http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/n...1m18homes.html


Aieeeee.

I'd consider it a losing battle. Folks should sign a waiver when they build or
buy on such geologically active areas. Tom
Work at your leisure!

looks like another case of 'despite all the warnings, it wont happen to us."

followed by: "and now that it did, we want someone to blame, and pay"

randy

"Julie" wrote in message
...

http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/n...1m18homes.html


Aieeeee.

We pay because the insurance company isn't intrested enough to look where
people build, so when a flood, earthquake, homes near the beach flood due to
hurricane we all pay.

Tom


"xrongor" wrote in message
...
looks like another case of 'despite all the warnings, it wont happen to
us."

followed by: "and now that it did, we want someone to blame, and pay"

randy

"Julie" wrote in message
...

http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/n...1m18homes.html


Aieeeee.

On Wed, 19 Jan 2005 06:28:50 -0600, "twfsa"
scribbled this interesting note:

We pay because the insurance company isn't intrested enough to look where
people build, so when a flood, earthquake, homes near the beach flood due to
hurricane we all pay.

Tom


The answer is simple...don't live there!

Here in Texas, down on the Gulf, it is well known that the beaches
erode. Sure, it is fun and nice to go down and rent a beachfront house
and spend some vacation time there. If I owned one (and I don't) I'd
go into it knowing full well that the land the house is built on will
disappear. It isn't a matter of if, but a matter of when. That being
the case, while I owned it, I'd try to keep it rented out as much as
possible, make as much money off it as I could, and when it goes away
(again, not if, but when) consider myself to be money ahead since
there was obviously no insurance on the place, but I got revenue off
it as well as some much enjoyed use out of it.

Similarly, no one forced those folks out in California to live under a
big pile of dirt that they know will someday slide down on top of them
when enough water gets poured onto it. Again, it isn't a matter of if,
but when. Why should I pay for their misguided thinking and poor
judgment?


--
John Willis
(Remove the Primes before e-mailing me)

"twfsa" wrote in message
news:aosHd.15657$Wp.4019@lakeread07...
We pay because the insurance company isn't intrested enough to look where
people build, so when a flood, earthquake, homes near the beach flood due
to
hurricane we all pay.

Tom

The government should be a lot tougher regarding insurance in those areas.
There is a river in my area that floods every 100+ years. The last flood was
over 30 years ago and after that the government requires that you buy flood
insurance if you live in the flood plain. It is an additional insurance
above and beyond home insurance. The government said they will not pay to
rebuild/replace your property if there is a flood and you chose not to have
the insurance. I don't understand why this doesn't apply to the beach houses
and other construction in areas where it is just a matter of time before the
property *will* be damaged or destroyed.

City Manager Jepsen said a geotechnical consultant who viewed the homes last
week will be sent out again today. The consultant was not available for
comment.

"I had been apprised by city staff, but I was not aware of the magnitude of
the problem," Jepsen said.

Well, at least one person knew....

--

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


"xrongor" wrote in message
...
looks like another case of 'despite all the warnings, it wont happen to us."

followed by: "and now that it did, we want someone to blame, and pay"

randy

"Julie" wrote in message
...


http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/n...1m18homes.html


Aieeeee.

i know where those houses are in san diego. it doesnt take a geotechnical
consultant to see that eventually those houses are going surfing one day g

randy


City Manager Jepsen said a geotechnical consultant who viewed the homes
last
week will be sent out again today. The consultant was not available for
comment.

"I had been apprised by city staff, but I was not aware of the magnitude
of
the problem," Jepsen said.

Well, at least one person knew....

--

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


"xrongor" wrote in message
...
looks like another case of 'despite all the warnings, it wont happen to
us."

followed by: "and now that it did, we want someone to blame, and pay"

randy

"Julie" wrote in message
...


http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/n...1m18homes.html


Aieeeee.

On Wed, 19 Jan 2005 09:28:16 -0600, John Willis
wrote:

On Wed, 19 Jan 2005 06:28:50 -0600, "twfsa"
scribbled this interesting note:



The answer is simple...don't live there!

Here in Texas, down on the Gulf, it is well known that the beaches
erode. Sure, it is fun and nice to go down and rent a beachfront house
and spend some vacation time there. If I owned one (and I don't) I'd
go into it knowing full well that the land the house is built on will
disappear. It isn't a matter of if, but a matter of when. That being
the case, while I owned it, I'd try to keep it rented out as much as
possible, make as much money off it as I could, and when it goes away
(again, not if, but when) consider myself to be money ahead since
there was obviously no insurance on the place, but I got revenue off
it as well as some much enjoyed use out of it.

Similarly, no one forced those folks out in California to live under a
big pile of dirt that they know will someday slide down on top of them
when enough water gets poured onto it. Again, it isn't a matter of if,
but when. Why should I pay for their misguided thinking and poor
judgment?

I seem to remember that once a normal tide washes over the land, it
belongs to the state. So, maybe you want those renters to each bring a
load of sand.

It's a tough position to find ones-self in...

Bear in mind that these homes are miles from the beach, not in a 100 yr
flood plain, and have stood, in many cases, for nearly 30 years...

The damage is not yet complete as these houses continue to slide down the
slope onto the homes below them...

See yahoo maps and enter Arroyo Ave and Oceanside, CA when the 'street' map
appears, start clicking 'Zoom out' until the Pacific Ocean appears....

Rick

Rick wrote:

It's a tough position to find ones-self in...

Bear in mind that these homes are miles from the beach, not in a 100 yr
flood plain, and have stood, in many cases, for nearly 30 years...
....

But they're up on unstable hillsides w/ inadequate terracing/shoring...

30 yrs is a mere pittance in the overall estimate of weather extremes...

Here's the story in the Oceanside newspaper

http://www.nctimes.com/articles/2005..._251_19_05.txt


Rick

I'm of two minds about it...

On the one hand, people should know better than to buy a house on a mud
pile, near a flooding river, at the top of a steep hill they can't drive
up in the winter, in a hole that will flood and/or they can't get out of
in the winter; but people do all those things.

On the other hand, what is the point of having building codes if the city
will allow developers to build on poor soil?

--
Mac Cool

Perhaps because if they *don't* allow developers to build just anywhere
they'll get thrown out of office by the "we don't need no steenking
gubbermint reggylayshun" brigade.

Perce


On 01/19/05 06:38 pm Mac Cool tossed the following ingredients into the
ever-growing pot of cybersoup:

On the other hand, what is the point of having building codes if the city
will allow developers to build on poor soil?

On Wed, 19 Jan 2005 18:51:00 -0500, "Percival P. Cassidy"
wrote:

| Perhaps because if they *don't* allow developers to build just anywhere
| they'll get thrown out of office by the "we don't need no steenking
| gubbermint reggylayshun" brigade.
|
| Perce

I think you've hit on the issue, Perce.


|
|
| On 01/19/05 06:38 pm Mac Cool tossed the following ingredients into the
| ever-growing pot of cybersoup:
|
| On the other hand, what is the point of having building codes if the city
| will allow developers to build on poor soil?
|

"Duane Bozarth" wrote in message
...
: Rick wrote:
:
: It's a tough position to find ones-self in...
:
: Bear in mind that these homes are miles from the beach, not in a 100 yr
: flood plain, and have stood, in many cases, for nearly 30 years...
: ...
:
: But they're up on unstable hillsides w/ inadequate terracing/shoring...
:
: 30 yrs is a mere pittance in the overall estimate of weather extremes...

Yes, 30 years is only a 'small' number in the overall scheme of things, but
to a humans 'lifespan', it's almost half ;-)

So let's address the 'unstable hillsides w/ inadequate terracing/shoring'...

Is it the homeowner's fault? No... (Unless they had performed un-permitted
work)

Is it the builders fault? Maybe... the 10 year limit on construction defect
litigation has easily expired...

Is it the cities fault? After all, the city approved the work and 'signed
off' on it. Well, the city is going to absolve themselves of any liability.

In essence, the homeowners are screwed...

Act of god? - Apparently so...

Rick

:
: Similarly, no one forced those folks out in California to live under a
: big pile of dirt that they know will someday slide down on top of them
: when enough water gets poured onto it. Again, it isn't a matter of if,
: but when. Why should I pay for their misguided thinking and poor
: judgment?
:

Well John, it appears that 'we' will be paying as this falls into an area
deemed to be a 'disaster area' and low cost government loans will be made
available..

I take it you are of the mind that any mountain/hill is simply a big pile of
dirt...

However, I wholeheartedly agree with the rest of your post ;-)

Rick

: i know where those houses are in san diego. it doesnt take a geotechnical
: consultant to see that eventually those houses are going surfing one day

Define 'eventually' xwronger - In this case, these houses are at least a
1,000 years from being 'beachfront property'.

Rick

On Thu, 20 Jan 2005 00:39:17 GMT, "pray4surf"
scribbled this interesting note:

:
: Similarly, no one forced those folks out in California to live under a
: big pile of dirt that they know will someday slide down on top of them
: when enough water gets poured onto it. Again, it isn't a matter of if,
: but when. Why should I pay for their misguided thinking and poor
: judgment?
:

Well John, it appears that 'we' will be paying as this falls into an area
deemed to be a 'disaster area' and low cost government loans will be made
available..

I take it you are of the mind that any mountain/hill is simply a big pile of
dirt...

Nope. I've seen sites that were blasted level before building. No
chance of those houses having foundation problems!:~)


However, I wholeheartedly agree with the rest of your post ;-)

Rick


--
John Willis
(Remove the Primes before e-mailing me)

On Thu, 20 Jan 2005 00:33:56 GMT, "pray4surf"
scribbled this interesting note:

Yes, 30 years is only a 'small' number in the overall scheme of things, but
to a humans 'lifespan', it's almost half ;-)

But the structure will most likely be there until the mud comes
sliding down...which it will.


So let's address the 'unstable hillsides w/ inadequate terracing/shoring'...

Is it the homeowner's fault? No... (Unless they had performed un-permitted
work)

Is it the builders fault? Maybe... the 10 year limit on construction defect
litigation has easily expired...

Is it the cities fault? After all, the city approved the work and 'signed
off' on it. Well, the city is going to absolve themselves of any liability.

In essence, the homeowners are screwed...

Well, an argument could be made that the homeowner(s) screwed
themselves by not doing their research beforehand.


Act of god? - Apparently so...

No god was needed for anyone who can see to predict this was going to
happen...eventually.
--
John Willis
(Remove the Primes before e-mailing me)

"pray4surf" wrote in message
m...
: i know where those houses are in san diego. it doesnt take a
geotechnical
: consultant to see that eventually those houses are going surfing one day


Define 'eventually' xwronger - In this case, these houses are at least a
1,000 years from being 'beachfront property'.

hey jackass.

im refering to the ride the house will take down the hill, not its proximity
to the beach.

randy

"xrongor" wrote in message
...
:
: "pray4surf" wrote in message
: m...
: : i know where those houses are in san diego. it doesnt take a
: geotechnical
: : consultant to see that eventually those houses are going surfing one
day
:
:
: Define 'eventually' xwronger - In this case, these houses are at least a
: 1,000 years from being 'beachfront property'.
:
: hey jackass.
:
: im refering to the ride the house will take down the hill, not its
proximity
: to the beach.
:
Your ignorance is showing again randy... Admit it, you don't know where the
houses are...

It would take a pretty active imagination to think that these houses would
'slide' down a 'hill' into the ocean... - LOL




: randy
:
:

pray4surf wrote:
....
So let's address the 'unstable hillsides w/ inadequate terracing/shoring'...

Is it the homeowner's fault? No... (Unless they had performed un-permitted
work)

Is it the builders fault? Maybe... the 10 year limit on construction defect
litigation has easily expired...

Is it the cities fault? After all, the city approved the work and 'signed
off' on it. Well, the city is going to absolve themselves of any liability.

In essence, the homeowners are screwed...

Act of god? - Apparently so...

Well, my opinion is it's the "fault" of all the human entities above...a
combination of short-sideness and various forms of human nature which
can generally lumped together under the term "greed" in a global sense.
I don't mean to ascribe malfeasance, simply the desire of all involved
to get something they want as cheaply as they can w/o adequate
consideration for the "big picture". If, otoh, one were to
dispassionately step back and look at what happens on these hillsides
over a period of, say, a couple of hundred years, factor in the
pressures of additional run off caused by the building and do an
adequate analysis of the soil mechanics, it would become clear that such
"disasters" are, in fact, man-made and inevitable, not "Acts of God"
(except in the sense legal that insurance companies use the phrase).

So, yes, imo "the homeowners are screwed..."--they're the ones who
ultimately chose to get something they wanted at a short term price w/o
adequately considering potential long term costs...now, like life or
health insurance, that may be a risk they're willing to take, but, if
one's in such an area, it shouldn't take too much imagination to
figure out what could happen if...

Tom Miller wrote:

On Wed, 19 Jan 2005 18:51:00 -0500, "Percival P. Cassidy"
wrote:

| Perhaps because if they *don't* allow developers to build just anywhere
| they'll get thrown out of office by the "we don't need no steenking
| gubbermint reggylayshun" brigade.
|
| Perce

I think you've hit on the issue, Perce.
....

In most places I've been of any size, the developers tend to be the
regulators as they recognize they way to maximize their ability to do
what they do profitably is to control city council, zoning boards, etc.
So they make concerted efforts to do so...

So, yes, imo "the homeowners are screwed..."--they're the ones who
ultimately chose to get something they wanted at a short term price w/o
adequately considering potential long term costs...now, like life or
health insurance, that may be a risk they're willing to take, but, if
one's in such an area, it shouldn't take too much imagination to
figure out what could happen if...

They're screwed because they decided to abdicate their responsibility
for their own well-being, in favor of letting "them" decide what's
safe, what's not safe, where they should live, what they should want,
and what they should be offended by.

And they got what sheep always get.
That's what it's like being a serf.

And was it me, and I had a loan on such a house, I'd just
default. "Chase? You know that $400,000 property that
I pledged as collateral on my $300,000 loan last year? It's
yours now. Have a nice day..."


--Goedjn

"pray4surf" wrote in message
m...
: i know where those houses are in san diego. it doesnt take a
geotechnical
: consultant to see that eventually those houses are going surfing one day


Define 'eventually' xwronger - In this case, these houses are at least a
1,000 years from being 'beachfront property'.

Rick

Reword that as;
"At some time during the next thousand years ...................... ".
i.e. It could be tomorrow!

"pray4surf" wrote in message
m...
"xrongor" wrote in message
...
:
: "pray4surf" wrote in message
: m...
: : i know where those houses are in san diego. it doesnt take a
: geotechnical
: : consultant to see that eventually those houses are going surfing one
day
:
:
: Define 'eventually' xwronger - In this case, these houses are at least
a
: 1,000 years from being 'beachfront property'.
:
: hey jackass.
:
: im refering to the ride the house will take down the hill, not its
proximity
: to the beach.
:
Your ignorance is showing again randy... Admit it, you don't know where
the
houses are...

It would take a pretty active imagination to think that these houses would
'slide' down a 'hill' into the ocean... - LOL


hey jackass.

i never said they would hit the ocean. you keep saying it. i said they
were gonna be surfing down the hill. its an expression. guess you dont get
out enough to have heard it. let me attempt to rephrase it so your tiny
mind can grasp the concept.

the houses will be sliding down the hill to the bottom one day. what they
will be sliding into exactly is hard to tell, but its doubtful it will be
the ocean. since it wont be a smooth ride, it will look as if they are
'surfing' on mud when it happens. but looking like they are surfing doesnt
mean they will be in or near the ocean.

randy