..=2E. and Fema is reneging on the deal.

Where do you start?

You have the potential to claim $40,000 from a $115,000 job. But that's
a job that you'd have to call in the builders for.

Your house is intact but the damage has taken out the walls and
everything in the house up to waist height.

Of course by the time you get back in, the slime has crawled all over
the place. Fema is not going to pay for wall units and all sorts, you
have seen the news clips.

Take it from there. $40,000 tops, as the cost of living is cheaper over
there.

=A340,000 if you live in Great-rip-off Britain. We might adjust that to
some extent if a price comparison of materials and maybe tools, calls
for it. That's the bill facing the woman we saw on the news over here.
(Mind that was 2 years ago.)

Weatherlawyer wrote:

... and Fema is reneging on the deal.

What deal of which you speak?

Where do you start?

You have the potential to claim $40,000 from a $115,000 job. But that's
a job that you'd have to call in the builders for.

Your house is intact but the damage has taken out the walls and
everything in the house up to waist height.

You have to start by taking out what is waterlogged and non-salvagable
and drying what's left.

FEMA is the agent of last resource for reconstruction if you don't have
insurance. There's no "deal" that says they are obliged to rebuild the
entire facility to its original condition. After the massive
hail/rain/tornadoes here they got people back into minimal, safe
habitats, some of which were far better than what the were in
originally. Those w/ assets are expected to use them.

In some instances this was temporary trailers, in others some was just a
new roof and windows, in other cases the dwelling was condemned as being
uninhabitable and not cost-effective to repair.

It all depends on the individual situation but to expect FEMA to be the
equivalent of full-coverage insurance is simply unreasonable and not the
purpose/function.
With the widespread damage at current time, the individual response will
undoubtedly have to be spread out some simply for lack of immediate
resources to simply cover the absolute bare minimum.

....

Duane Bozarth wrote:
Weatherlawyer wrote:

... and Fema is reneging on the deal.

What deal of which you speak?

May I assume that you are a citizen of the USA?

FEMA is the agent of last resource for reconstruction if you don't have
insurance. There's no "deal" that says they are obliged to rebuild the
entire facility to its original condition.

As it happens I was taping a film and the news bulletin was taped with
it. I don't really know how to copy from a VCR to my computer and put
it online or send it over the net to someone.

It was an ABC bulletin, the BBC runs a half hour or so of a US news
channel's bulletinseach night on its News 24 channel. That was the
night they paid respects to a recently deceased presenter.

It dealt with the insurance claims that some sufferers are presently
taking FEMA to court with some 2 years to the day that the hurricane
struck them.

The present head of the agency claims there was no overall insurance
but the then head of it says that there was. But do you the richest and
most powerful country the planet has ever seen, want people living in
trailers when for the same money they could be living in houses?

Now lets get on with it and save the bickering for the Swift Boat
rednecks when the electioneering starts again.

Dear Weatherlawyer-

In the USA it is not function of gov't to provide the benefits that
could be had via private insurance, please refer to Mr. Bozoarth's
comments.

FEMA has a specific role & making people whole again is not it

Also I would suggest against depending on the BBC & ABC to provide
anything near accurate informattion.

I would suggest The Economist

If an earthquake destroys my home (rather unlikely) I won't be
expecting the gov't (ie the US taxpayers) to rebuild it for
me.......that's why I have paid for & installed several strengthing
schemes and plan to do more.

cheers
Bob

Weatherlawyer wrote:

Duane Bozarth wrote:
Weatherlawyer wrote:

... and Fema is reneging on the deal.

What deal of which you speak?

May I assume that you are a citizen of the USA?

You may...

FEMA is the agent of last resource for reconstruction if you don't have
insurance. There's no "deal" that says they are obliged to rebuild the
entire facility to its original condition.

As it happens I was taping a film and the news bulletin was taped with
it. I don't really know how to copy from a VCR to my computer and put
it online or send it over the net to someone.

I have no interest anyway and don't have the bandwidth to download
something that size must be anyway...I know FEMA and its charter quite
well after having dealt w/ the storms we had here two years ago so I
don't need some "do-gooder" trying to make politics out of some
individual case(s). That some insurance companies may have tried to
limit their exposure is a different conversation entirely.

It was an ABC bulletin, the BBC runs a half hour or so of a US news
channel's bulletinseach night on its News 24 channel. That was the
night they paid respects to a recently deceased presenter.

It dealt with the insurance claims that some sufferers are presently
taking FEMA to court with some 2 years to the day that the hurricane
struck them.

The present head of the agency claims there was no overall insurance
but the then head of it says that there was. But do you the richest and
most powerful country the planet has ever seen, want people living in
trailers when for the same money they could be living in houses?

I'm afraid you don't understand the US system (as many in the US don't
either, unfortunately). FEMA is NOT an insurance program so there can
be no insurance claims to take to them.

The responsibility in the US is primarily one of the individual to
ensure their own economic welfare. That entails the responsibility to
have adequate insurance for natural disasters as well as fire and
liability. The shortcoming (if there is one) is that there are not
requirements that all do so. FEMA is an organization which is Federally
funded that provides both immediate and long-term aid in response. For
immediate life and safety issues, there is no discernment between the
insured and non-insured. After that immediate crisis, long term
reconstruction efforts are aided by FEMA but their charter is in essence
one of a social program and efforts are limited to those who do not have
other resources. This seems only reasonable to me although I would
certainly like to see stronger measures to make carrying insurance
essentially a universal action.

As for the last claim, it's not possible to get people into permanent
dwellings even if it were no more expensive (which it isn't). For the
first thing, it takes a significant amount of time to even clear the
debris what more build a new structure whereas the trailers are a
commodity item that FEMA keeps a significant number of on hand for
nearly immediate deployment.

That there are those who try to make more of what FEMA should be in
their opinion is another side of typical US politics and various views
of what social programs should be government funded, but the fact is
that FEMA is an emergency response agency as the name says.
Now lets get on with it and save the bickering for the Swift Boat
rednecks when the electioneering starts again.

Bobk207 wrote:

Also I would suggest against depending on the BBC & ABC to provide
anything near accurate informattion.

I would suggest The Economist

I would suggest you read my post to see where I said that FEMA is an
insurance agency and see if you can locate the post where I asked you
to stop bickering over the politics.

If you have no interest in the subject flame off.

"Weatherlawyer" wrote in message
ups.com...
.... and Fema is reneging on the deal.

Where do you start?

You start by doing your own demolition... Use chlorox
sprays to get rid of the mold etc. repeatedly until its all
dry as a bone and ultra clean.



learn to do sheet rock..it has a few tricks but isnt that
hard.

You fit new insulation and sheet rock and other damaged
materials...you learn those trades yourself..

Then you spend the 40k on appliances, furniture, carpeting and
what you can't do yourself.

Phil Scott




You have the potential to claim $40,000 from a $115,000 job.
But that's
a job that you'd have to call in the builders for.

Your house is intact but the damage has taken out the walls
and
everything in the house up to waist height.

Of course by the time you get back in, the slime has crawled
all over
the place. Fema is not going to pay for wall units and all
sorts, you
have seen the news clips.

Take it from there. $40,000 tops, as the cost of living is
cheaper over
there.

£40,000 if you live in Great-rip-off Britain. We might adjust
that to
some extent if a price comparison of materials and maybe
tools, calls
for it. That's the bill facing the woman we saw on the news
over here.
(Mind that was 2 years ago.)

On 24 Sep 2005 13:57:25 -0700, "Weatherlawyer"
wrote:

You start by only living in houses well above the flood plain, and well
above the local river/stream. smirk

--
Dave Fawthrop dave hyphenologist co uk
The London suicide bombers killed innocent commuters.
Animal rights terrorists and activists kill innocent patients.

Dave Fawthrop wrote:

smirk

I am glad you can smirk. It takes some doing with a trace of humanity
these days. I'm not saying you have a trace of humanity of course. Just
that I am glad you are not dead.

I am not lying and I am not smirking.

Now **** off. Go and waste it elsewhere.

Dear Weatherlawyer-

No need to be un-civil........

Now **** off. Go and waste it elsewhere.

your comment as follows was directred at Duane not me (or at least I
thought since I had not posted at that point)

Now lets get on with it and save the bickering for the Swift Boat rednecks when the electioneering starts again

Perhaps you could clarify your post as to "now let's get one with it"
and "If you have no interest in the subject flame off. "

Are you genuinely in need of direction as to how to remediate a flooded
home or was your post retorical?

The people on this ng have more than enough combined experience to
advise on such a project, If you are truly interested in such
advice, a civil apporach would be more fruitful.

cheers
Bob

"Phil Scott" wrote in message



"Weatherlawyer" wrote in message
ups.com...
... and Fema is reneging on the deal.

Where do you start?

You start by doing your own demolition... Use chlorox
sprays to get rid of the mold etc. repeatedly until its all
dry as a bone and ultra clean.

snipped information unlikely to be of use to a single parent mother or
an elderly man with no previous building experience

I should have posted this idea as two separate posts to UK.diy and this
group. The presence of so many experts has put the amateurs off and the
experts are most likely themselves stumped at where to start to offer
the best advice.

It's traditional to have a thread on the subject of caustic soda every
few weeks on UK.diy, so perhaps I should kick it off on there again with
a jab at that?

It is actually very difficult to look around your home and try to
imagine where you might start; coming home exhausted and frightened and
finding a totally unclimbable obstacle and no helping hand -as everyone
else in the community is in the same boat and no government handouts.

We have had exactly the same visitation here in the UK recently.

Here there are local and national agencies that are responsible for
housing and health of those caught in a calalmity like a tornado. It
went badly wrong in the heart of ye olde Ynglande. I gather in the US
neighbours would have chipped in to get those hurt helped out
immediately.

That system can't possibly work in the Louisiana disaster.

Not on that scale.

And doesn't happen in the UK these days. I am just old enough to
remember a time it once did. In a small way at least.

snipped my post erroneously ascribed to you

Assuming there is access to cleaning equiptment and other stuff when a
state is washed out. (I remember trying to buy a decent hammer following
the Abergele Flood about 10 years or so back. Every DIY shop, every
builder's yard, every market stall was cleaned of hand tools. There was
such a shortage of building materials too. It was awesome.

Unless you have had experience of a disaster you REALLY can't comprehend
it.
Honest.
Imagine coming accross Newton's work in Latin. You wouldn't know where
to start.)

Anyway assuming all that, the first thing you would neeed to do is clean
out and clear up, obviously.

Thanks for the start to this thread. I was beginning to think the worst
of you lot here.


--
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG

"Bobk207" wrote in message
oups.com

Dear Weatherlawyer-

No need to be un-civil........

Now **** off. Go and waste it elsewhere.

Fully deserved by the fool who that was aimed at. Good advice too.

your comment as follows was directed at Duane not me (or at least I
thought since I had not posted at that point)

Quite.

Perhaps you could clarify your post as to "now let's get one with it"
and: "If you have no interest in the subject; flame off."

It is an interesting project and unless you have been in someone's house
when it was full of silt and rotting furniture all covered in pet czjd
and the whole neighbourhood filling with a stink you can not breathe, no
amount of building ability is experience enough to help.

So let me repeat to all those who just want to bicker over the wrongs of
the US government:

**** off.

I will post a transcript of what was on the news item on Alt.weather,
my new home on the net, soon. If and when I get it done I will post a
link.

Are you genuinely in need of direction as to how to remedy a flooded
home, or was your post rhetorical?

I too am a builder and I have had first hand experience but I was
pushing the envelope here a bit, trying to marry both sides of the
problem. What to do and how to go about it with limited experience.

The people on this ng have more than enough combined experience to
advise on such a project.

Prove it.




--
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG

On 24 Sep 2005 23:17:49 -0700, "Weatherlawyer"
wrote:

|
| Dave Fawthrop wrote:
|
| smirk
|
| I am glad you can smirk. It takes some doing with a trace of humanity
| these days. I'm not saying you have a trace of humanity of course. Just
| that I am glad you are not dead.
|
| I am not lying and I am not smirking.
|
| Now **** off. Go and waste it elsewhere.

Merely suggesting that anyone living on a flood plain should move to
somewhere higher.

--
Dave Fawthrop dave hyphenologist co uk
The London suicide bombers killed innocent commuters.
Animal rights terrorists and activists kill innocent patients.

In message lgate.org,
Michael Mcneil writes
"Bobk207" wrote in message
roups.com

Dear Weatherlawyer-

No need to be un-civil........

Now **** off. Go and waste it elsewhere.

Fully deserved by the fool who that was aimed at. Good advice too.

your comment as follows was directed at Duane not me (or at least I
thought since I had not posted at that point)

Quite.

Perhaps you could clarify your post as to "now let's get one with it"
and: "If you have no interest in the subject; flame off."

It is an interesting project and unless you have been in someone's house
when it was full of silt and rotting furniture all covered in pet czjd
and the whole neighbourhood filling with a stink you can not breathe, no
amount of building ability is experience enough to help.

So let me repeat to all those who just want to bicker over the wrongs of
the US government:

Bicker ?

I'm, laughing my tits off at the sheer incompetence

--
geoff

In message . com,
Weatherlawyer writes

Dave Fawthrop wrote:

smirk

I am glad you can smirk. It takes some doing with a trace of humanity
these days. I'm not saying you have a trace of humanity of course. Just
that I am glad you are not dead.

I am not lying and I am not smirking.

Now **** off. Go and waste it elsewhere.

Well, I thought it was sound advice ...

--
geoff

On Sun, 25 Sep 2005 09:18:14 +0100, Dave Fawthrop wrote:
Merely suggesting that anyone living on a flood plain should move to
somewhere higher.

..... or accept the risk. That's a no brainer. Now. Given the fact that
most of the flooded homes in MS that didn't have flood insurance were
built well above any official flood zones, what suggestion do you have
for them?

Rick

lid wrote:

On Sun, 25 Sep 2005 09:18:14 +0100, Dave Fawthrop wrote:
Merely suggesting that anyone living on a flood plain should move to
somewhere higher.

.... or accept the risk. That's a no brainer. Now. Given the fact that
most of the flooded homes in MS that didn't have flood insurance were
built well above any official flood zones, what suggestion do you have
for them?

Buy some wellies
Buy a snorkel and mask
Drown
Move more whites into the areas concerned - then someone in authority
might give a f*ck
Revise the official flood zone to include the homes that flooded
Stop driving round in huge f*cking SUV's and learn to use your legs
Stop eating half a cow and fries for breakfast lunch and dinner and
less water might be displaced when some lard ass goes for a swim
Spend the UN recommended proportion of GDP on foreign aid rather than
spending it on waging wars all over the f*cking place

--

"Weatherlawyer" wrote in message
oups.com...

Duane Bozarth wrote:
Weatherlawyer wrote:

... and Fema is reneging on the deal.

What deal of which you speak?

May I assume that you are a citizen of the USA?

FEMA is the agent of last resource for reconstruction if you don't have
insurance. There's no "deal" that says they are obliged to rebuild the
entire facility to its original condition.

As it happens I was taping a film and the news bulletin was taped with
it. I don't really know how to copy from a VCR to my computer and put
it online or send it over the net to someone.

It was an ABC bulletin, the BBC runs a half hour or so of a US news
channel's bulletinseach night on its News 24 channel. That was the
night they paid respects to a recently deceased presenter.

It dealt with the insurance claims that some sufferers are presently
taking FEMA to court with some 2 years to the day that the hurricane
struck them.

The present head of the agency claims there was no overall insurance
but the then head of it says that there was. But do you the richest and
most powerful country the planet has ever seen, want people living in
trailers when for the same money they could be living in houses?

Now lets get on with it and save the bickering for the Swift Boat
rednecks when the electioneering starts again.


Believe saw what you're talking about on CNN. Basically, its about FEMA
provided flood insurance and a few people who wouldn't accept FEMA's money
as it was inadequate per their perceptions. They are suing. Some recent
online FEMA advertisements for flood insurance also seem to indicate alot
more than what they actually provide per the same CNN broadcast. The news
broadcast seems to insinuate false advertising statements.

In my opinion, FEMA has no business providing any kind of property
insurance. Admittedly, flood insurance is very expensive. Its required by
many mortgage companies financing housing within a flood zone. Other acts
of God are relatively inexpensive to insure. Flood insurance is also an
option provided by some mortgage companies in a non-flood zone. Flood
insurance is always an option to the home owner if he/she is willing to pay
for it, or be prepared to take the loss in event of flooding.

In rare occasions, like a hurricane, inland flooding inundates many not
normally considered in a flood zone. A few years ago, similar happened in
central Texas with a freak, extended, heavy rain period. Many living along
rivers and lakes, not "normally" flooded, flooding destroyed or
substantially damaged their homes. General consensus was that very few had
flood insurance due to the infrequency of such a radical amount of rain in
such a short time. Believe they called it a once in 200 year event. That
was the reason the mortgage/financing companies did not require flood
insurance. Am sure each homeowner, at one time or another, had observed
floodwaters previously that came within distance to their homes. And, the
thought of flood insurance did cross their minds. But did not follow
through as it wasn't required, nor the chance of flooding seemed to indicate
that.

The solution seems to be that the mortgage/financing companies need to
rethink flooding insurance requirements to cover more rare occasions. This
would increase the insurance funding base, and make flood insurance less
expensive. FEMA does not have to get involved.

Lil' Dave wrote:
"Weatherlawyer" wrote in message
oups.com...
Duane Bozarth wrote:
Weatherlawyer wrote:

... and Fema is reneging on the deal.

What deal of which you speak?

May I assume that you are a citizen of the USA?

FEMA is the agent of last resource for reconstruction if you don't have
insurance. There's no "deal" that says they are obliged to rebuild the
entire facility to its original condition.

As it happens I was taping a film and the news bulletin was taped with
it. I don't really know how to copy from a VCR to my computer and put
it online or send it over the net to someone.

It was an ABC bulletin, the BBC runs a half hour or so of a US news
channel's bulletinseach night on its News 24 channel. That was the
night they paid respects to a recently deceased presenter.

It dealt with the insurance claims that some sufferers are presently
taking FEMA to court with some 2 years to the day that the hurricane
struck them.

The present head of the agency claims there was no overall insurance
but the then head of it says that there was. But do you the richest and
most powerful country the planet has ever seen, want people living in
trailers when for the same money they could be living in houses?

Now lets get on with it and save the bickering for the Swift Boat
rednecks when the electioneering starts again.

{I}Believe {I} saw what you're talking about on CNN. Basically, its about
FEMA provided flood insurance and a few people who wouldn't accept FEMA's
money as it was inadequate per their perceptions.

Some recent online FEMA advertisements for flood insurance also seem to
indicate a lot more than what they actually provide per the same CNN
broadcast.

The news broadcast seems to insinuate false advertising statements.
In my opinion, FEMA has no business providing any kind of property
insurance.

But it is in the disaster business and if the insurance companies go
belly up it will be a federal disaster not a state one.

(Remember the season is in full spate and that you only got a brief
respite in time for Rita. It will get back to full throttle following
the lull of the previous lunar phase. (Just thought I'd throw that in
to rattle a few of the losers and dead heads on sci.geo.geology.))

This thread was intended as some sort of support for those who were
trying to squeeze every last cent out of what little they have in order
to begin living again. But I suppose it might be a cathartic for the
blinding frustration at the state of offence that is the US Federal Aid
Programme under the drunk slackers in charge.

Its required by many mortgage companies financing housing within a flood
zone. Other acts of God are relatively inexpensive to insure.

It is an order of magnitude greater than fire. A fire might destroy a
town but the foundations could be reusable and the clearing up would be
minimal with nothing septic once the air cleared.

With a flood, there may be uplift. There will certainly be massive
subsidence affecting not only housing but road and rail infrastructures
with everything from sheds to road bridges moving on their foundations.

In rare occasions, like a hurricane, inland flooding inundates many not
normally considered in a flood zone. A few years ago, similar happened in
central Texas with a freak, extended, heavy rain period. Many living along
rivers and lakes, not "normally" flooded, flooding destroyed or
substantially damaged their homes. General consensus was that very few had
flood insurance due to the infrequency of such a radical amount of rain in
such a short time.

The problem being that as with FEMA reneging, the insurance will settle
every claim asap to avoid the follow on when the owners realise they
were duped into signing off on the claim. Some totally ingenuous souls
settled no doubt for a mere clean out with disinfectant and a prssure
wash.

{I} Believe they called it a once in 200 year event. That
was the reason the mortgage/financing companies did not require flood
insurance. {I?}Am sure each homeowner, at one time or another, had observed
floodwaters previously that came within distance to their homes. And, the
thought of flood insurance did cross their minds. But did not follow
through as it wasn't required, nor the chance of flooding seemed to indicate
that.

And that should be the fault of the government if it cares for its
citizens. There should be a mandatory tax to cover such possibilities.
You will see that however badly it catered for the victims, there will
be a back dated tax of some sort raised to cover events.

(And pay for more torture chambers in Cuba.)

The solution seems to be that the mortgage/financing companies need to
rethink flooding insurance requirements to cover more rare occasions. This
would increase the insurance funding base, and make flood insurance less
expensive. FEMA does not have to get involved.

I was merely pointing out that it "had" become involved. FEMA had got
out of hand obviously and by the look of recent events all to no avail
for anyone at the sharp end.

I don't think I shall bother writing a transcript of the broadcast as I
am sure that the news will carry it all, all over again a few times
before the debacle is over.

In the meantime, here is when to expect to have the next lull:

November the 9th on. But here again it will only be for a week or so.
By then the focus may well have moved out to Australasia. Don't count
on it. Get your arses covered.

Goodness knows the Aussies can use the wet, if only to protect them
from the British tour but will it be at all possible in summer?

Rita could have bitten badly if it had not been for the spell starting
around the 18th and ending on the 25th. Let's hope there is time to go
shopping for insurance.

Want to bet there will be no takers?

Weatherlawyer wrote:

Lil' Dave wrote:
"Weatherlawyer" wrote in message
oups.com...
Duane Bozarth wrote:
Weatherlawyer wrote:

... and Fema is reneging on the deal.

What deal of which you speak?

May I assume that you are a citizen of the USA?

FEMA is the agent of last resource for reconstruction if you don't have
insurance. There's no "deal" that says they are obliged to rebuild the
entire facility to its original condition.

As it happens I was taping a film and the news bulletin was taped with
it. I don't really know how to copy from a VCR to my computer and put
it online or send it over the net to someone.

It was an ABC bulletin, the BBC runs a half hour or so of a US news
channel's bulletinseach night on its News 24 channel. That was the
night they paid respects to a recently deceased presenter.

It dealt with the insurance claims that some sufferers are presently
taking FEMA to court with some 2 years to the day that the hurricane
struck them.

The present head of the agency claims there was no overall insurance
but the then head of it says that there was. But do you the richest and
most powerful country the planet has ever seen, want people living in
trailers when for the same money they could be living in houses?

Now lets get on with it and save the bickering for the Swift Boat
rednecks when the electioneering starts again.

{I}Believe {I} saw what you're talking about on CNN. Basically, its about
FEMA provided flood insurance and a few people who wouldn't accept FEMA's
money as it was inadequate per their perceptions.

Some recent online FEMA advertisements for flood insurance also seem to
indicate a lot more than what they actually provide per the same CNN
broadcast.

The news broadcast seems to insinuate false advertising statements.
In my opinion, FEMA has no business providing any kind of property
insurance.

But it is in the disaster business and if the insurance companies go
belly up it will be a federal disaster not a state one.

Again, you're unaware of the way things are in the US--

ALL flood insurance available in the US is subsidized by the US
Federal Government--there is no fully private underwriter who will write
such and therefore, the Federal government stepped in to provide it.

....

This thread was intended as some sort of support for those who were
trying to squeeze every last cent out of what little they have in order
to begin living again. But I suppose it might be a cathartic for the
blinding frustration at the state of offence that is the US Federal Aid
Programme under the drunk slackers in charge.

Other than you seem to have an agenda from afar, I have no clue what the
above is intended to say...

Its required by many mortgage companies financing housing within a flood
zone. Other acts of God are relatively inexpensive to insure.

It is an order of magnitude greater than fire. A fire might destroy a
town but the foundations could be reusable and the clearing up would be
minimal with nothing septic once the air cleared.

With a flood, there may be uplift. There will certainly be massive
subsidence affecting not only housing but road and rail infrastructures
with everything from sheds to road bridges moving on their foundations.

In rare occasions, like a hurricane, inland flooding inundates many not
normally considered in a flood zone. A few years ago, similar happened in
central Texas with a freak, extended, heavy rain period. Many living along
rivers and lakes, not "normally" flooded, flooding destroyed or
substantially damaged their homes. General consensus was that very few had
flood insurance due to the infrequency of such a radical amount of rain in
such a short time.

Well, your perception of "freak" and "normally" is, imo, quite skewed as
it is w/ most folks who live in such areas. I happen to know that area
pretty well as I have family who have been there for something
approaching 75 years now...but they know full well that every so often,
"stuff happens" and that is one of the "stuffs" that happens down
there. Of course, having continued to build major cities and
residential areas all up and down the coastal areas simply exacerbates
the problem. But, it is neither all that unusual nor rare.

The problem being that as with FEMA reneging, the insurance will settle
every claim asap to avoid the follow on when the owners realise they
were duped into signing off on the claim. Some totally ingenuous souls
settled no doubt for a mere clean out with disinfectant and a prssure
wash.


{I} Believe they called it a once in 200 year event. That
was the reason the mortgage/financing companies did not require flood
insurance. {I?}Am sure each homeowner, at one time or another, had observed
floodwaters previously that came within distance to their homes. And, the
thought of flood insurance did cross their minds. But did not follow
through as it wasn't required, nor the chance of flooding seemed to indicate
that.

And that should be the fault of the government if it cares for its
citizens. There should be a mandatory tax to cover such possibilities.
You will see that however badly it catered for the victims, there will
be a back dated tax of some sort raised to cover events.

That again is the difference between the US model and yours (or at least
your personal model). In the US, it's the individual who is presumed to
be primarily responsible for themselves--rightly imo.

As for the last claim, I think you will find that will not happen unless
the other side gets more control of the Congress than they presently
have. It's the other group that typically is the ones who look to
higher taxes and government as the first recourse, not the last as a
general philosophy.

Again, there's a major difference in mindset here--personal
responsibility first, not government.
(And pay for more torture chambers in Cuba.)

The solution seems to be that the mortgage/financing companies need to
rethink flooding insurance requirements to cover more rare occasions. This
would increase the insurance funding base, and make flood insurance less
expensive. FEMA does not have to get involved.

I was merely pointing out that it "had" become involved. FEMA had got
out of hand obviously and by the look of recent events all to no avail
for anyone at the sharp end.

I don't think I shall bother writing a transcript of the broadcast as I
am sure that the news will carry it all, all over again a few times
before the debacle is over.

In the meantime, here is when to expect to have the next lull:

November the 9th on. But here again it will only be for a week or so.
By then the focus may well have moved out to Australasia. Don't count
on it. Get your arses covered.

Goodness knows the Aussies can use the wet, if only to protect them
from the British tour but will it be at all possible in summer?

Rita could have bitten badly if it had not been for the spell starting
around the 18th and ending on the 25th. Let's hope there is time to go
shopping for insurance.

Want to bet there will be no takers?

"Duane Bozarth" wrote in message
...
Weatherlawyer wrote:

Lil' Dave wrote:
"Weatherlawyer" wrote in message
oups.com...
Duane Bozarth wrote:
Weatherlawyer wrote:

... and Fema is reneging on the deal.

What deal of which you speak?

May I assume that you are a citizen of the USA?

FEMA is the agent of last resource for reconstruction if you don't
have
insurance. There's no "deal" that says they are obliged to
rebuild the
entire facility to its original condition.

As it happens I was taping a film and the news bulletin was taped
with
it. I don't really know how to copy from a VCR to my computer and
put
it online or send it over the net to someone.

It was an ABC bulletin, the BBC runs a half hour or so of a US news
channel's bulletinseach night on its News 24 channel. That was the
night they paid respects to a recently deceased presenter.

It dealt with the insurance claims that some sufferers are presently
taking FEMA to court with some 2 years to the day that the hurricane
struck them.

The present head of the agency claims there was no overall insurance
but the then head of it says that there was. But do you the richest
and
most powerful country the planet has ever seen, want people living
in
trailers when for the same money they could be living in houses?

Now lets get on with it and save the bickering for the Swift Boat
rednecks when the electioneering starts again.

{I}Believe {I} saw what you're talking about on CNN. Basically, its
about
FEMA provided flood insurance and a few people who wouldn't accept
FEMA's
money as it was inadequate per their perceptions.

Some recent online FEMA advertisements for flood insurance also seem
to
indicate a lot more than what they actually provide per the same CNN
broadcast.

The news broadcast seems to insinuate false advertising statements.
In my opinion, FEMA has no business providing any kind of property
insurance.

But it is in the disaster business and if the insurance companies go
belly up it will be a federal disaster not a state one.

Again, you're unaware of the way things are in the US--

ALL flood insurance available in the US is subsidized by the US
Federal Government--there is no fully private underwriter who will write
such and therefore, the Federal government stepped in to provide it.


Correction. All flood insurance is not subsidized by the U.S. government.
Flood insurance in the U.S. is ONLY available through the U.S. government.
That is not a subsidy. That is an entitlement program that is federally
funded through FEMA.

In message , Matt
writes
wrote:

On Sun, 25 Sep 2005 09:18:14 +0100, Dave Fawthrop wrote:
Merely suggesting that anyone living on a flood plain should move to
somewhere higher.

.... or accept the risk. That's a no brainer. Now. Given the fact that
most of the flooded homes in MS that didn't have flood insurance were
built well above any official flood zones, what suggestion do you have
for them?

Buy some wellies
Buy a snorkel and mask

Bad advice that ...

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/inter...577753,00.html

--
geoff

"raden" wrote in message
news
In message , Matt
writes
wrote:

On Sun, 25 Sep 2005 09:18:14 +0100, Dave Fawthrop wrote:
Merely suggesting that anyone living on a flood plain should move to
somewhere higher.

.... or accept the risk. That's a no brainer. Now. Given the fact that
most of the flooded homes in MS that didn't have flood insurance were
built well above any official flood zones, what suggestion do you have
for them?

Buy some wellies
Buy a snorkel and mask

Bad advice that ...

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/inter...577753,00.html



Behave, Geoff. That's not the porpoise of this discussion, and you know
it....

--

Richard Sampson

mail me at
richard at olifant d-ot co do-t uk

In message , RichardS
writes

"raden" wrote in message
news
In message , Matt
writes
wrote:

On Sun, 25 Sep 2005 09:18:14 +0100, Dave Fawthrop wrote:
Merely suggesting that anyone living on a flood plain should move to
somewhere higher.

.... or accept the risk. That's a no brainer. Now. Given the fact that
most of the flooded homes in MS that didn't have flood insurance were
built well above any official flood zones, what suggestion do you have
for them?

Buy some wellies
Buy a snorkel and mask

Bad advice that ...

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/inter...577753,00.html



Behave, Geoff. That's not the porpoise of this discussion, and you know
it....

Whale sea about that !

--
geoff

"Dave Fawthrop" wrote in
message ...
On 24 Sep 2005 23:17:49 -0700, "Weatherlawyer"

wrote:

|
| Dave Fawthrop wrote:
|
| smirk
|
| I am glad you can smirk. It takes some doing with a trace
of humanity
| these days. I'm not saying you have a trace of humanity of
course. Just
| that I am glad you are not dead.
|
| I am not lying and I am not smirking.
|
| Now **** off. Go and waste it elsewhere.

Merely suggesting that anyone living on a flood plain should
move to
somewhere higher.


some people are dirt poor and need to live near their low rent
jobs ... below sea level in the ghetto is cheapest...and all
the relatives are there too....so there you have it.

No other choice for most of these people.

If I were living there Id keep a 4x8 x 4" thick sheet of
strofoam on hand...two people could paddle out on one of those
with the boom box and the dog.





--
Dave Fawthrop dave hyphenologist co uk
The London suicide bombers killed innocent commuters.
Animal rights terrorists and activists kill innocent
patients.

On Mon, 26 Sep 2005 21:11:01 -0700, "Phil Scott"
wrote:

|
| "Dave Fawthrop" wrote in
| message ...
| On 24 Sep 2005 23:17:49 -0700, "Weatherlawyer"
|
| wrote:
|
| |
| | Dave Fawthrop wrote:
| |
| | smirk
| |
| | I am glad you can smirk. It takes some doing with a trace
| of humanity
| | these days. I'm not saying you have a trace of humanity of
| course. Just
| | that I am glad you are not dead.
| |
| | I am not lying and I am not smirking.
| |
| | Now **** off. Go and waste it elsewhere.
|
| Merely suggesting that anyone living on a flood plain should
| move to
| somewhere higher.
|
|
| some people are dirt poor and need to live near their low rent
| jobs ... below sea level in the ghetto is cheapest...and all
| the relatives are there too....so there you have it.

As the Insurance companies ratchet up insurance cost, living on flood
plains will become too expensive for the dirt poor.

When I was tenting I always tried to pitch on a six inch high hill to keep
out of the puddles and boggy bits. One night it threw it down and there
was a lot of noise outside. I checked that the tent was dry, and went back
to sleep. In the morning we were on an island and all the tents around us
had gone, flooded out.


--
Dave Fawthrop dave hyphenologist co uk
The London suicide bombers killed innocent commuters.
Animal rights terrorists and activists kill innocent patients.

In article ,
"Phil Scott" wrote:



some people are dirt poor and need to live near their low rent
jobs ... below sea level in the ghetto is cheapest...and all
the relatives are there too....so there you have it.

No other choice for most of these people.

If I were living there Id keep a 4x8 x 4" thick sheet of
strofoam on hand...two people could paddle out on one of those
with the boom box and the dog.

If you had even the small amount of foresight required to keep a piece
of styrofoam board for an eventual emergency, chances are you wouldn't
be living there in the first place.

Having worked in ghettos, I can tell you that 99.9% of the residents are
not capable of planning anything beyond the next few hours and that's
one of the main reasons they are there in the first place.

--
-JR
Hung like Einstein and smart as a horse
Remove NO SPAM from e-mai address to reply

Dave Fawthrop wrote:

As the Insurance companies ratchet up insurance cost, living on flood
plains will become too expensive for the dirt poor.

Standard US house insurance specifically excludes flood damage. Seperate,
expensive, Federal flood insurance is available. But - many people don't
actually read the fine print in their policy, and have no idea that they
aren't covered.

Sheila

S Viemeister wrote:

Dave Fawthrop wrote:

As the Insurance companies ratchet up insurance cost, living on flood
plains will become too expensive for the dirt poor.

Standard US house insurance specifically excludes flood damage. Seperate,
expensive, Federal flood insurance is available. But - many people don't
actually read the fine print in their policy, and have no idea that they
aren't covered.

So the small print says it specifically excludes flooding by
dihydrogen monoxide?



--

On Tue, 27 Sep 2005 08:35:24 -0400, S Viemeister
wrote:

| Dave Fawthrop wrote:
|
| As the Insurance companies ratchet up insurance cost, living on flood
| plains will become too expensive for the dirt poor.
|
| Standard US house insurance specifically excludes flood damage. Seperate,
| expensive, Federal flood insurance is available. But - many people don't
| actually read the fine print in their policy, and have no idea that they
| aren't covered.

We are posting to uk.d-i-y.
Why do you give US examples which are by definition irrelevant here?

--
Dave Fawthrop dave hyphenologist co uk
The London suicide bombers killed innocent commuters.
Animal rights terrorists and activists kill innocent patients.

In article ,
lid says...
On Tue, 27 Sep 2005 08:35:24 -0400, S Viemeister
wrote:

| Dave Fawthrop wrote:
|
| As the Insurance companies ratchet up insurance cost, living on flood
| plains will become too expensive for the dirt poor.
|
| Standard US house insurance specifically excludes flood damage. Seperate,
| expensive, Federal flood insurance is available. But - many people don't
| actually read the fine print in their policy, and have no idea that they
| aren't covered.

We are posting to uk.d-i-y.
Why do you give US examples which are by definition irrelevant here?


It started as a crosspost to alt.building.construction - as the
legalities and construction methods vary greatly between UK and US it
looked a bit trollish to me.

Rob Morley wrote:

In article ,
lid says...
On Tue, 27 Sep 2005 08:35:24 -0400, S Viemeister
wrote:

| Dave Fawthrop wrote:
|
| As the Insurance companies ratchet up insurance cost, living on flood
| plains will become too expensive for the dirt poor.
|
| Standard US house insurance specifically excludes flood damage. Seperate,
| expensive, Federal flood insurance is available. But - many people don't
| actually read the fine print in their policy, and have no idea that they
| aren't covered.

We are posting to uk.d-i-y.
Why do you give US examples which are by definition irrelevant here?


It started as a crosspost to alt.building.construction - as the
legalities and construction methods vary greatly between UK and US it
looked a bit trollish to me.

Yes - the original post specifically referred to FEMA, and the recent
floods in the US.

Sheila

On Tue, 27 Sep 2005 12:22:52 -0400, S Viemeister
wrote:

| Rob Morley wrote:
|
| In article ,
| lid says...
| On Tue, 27 Sep 2005 08:35:24 -0400, S Viemeister
| wrote:
|
| | Dave Fawthrop wrote:
| |
| | As the Insurance companies ratchet up insurance cost, living on flood
| | plains will become too expensive for the dirt poor.
| |
| | Standard US house insurance specifically excludes flood damage. Seperate,
| | expensive, Federal flood insurance is available. But - many people don't
| | actually read the fine print in their policy, and have no idea that they
| | aren't covered.
|
| We are posting to uk.d-i-y.
| Why do you give US examples which are by definition irrelevant here?
|
|
| It started as a crosspost to alt.building.construction - as the
| legalities and construction methods vary greatly between UK and US it
| looked a bit trollish to me.
|
| Yes - the original post specifically referred to FEMA, and the recent
| floods in the US.

So the whole thread was Off Topic, and I did not notice :-(

--
Dave Fawthrop dave hyphenologist co uk
The London suicide bombers killed innocent commuters.
Animal rights terrorists and activists kill innocent patients.