The individuals that had property damage resulting from hurricane Sandy -
living in a flood prone area, shouldn't they have had insurance to cover
their losses - if they made the choice not to have insurance, or skimped and
didn't get enough insurance, why is it a taxpayer problem now?

If you ask constitutional conservatives, the answer is that it's not a tax
payer problem.

Liberals, on the other hand, want as many people dependant on government as
possible.

Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
..

"AngryOldWhiteGuy" wrote
in message ...
The individuals that had property damage resulting from hurricane Sandy -
living in a flood prone area, shouldn't they have had insurance to cover
their losses - if they made the choice not to have insurance, or skimped and
didn't get enough insurance, why is it a taxpayer problem now?

On 1/4/2013 8:30 AM, AngryOldWhiteGuy wrote:
The individuals that had property damage resulting from hurricane Sandy -
living in a flood prone area, shouldn't they have had insurance to cover
their losses - if they made the choice not to have insurance, or skimped and
didn't get enough insurance, why is it a taxpayer problem now?


I agree. We have to depend on our insurance. Wendy messed me up badly
but my insurance helped me back on my feet. Never saw a dime of tax
payer money.

"Chuck" wrote in message
...
On 1/4/2013 8:30 AM, AngryOldWhiteGuy wrote:
The individuals that had property damage resulting from hurricane Sandy -
living in a flood prone area, shouldn't they have had insurance to cover
their losses - if they made the choice not to have insurance, or skimped
and
didn't get enough insurance, why is it a taxpayer problem now?


I agree. We have to depend on our insurance. Wendy messed me up badly but
my insurance helped me back on my feet. Never saw a dime of tax payer
money.

When I lived in NW Florida and the beachfront homes got destroyed over and
over by hurricanes, I figured that the homeowners made a bad decision
rebuilding but as long as it was their money, it was none of my business. I
even figured that it was bad business for an insurance company to take on
that kinda risk, but as long as it was a private business, again, none of my
business. But when an individual looks for tax dollars to cover personal
losses, then I have to say "Sorry . . .".

I'm not talking about infrastructure stuff here - but again, if a
municipality needs to rebuild a road or a bridge, isn't that a bond issue or
a local tax issue - not a Federal government issue?

On Fri, 4 Jan 2013 08:14:14 -0600, "AngryOldWhiteGuy"
wrote:


"Chuck" wrote in message
...
On 1/4/2013 8:30 AM, AngryOldWhiteGuy wrote:
The individuals that had property damage resulting from hurricane Sandy -
living in a flood prone area, shouldn't they have had insurance to cover
their losses - if they made the choice not to have insurance, or skimped
and
didn't get enough insurance, why is it a taxpayer problem now?


I agree. We have to depend on our insurance. Wendy messed me up badly but
my insurance helped me back on my feet. Never saw a dime of tax payer
money.

When I lived in NW Florida and the beachfront homes got destroyed over and
over by hurricanes, I figured that the homeowners made a bad decision
rebuilding but as long as it was their money, it was none of my business. I
even figured that it was bad business for an insurance company to take on
that kinda risk, but as long as it was a private business, again, none of my
business. But when an individual looks for tax dollars to cover personal
losses, then I have to say "Sorry . . .".

There is a difference between a once-in-a-lifetime occurrence and
"happens-every-spring", thing. OTOH, the estimates were for a $25B
loss. Why is the government talking about $60B? ...and what do
fisheries in Alaska have to do with Sandy? $150Million? Really?

I'm not talking about infrastructure stuff here - but again, if a
municipality needs to rebuild a road or a bridge, isn't that a bond issue or
a local tax issue - not a Federal government issue?

The municipality probably used federal money to build the road/bridge
in the first place.

On Fri, 04 Jan 2013 12:46:01 -0500, wrote:


There is a difference between a once-in-a-lifetime occurrence and
"happens-every-spring", thing. OTOH, the estimates were for a $25B
loss. Why is the government talking about $60B? ...and what do
fisheries in Alaska have to do with Sandy? $150Million? Really?

Yes sir. A bill packed with 63% pork.

....bring home the bacon

On Fri, 04 Jan 2013 15:48:25 -0800, Oren wrote:

On Fri, 04 Jan 2013 12:46:01 -0500, wrote:


There is a difference between a once-in-a-lifetime occurrence and
"happens-every-spring", thing. OTOH, the estimates were for a $25B
loss. Why is the government talking about $60B? ...and what do
fisheries in Alaska have to do with Sandy? $150Million? Really?

Yes sir. A bill packed with 63% pork.

More pork than Spam.

...bring home the bacon

I thought pork wasn't allowed anymore.

On Jan 4, 9:14*am, "AngryOldWhiteGuy"
wrote:
"Chuck" wrote in message

...

On 1/4/2013 8:30 AM, AngryOldWhiteGuy wrote:
The individuals that had property damage resulting from hurricane Sandy -
living in a flood prone area, shouldn't they have had insurance to cover
their losses - if they made the choice not to have insurance, or skimped
and
didn't get enough insurance, why is it a taxpayer problem now?

I agree. We have to depend on our insurance. Wendy messed me up badly but
my insurance helped me back on my feet. Never saw a dime of tax payer
money.

When I lived in NW Florida and the beachfront homes got destroyed over and
over by hurricanes, I figured that the homeowners made a bad decision
rebuilding but as long as it was their money, it was none of my business. *I
even figured that it was bad business for an insurance company to take on
that kinda risk, but as long as it was a private business, again, none of my
business. *But when an individual looks for tax dollars to cover personal
losses, then I have to say "Sorry *. . .".

There isn't anything unique in this about Sandy. You
apparently are familiar with the fact that following these
major natural disasters, the federal govt usually apporpiates
money to help offset the losses. It's been done with FL hurricanes,
Katrina, earthquakes, etc.

The argument that you should just insure it yourself comes
up every time, but so far it hasn't prevailed.






I'm not talking about infrastructure stuff here - but again, if a
municipality needs to rebuild a road or a bridge, isn't that a bond issue or
a local tax issue - not a Federal government issue?

On Fri, 4 Jan 2013 08:14:14 -0600, "AngryOldWhiteGuy"
wrote:

When I lived in NW Florida and the beachfront homes got destroyed over and
over by hurricanes, I figured that the homeowners made a bad decision
rebuilding but as long as it was their money, it was none of my business. I
even figured that it was bad business for an insurance company to take on
that kinda risk, but as long as it was a private business, again, none of my
business. But when an individual looks for tax dollars to cover personal
losses, then I have to say "Sorry . . .".


From Panama City to Pensacola is called the Red Neck Riviera. They can
do those things.

I'm not talking about infrastructure stuff here - but again, if a
municipality needs to rebuild a road or a bridge, isn't that a bond issue or
a local tax issue - not a Federal government issue?


Ever drive the interstate highway in Hawaii? Federally funded with
signs that say "interstate". You can't get to California from there.

Oren wrote in
:

On Fri, 4 Jan 2013 08:14:14 -0600, "AngryOldWhiteGuy"
wrote:

When I lived in NW Florida and the beachfront homes got destroyed over
and over by hurricanes, I figured that the homeowners made a bad
decision rebuilding but as long as it was their money, it was none of
my business. I even figured that it was bad business for an insurance
company to take on that kinda risk, but as long as it was a private
business, again, none of my business. But when an individual looks
for tax dollars to cover personal losses, then I have to say "Sorry .
. .".


From Panama City to Pensacola is called the Red Neck Riviera. They can
do those things.

I'm not talking about infrastructure stuff here - but again, if a
municipality needs to rebuild a road or a bridge, isn't that a bond
issue or a local tax issue - not a Federal government issue?


Ever drive the interstate highway in Hawaii? Federally funded with
signs that say "interstate". You can't get to California from there.

Like the Long Island Expressway (aka world's longest parking lot):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interstate_495_%28New_York%29
Totally on NY's LI, never touches another state. Plus it isn't a ringway
by any stretch of the imagination, like Mass's i495. Oh the
inconsistency of nomenclature ...

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

On 04 Jan 2013 22:23:34 GMT, Han wrote:

Oren wrote in
:

On Fri, 4 Jan 2013 08:14:14 -0600, "AngryOldWhiteGuy"
wrote:

When I lived in NW Florida and the beachfront homes got destroyed over
and over by hurricanes, I figured that the homeowners made a bad
decision rebuilding but as long as it was their money, it was none of
my business. I even figured that it was bad business for an insurance
company to take on that kinda risk, but as long as it was a private
business, again, none of my business. But when an individual looks
for tax dollars to cover personal losses, then I have to say "Sorry .
. .".


From Panama City to Pensacola is called the Red Neck Riviera. They can
do those things.

I'm not talking about infrastructure stuff here - but again, if a
municipality needs to rebuild a road or a bridge, isn't that a bond
issue or a local tax issue - not a Federal government issue?


Ever drive the interstate highway in Hawaii? Federally funded with
signs that say "interstate". You can't get to California from there.

Like the Long Island Expressway (aka world's longest parking lot):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interstate_495_%28New_York%29
Totally on NY's LI, never touches another state. Plus it isn't a ringway
by any stretch of the imagination, like Mass's i495. Oh the
inconsistency of nomenclature ...

There are *many* such "Interstates". Any with three digits that start
with an odd digit and any number of lesser of the "Interstates" (like
I72 in IL). At least they're connected.

You also need to remember that global warming is changing the climate.

This was the first time New York City ever got flooded by a hurricane swell. No one anticipated that to happen because it's never happened before. (Unlike New Orleans where the City knew that they'd be flooded if they got hit by a Catagory 5 hurricane and were just hoping they wouldn't).

"nestork" wrote in message
...

You also need to remember that global warming is changing the climate.

This was the first time New York City ever got flooded by a hurricane
swell. No one anticipated that to happen because it's never happened
before. (Unlike New Orleans where the City knew that they'd be flooded
if they got hit by a Catagory 5 hurricane and were just hoping they
wouldn't).



You have surpassed your past demonstrations of ignorance
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...ork_hurricanes

This one is titled New York City Underwater.
(It's actually quite an interesting read..)
http://www.columbia.edu/~sev2119/Tea...yTimeLine.html

" Attila Iskander" wrote in
:


"nestork" wrote in message
...

You also need to remember that global warming is changing the
climate.

This was the first time New York City ever got flooded by a hurricane
swell. No one anticipated that to happen because it's never happened
before. (Unlike New Orleans where the City knew that they'd be
flooded if they got hit by a Catagory 5 hurricane and were just
hoping they wouldn't).



You have surpassed your past demonstrations of ignorance
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...ork_hurricanes

This one is titled New York City Underwater.
(It's actually quite an interesting read..)
http://www.columbia.edu/~sev2119/Tea...yTimeLine.html

Sandy wasn't really that bad a storm, it could have been worse. However
it was a storm with a very large area of (near) hurricane-force winds.
Plus just before landfall it changed direction in an unfavorbale way.
Lastly it hit just at the time of high tide at a time when there is
always an abnormally (pun intended) high tide - at full (or new) moon,
when the moon's and sun's gravitational forces combine to increase the
tides. Therefore there was an enormous storm surge that destroyed
barrier beach towns and cities because in their "wisdom" their buildings
were not protected by dunes or seawalls. All the ensuing misery was
predicted. When (not if) a stronger hurricane will hit in the same way
and at a similar lunar time, the devastation will be greater, perhaps
much greater.

This liberal isn't feeling very sorry for the financial hurt of second
home owners, or those who willfully chose to have their primary home in
these areas. But, and this is a big but, some areas of New York and
environs chose to build housing for the less well off right on those
beaches etc, so they could raze the slums nearer to the center
(Manhattan) and build for the more well-off. This happened apparently
in the times of Robert Moses (curse). Therefore, I fully support the
use of Federal funds to help those people with their emergency housing
and with eventual replacement housing. In addition, infrastructure
imp[rovements should be at least subsidized, just like New Orleans after
Katrina (jus 1 example). I have no idea why there should be funds for
Alaskan fisheries or museums in these bills. But Congress in their
"wisdom" almost always wins extrra votes for by inserting unrelated
pork.

Lastly, as happened after hurricanes in Florida and elsewhere, in
Holland after the 1953 floods, and Bangladesh floods, zoning and
building codes hereabouts should be altered, without grandfathering.
Also, subsidies should be given to build wise (!!!) flood prevention
infrastructures, and those communities which do not want to implement
them should be punished. If you want to build on exposed beaches, you
should pay for your foolishness, no matter how picturesque!!!!

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

On Jan 4, 4:05*pm, Han wrote:
" Attila Iskander" wrote :







"nestork" wrote in message
...

You also need to remember that global warming is changing the
climate.

This was the first time New York City ever got flooded by a hurricane
swell. *No one anticipated that to happen because it's never happened
before. *(Unlike New Orleans where the City knew that they'd be
flooded if they got hit by a Catagory 5 hurricane and were just
hoping they wouldn't).

You have surpassed your past demonstrations of ignorance
* *http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...ork_hurricanes

This one is titled New York City Underwater.
* * (It's actually quite an interesting read..)
* *http://www.columbia.edu/~sev2119/Tea...yTimeLine.html

Sandy wasn't really that bad a storm, it could have been worse. *However
it was a storm with a very large area of (near) hurricane-force winds.
Plus just before landfall it changed direction in an unfavorbale way.
Lastly it hit just at the time of high tide at a time when there is
always an abnormally (pun intended) high tide - at full (or new) moon,
when the moon's and sun's gravitational forces combine to increase the
tides. *Therefore there was an enormous storm surge that destroyed
barrier beach towns and cities because in their "wisdom" their buildings
were not protected by dunes or seawalls. *All the ensuing misery was
predicted. *When (not if) a stronger hurricane will hit in the same way
and at a similar lunar time, the devastation will be greater, perhaps
much greater.

I agree with the above.





This liberal isn't feeling very sorry for the financial hurt of second
home owners, or those who willfully chose to have their primary home in
these areas. *But, and this is a big but, some areas of New York and
environs chose to build housing for the less well off right on those
beaches etc, so they could raze the slums nearer to the center
(Manhattan) and build for the more well-off. *This happened apparently
in the times of Robert Moses (curse). *Therefore, I fully support the
use of Federal funds to help those people with their emergency housing
and with eventual replacement housing.

And now you've gone badly off the tracks. Are you for real?
You want to reach back into the first part of the last century,
to find an excuse to justify the federal govt giving aid for Sandy,
but only to those living in public assistance housing? And now
we're supposed to feel guilty because govt built free or highly
subsidized housing near the beach? That's the most expensive
real estate in the world. How about they get a job and pay
us? It's unbelievable how you libs can make up excuses, any
excuse, to hand out more money. And how you want us to
feel guilty over a great American like Robert Moses.





*In addition, infrastructure
imp[rovements should be at least subsidized, just like New Orleans after
Katrina (jus 1 example). *I have no idea why there should be funds for
Alaskan fisheries or museums in these bills. *But Congress in their
"wisdom" almost always wins extrra votes for by inserting unrelated
pork.

I have no idea why Bloomberg wants to spend the billions
he's requested on subway expansion. That's right, not on
preventing it from flooding again, but on simply expanding it.
Maybe that's why Alaskan fisheries and God knows who else
wants their share of the pork too.




Lastly, as happened after hurricanes in Florida and elsewhere, in
Holland after the 1953 floods, and Bangladesh floods, zoning and
building codes hereabouts should be altered, without grandfathering.

So, you're going to force people to do what? Abandon their
house that they are living in because it doesn't meet current
code? Force them to tear the whole thing down and rebuild
to current code? Another lib classic. Give more handouts to those
living in free public housing, while denying the productive people in
society
hurricane assistance and then demanding that they tear down
their homes.



Also, subsidies should be given to build wise (!!!) flood prevention
infrastructures,

Why should those subsidies be wise? Haven't we been
subsidizing stupidity for 50+ years now? Stupidity that has
encouraged generation after generation to remain on welfare,
fathers to leave their families?





and those communities which do not want to implement
them should be punished. *If you want to build on exposed beaches, you
should pay for your foolishness, no matter how picturesque!!!!

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

On Fri, 4 Jan 2013 18:35:20 +0000, nestork
wrote:

You also need to remember that global warming is changing the climate.

Giggles

--
"Trust me, I'm from the government. I'm here to help."

On Fri, 04 Jan 2013 15:52:39 -0800, Oren wrote:

On Fri, 4 Jan 2013 18:35:20 +0000, nestork
wrote:

You also need to remember that global warming is changing the climate.

Giggles

Oh, it's changed the climate a lot in DC and other capitols around the
world. It is all about politics, after all.

On Jan 4, 6:19*pm, wrote:
On Fri, 04 Jan 2013 15:52:39 -0800, Oren wrote:
On Fri, 4 Jan 2013 18:35:20 +0000, nestork
wrote:

You also need to remember that global warming is changing the climate.

Giggles

Oh, it's changed the climate a lot in DC and other capitols around the
world. *It is all about politics, after all.

DC is the capitol of hot air!!!

On Fri, 4 Jan 2013 17:16:55 -0800 (PST), "hr(bob) "
wrote:

On Jan 4, 6:19*pm, wrote:
On Fri, 04 Jan 2013 15:52:39 -0800, Oren wrote:
On Fri, 4 Jan 2013 18:35:20 +0000, nestork
wrote:

You also need to remember that global warming is changing the climate.

Giggles

Oh, it's changed the climate a lot in DC and other capitols around the
world. *It is all about politics, after all.

DC is the capitol of hot air!!!

Who said Washington couldn't solve the energy problem. Of course,
there being no such thing as a free lunch...

"nestork" wrote in message
...

You also need to remember that global warming is changing the climate.

This was the first time New York City ever got flooded by a hurricane
swell. No one anticipated that to happen because it's never happened
before. (Unlike New Orleans where the City knew that they'd be flooded
if they got hit by a Catagory 5 hurricane and were just hoping they
wouldn't).

*LOTs* of people anticipated the results some made the predictions very
public. Like Katrina where LSU had a hard copy report published 3 years
ahead of time bean counters discounted the perditions in the clear hope that
the gotcha would not be on their watch.

On Jan 4, 1:35*pm, nestork wrote:
You also need to remember that global warming is changing the climate.

This was the first time New York City ever got flooded by a hurricane
swell. *No one anticipated that to happen because it's never happened
before. *(Unlike New Orleans where the City knew that they'd be flooded
if they got hit by a Catagory 5 hurricane and were just hoping they
wouldn't).

--
nestork

Parts of NYC have been flooded by hurricanes and
severe storms before. AFAIK, the main difference this
time was that Lower Manhattan was extensively flooded.
That isn't really corelated to global warming. It was the
particular path of the hurricane and the fact that it came
ashore at high tide that resulted in the high water level.
Destructive hurricanes have hit the northeast going back
hundreds of years. It's just that it occurs relatively
infrequently. And this time there was a high pressure
zone blocking the hurricane from moving north and out
to sea. Instead it turned it left, right into the coast.

wrote in message
...
On Fri, 4 Jan 2013 18:35:20 +0000, nestork
wrote:

You also need to remember that global warming is changing the climate.

This was the first time New York City ever got flooded by a hurricane
swell.


That is not true at all. It just has not happened in 74 years. (1938)

That is why they call these things "100 year storms"
The history channel type shows have been predicting this hurricane for
years. It was not a unique storm for that latitude, The only thing
unusual was the path.

The same was true in New Orleans.



Try again, the last flooding in NYC was about 10 years ago
Google for "New York underwater"

On 1/4/2013 8:30 AM, AngryOldWhiteGuy wrote:
The individuals that had property damage resulting from hurricane Sandy -
living in a flood prone area, shouldn't they have had insurance to cover
their losses - if they made the choice not to have insurance, or skimped and
didn't get enough insurance, why is it a taxpayer problem now?



The vote today is on a bill to replenish the federal flood insurance
program with $9.7 billion. They don't have enough money to pay all flood
insurance claims

"George" wrote in message
...
On 1/4/2013 8:30 AM, AngryOldWhiteGuy wrote:
The individuals that had property damage resulting from hurricane Sandy -
living in a flood prone area, shouldn't they have had insurance to cover
their losses - if they made the choice not to have insurance, or skimped
and
didn't get enough insurance, why is it a taxpayer problem now?



The vote today is on a bill to replenish the federal flood insurance
program with $9.7 billion. They don't have enough money to pay all flood
insurance claims

I guess the federal government had to get into the flood insurance business
because it was financially not workable for a regular insurance company to
handle that kind of risk - and I'd guess that the rates that the federal
government is charging for flood insurance are no where close to what that
should be, if based on sound acturial principles.

And I keep wondering why (as a taxpayer) I'm forced to subsidize soemoen
else's bad decisions - like living in a flood or hurricane zone and not
getting enough insurance.

Cause the liberals decided to do so, with
your tax dollars.

Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
..

"AngryOldWhiteGuy" wrote
in message ...

And I keep wondering why (as a taxpayer) I'm forced to subsidize soemoen
else's bad decisions - like living in a flood or hurricane zone and not
getting enough insurance.

responding to http://www.homeownershub.com/mainten...ce-730649-.htm
DA wrote:
AngryOldWhiteGuy wrote:

And I keep wondering why (as a taxpayer) I\'m forced to subsidize soemoen
else\'s bad decisions - like living in a flood or hurricane zone and not
getting enough insurance.

My understanding of how flood insurance (here in the US at least) works is the same as yours - it\'s so risky that no private insurance company would touch it so the government has so step in. But the last time I\'ve spoken to an insurance agent (of a private insurance company, perhaps it\'s important to note), their explanation sounded more graceful than \"subsidizing someone else\'s bad decisions\". She was basically saying that noone is ever completely safe from flood, regardless of where the house is located (i.e. middle of corn fields or beach front) and so it\'s everyone\'s problem, hence it\'s the government\'s problem.

I live not too far from a creek that does swell from time to time, although it never actually reaches anywhere close to my house, but the last time it did, the explanation that \"noone is ever safe\" sounded somewhat reasonable to me.



--

/\\_/\\
((@v@)) NIGHT
()::) OWL
VV-VV

On Fri, 04 Jan 2013 18:44:02 +0000, DA
wrote:

responding to http://www.homeownershub.com/mainten...ce-730649-.htm
DA wrote:
AngryOldWhiteGuy wrote:

And I keep wondering why (as a taxpayer) I\'m forced to subsidize soemoen
else\'s bad decisions - like living in a flood or hurricane zone and not
getting enough insurance.

My understanding of how flood insurance (here in the US at least) works is the same as yours - it\'s so risky that no private insurance company would touch it so the government has so step in. But the last time I\'ve spoken to an insurance agent (of a private insurance company, perhaps it\'s important to note), their explanation sounded more graceful than \"subsidizing someone else\'s bad decisions\". She was basically saying that noone is ever completely safe from flood, regardless of where the house is located (i.e. middle of corn fields or beach front) and so it\'s everyone\'s problem, hence it\'s the government\'s problem.

I live not too far from a creek that does swell from time to time, although it never actually reaches anywhere close to my house, but the last time it did, the explanation that \"noone is ever safe\" sounded somewhat reasonable to me.

I suppose there's always Noah.

wrote in message
...
On Fri, 04 Jan 2013 18:44:02 +0000, DA
wrote:



I live not too far from a creek that does swell from time to time,
although it never actually reaches anywhere close to my house, but the
last time it did, the explanation that \"noone is ever safe\" sounded
somewhat reasonable to me.

I suppose there's always Noah.


I live near the very top of a rise, probably 3rd house down, with my
property and driveway sloping down and away to the street.
The nearest creek is 75' below my basement.
Yet I did have a couple of insurance guys tell me that I absolutely need
flood insurance above and beyond coverage from a burst pipe.

I told them that If they could demonstrate recent history of a storm surge
higher than 75', I would buy their insurance.
Oh, and the nearest like is about 1 mile away, and it feeds the creek.

On Fri, 04 Jan 2013 18:44:02 +0000, DA
wrote:

responding to http://www.homeownershub.com/mainten...ce-730649-.htm
DA wrote:
AngryOldWhiteGuy wrote:

And I keep wondering why (as a taxpayer) I\'m forced to subsidize soemoen
else\'s bad decisions - like living in a flood or hurricane zone and not
getting enough insurance.

My understanding of how flood insurance (here in the US at least) works is the same as yours - it\'s so risky that no private insurance company would touch it so the government has so step in. But the last time I\'ve spoken to an insurance agent (of a private insurance company, perhaps it\'s important to note), their explanation sounded more graceful than \"subsidizing someone else\'s bad decisions\". She was basically saying that noone is ever completely safe from flood, regardless of where the house is located (i.e. middle of corn fields or beach front) and so it\'s everyone\'s problem, hence it\'s the government\'s problem.

I live not too far from a creek that does swell from time to time, although it never actually reaches anywhere close to my house, but the last time it did, the explanation that \"noone is ever safe\" sounded somewhat reasonable to me.

"No one is ever safe" may be a stretch but the government has gone way
too far in subsidizing individuals that build in areas that are prone
to frequent weather disasters.

If one chooses to build in these locations that's fine with me. But
let them be responsible for their own actions. Let them buy their own
insurance. If private insurance companies won't touch it because of
the risk that should be a good indicator to the individual they should
live elsewhere.

It does NOT mean the government "has to step in." It does NOT mean
it's "everyone's problem." It does NOT mean "it's the government's
problem." Only a liberal would think that way.

AngryOldWhiteGuy wrote:
The individuals that had property damage resulting from hurricane Sandy -
living in a flood prone area, shouldn't they have had insurance to cover
their losses - if they made the choice not to have insurance, or skimped and
didn't get enough insurance, why is it a taxpayer problem now?



Because most people today, including the president, feel they are not
responsible for anything that goes wrong in their life. Even after four
years the president is still blaming his predecessor for the poor
economy and everything else that puts a blemish on his term.

On Fri, 4 Jan 2013 07:30:26 -0600, "AngryOldWhiteGuy"
wrote:

The individuals that had property damage resulting from hurricane Sandy -
living in a flood prone area, shouldn't they have had insurance to cover
their losses - if they made the choice not to have insurance, or skimped and
didn't get enough insurance, why is it a taxpayer problem now?


I find interesting is that when Sandy made landfall was it a hurricane
or was it a noreaster storm. The national hurricane service stopped
reporting Sandy as a hurricane just prior to landfall? Folks depended
on local news and forecast with little regard to the dangers.

Insurance coverage for flood would vary. Seems folks in the NE can get
hurricane coverage based on the storm category - 1-5.

There was some media about how companies denied flood coverage by
picking nits over what the storm was - rain falling from the sky or
hurricane storm surge....
--
"Trust me, I'm from the government. I'm here to help."

Oren wrote in
:

snip
I find interesting is that when Sandy made landfall was it a hurricane
or was it a noreaster storm. The national hurricane service stopped
reporting Sandy as a hurricane just prior to landfall? Folks depended
on local news and forecast with little regard to the dangers.

I think there was enough warning of what was coming for most people, but,
yes, the federal weather service stopped issuing warnings because Sandy
wasn't a real hurricane anymore, and the local weathercasters were
supposed to take over. I think this is being addressed for future
events.

Insurance coverage for flood would vary. Seems folks in the NE can get
hurricane coverage based on the storm category - 1-5.

There was some media about how companies denied flood coverage by
picking nits over what the storm was - rain falling from the sky or
hurricane storm surge....

This always happens ... The lawyers like nitpicking. A prudent
homeowner assesses the diverse risks and asks his insurance agent what
coverage to get. Then prays for good quality advice ...

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

On 04 Jan 2013 21:17:45 GMT, Han wrote:

I find interesting is that when Sandy made landfall was it a hurricane
or was it a noreaster storm. The national hurricane service stopped
reporting Sandy as a hurricane just prior to landfall? Folks depended
on local news and forecast with little regard to the dangers.

I think there was enough warning of what was coming for most people, but,
yes, the federal weather service stopped issuing warnings because Sandy
wasn't a real hurricane anymore, and the local weathercasters were
supposed to take over. I think this is being addressed for future
events.

It is being addressed by the national hurricane center in Miami.
Things will change in that area, but folks need to understand the
nature of a hurricane, rapidly failing barometric pressure.

A show, maybe PBS or the like showed that the Empire State building in
NYC could not withstand some hurricane forces. Forecasters in the
north may not be thinking about that aspect.

The original architects agreed with the student. Modification was made
in the structure.
--
"Trust me, I'm from the government. I'm here to help."

On Fri, 04 Jan 2013 16:11:27 -0800, Oren wrote:

On 04 Jan 2013 21:17:45 GMT, Han wrote:

I find interesting is that when Sandy made landfall was it a hurricane
or was it a noreaster storm. The national hurricane service stopped
reporting Sandy as a hurricane just prior to landfall? Folks depended
on local news and forecast with little regard to the dangers.

I think there was enough warning of what was coming for most people, but,
yes, the federal weather service stopped issuing warnings because Sandy
wasn't a real hurricane anymore, and the local weathercasters were
supposed to take over. I think this is being addressed for future
events.

It is being addressed by the national hurricane center in Miami.
Things will change in that area, but folks need to understand the
nature of a hurricane, rapidly failing barometric pressure.

A show, maybe PBS or the like showed that the Empire State building in
NYC could not withstand some hurricane forces. Forecasters in the
north may not be thinking about that aspect.

The original architects agreed with the student. Modification was made
in the structure.

I believe you're talking about the WTC. The Empire State Building is
quite a pile of steel and stone. It will take a direct strike from a
bomber. ;-)

On Sat, 05 Jan 2013 20:14:33 -0500, wrote:

On Sat, 05 Jan 2013 17:14:09 -0500, wrote:

On Fri, 04 Jan 2013 16:11:27 -0800, Oren wrote:

On 04 Jan 2013 21:17:45 GMT, Han wrote:

I find interesting is that when Sandy made landfall was it a hurricane
or was it a noreaster storm. The national hurricane service stopped
reporting Sandy as a hurricane just prior to landfall? Folks depended
on local news and forecast with little regard to the dangers.

I think there was enough warning of what was coming for most people, but,
yes, the federal weather service stopped issuing warnings because Sandy
wasn't a real hurricane anymore, and the local weathercasters were
supposed to take over. I think this is being addressed for future
events.

It is being addressed by the national hurricane center in Miami.
Things will change in that area, but folks need to understand the
nature of a hurricane, rapidly failing barometric pressure.

A show, maybe PBS or the like showed that the Empire State building in
NYC could not withstand some hurricane forces. Forecasters in the
north may not be thinking about that aspect.

The original architects agreed with the student. Modification was made
in the structure.

I believe you're talking about the WTC. The Empire State Building is
quite a pile of steel and stone. It will take a direct strike from a
bomber. ;-)

A little bomber anyway (B-25)

A Do little bomber. ;-)


Seriously, the building was built like the proverbial brick ****house.
The mast on its roof was designed to dock Zeppelins.

On Jan 4, 4:17*pm, Han wrote:
Oren wrote :

snip

I find interesting is that when Sandy made landfall was it a hurricane
or was it a noreaster storm. The national hurricane service stopped
reporting Sandy as a hurricane just prior to landfall? Folks depended
on local news and forecast with little regard to the dangers.

I think there was enough warning of what was coming for most people, but,
yes, the federal weather service stopped issuing warnings because Sandy
wasn't a real hurricane anymore, and the local weathercasters were
supposed to take over. *I think this is being addressed for future
events.

I don't know what you're talking about. You make it sound like
the National Hurricane Center just stopped forecasting the
hurricane when it was still many hours away and that
created some kind of problem. It was still a hurricane until just
before it came ashore at Atlantic City and the NHC forecasted
it as it hit. As it moved inland, they handed it off to the service
that covers tropical storms. The coverage was not only
complete, but it was probably the most accurate job of predicting
where the hurricane would hit that I've ever seen.

On Jan 5, 11:53*am, wrote:
On Sat, 5 Jan 2013 06:55:23 -0800 (PST), "





wrote:
On Jan 4, 4:17*pm, Han wrote:
Oren wrote :

snip

I find interesting is that when Sandy made landfall was it a hurricane
or was it a noreaster storm. The national hurricane service stopped
reporting Sandy as a hurricane just prior to landfall? Folks depended
on local news and forecast with little regard to the dangers.

I think there was enough warning of what was coming for most people, but,
yes, the federal weather service stopped issuing warnings because Sandy
wasn't a real hurricane anymore, and the local weathercasters were
supposed to take over. *I think this is being addressed for future
events.

I don't know what you're talking about. *You make it sound like
the National Hurricane Center just stopped forecasting the
hurricane when it was still many hours away and that
created some kind of problem. *It was still a hurricane until just
before it came ashore at Atlantic City and the NHC forecasted
it as it hit. * As it moved inland, they handed it off to the service
that covers tropical storms. * The coverage was not only
complete, but it was probably the most accurate job of predicting
where the hurricane would hit that I've ever seen.

I can't imagine how anyone up there could be surprised by this storm.
I am 1500 miles away and it was all over my TV. They just chose to
ignore the warning. Hell, Christie was telling people to get out in
the most unambiguous Jersey language.

That's my version of reality too. You could not turn on
a TV, radio, or the internet here without being constantly updated
on the storm trajectory, wind speed, movement speed, etc.
It did exactly what the European forecast model projected
7 days out. In probably 90% of the cases where people
died or were seriously injured, it was their own fault
because they ignored all the warnings and chose not
to leave. Or else they did something else that was
stupid, like going out in the hurricane and getting hit
by debris.

In other words, I don't see any fault on the part of NOAA
hurricane forecasters or anyone else.



Those people had been using horrible building practices for a hundred
years and simply hoping nothing bad would ever happen.
We can only hope they rebuild better. (proper FEMA elevation,
hurricane strapping and better control of the trees near power lines)- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

No question building codes here at the NJ shore have not equalled
those in some other areas that are hurricane prone. On the
other hand, we are a LOT better than some other states. After
the hurricane I saw some discussion of what is required in
Mississippi. It was really shocking. I don't remember the specifics,
but seemed like you could pretty much do whatever you please
with little state level building code.

And a lot of the problem is that you're building in places
like a barrier island that is only a few blocks wide. The
outcome is predetermined to some extent. There is only
so much you can do when the ocean meets the bay.
We had a new inlet created 7 miles from my house, cutting
the barrier island in half.

"AngryOldWhiteGuy" wrote
in message ...
The individuals that had property damage resulting from hurricane Sandy -
living in a flood prone area, shouldn't they have had insurance to cover
their losses - if they made the choice not to have insurance, or skimped
and didn't get enough insurance, why is it a taxpayer problem now?

Of the problem with any natural disaster is gaming of the system by both
side.

There were video of wind damage preceding tidal surge/flow for Katrina.
(security cameras with back feed to way off site servers) In the end the
insurance companies settled for a lot less. Basically we'll pay you $0.10
now or more much much later.

On the other side some merchants claimed looting but surprisingly only on
areas of the business that were also flooded.

On Sat, 5 Jan 2013 00:15:58 -0600, "NotMe" wrote:




On the other side some merchants claimed looting but surprisingly only on
areas of the business that were also flooded.




I don't fid that surprising. Where it was flooded, there is much less
chance of getting caught or having someone in the store guarding it.
Easier pickings, IMO.

On 1/5/2013 8:28 AM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
On Sat, 5 Jan 2013 00:15:58 -0600, "NotMe" wrote:




On the other side some merchants claimed looting but surprisingly only on
areas of the business that were also flooded.




I don't fid that surprising. Where it was flooded, there is much less
chance of getting caught or having someone in the store guarding it.
Easier pickings, IMO.

And you won't leave foot-prints.