|
Don't Rebuild NO Say 54%
Interesting that 54% of Americans polled say don't rebuild the flooded parts
of NO below sea level. That makes good fiscal sense and good safety sense. Regardless of who is or is not to blame for the progress of the life saving efforts in NO, I believe everyone can agree that the effort was made incredibly more difficult by the flooding. If NO had been affected by wind rather than by flood the rescue efforts would have been vastly simplified. I agree with the majority of Americans. Lets save the Quarter and the hotels necessary to support the Quarter's tourist industry, but lets not perpetuate the gross mistake of building a major city below sea level. It would be unsafe and a horrible waste of the people's treasure. Butch |
Butch Davis wrote: Interesting that 54% of Americans polled say don't rebuild the flooded parts of NO below sea level. That makes good fiscal sense and good safety sense. Regardless of who is or is not to blame for the progress of the life saving efforts in NO, I believe everyone can agree that the effort was made incredibly more difficult by the flooding. If NO had been affected by wind rather than by flood the rescue efforts would have been vastly simplified. I agree with the majority of Americans. Lets save the Quarter and the hotels necessary to support the Quarter's tourist industry, but lets not perpetuate the gross mistake of building a major city below sea level. It would be unsafe and a horrible waste of the people's treasure. Butch I'd get busy and let the Dutch know about this new policy. They have built below sea level for almost ever. How fricking ridiculous for everybody upstream to screw up the drainage, pave over all the soil, and then tell the folks downstream they need to tear down their city because it can't withstand the flood waters that have been artificially diverted there. We all need to be responsible for our own environmental impacts, not just shove the problem downstream and tell the folks that when it gets too unbearable they need to tear down the city overwhelmed by the impacts of somebody else's selfish land use. |
Butch Davis wrote: Interesting that 54% of Americans polled say don't rebuild the flooded parts of NO below sea level. That makes good fiscal sense and good safety sense. Regardless of who is or is not to blame for the progress of the life saving efforts in NO, I believe everyone can agree that the effort was made incredibly more difficult by the flooding. If NO had been affected by wind rather than by flood the rescue efforts would have been vastly simplified. I agree with the majority of Americans. Lets save the Quarter and the hotels necessary to support the Quarter's tourist industry, but lets not perpetuate the gross mistake of building a major city below sea level. It would be unsafe and a horrible waste of the people's treasure. Butch I tend to view some of these polls because I am not convinced that many Americans (or anyone else) have a firm enough grasp of the issues involved to make an informed decision. Everyone is entitled to an opinion but some opinions are better than others. If this hurricane and flood event was a one in a hundred year event or longer it might be feasible to improve the levee system and rebuild. If there is a say 30% chance of this occuring every 5 years then rebuilding would be a huge waste. Looking at the hurricane damage in areas of Florida it seems to me that large areas need to be reviewed to see if any permanent habitations should be built. I have seen reports of places in Florida where owners have rebuilt several times in the past 10 years all of it subsidized by cheap flood insurance by the federal government. My tax dollars at work ? |
Folks who want to live in hurricane hot spots understand the exposures. If
rebuilding is done in hurricane prone areas let the owners be self insured and limit government funding to only search and rescue. A cold viewpoint? Yep. But I am tired of paying for the damage done by hurricanes along coastal areas, both in my taxes and my insurance premiums. "Butch Davis" wrote in message ink.net... Interesting that 54% of Americans polled say don't rebuild the flooded parts of NO below sea level. That makes good fiscal sense and good safety sense. Regardless of who is or is not to blame for the progress of the life saving efforts in NO, I believe everyone can agree that the effort was made incredibly more difficult by the flooding. If NO had been affected by wind rather than by flood the rescue efforts would have been vastly simplified. I agree with the majority of Americans. Lets save the Quarter and the hotels necessary to support the Quarter's tourist industry, but lets not perpetuate the gross mistake of building a major city below sea level. It would be unsafe and a horrible waste of the people's treasure. Butch |
*JimH* wrote: Folks who want to live in hurricane hot spots understand the exposures. If rebuilding is done in hurricane prone areas let the owners be self insured and limit government funding to only search and rescue. A cold viewpoint? Yep. But I am tired of paying for the damage done by hurricanes along coastal areas, both in my taxes and my insurance premiums. Early reports indicate that many insurance companies are denying coverage across the board to anybody who has a house underwater and who does not specifically have flood insurance. Even though most policies would cover "wind damage" associated with a major storm, the adjusters are so far telling people that the flood was a different hazard and they aren't covered. So, in effect, a lot of the victims of this thing will turn out to be self insured (financially ruined) in the end. No tax dollars and no insurance company losses involved, in many cases. "Butch Davis" wrote in message ink.net... Interesting that 54% of Americans polled say don't rebuild the flooded parts of NO below sea level. That makes good fiscal sense and good safety sense. Regardless of who is or is not to blame for the progress of the life saving efforts in NO, I believe everyone can agree that the effort was made incredibly more difficult by the flooding. If NO had been affected by wind rather than by flood the rescue efforts would have been vastly simplified. I agree with the majority of Americans. Lets save the Quarter and the hotels necessary to support the Quarter's tourist industry, but lets not perpetuate the gross mistake of building a major city below sea level. It would be unsafe and a horrible waste of the people's treasure. Butch |
wrote in message oups.com... *JimH* wrote: Folks who want to live in hurricane hot spots understand the exposures. If rebuilding is done in hurricane prone areas let the owners be self insured and limit government funding to only search and rescue. A cold viewpoint? Yep. But I am tired of paying for the damage done by hurricanes along coastal areas, both in my taxes and my insurance premiums. Early reports indicate that many insurance companies are denying coverage across the board to anybody who has a house underwater and who does not specifically have flood insurance. Even though most policies would cover "wind damage" associated with a major storm, the adjusters are so far telling people that the flood was a different hazard and they aren't covered. So, in effect, a lot of the victims of this thing will turn out to be self insured (financially ruined) in the end. No tax dollars and no insurance company losses involved, in many cases. Not true, tax dollars are used in most every flood and hurricane I know about. Insurance dollars may or may not be involved for the house, but they are involved in looting (theft of property) and auto/truck losses from the storms or water. Many insurance companies are not providing flood insurance for homes/buildings, or provide it at an additional premium, built in flood plains. How many times have we funded the rebuilding of the houses on the Outer Banks while the owners get to enjoy the house and income from it's rental? They know the risk. Yet we bail them out when the house is totaled from a hurricane and they rebuild once again. Let these folks take on 100% of the risk. I am tired of bailing them out. |
Chuck,
The insurance company is not paying for flood damage? Do you think this surprises anyone who lives in a flood plain? I have seen ads on TV for over 20 years talking about Flood Insurance, and the reason it is important. The ads emphasize, "If you home is damaged by a flood, you are not insured, if you want to be insured against a flood, you must buy flood insurance. Since I have never lived in a flood plain, I would assume those who do live in flood plains were aware their insurance would not pay for damaged due to floods, so they and you should not be surprised by the insurance companies response. Everytime I renew my homeowners insurance, the company highlights that my insurance does not pay for flood damage. I do know that all lenders insist that any loans given to an individuals who lives in a flood plain, include Flood Insurance. I am devastated by the suffering of those who are flooded out of their home, but we should not chastise the insurance companies for not paying insurance claims to people who are not insured. That would be as silly as chastising an insurance company for not paying a auto owner's claim for Comprehensive Coverage, when he only paid for Liability Coverage. wrote in message oups.com... *JimH* wrote: Folks who want to live in hurricane hot spots understand the exposures. If rebuilding is done in hurricane prone areas let the owners be self insured and limit government funding to only search and rescue. A cold viewpoint? Yep. But I am tired of paying for the damage done by hurricanes along coastal areas, both in my taxes and my insurance premiums. Early reports indicate that many insurance companies are denying coverage across the board to anybody who has a house underwater and who does not specifically have flood insurance. Even though most policies would cover "wind damage" associated with a major storm, the adjusters are so far telling people that the flood was a different hazard and they aren't covered. So, in effect, a lot of the victims of this thing will turn out to be self insured (financially ruined) in the end. No tax dollars and no insurance company losses involved, in many cases. "Butch Davis" wrote in message ink.net... Interesting that 54% of Americans polled say don't rebuild the flooded parts of NO below sea level. That makes good fiscal sense and good safety sense. Regardless of who is or is not to blame for the progress of the life saving efforts in NO, I believe everyone can agree that the effort was made incredibly more difficult by the flooding. If NO had been affected by wind rather than by flood the rescue efforts would have been vastly simplified. I agree with the majority of Americans. Lets save the Quarter and the hotels necessary to support the Quarter's tourist industry, but lets not perpetuate the gross mistake of building a major city below sea level. It would be unsafe and a horrible waste of the people's treasure. Butch |
Chuck,
The problem is not only upstream, but all the way along the Mississippi. The area NO is built is part of the Mississippi Delta. NO and the Mississippi Delta is supposed to flood. NO would flood even if no one lived upstream of NO. wrote in message ups.com... Butch Davis wrote: Interesting that 54% of Americans polled say don't rebuild the flooded parts of NO below sea level. That makes good fiscal sense and good safety sense. Regardless of who is or is not to blame for the progress of the life saving efforts in NO, I believe everyone can agree that the effort was made incredibly more difficult by the flooding. If NO had been affected by wind rather than by flood the rescue efforts would have been vastly simplified. I agree with the majority of Americans. Lets save the Quarter and the hotels necessary to support the Quarter's tourist industry, but lets not perpetuate the gross mistake of building a major city below sea level. It would be unsafe and a horrible waste of the people's treasure. Butch I'd get busy and let the Dutch know about this new policy. They have built below sea level for almost ever. How fricking ridiculous for everybody upstream to screw up the drainage, pave over all the soil, and then tell the folks downstream they need to tear down their city because it can't withstand the flood waters that have been artificially diverted there. We all need to be responsible for our own environmental impacts, not just shove the problem downstream and tell the folks that when it gets too unbearable they need to tear down the city overwhelmed by the impacts of somebody else's selfish land use. |
Gene,
Your and Gould's assessment about upstream run off is correct. but the problem in NO is not caused by upstream mismanagement, it is the result of an entire city being built in the Mississippi Delta, which is a flood plan. There is nothing anyone can do to stop that. We may be able to delay the flood, but eventually it will flood. We all need to be responsible for our own environmental impacts, not just shove the problem downstream and tell the folks that when it gets too unbearable they need to tear down the city overwhelmed by the impacts of somebody else's selfish land use. Won't happen until the courts have the cahones to make the upstream municipality responsible for the downstream municipalities' loss..... -- _ ___c \ _| \_ __\_| oooo \_____ ~~~~|______________/ ~~~~~ ~~~ ~~~~~~ ~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~ }((((o ~~~~~~ }{{{{o ~~~~~~~ Grady-White Gulfstream, out of Southport, NC. http://myworkshop.idleplay.net/ Homepage* http://www.thebayguide.com/rec.boats Rec.boats at Lee Yeaton's Bayguide |
On Fri, 9 Sep 2005 11:57:27 -0400, "Starbuck's"
wrote: Chuck, The problem is not only upstream, but all the way along the Mississippi. The area NO is built is part of the Mississippi Delta. NO and the Mississippi Delta is supposed to flood. NO would flood even if no one lived upstream of NO. wrote in message oups.com... Butch Davis wrote: Interesting that 54% of Americans polled say don't rebuild the flooded parts of NO below sea level. That makes good fiscal sense and good safety sense. Regardless of who is or is not to blame for the progress of the life saving efforts in NO, I believe everyone can agree that the effort was made incredibly more difficult by the flooding. If NO had been affected by wind rather than by flood the rescue efforts would have been vastly simplified. I agree with the majority of Americans. Lets save the Quarter and the hotels necessary to support the Quarter's tourist industry, but lets not perpetuate the gross mistake of building a major city below sea level. It would be unsafe and a horrible waste of the people's treasure. Butch I'd get busy and let the Dutch know about this new policy. They have built below sea level for almost ever. How fricking ridiculous for everybody upstream to screw up the drainage, pave over all the soil, and then tell the folks downstream they need to tear down their city because it can't withstand the flood waters that have been artificially diverted there. We all need to be responsible for our own environmental impacts, not just shove the problem downstream and tell the folks that when it gets too unbearable they need to tear down the city overwhelmed by the impacts of somebody else's selfish land use. Uh, if I am not mistaken the flood didn't come from the river, it came from the Gulf - more specifically from a "lake" that is part of the Gulf. The water certainly was not the result of too rapid of runoff from areas upriver from NO. The Gulf side levee was breached by the storm surge from the Gulf and allowed the Gulf, which is above the level of the city, to flood in. If the rest of the Mississippi were pristine the same level of flooding would have occured. Tha Other Dave Hall "The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who have not got it." -- G.B. Shaw |
Dave,
My point exactly. Man can try to hold back Mother Nature, by diverting waters, building levees etc. and we can succeed for awhile, but in the long run, Mother Nature will win. For the past 30 yrs. people have been talking about NO being flooded, so no one should have been surprised when it happened. We should have had a much better evacuation plan and emergency relief plan in place. All along the Mississippi there are breaks in the levee system, causing flooding on a much greater magnitude than if we did not have the levees. "Dave Hall" wrote in message ... On Fri, 9 Sep 2005 11:57:27 -0400, "Starbuck's" wrote: Chuck, The problem is not only upstream, but all the way along the Mississippi. The area NO is built is part of the Mississippi Delta. NO and the Mississippi Delta is supposed to flood. NO would flood even if no one lived upstream of NO. wrote in message roups.com... Butch Davis wrote: Interesting that 54% of Americans polled say don't rebuild the flooded parts of NO below sea level. That makes good fiscal sense and good safety sense. Regardless of who is or is not to blame for the progress of the life saving efforts in NO, I believe everyone can agree that the effort was made incredibly more difficult by the flooding. If NO had been affected by wind rather than by flood the rescue efforts would have been vastly simplified. I agree with the majority of Americans. Lets save the Quarter and the hotels necessary to support the Quarter's tourist industry, but lets not perpetuate the gross mistake of building a major city below sea level. It would be unsafe and a horrible waste of the people's treasure. Butch I'd get busy and let the Dutch know about this new policy. They have built below sea level for almost ever. How fricking ridiculous for everybody upstream to screw up the drainage, pave over all the soil, and then tell the folks downstream they need to tear down their city because it can't withstand the flood waters that have been artificially diverted there. We all need to be responsible for our own environmental impacts, not just shove the problem downstream and tell the folks that when it gets too unbearable they need to tear down the city overwhelmed by the impacts of somebody else's selfish land use. Uh, if I am not mistaken the flood didn't come from the river, it came from the Gulf - more specifically from a "lake" that is part of the Gulf. The water certainly was not the result of too rapid of runoff from areas upriver from NO. The Gulf side levee was breached by the storm surge from the Gulf and allowed the Gulf, which is above the level of the city, to flood in. If the rest of the Mississippi were pristine the same level of flooding would have occured. Tha Other Dave Hall "The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who have not got it." -- G.B. Shaw |
On Fri, 09 Sep 2005 16:26:34 GMT, Gene Kearns
wrote: On 9 Sep 2005 07:26:35 -0700, wrote: I'd get busy and let the Dutch know about this new policy. They have built below sea level for almost ever. I think we are talking apples and oranges. The Dutch don't have hurricanes and AFAIK do not have a major subsidence problem like southern Louisiana does (at least since about 1300). Yes, the Dutch, in some areas, do have a subsidence problem. My friend lives in a small town, Stolwyjk, about 25 km from Rotterdam. Over the last couple years they have raised all the streets in town about three feet. The buildings (houses, etc) are built on pilings, but the yards, streets, parks, etc. are not. They sink. The streets in the town are cobblestone, for the most part, and are completely dug up, along with the front yards in the town. Fill is trucked in, and the space between buildings is brought back up to level. It's strange as hell, because where their used to be steps on the front of the house, the steps are now gone. The front door, the yard, and the street are all level again. This will be repeated in a number (I know not how many) years. -- John H "All decisions are the result of binary thinking." |
On Fri, 09 Sep 2005 21:58:45 GMT, Gene Kearns
wrote: On Fri, 09 Sep 2005 17:03:27 -0400, PocoLoco wrote: Yes, the Dutch, in some areas, do have a subsidence problem. My friend lives in a small town, Stolwyjk, about 25 km from Rotterdam. Over the last couple years they have raised all the streets in town about three feet. The buildings (houses, etc) are built on pilings, but the yards, streets, parks, etc. are not. They sink. The streets in the town are cobblestone, for the most part, and are completely dug up, along with the front yards in the town. Fill is trucked in, and the space between buildings is brought back up to level. It's strange as hell, because where their used to be steps on the front of the house, the steps are now gone. The front door, the yard, and the street are all level again. This will be repeated in a number (I know not how many) years. Wow. Who foots the bill for this continual work? What sort of tax rates do they have? Over 60%. And that doesn't cover the tremendous tax they pay on imports, like automobiles and on fuel. -- John H "All decisions are the result of binary thinking." |
wrote in message ups.com... Butch Davis wrote: Interesting that 54% of Americans polled say don't rebuild the flooded parts of NO below sea level. That makes good fiscal sense and good safety sense. Regardless of who is or is not to blame for the progress of the life saving efforts in NO, I believe everyone can agree that the effort was made incredibly more difficult by the flooding. If NO had been affected by wind rather than by flood the rescue efforts would have been vastly simplified. I agree with the majority of Americans. Lets save the Quarter and the hotels necessary to support the Quarter's tourist industry, but lets not perpetuate the gross mistake of building a major city below sea level. It would be unsafe and a horrible waste of the people's treasure. Butch I'd get busy and let the Dutch know about this new policy. They have built below sea level for almost ever. That would be relevant if the Dutch lived in Hurricane Alley. |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 04:18 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com