View Single Post
  #24   Report Post  
Larry Bud
 
Posts: n/a
Default

(Greg) wrote in message ...
THe flaw in your argument is that there is no place that is totally safe from
natural disasters and the folks who think they are safe are more likely NOT to
have any insurance for it.
I agree there should be places where folks would have to accept their losses
(river bottoms and barrier islands) if they rebuild but you can't paint this
with too wide a brush.


Don't you think hurricanes hitting Florida is pretty common? This
isn't like a meteor landing on someone's home, for crying out loud.
It happens numerous times in a decade. Could be three big ones
if/when Isaac hits Fla. When the Mississippi River flooded out a few
years ago, the same people who were wiped out 30 years ago were wiped
out again. I distinctly remember people saying that they were going
to rebuild exactly in the same spot. This is ridiculous.

Why should I, WE, be paying for the gamble that someone else takes?
You state it in your first sentence, "folks who think they are safe
are more likely NOT to have any insurance for it.". I'm sorry, but
someone elses lack of preparation should not hit me, directly or
indirectly, in the pocketbook.