Building in Flood Zone = Riding w/o helmet?

[TheLoneGunman]

Maybe I just feel like riling people up, but this topic upsets me as much as the human-baby-making-machines.

People who build in either obvious flood zones or right on the beach where they have high waves are stupid. They are moronic when they keep rebuilding every year or two when they are washed away. They are THIEVES when they take my tax money to do it!

If you ride a motocycle or bike without a helmet, that is your choice (If fact, I don't wear one on those rare occasions when I ride a bicycle). However, you better have good health insurance. I don't want to have to pay for damage you sustained (and critical care is super expensive) because you wanted your "freedom".

The same goes for building in a flood zone. In places along the Mississippi, it is obvious and well documented how the flooding works. It is even more obvious once someone's home is destroyed. When this happens more than once, they should receive NO assistance. Sure it is harsh, but if they are well aware (and I would suggest that all residents be forced to sign agreements in 1" type translated into all languages that explain in simple terms that come rainy season they WILL be washed away and we will NOT help them) then we can walk away guilt free.

It is bad enough that we have to pay for people who walk into cars (I am not talking about accidents, I am talking about deliberate morons) we shouldn't have to pay for these people either

[welfareloser]

Originally posted by TheLoneGunman
Maybe I just feel like riling people up, but this topic upsets me as much as the human-baby-making-machines.

People who build in either obvious flood zones or right on the beach where they have high waves are stupid. They are moronic when they keep rebuilding every year or two when they are washed away. They are THIEVES when they take my tax money to do it!

If you ride a motocycle or bike without a helmet, that is your choice (If fact, I don't wear one on those rare occasions when I ride a bicycle). However, you better have good health insurance. I don't want to have to pay for damage you sustained (and critical care is super expensive) because you wanted your "freedom".

The same goes for building in a flood zone. In places along the Mississippi, it is obvious and well documented how the flooding works. It is even more obvious once someone's home is destroyed. When this happens more than once, they should receive NO assistance. Sure it is harsh, but if they are well aware (and I would suggest that all residents be forced to sign agreements in 1" type translated into all languages that explain in simple terms that come rainy season they WILL be washed away and we will NOT help them) then we can walk away guilt free.

It is bad enough that we have to pay for people who walk into cars (I am not talking about accidents, I am talking about deliberate morons) we shouldn't have to pay for these people either

i agree. studied this issue in-depth in school. my conclusions:

people get to keep doing it because every time there is a flood, the tv news does a zillion stories that boil down to this: they interview some old fart tearing up as he describes how his great-grandpappy Jeb founded the home place in 1823, and he has a wife and four dogs buried in the back yard, and god works in mysterious ways, and praise jesus, we will REBUILD! and it looks so noble and heartfelt and everyone eats it up.

also, a lot of people run the following scam: live in double wide by the river. double wide is worth $20,000. insure it for $40,000. wait for flood. call double-wide a total loss, fix it up for $10,000 and buy a new boat, stereo, and go gamblin on the riverboat with the rest. ignore moldy carpet smell. repeat every 4-9 years. it's called "livin large."

[jase71]

Another part of the problem is that the flood plains are changing every year thanks to all our dams and levees and dikes and engineering projects.

Your town floods? Your town builds dikes and levees, and makes sure the town can't flood again.

So what happens? The flood just moves farther downstream and finds somewhere else to break through. Somewhere new floods.

It's like an arms race. Everyone builds taller levees, and each year the schmoe with the shortest levee loses.

We've overengineered our rivers to the point that rather than a little bit of minor flooding all the way along the river, we've got NO flooding anywhere except where it breaks through. And that spot gets wiped off the map.

[styleee]

Originally posted by jase71


Your town floods? Your town builds dikes and levees, and makes sure the town can't flood again.

So what happens? The flood just moves farther downstream and finds somewhere else to break through. Somewhere new floods.


the same thing rings true with beach errosion. someone builds a jetty so that sand will pile up in front of their property, but the person down shore from them now has no sand in front of their place, so they build a jetty to keep some of the sand. then its a domino effect down the entire shore line. i'm not sure if they do this in california, because they first did it on the jersey shore, and up the east coast. tons of damage was done before they realised the obvious error in the plan.

but, i do think that not everyone can be blamed for building too close to flood zones. the building might have been there longer then the flood zone. the melting polar ice caps have to go somewhere! so stop destroying the environment, and the environment will stop wrecking your home.

[theorangeone]

most towns (at least here in MA) won't issue building permits if you're within an area with high flood risks (Zone a on FEMA flood insurance rate maps). at least its like that here in MA. i've heard clients asking us to fudge the flood line so they can build their oh-so-lovely house.

[ChIcKeN_HaWk]

[b][quote]
styleee quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by jase71


Your town floods? Your town builds dikes and levees, and makes sure the town can't flood again.

So what happens? The flood just moves farther downstream and finds somewhere else to break through. Somewhere new floods.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


the same thing rings true with beach errosion. someone builds a jetty so that sand will pile up in front of their property, but the person down shore from them now has no sand in front of their place, so they build a jetty to keep some of the sand. then its a domino effect down the entire shore line. i'm not sure if they do this in california, because they first did it on the jersey shore, and up the east coast. tons of damage was done before they realised the obvious error in the plan.

but, i do think that not everyone can be blamed for building too close to flood zones. the building might have been there longer then the flood zone. the melting polar ice caps have to go somewhere! so stop destroying the environment, and the environment will stop wrecking your home.
[b][quote]


Do you know how much money it costs to build a levee or a dike, Millions. These people here, in Minnesota and surronding states that are flooding, in the small towns of say 500 to 20,000 don't have even a fraction of that money to build anything of that magnitude.

It is very flooded here and it's not anyone's fault that they built to close to a river or lake.

[ironchef]

Originally posted by ChIcKeN_HaWk
It is very flooded here and it's not anyone's fault that they built to close to a river or lake.
hehe, who's fault is it then? the lake's or river's? or the person who chose to move/build there with the knowledge that a body of water is not only uncontrollable, but unpredictable and prone to flooding?

[ChIcKeN_HaWk]

ironchef quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by ChIcKeN_HaWk
It is very flooded here and it's not anyone's fault that they built to close to a river or lake.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

hehe, who's fault is it then? the lake's or river's? or the person who chose to move/build there with the knowledge that a body of water is not only uncontrollable, but unpredictable and prone to flooding?


How about the people that have lived there all their life and cannot afford to move? How about the people that live 2 miles away from any river or lake and are still have 3 feet of standing water in there living room? Last year my house got flooded by the Minnesota river which happened to be 3 miles away. If someone lives near or on a river or lake they have to be prepared for the worst, but how about the people

[ironchef]

Originally posted by ChIcKeN_HaWk
How about the people that have lived there all their life and cannot afford to move? How about the people that live 2 miles away from any river or lake and are still have 3 feet of standing water in there living room? Last year my house got flooded by the Minnesota river which happened to be 3 miles away. If someone lives near or on a river or lake they have to be prepared for the worst, but how about the people
Those people who choose to live there can not ask another man to support them when something like this happens. It was not my choice for you to live there, why should I be made to help? When that type of claim is made on me, it had better be made with a gun and not under the pretense that I'm doing it for the good of my fellow man.

Also, I've never seen poverty-stricken waterside property.

[zenbooty]

Originally posted by ironchef

Originally posted by ChIcKeN_HaWk
How about the people that have lived there all their life and cannot afford to move? How about the people that live 2 miles away from any river or lake and are still have 3 feet of standing water in there living room? Last year my house got flooded by the Minnesota river which happened to be 3 miles away. If someone lives near or on a river or lake they have to be prepared for the worst, but how about the people
Those people who choose to live there can not ask another man to support them when something like this happens. It was not my choice for you to live there, why should I be made to help? When that type of claim is made on me, it had better be made with a gun and not under the pretense that I'm doing it for the good of my fellow man.

Also, I've never seen poverty-stricken waterside property.



You've never been down the Mississippi...

Anyway, I think what we can perhaps agree upon is that when someone loses a home to river flooding, and they rely on flood insurance or emergency funds to rebuild, they should not be allowed to build or buy a new place right in the same damn flood-plain! I have no problem helping people in emergencies. I do have a problem shelling out dollars continuously because some people are too stubborn and stupid to get out of line of fire when they have the chance!

[ChIcKeN_HaWk]

Those people who choose to live there can not ask another man to support them when something like this happens. It was not my choice for you to live there, why should I be made to help? When that type of claim is made on me, it had better be made with a gun and not under the pretense that I'm doing it for the good of my fellow man.

Also, I've never seen poverty-stricken waterside property.


I agree with some of your points, but on the other hand the people that have no control over a swelled river that live some distance away or a farmer that can't farm because his field is flooded doesn't have a choice.

You are right when you state that people with waterside property know what they get into when they buy but there are quite a few communities, in the midwest anyways, that are not rich and live in the vicinity of a river or lake and get flooded because the river is 15 to 25 feet over it's normal height. You can't sell after something like that for at least a few years, by that time (with the way the weather has been for the past 10 years or so) you've got more problems.

I am only defending the folks that are miles away from the actual river or lake and are still affected.

[TheLoneGunman]

Perhaps this has gotten a bit off-track.

My concern was RE-building in a flood zone.

I am willing to give people one free chance. If Uncle Zeke can't afford to move and gets flooded, that sucks. If he takes his check and builds another non-flood safe house right next to the river, then I won't pay again next year.

The same thing for other areas.

I lived through the big quake in Northridge and I have no problem helping people to rebuild, but if they rebuild in an unsafe way, I have no sympathy.

[Nanotech9]

about the riding w/o a helmet... i do it, sometimes, cause I've read many in-depth studies and articles explaining how a helmet can and has actually broken the neck of the user in a light (otherwise non-injury) accident on a motorcycle. This is usually caused by the helmet being rotated sifficiently on the head to makee contact with the back of the neck, and crush or snap the backbone, causing paralysis(sp?) from the nexk down. Kinda ruins your day when you know that if you hadn't been wearing a helmet, all that would have happened is you would've gotten you jeans and gloves scuffed up a little. Kinda makes you think twice about wearing a helmet. (note, this only happens with full helmets that com all the way down in the back - a "beanie cap" helmet doesn't have that little design flaw.)

just my $0.02 :D
thanks for listening!