Difference in feeling?

[Guest]

I've donated to the Hurricane Harvey relief efforts, but I must say I don't feel quite the same about victims in the US as I do for victims in 3rd world countries such as Indonesia or Sri Lanka. I keep hearing on the news that 5 out of 6 victims in the Houston area didn't carry flood insurance. Part of me wonders how someone can live in a flood-prone area and not carry such insurance. I do feel compassion for the victims, just not the same amount as I do for someone living in some shack in a village of Indonesia or Sri Lanka. There just seems to be something irresponsible about living in an area prone to flooding, where flood insurance is available, but simply not purchased...

[LaffingBear]

1. Flood insurance is expensive
   
2. If there's any form of owners association, the association board decides whether to buy it... not all owners
   
3. Theres a mandate to buy flood insurance if your home is in a designated flood plain. No mandate, people tend to assume they're safe.
   
4. It was the heaviest rainfall in US history.
   
5. Some people are flooding because of water releases from reservoirs and behind levees, because the releases are necessary to avoid catastrophic infrastructure failure.
   

A Sri Lanka oceanside village

http://nation.lk/online/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/Sri-Lanka-View-from-Cinnamon-Red-Colombo-DSC3865.jpg

 

Indonesia shacks:

http://www.indonesia.travel/uploads/7ed6a8053d331dd04819b4f1caf9f3f8200fcfc6-cfa60.jpg

[+ purplekow]

It is difficulty for us here on the New Jersey Shore to support aid to the Houston victims when Superstorm Sandy relief was voted against by both Texas Senators and most of the Texas members of the House of Representatives. Of course, here in New Jersey we eventually got federal relief, but still, it will be nice to see Ted Cruz and his "pull yourself up by your bootstraps" rhetoric begging for funds on the Senate floor.

[Samfoslom]

many people who were flooded were not in the flood zone. this is a once in a thousand year event. eventually, the frequency of these things will have to be re-assessed.

 

generally, when flood ins is available for a prop that has a homeowners assoc, they purchase it because the cost is more affordable spread out among the members. but the insurance is by building, and if it is FEMA backed, there are structure coverage limits. the high rise towers on the ocean tend not to carry, because they often feel they are immune because of the many stories, and they downplay the storm surge damage that will happen to the first floor lobby/shop areas.

[+ purplekow]

Through a mix up with my mortgage company when the mortgage was sold to a different lender, I was told that I must buy flood insurance as I was in a flood zone and if I failed to do so, the mortgage company would purchase it and charge me $2220 for a year. So, while I was trying to sort out the issue, I went to my insurer and purchased flood insurance for $147 for a year. Eventually, the mortgage holder still tried to charge me $2220 and when I sent them a copy of the certified letter that I sent to them showing them I had the insurance, they eliminated the charge. Soon afterward, I received a letter which informed me that since my property was not in a flood zone, I would not need the insurance. That letter was dated two weeks before they eliminated the charge.

What was particularly disturbing about this, other than the extortion that is, is that all the letters that I received indicated that I needed FOOD insurance and that I was in a FOOD zone. Each time I spoke with a company representative about this situation, I informed them of the FOOD vs FLOOD issue. None of them seemed to care.

Nationstar has since changed its name to Mr. Cooper, to make it seem as though it is a more humane company.

[Guest]

... So, while I was trying to sort out the issue, I went to my insurer and purchased flood insurance for $147 for a year...

 

So people were gambling because they didn't want to pay something on the order of $147 a year? I assumed it was more than 10 times that, probably more than 20 times that. That tends to make me feel even less bad about the victims (but I still do feel bad, although I think everyone knows Houston is subject to flooding).

[+ purplekow]

So people were gambling because they didn't want to pay something on the order of $147 a year? I assumed it was more than 10 times that, probably more than 20 times that. That tends to make me feel even less bad about the victims (but I still do feel bad, although I think everyone knows Houston is subject to flooding).

That is what my bill was. Not a flood zone so cheaper. There are some places that are so high risk that private insurers will not sell insurance to home owners there. They need to apply for federal flood insurance.

[+ WilliamM]

So people were gambling because they didn't want to pay something on the order of $147 a year? I assumed it was more than 10 times that, probably more than 20 times that. That tends to make me feel even less bad about the victims (but I still do feel bad, although I think everyone knows Houston is subject to flooding).

 

People living in Houston and many other Texas communities are just returning to seriously damaged home after day after day of rain. Many small towns do not have drinking water yet. In Beaumont, people have to line up for bottled water.

[Rudynate]

I've donated to the Hurricane Harvey relief efforts, but I must say I don't feel quite the same about victims in the US as I do for victims in 3rd world countries such as Indonesia or Sri Lanka. I keep hearing on the news that 5 out of 6 victims in the Houston area didn't carry flood insurance. Part of me wonders how someone can live in a flood-prone area and not carry such insurance. I do feel compassion for the victims, just not the same amount as I do for someone living in some shack in a village of Indonesia or Sri Lanka. There just seems to be something irresponsible about living in an area prone to flooding, where flood insurance is available, but simply not purchased...

 

 

I always experience the same conflicted feelings whenever the Russian River floods.

[+ quoththeraven]

People need help. If policymakers can't stomach the firestorm over calls to cut back and prevent or make continued development less attractive (which they can't), then it's unrealistic, and maybe unfair, to expect people and businesses on the ground to do it themselves.

 

Any such decision involves a large upfront cost for buying out property owners as well, which adds to the pressure not to uproot people.

[rvwnsd]

So people were gambling because they didn't want to pay something on the order of $147 a year? I assumed it was more than 10 times that, probably more than 20 times that. That tends to make me feel even less bad about the victims (but I still do feel bad, although I think everyone knows Houston is subject to flooding).

Whether or not someone has flood insurance has no bearing on the effect of losing power, clean water, access to food, shelter, transportation, work, or wages. Flood insurance covers the cost of rebuilding homes and replacing possessions. It doesn't help people find immediate shelter, food, or transportation. That's what our donations help provide.

 

@quoththeraven is right - we should not encourage growth in places like Houston, Southern California, South Florida, or the tornado-prone areas of ex-urban Chicago. However, the fact of the matter is we did and now we have hundreds of thousands of people who need immediate assistance.

[+ honcho]

Another post I agree with, and the contents of which I can't bring myself to like...

I wonder if Facebook took out a patent on having a multivalued "Like" mechanism; I'd use the teary-eyed icon here, if it were available.

 

People need help. If policymakers can't stomach the firestorm over calls to cut back and prevent or make continued development less attractive (which they can't), then it's unrealistic, and maybe unfair, to expect people and businesses on the ground to do it themselves.

 

Any such decision involves a large upfront cost for buying out property owners as well, which adds to the pressure not to uproot people.

[MikeyGMin]

So people were gambling because they didn't want to pay something on the order of $147 a year? I assumed it was more than 10 times that, probably more than 20 times that. That tends to make me feel even less bad about the victims (but I still do feel bad, although I think everyone knows Houston is subject to flooding).

It is 10 - 20 times higher than that if you live in an actual flood zone. The situation is also compounded by the fact that Texas has ridiculously high property taxes to compensate for the lack of a state income tax. The monthly property taxes on my house are almost, just a little shy, of the actual mortgage payment itself. When you add flood insurance into your total monthly housing cost it can be daunting.

 

Still, I'm not the sharpest knife in the drawer and I factored in flood insurance into my decision on where to buy and what I could afford. A consideration that would have been 20 times harder if I was looking in Houston rather than Austin.

[YoungAD]

The area has, and will experience weather-related catastrophes. Rather than helping people rebuild, the government should consider helping people relocate further inward and making more educated and realistic decisions about where to break ground. I am committed to helping people recover from disaster but not to rebuilding in a disaster-prone area.

 

Some areas of the country are simply not conduscive for development.

[+ purplekow]

The area has, and will experience weather-related catastrophes. Rather than helping people rebuild, the government should consider helping people relocate further inward and making more educated and realistic decisions about where to break ground. I am committed to helping people recover from disaster but not to rebuilding in a disaster-prone area.

 

Some areas of the country are simply not conduscive for development.

There is a barrier island near my home. In the twenty five years i have lived here, it has been significantly flooded four times. The houses are ruined, destroyed and rebuilt bigger, but not necessarily more flood resistant. After the last flood, Sandy, they did institute some rules about keeping houses a reasonable distance off the ground. But geez, there is only 2 blocks of land between the ocean and the bay and one of these days, there will not be any ground to keep the house above. But build and rebuild they do, just to get a view of the ocean. 364 days a year they see the ocean out the window, 1 day a year the see the ocean in the window.

[MikeyGMin]

The houses are ruined, destroyed and rebuilt bigger, but not necessarily more flood resistant.

Rich people problems. It's not smart, but they aren't the ones I'm concerned about.

 

My friend's parents have lived in the same house in Houston for 30 years. It's not in a flood zone, but the area has gentrified dramatically in the last 10 years so there has been new-build all around them. They started noticing changes the last few years.

 

They went from never even coming close to being flooded to 4ft underwater last week. They are a poor family. Of course they didn't have flood insurance. No money to rebuild. No money to buy a house in a new location. They are royally hosed.

 

I wonder if Houston will rethink its proud tradition of not having any zoning laws?

[Becket]

I wonder if Houston will rethink its proud tradition of not having any zoning laws? Mikey GMin

As stated above, Texans have no need for those unnecessary torts like state sales tax, and zoning laws; less for criminal rights and fewer still for any U.S. government interference with how we run things down here. But when public money is being given away, especially from those heretics up north, Ted and his buddies will be first in line for that prime phat teat. He'll go down on her like Bill gobbled up Monica (allegedly).

 

The eyes of Texas are upon you........re pocketbook.

 

Yea, we really stink sometimes.........

[rvwnsd]

The area has, and will experience weather-related catastrophes. Rather than helping people rebuild, the government should consider helping people relocate further inward and making more educated and realistic decisions about where to break ground. I am committed to helping people recover from disaster but not to rebuilding in a disaster-prone area.

 

Some areas of the country are simply not conduscive for development.

 

I agree

 

Back in 1986 my parents were house-shopping and came "this close" to making an offer on a house located in a wooded area along the banks of the DesPlaines river. It was a beautiful house, but they were city people who walked places, rode public transit, and were concerned about not being able to get to the supermarket in case of a disaster. They declined to buy that house and instead moved to a suburb next to Chicago that looked like any middle-class city neighborhood save for the color of the street signs (brown instead of green). Although they were a few blocks from the DesPlaines River and from a forest preserve, the house was in a community that built lots that sloped down toward the street.

 

In 1987, Chicago had a series of unusual torrential summer rains for days. the DesPlaines River reached flood stage and entire suburbs were waist-deep in water. They had water lapping up against the lower-level windows and sustained minor damage from water that seeped in under a door, but other than that their home was unscathed. Folks a few blocks away were not so lucky - their homes were destroyed. The house along the river was gone. It was a "hundred year flood." And it happened again a few years later. The village they lived in acquired the land from homeowners across from the river and built a park. When it floods, park access is lost for a few days, but there is no damage to homes. Of course, that flood was different than Houston's but you have to wonder why in the hell a major city was built in a location like Houston. Chicago has received 36" of snow, but it doesn't all melt in a day.

[+ quoththeraven]

The area has, and will experience weather-related catastrophes. Rather than helping people rebuild, the government should consider helping people relocate further inward and making more educated and realistic decisions about where to break ground. I am committed to helping people recover from disaster but not to rebuilding in a disaster-prone area.

 

Some areas of the country are simply not conduscive for development.

True, but coming to that conclusion decisively enough to offer strong enough incentives is what's difficult.

 

It's tough enough in the movie Seven Samurai to convince the three households that are on the other side of the stream to stay and fight instead of individually defending their homes. The otherwise gentle, compassionate Kambei has to threaten them with a sword and yell about putting the good of the whole ahead of the good of individuals in order for any of them to survive the bandits that are about to return.

 

Later on, all three outlying homes are destroyed, and the man Kambei had to cow doesn't regret it. (The movie ends happily for the village, although not for everyone.)

 

I highly recommend the movie, btw.

[+ sync]

The area has, and will experience weather-related catastrophes. Rather than helping people rebuild, the government should consider helping people relocate further inward and making more educated and realistic decisions about where to break ground. I am committed to helping people recover from disaster but not to rebuilding in a disaster-prone area.

 

Some areas of the country are simply not conduscive for development.

 

I totally agree with your evaluation, but my cynicism has me thinking the government would resist mass relocations which would redistribute pockets of wealth and change voting blocks.