-watchdog group Taxpayers for Common Sense. “But here you have a program that is subsidizing people to live and develop in harm’s way.”"

 

[Bitek]

Cajun Navy training themselves for search and rescue

Mad respect for these guys. Volunteering their time and resources to help others in need.

Those guys are pretty cool.

Amazing how many people/neighbors you meet after a big storm.

 

[Darwin333]

Obviously you can't just pull the plug overnight, but clearly there are problems with the current system and the insurance program is not sustainable.

Look at Houston. Even NC.

Local govts are not planning and building properly and since the flood insurance program is federal, they have little disincentive to build for safety/longevity.

This is a classic case where govt intervention has distorted the market, and now broken, there is pressure to keep taxpayer money to support a poorly designed system.

If the homeowner, the local/state government and the mortgage holders bore the cost of their decisions, you would bet building codes would change drastically.

That isn't exactly true. Houston has recently enacted new building codes requiring structures to be raised to a certain height. I only read one article on it but it was about some controversy that it unfairly hurt the poor because they couldn't afford it.

But still, you are talking about some of, if not the, most expensive real estate in the country and where the majority of the people live. There is no way that everyone could afford the $100K+ to raise their homes. New building codes going forward requiring homes to be X feet above the floodplain is fine but do we just kick the rest of the people out of their homes or just don't renew their policies so the next time it floods they have to move? They won't be sellable so do we buy them out or pay to have their homes raised?

Just to let you know how much bigger this is than you probably know. The entirety of the New York City metro area, Long Islan and the Jersey coast are under threat for storm surge. That says nothing about other causes of flooding like massive rains. Do we move New York City and abandon the existing infrastructure?

 

[Viper1j]

11 Dead, 796k without power.

Somebody ask Donny if it's a success yet.

 

[imported_tajmahal]

Houston / Harris County, recently passed a $2.5 Billion dollar infrastructure/flood bond that's to be used to buy up and bulldoze oft flooded houses and businesses.

https://www.chron.com/news/houston-...ters-pass-2-5-billion-flood-bond-13182853.php

 

[imported_tajmahal]

11 Dead, 796k without power.

Somebody ask Donny if it's a success yet.

Wait, you blame idiots in New Bern for not evacuating and then try to blame President Trump because ......? He should have dragged them out?

 

[Jhhnn]

Which part? I don't disagree that there are large numbers of flooded homes that don't get insured, but I would simply add that to the case for change.

Some part of that is due to outdated flood maps and poor public policy. States that disallow consideration of climate change impacts make this even worse.

Houston is notorious for having the largess of repetitive loss properties and insurance payouts because they have no zoning laws. How does that decision look now in wake of Harvey?

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/08/congress-flood-insurance/535731/

"The structural, some even say moral, flaws of NFIP are vast and varied. Roughly one out of five properties pays premiums too low for the risks involved. ..“Grandfathered” properties that for whatever reason are reclassified into a higher-risk zone also enjoy artificially low rates, subsidized by other policyholders in the area.

Flood-zone maps are outdated and inadequate, leading to shoddy risk assessment. Subsidies are “hidden” within policy premiums, making it hard for consumers to gauge a property’s real risk. The way rates are set—based on average home prices within a zone, not the cost of individual structures—leads to cross-subsidies of rich property owners by poor ones. “Repetitive loss” properties make up around 1 percent of policies but account for 30 percent of payouts. And there are substantial barriers to private insurers entering the market.


On and on the list goes. The end result: An irrational system that encourages people to hunker down in areas where Mother Nature clearly does not want them. It is, critics argue, completely bonkers.

“The most basic purpose of government going back millennia is to protect its citizenry,” said Steve Ellis, vice president of the nonpartisan budget-watchdog group Taxpayers for Common Sense. “But here you have a program that is subsidizing people to live and develop in harm’s way.”"

If the availability of flood insurance is why people build in flood prone areas then I figure they'd have it. But they don't. Doesn't look like it's any sort of incentive.

 

[Viper1j]

Wait, you blame idiots in New Bern for not evacuating and then try to blame President Trump because ......? He should have dragged them out?

No, but his Donny's standards, 330 had to die for Maria to be a "success".

I'm just wondering where the body count starts.