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