In article ,
3D Peruna wrote:

And, more importantly, the goverment shouldn't bail you out.


Well, the reality is that for earthquake insurance it is the government
bailing us out. The government offers earthquake (and fire) insurance
and the government made private companies do the same. The free market did
not work in this instance. What earthquake insurance *does* exist is
extremely poor and can't be counted on in any situation other than a total
loss. I don't understand why this is, since people in Florida can buy
decent flood (hurricane) insurance rather cheaply. A $50K deductible with
premiums of $2K per year just isn't worth it to most people.


Dimitri

On Sun, 10 Oct 2004 17:03:56 -0500, "3D Peruna"
wrote:


" Well, yes and no. Repair and reconstruction prices tend to go up in
the wake of a natural disaster; that's basic supply-and-demand at
work.

While we're on this topic, does anyone know to what extent (and in
what form) would FEMA offer any relief?

While FEMA MIGHT offer relief in these areas, FEMA shouldn't give any money
to anyone who willing lives in an area already known for certain types of
natural disasters. That's what insurance is for. If you can't afford the
proper insurance, then pick someplace else to live.

The problem here is that there is no "proper insurance".
Insurance companies, for sound economic reasons, no longer write
"proper" earthquake insurance in California. Just as the
insurance companies no longer underwrite flood insurace. In that
case, though, the federal government does underwrite flood
insurance.

FEMA only has money because it's taken it from many of us to pay you for
your lack of foresight.

Your point is well taken, but people only say that until some
disaster hits them. There are few places in the USA that are
free, or nearly free, of potential disasters. In those areas
where a single disaster, such as an earthquake or flood can
mandate a lot of payouts by an insurance company, the companies
will not write insurance. Although in the long term it may be
possible to "average" out premiums to make a profit, in the short
run such a disaster can bankr upt an insurance company.

So also with casinos, which impose restrictions on play to
prevent the possible, but unlikely, case of a punter winning
enough to end up owning the casino.


************* DAVE HATUNEN ) *************
* Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow *
* My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps *

On Mon, 11 Oct 2004 14:11:20 GMT, Bob Morrison
wrote:

In a previous post Raymond Yeung says...
Yes, I agree with you that insurance should be bought in such areas. I
did hear certain people skipping insurance and counting on FEMA. So I thought
I would verify that claim. What sort of relieves had been distributed to
other disasterous states before?


The BEST you could hope for would be a low interest loan. FEMA will not
repair structures outright.

I gotta say that it sounds like you are really nervous about living in
California. My opinion is if you can't stand the risk then don't. Find
someplace else to live.

It is almost inevitable that if you live anywhere in California
save the high Sierra you will enjoy the thrill of feeling the
earth move beneath your feet, your house of flat creak and
squeak, your glassware jiggle and dance, and your bed act like a
quarter has been dropped in the Magic Fingers. But it won't be
logn before you're playing the office pool of How Strong Was It?
And what a thrill feeling an office building swaying while you
are on an upper floor, watching a light fixture make like a
pendulum.

Many people don't like the rain here in the Pacific NW. I don't mind it
and in fact moved from the dry side of the state to to the wet side.

I assume you are aware of the huge earthquake potential beteen
the Cascades and the ocean; it appears the Pacific Northwest has
bigger earthqukes than California, and it may be "overdue". Then
there's volcanos...

Don't force yourself to live where you know you will be on "pins and
needles" all the time. You will just be miserable and not enjoy life.
A job isn't worth that.

So, bottom line: either get comfortable with some risk or find another
situation. Don't expect the government to bail you out because they
won't.

I was living in Washington state (the Tri-Cities) in May of 1980
and in The SF Bay Area in October of 1989. I am happy to now be
living in an area of quite low risk of natural disasters.

************* DAVE HATUNEN ) *************
* Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow *
* My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps *

"D. Gerasimatos" wrote in message
...
In article ,
3D Peruna wrote:

And, more importantly, the goverment shouldn't bail you out.


Well, the reality is that for earthquake insurance it is the government
bailing us out. The government offers earthquake (and fire) insurance
and the government made private companies do the same. The free market did
not work in this instance.


The free market worked "perfectly" in this instance. Would you, personally,
start a private enterprise, where you were guaranteed to lose money?
Probably not, the insurance companies declined to do the same in this case.
Move, or accept the likelyhood of damage or loss of your home. Don't expect
to feed at the federal though, slurping up other peoples money because you
insist on building in a very high risk area.

JTMcC.



What earthquake insurance *does* exist is
extremely poor and can't be counted on in any situation other than a total
loss. I don't understand why this is, since people in Florida can buy
decent flood (hurricane) insurance rather cheaply. A $50K deductible with
premiums of $2K per year just isn't worth it to most people.


Dimitri

On Mon, 11 Oct 2004 16:58:30 +0000 (UTC),
(D. Gerasimatos) wrote:

In article ,
3D Peruna wrote:

And, more importantly, the goverment shouldn't bail you out.


Well, the reality is that for earthquake insurance it is the government
bailing us out. The government offers earthquake (and fire) insurance
and the government made private companies do the same. The free market did
not work in this instance. What earthquake insurance *does* exist is
extremely poor and can't be counted on in any situation other than a total
loss. I don't understand why this is, since people in Florida can buy
decent flood (hurricane) insurance rather cheaply.

That's not completely true, espcially for flood insurance.
Although s form of "subsidized" flood insurance is available for
those whose houses were constructed before the feds designated
Special Flood Hazard Areas, any new buildings, or substantially
improved buildings, must meet stringent requirements reducing the
financial risk to qualify for any sort of decent insurance. While
employed with the city of Palo Alto one of my unfortunate duties
was having to tell someone who wanted to do extensive remodeling
and/or add a wing that they would also have to jack up the house
above the level of the projected 100-year flood.

A $50K deductible with
premiums of $2K per year just isn't worth it to most people.

But an actuarial necessity. Insurance is also worthless if the
insurance company goes belly-up because of the disaster.

************* DAVE HATUNEN ) *************
* Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow *
* My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps *

"Hatunen" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 10 Oct 2004 17:03:56 -0500, "3D Peruna"
wrote:


" Well, yes and no. Repair and reconstruction prices tend to go up in
the wake of a natural disaster; that's basic supply-and-demand at
work.

While we're on this topic, does anyone know to what extent (and in
what form) would FEMA offer any relief?

While FEMA MIGHT offer relief in these areas, FEMA shouldn't give any
money
to anyone who willing lives in an area already known for certain types of
natural disasters. That's what insurance is for. If you can't afford the
proper insurance, then pick someplace else to live.

The problem here is that there is no "proper insurance".
Insurance companies, for sound economic reasons, no longer write
"proper" earthquake insurance in California. Just as the
insurance companies no longer underwrite flood insurace. In that
case, though, the federal government does underwrite flood
insurance.

FEMA only has money because it's taken it from many of us to pay you for
your lack of foresight.

Your point is well taken, but people only say that until some
disaster hits them.


"People" is a very big term. Maybe the people you're hanging out with think
that way, many of us don't.

JTMcC



There are few places in the USA that are
free, or nearly free, of potential disasters. In those areas
where a single disaster, such as an earthquake or flood can
mandate a lot of payouts by an insurance company, the companies
will not write insurance. Although in the long term it may be
possible to "average" out premiums to make a profit, in the short
run such a disaster can bankr upt an insurance company.

So also with casinos, which impose restrictions on play to
prevent the possible, but unlikely, case of a punter winning
enough to end up owning the casino.


************* DAVE HATUNEN ) *************
* Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow *
* My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps *

On Mon, 11 Oct 2004 18:57:10 GMT, "JTMcC"
wrote:


"Hatunen" wrote in message
.. .
On Sun, 10 Oct 2004 17:03:56 -0500, "3D Peruna"
wrote:


" Well, yes and no. Repair and reconstruction prices tend to go up in
the wake of a natural disaster; that's basic supply-and-demand at
work.

While we're on this topic, does anyone know to what extent (and in
what form) would FEMA offer any relief?

While FEMA MIGHT offer relief in these areas, FEMA shouldn't give any
money
to anyone who willing lives in an area already known for certain types of
natural disasters. That's what insurance is for. If you can't afford the
proper insurance, then pick someplace else to live.

The problem here is that there is no "proper insurance".
Insurance companies, for sound economic reasons, no longer write
"proper" earthquake insurance in California. Just as the
insurance companies no longer underwrite flood insurace. In that
case, though, the federal government does underwrite flood
insurance.

FEMA only has money because it's taken it from many of us to pay you for
your lack of foresight.

Your point is well taken, but people only say that until some
disaster hits them.

"People" is a very big term. Maybe the people you're hanging out with think
that way, many of us don't.

Have you suffered a major disaster?

************* DAVE HATUNEN ) *************
* Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow *
* My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps *

On Mon, 11 Oct 2004 19:27:19 +0000 (UTC),
(D. Gerasimatos) wrote:

In article ,
JTMcC wrote:

The free market worked "perfectly" in this instance. Would you, personally,
start a private enterprise, where you were guaranteed to lose money?
Probably not, the insurance companies declined to do the same in this case.
Move, or accept the likelyhood of damage or loss of your home. Don't expect
to feed at the federal though, slurping up other peoples money because you
insist on building in a very high risk area.


Two points he


1. The insurance companies had every right to charge higher premiums if
they feel they would lose money. Instead, they just stopped offering
the coverage at any price.

No one was likely to buy it at correct actuarial premiums. In any
case, the insurance companies aren't so concerned about paying
you off, they're concerned about having to pay out a whole bunch
claims at once. Banks don't have enough money in their vaults to
pay off if everyone came in and wanted to clsoe their accounts
the same day, and insurance companies don't have enough money to
pay off if everyone makes a claim from the same cataclysm.

2. I don't think CA is too worried about "feeding from the federal trough"
since we pay more in federal taxes than we get back every year. If
you want to be fair about it, CA is owed a lot of money back from the
Feds.

Californians don't pay THAT much in excess taxes.

************* DAVE HATUNEN ) *************
* Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow *
* My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps *

In article ,
JTMcC wrote:

The free market worked "perfectly" in this instance. Would you, personally,
start a private enterprise, where you were guaranteed to lose money?
Probably not, the insurance companies declined to do the same in this case.
Move, or accept the likelyhood of damage or loss of your home. Don't expect
to feed at the federal though, slurping up other peoples money because you
insist on building in a very high risk area.


Two points he


1. The insurance companies had every right to charge higher premiums if
they feel they would lose money. Instead, they just stopped offering
the coverage at any price.


2. I don't think CA is too worried about "feeding from the federal trough"
since we pay more in federal taxes than we get back every year. If
you want to be fair about it, CA is owed a lot of money back from the
Feds.


Dimitri

"D. Gerasimatos" wrote in message
...
In article ,
JTMcC wrote:

The free market worked "perfectly" in this instance. Would you,
personally,
start a private enterprise, where you were guaranteed to lose money?
Probably not, the insurance companies declined to do the same in this
case.
Move, or accept the likelyhood of damage or loss of your home. Don't
expect
to feed at the federal though, slurping up other peoples money because you
insist on building in a very high risk area.


Two points he


1. The insurance companies had every right to charge higher premiums if
they feel they would lose money. Instead, they just stopped offering
the coverage at any price.

And, they have every right to do that as well, they have every right to shut
the whole operation down, they can do with their business as they please. If
you start your own company, you will have the same right to run it as YOU
please.


2. I don't think CA is too worried about "feeding from the federal trough"
since we pay more in federal taxes than we get back every year. If
you want to be fair about it, CA is owed a lot of money back from the
Feds.


Wrong, California is full of those feeding at the federal, state and local
trough. Look around you man.
And if you want or expect the "govt." in any of it's forms, to compensate
you for poor choices in housing location, then you too are in line at
feeding time.

JTMcC.





Dimitri

"Hatunen" wrote in message
news
On Mon, 11 Oct 2004 18:57:10 GMT, "JTMcC"
wrote:


"Hatunen" wrote in message
. ..
On Sun, 10 Oct 2004 17:03:56 -0500, "3D Peruna"
wrote:


" Well, yes and no. Repair and reconstruction prices tend to go up in
the wake of a natural disaster; that's basic supply-and-demand at
work.

While we're on this topic, does anyone know to what extent (and in
what form) would FEMA offer any relief?

While FEMA MIGHT offer relief in these areas, FEMA shouldn't give any
money
to anyone who willing lives in an area already known for certain types
of
natural disasters. That's what insurance is for. If you can't afford
the
proper insurance, then pick someplace else to live.

The problem here is that there is no "proper insurance".
Insurance companies, for sound economic reasons, no longer write
"proper" earthquake insurance in California. Just as the
insurance companies no longer underwrite flood insurace. In that
case, though, the federal government does underwrite flood
insurance.

FEMA only has money because it's taken it from many of us to pay you for
your lack of foresight.

Your point is well taken, but people only say that until some
disaster hits them.

"People" is a very big term. Maybe the people you're hanging out with
think
that way, many of us don't.

Have you suffered a major disaster?

Yes, and my opinion was the same before as it was after. And I'm not alone
in that line of thinking. Those looking for a handout often find it hard to
believe that everyone is not like them. Just like thieves tend to think that
everyone steals.

JTMcC.

************* DAVE HATUNEN ) *************
* Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow *
* My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps *

On Mon, 11 Oct 2004 20:15:35 GMT, "JTMcC"
wrote:


"Hatunen" wrote in message
news
On Mon, 11 Oct 2004 18:57:10 GMT, "JTMcC"
wrote:


"Hatunen" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 10 Oct 2004 17:03:56 -0500, "3D Peruna"
wrote:


" Well, yes and no. Repair and reconstruction prices tend to go up in
the wake of a natural disaster; that's basic supply-and-demand at
work.

While we're on this topic, does anyone know to what extent (and in
what form) would FEMA offer any relief?

While FEMA MIGHT offer relief in these areas, FEMA shouldn't give any
money
to anyone who willing lives in an area already known for certain types
of
natural disasters. That's what insurance is for. If you can't afford
the
proper insurance, then pick someplace else to live.

The problem here is that there is no "proper insurance".
Insurance companies, for sound economic reasons, no longer write
"proper" earthquake insurance in California. Just as the
insurance companies no longer underwrite flood insurace. In that
case, though, the federal government does underwrite flood
insurance.

FEMA only has money because it's taken it from many of us to pay you for
your lack of foresight.

Your point is well taken, but people only say that until some
disaster hits them.

"People" is a very big term. Maybe the people you're hanging out with
think
that way, many of us don't.

Have you suffered a major disaster?

Yes, and my opinion was the same before as it was after.

What sort was it and to what extent were you damaged?

And I'm not alone
in that line of thinking. Those looking for a handout often find it hard to
believe that everyone is not like them. Just like thieves tend to think that
everyone steals.

************* DAVE HATUNEN ) *************
* Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow *
* My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps *

On Mon, 11 Oct 2004 20:25:47 +0000 (UTC),
(D. Gerasimatos) wrote:

In article ,
Hatunen wrote:

Californians don't pay THAT much in excess taxes.


$280 billion in excess from 1987 to 2002. $58 billion of that in 2002
alone. Maybe that's not a lot to you. It seems like a lot to me.

Let's suspend our judgment until after The Big One, eh?

************* DAVE HATUNEN ) *************
* Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow *
* My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps *

In article ,
Hatunen wrote:

Californians don't pay THAT much in excess taxes.


$280 billion in excess from 1987 to 2002. $58 billion of that in 2002
alone. Maybe that's not a lot to you. It seems like a lot to me.


Dimitri

In article ,
JTMcC wrote:

Wrong, California is full of those feeding at the federal, state and local
trough. Look around you man.


As I said in another post, CA has sent away $280 billion more than it has
received since 1987. I am curious what state you live in and whether you
are (indirectly) a recipient of those funds.


Dimitri

On Mon, 11 Oct 2004 22:00:37 GMT, Bob Morrison
wrote:

In a previous post Hatunen says...
I assume you are aware of the huge earthquake potential beteen
the Cascades and the ocean; it appears the Pacific Northwest has
bigger earthqukes than California, and it may be "overdue". Then
there's volcanos...


Absolutely! In the Nisqually quake (6.8) my house didn't even suffer a
drywall crack. A few plastic bottles fell off a shelf and some of the
pictures on the wall were left askew.

That wasn't a big earthquake. Neither was Loma Prieta.

************* DAVE HATUNEN ) *************
* Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow *
* My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps *

In a previous post Hatunen says...
I assume you are aware of the huge earthquake potential beteen
the Cascades and the ocean; it appears the Pacific Northwest has
bigger earthqukes than California, and it may be "overdue". Then
there's volcanos...


Absolutely! In the Nisqually quake (6.8) my house didn't even suffer a
drywall crack. A few plastic bottles fell off a shelf and some of the
pictures on the wall were left askew.

--
Bob Morrison
R L Morrison Engineering Co
Structural & Civil Engineering
Poulsbo WA

In article ,
Hatunen wrote:

Let's suspend our judgment until after The Big One, eh?


Can we count all the way back to the money CA has contributed since the last
Big One? Why does FL get money for hurricanes all of the time? Wasn't it
just another $14.5 billion today? Face it, CA contributes a lot to the
economy and it is the best interests of the nation to help rebuild it
in the face of a disaster just like CA helps contribute to disasters in
NYC, FL, MS, or wherever our tax dollars are sent.


Dimitri

In a previous post Hatunen says...
That wasn't a big earthquake. Neither was Loma Prieta.


I agree. I'm just saying I believe that this house will do as well as
any when the "BIG ONE" comes. It's one-story and has been updated with
new foundations, lots of anchor bolts, and not many large windows.

--
Bob Morrison
R L Morrison Engineering Co
Structural & Civil Engineering
Poulsbo WA

"Hatunen" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 11 Oct 2004 20:15:35 GMT, "JTMcC"
wrote:


"Hatunen" wrote in message
news
On Mon, 11 Oct 2004 18:57:10 GMT, "JTMcC"
wrote:


"Hatunen" wrote in message
m...
On Sun, 10 Oct 2004 17:03:56 -0500, "3D Peruna"
wrote:


" Well, yes and no. Repair and reconstruction prices tend to go up
in
the wake of a natural disaster; that's basic supply-and-demand at
work.

While we're on this topic, does anyone know to what extent (and in
what form) would FEMA offer any relief?

While FEMA MIGHT offer relief in these areas, FEMA shouldn't give any
money
to anyone who willing lives in an area already known for certain types
of
natural disasters. That's what insurance is for. If you can't afford
the
proper insurance, then pick someplace else to live.

The problem here is that there is no "proper insurance".
Insurance companies, for sound economic reasons, no longer write
"proper" earthquake insurance in California. Just as the
insurance companies no longer underwrite flood insurace. In that
case, though, the federal government does underwrite flood
insurance.

FEMA only has money because it's taken it from many of us to pay you
for
your lack of foresight.

Your point is well taken, but people only say that until some
disaster hits them.

"People" is a very big term. Maybe the people you're hanging out with
think
that way, many of us don't.

Have you suffered a major disaster?

Yes, and my opinion was the same before as it was after.

What sort was it and to what extent were you damaged?

You have a very hard time believing that there are people of principle, and
that they are willing to stand fast in those principles, even when they
stand to gain, financially or otherwise, by abandoning those principles.
That says something about you, and those around you.
I'm not going to answer anymore of your stupid questions, do you want my
social security number next? Maybe my American Express card number?
I've been thru a tornado, and to a somewhat lesser extent a direct lightning
strike.

JTMcC.

And I'm not alone
in that line of thinking. Those looking for a handout often find it hard
to
believe that everyone is not like them. Just like thieves tend to think
that
everyone steals.

************* DAVE HATUNEN ) *************
* Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow *
* My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps *

On Tue, 12 Oct 2004 02:50:58 GMT, "JTMcC"
wrote:


"Hatunen" wrote in message
.. .
On Mon, 11 Oct 2004 20:15:35 GMT, "JTMcC"
wrote:


"Hatunen" wrote in message
news On Mon, 11 Oct 2004 18:57:10 GMT, "JTMcC"
wrote:


"Hatunen" wrote in message
om...
On Sun, 10 Oct 2004 17:03:56 -0500, "3D Peruna"
wrote:


" Well, yes and no. Repair and reconstruction prices tend to go up
in
the wake of a natural disaster; that's basic supply-and-demand at
work.

While we're on this topic, does anyone know to what extent (and in
what form) would FEMA offer any relief?

While FEMA MIGHT offer relief in these areas, FEMA shouldn't give any
money
to anyone who willing lives in an area already known for certain types
of
natural disasters. That's what insurance is for. If you can't afford
the
proper insurance, then pick someplace else to live.

The problem here is that there is no "proper insurance".
Insurance companies, for sound economic reasons, no longer write
"proper" earthquake insurance in California. Just as the
insurance companies no longer underwrite flood insurace. In that
case, though, the federal government does underwrite flood
insurance.

FEMA only has money because it's taken it from many of us to pay you
for
your lack of foresight.

Your point is well taken, but people only say that until some
disaster hits them.

"People" is a very big term. Maybe the people you're hanging out with
think
that way, many of us don't.

Have you suffered a major disaster?

Yes, and my opinion was the same before as it was after.

What sort was it and to what extent were you damaged?

You have a very hard time believing that there are people of principle, and
that they are willing to stand fast in those principles, even when they
stand to gain, financially or otherwise, by abandoning those principles.
That says something about you, and those around you.
I'm not going to answer anymore of your stupid questions, do you want my
social security number next? Maybe my American Express card number?
I've been thru a tornado, and to a somewhat lesser extent a direct lightning
strike.

Just looking for a data point. You certainly need not respond.

************* DAVE HATUNEN ) *************
* Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow *
* My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps *

Hatunen wrote in message . ..
On Mon, 11 Oct 2004 14:11:20 GMT, Bob Morrison
wrote:

I gotta say that it sounds like you are really nervous about living in
California. My opinion is if you can't stand the risk then don't. Find
someplace else to live.

I'm, a little. Actually I got much better now then when I first got here.
Yeah, I've been thinking about moving on, and I'd have done that if I were
still single!


It is almost inevitable that if you live anywhere in California
save the high Sierra you will enjoy the thrill of feeling the
earth move beneath your feet, your house of flat creak and
squeak, your glassware jiggle and dance, and your bed act like a
quarter has been dropped in the Magic Fingers. But it won't be
logn before you're playing the office pool of How Strong Was It?
And what a thrill feeling an office building swaying while you
are on an upper floor, watching a light fixture make like a
pendulum.

It takes a Californian (even once upon a time) to understand a Californian!
The tax, the house prices, the lousy earthquake insurance, traffic jams etc.
BTW, I'm not surprised that California paid much more in federal tax than
many other states, consider the generally higher pay level here (which
comes with the price tag of higher cost of living, but that's another story).


I was living in Washington state (the Tri-Cities) in May of 1980
and in The SF Bay Area in October of 1989. I am happy to now be
living in an area of quite low risk of natural disasters.

Yeah, how's the weather there? My impression is that it's a bit on the
hot side? So where can we find some peace? Which states have no natural
disasters, and are quite inhabitable (that's not too hot nor too cold), have
a decent job market, low crime rate, tight gun control and low risk
of terrorist attack?

"3D Peruna" wrote in message ...

So, bottom line: either get comfortable with some risk or find another
situation. Don't expect the government to bail you out because they
won't.

And, more importantly, the goverment shouldn't bail you out.


Actually, have you thought about the following:

1. What happens if every California moves out of California, knowing this
is a "risky" place to live, and elbow with all you guys out there for
jobs, schools, highway accesses, and houses? Do you really think it's
in your best interest?

2. If there're affordable/meaning insurance, and people are not buying
them, yeah, what you say is understandable. But have you compared/looked
into the cost of earthquake insurance, vs. say Tornado/Hurricane insurance
in other states? I don't know, maybe you've a point. But then again may
be not.

3. Why shouldn't the government bail people here out? Is this any different
from bailing out the not-so-well-to-do people with tax money redistributed
from the higher income group? Why do you think it's fair in that case?

4. Another point has already been elaborated by a few posts here. Californians
on a whole pay more federal taxes. So we collectively pay a higher
percentage of any disaster relief funds any states (e.g. Florida) have
been collecting. So have you voiced your concerns for those here that we
really shouldn't be paying so much tax, because it's not fair?

Raymond

"JTMcC" wrote in message ...

You have a very hard time believing that there are people of principle, and
that they are willing to stand fast in those principles, even when they
stand to gain, financially or otherwise, by abandoning those principles.

What does this get to do with principle or stealing? We're talking about
whether the existing system provides a certain type of help/benefits or not
to those who need them. It's about understanding one's rights and exericing
them.

Raymond

"JTMcC" wrote in message ...
"D. Gerasimatos" wrote in message
...
In article ,
JTMcC wrote:

The free market worked "perfectly" in this instance. Would you,
personally,
start a private enterprise, where you were guaranteed to lose money?
Probably not, the insurance companies declined to do the same in this
case.
Move, or accept the likelyhood of damage or loss of your home. Don't
expect
to feed at the federal though, slurping up other peoples money because you
insist on building in a very high risk area.

What do you mean by other people's money? The money in govenment's hand
belongs to everyone who pay tax! Also, where do you think people should
move to? Your state, where insurance is affordable, people are principled,
and disaster risk is low?



Two points he


1. The insurance companies had every right to charge higher premiums if
they feel they would lose money. Instead, they just stopped offering
the coverage at any price.

And, they have every right to do that as well, they have every right to shut
the whole operation down, they can do with their business as they please. If
you start your own company, you will have the same right to run it as YOU
please.

Yes. The remaining question if disaster insurance should remain in the
hands of private enterprise? Or should it be run by government, given no
private company can do a good job?

On 12 Oct 2004 23:36:21 -0700, (Raymond
Yeung) wrote:

Hatunen wrote in message . ..

I was living in Washington state (the Tri-Cities) in May of 1980
and in The SF Bay Area in October of 1989. I am happy to now be
living in an area of quite low risk of natural disasters.

Yeah, how's the weather there? My impression is that it's a bit on the
hot side?

So?

So where can we find some peace? Which states have no natural
disasters, and are quite inhabitable (that's not too hot nor too cold), have
a decent job market, low crime rate, tight gun control and low risk
of terrorist attack?

Manitoba?

Oh. But that's cold.

************* DAVE HATUNEN ) *************
* Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow *
* My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps *

Scott en Aztl=E1n writes:

BTW, how's *your* earthquake insurance? Tucson has earthquakes too,
you know. =


As do other parts of the country. Example: from Dec. 1811 to
Feb. 1812, there were 4-5 *big* earthquakes in the Mississippi valley
(the "New Madrid Seismic Zone") and the last earthquake annihilated the
town of New Madrid, Missouri. All were estimated to be 7.0+, and
possibly 8.0+. Three were felt as far away as Quebec. References:

http://neic.usgs.gov/neis/eq_depot/usa/1811-1812.html
http://www.eas.slu.edu/Earthquake_Ce...wMadridGenera=
l.html

Out of curiousity, does the midwest have any kind of earthquake building =

codes?

-- =

Darryl Okahata


DISCLAIMER: this message is the author's personal opinion and does not
constitute the support, opinion, or policy of Agilent Technologies, or
of the little green men that have been following him all day.

On Thu, 14 Oct 2004 22:04:37 -0700, Scott en Aztlán
wrote:

On Sat, 09 Oct 2004 13:16:21 -0600, Hatunen wrote:

As a mater of fact, buying a house in an area where significant
earthquake damage has occured can be a sound business strategy.
Suppose there were a major quake on the Newport-Inglewood fault
tomorrow with damage levels comparable to the 1933 event. Real estate
prices would be depressed, but only temporarily. You swoop in and buy
up a great lot with an ocean view in Newport Beach for a bargain price
because the owner wants to bail and move to Florida where they don't
have earthquakes. You clear the debris off the lot and build a brand
new house. Everyone else is rebuilding, too, and in 5 years you can't
tell there was ever an earthquake in the area. Prices rebound and
eventually reach new record highs, so you're sitting pretty.

This is, of course, a definte risk, since there is nothing to
prevent another earthquake from destroying your new house within
some reasonable length of time, which might be as short as next
year.

That's true just about anywhere in CA. However, it's LESS likely in an
area where the strain has already been released by a large quake than
in some area that has been locked up tight for 50 years.

For varying definitions of "area". The release of stress at Loma
Prieta could have tranferred that stress to the peninsula section
of the San Andreas Fault, leading to a potenially larger
earthquake in the Bay Area. I suppose you could argue that thr
mid-Peninsula area is not the Loma Prieta area, but the damage
could be even worse at your particular location, e.g., downtown
Santa Cruz might be completely destroyed instead of partially
destroyed as it was in 1989. But if your concern is that the
earth not rupture again directlye beneath your house your claim
might have some validity.

You're playing the odds

You're doing that anywhere you buy in CA.

and you won't have good enough
insurance to cover your losses.

That's true everywhere in CA, not just in places where quakes have
recently struck. Regular companies refuse to write policies here, so
all we have is CEA with their limited pool of funds and high
deductibles.

And large earthqukes do sometime occur closely together; it's now
theorized that quakes are not completely random events, but
rather one may cause another nearby.

Absolutely. But the activation of adjacent faults may also take many
years.

Or may take only a year or so. What's your point?


Except it may set up the for a quake on an adjacent fault. But
it's your money; go for it.

Thanks, I plan to.

BTW, how's *your* earthquake insurance? Tucson has earthquakes too,
you know.

Not since about 1888. And that was actually epicentered in
northern Mexico south of New Mexico. I haven't checked our policy
but we can afford to replace our house without insurance.

************* DAVE HATUNEN ) *************
* Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow *
* My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps *

In a previous post Darryl Okahata says...
Out of curiousity, does the midwest have any kind of earthquake building
codes?


IBC2003 deals with the country as a whole. Seismic design parameters
required are based on ground acceleration values determined by USGS and
are generally based on a statistical model of 10% chance of recurrence
in 50 years.

What all this means is that many buildings in the midwest and along the
east coast are going to be subject to at least some of the seismic
design provisions of IBC2003.

--
Bob Morrison
R L Morrison Engineering Co
Structural & Civil Engineering
Poulsbo WA

On Fri, 15 Oct 2004 21:53:50 GMT, Bob Morrison
wrote:

In a previous post Darryl Okahata says...
Out of curiousity, does the midwest have any kind of earthquake building
codes?


IBC2003 deals with the country as a whole.

But that's a model code. Each jurisdiction must adopt it to give
it legal standing. Many jurisdictions adopt codes with
modifications.

Seismic design parameters
required are based on ground acceleration values determined by USGS and
are generally based on a statistical model of 10% chance of recurrence
in 50 years.

What all this means is that many buildings in the midwest and along the
east coast are going to be subject to at least some of the seismic
design provisions of IBC2003.

Not unless the city adopted it.

************* DAVE HATUNEN ) *************
* Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow *
* My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps *

In a previous post Hatunen says...
But that's a model code. Each jurisdiction must adopt it to give
it legal standing. Many jurisdictions adopt codes with
modifications.


Quite true. The State of Washington adopted ALL the structural
provisions and a modified a few of the other provisions. Most of the
modifications are to the "Accessibility" standards (making them more
stringent than Federal ADA).

I should note that California is still using UBC97 as the "State"
building code.

The question asked was, "Out of curiosity, does the midwest have any
kind of earthquake building codes?"

The answer is yes, if the jurisdictions there officially adopt IBC2003
or some variant.

--
Bob Morrison
R L Morrison Engineering Co
Structural & Civil Engineering
Poulsbo WA