Waiting for Fitzgerald

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
happy to stand next to you Club. It's important our side show reasonableness in contrast to the libs. i love Penske, but at times he's prone to hyperbole, and I don't think that helps our cases here.

2.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Spanky
OK legally I may have my head up my derrier. But morally, don't you think the Feds should cover this (in other words the American tax payer should cover this). The Feds should have forseen this type of storm coming and strengthened the levee. I just think if people houses got flooded because of a weak levee they should get compensated.

Did I turn into a bleeding heart liberal and not realize it?

Just my opinion.

Yes, you have. We should discourage, not encourge, settlement in dangerous areas. If you pay everyone off, the problem is only bigger the next time.

Their houses got flooded because they're built in a flood plain, or below sea level. The levees just prevented it from happening more often, and sooner. To take fringe's analogy, are you going to tell us next that after an LA earthquake, the feds should pay because they built too much infrastructure there and didn't impose sufficiently strict building codes?

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by Spanky
OK legally I may have my head up my derrier. But morally, don't you think the Feds should cover this (in other words the American tax payer should cover this). The Feds should have forseen this type of storm coming and strengthened the levee. I just think if people houses got flooded because of a weak levee they should get compensated.

Did I turn into a bleeding heart liberal and not realize it?

Just my opinion.

You have turned into a bleeding-heart liberal. They built or bought houses in an area for which it was entirely foreseeable that it might someday flood -- possibly they bought/built there because the land was cheaper than higher land. Why should the taxpayers have to pay for the crap decisions of people? I guess you could make the argument that they assumed that the feds would keep the levees in a condition that would withstand a huge hurricane, but I don't think that (a) the feds ever promised that or (b) that it's necessarily even reasonably possible to do so.

I'm kind of surprised at Burger's solution of just banning people from building in the entire area -- this seems like a huge amount of gov't intervention. I would think the market has taken care of it, in a rather brutal way. Also, I'm used to seeing some limited areas left unbuilt for flood management, but not to the extent of depopulating a city.

Of course, I'm not generally opposed to stuff like welfare and subsidized housing for the poor, so I am assuming there is a safety net for people who had made homes there (whether renting or owning) and now have no homes. Burger may be saying, let's just ban building there because then we won't have to pay to get people back on their feet next time this happens.

I would not really be wanting to spend exponentially more amounts of money to have just somewhat of an increase in the ability of new levees to withstand a hurricane of similar force -- it doesn't seem like they come around all the time. And, I think it makes more sense for people to come to their own decision about whether to live in NO, now that it's been brutally pointed out that life there is maybe not entirely stable/safe. Maybe they will want higher wages to be induced to live there, so that they can be better prepared in the event of a flood, whether through having more savings, or through opting to live in housing that is in a less flood-prone area.

Shit, there are people who will not move to CA because of the earthquake risk -- NO seems like it should work the same way.

[Gattigap]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
Yes, you have. We should discourage, not encourge, settlement in dangerous areas. If you pay everyone off, the problem is only bigger the next time.

Their houses got flooded because they're built in a flood plain, or below sea level. The levees just prevented it from happening more often, and sooner. To take fringe's analogy, are you going to tell us next that after an LA earthquake, the feds should pay because they built too much infrastructure there and didn't impose sufficiently strict building codes?

If we're following your policy of discouraging, not encouraging settlement in dangerous areas, will your answer to the hypo be no federal compensation at all in order to encourage migration out of CA into Arizona, Nevada and Utah?

TIA for your response. It'll help us set home prices accordingly.

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
Yes, you have. We should discourage, not encourge, settlement in dangerous areas. If you pay everyone off, the problem is only bigger the next time.

Their houses got flooded because they're built in a flood plain, or below sea level. The levees just prevented it from happening more often, and sooner. To take fringe's analogy, are you going to tell us next that after an LA earthquake, the feds should pay because they built too much infrastructure there and didn't impose sufficiently strict building codes?

You are in favor of building codes? Christ. My image of you is entirely ruined.

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by Gattigap
If we're following your policy of discouraging, not encouraging settlement in dangerous areas, will your answer to the hypo be no federal compensation at all in order to encourage migration out of CA into Arizona, Nevada and Utah?

TIA for your response. It'll help us set home prices accordingly.

AZ, NV and UT are (maybe even to a greater extent than CA) likely to run out of water. Do we want to encourage people to live in a place that really can't sustain large populations of humans?

[notcasesensitive]

Originally posted by ltl/fb
AZ, NV and UT are (maybe even to a greater extent than CA) likely to run out of water. Do we want to encourage people to live in a place that really can't sustain large populations of humans?

I don't know, things worked out really well for the Anasazi in those regions (throw in NM for good measure).

[Bad_Rich_Chic]

Originally posted by Spanky
OK legally I may have my head up my derrier. But morally, don't you think the Feds should cover this (in other words the American tax payer should cover this). The Feds should have forseen this type of storm coming and strengthened the levee. I just think if people houses got flooded because of a weak levee they should get compensated.

I have heard it said
They now think the levees
Fell from bad construction
Instead of rough seas.

That said, I don't see
How Feds predict for sure
An Act of God
(Or at least Force Majeure).

Did I turn into a bleeding heart liberal and not realize it?

I'm afraid to say, Spanks,
That is seems it is so -
You find assumed risk and bad luck,
And you throw at it dough.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by ltl/fb
Burger may be saying, let's just ban building there because then we won't have to pay to get people back on their feet next time this happens.

.

Exactly. If you don't ban people from living there, there willbe political pressure to protect them and compensate them for their losses.

but I'm not saying ban people; I'm saying don't rebuild there at taxpayer expense. Some modest levees perhaps to protect reasonably protectable higher ground. But nothing more. And inform people that based on science/surveys/etc., that any place marked on this map in red is a place likely to have severe flooding every 5 years. Move in at your own risk.


As for those other places, sure. But it's impossible to make a credible political commitment not to help. Much as i hate the federal flood insurance program because it encourages settlement in flood-prone locations, its one saving grace is that at least the people have to pay a bit of the cost up front.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by ltl/fb
AZ, NV and UT are (maybe even to a greater extent than CA) likely to run out of water. Do we want to encourage people to live in a place that really can't sustain large populations of humans?

No, and I'd get ridof the glen canyon dam too. no more subsidized water.

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
Exactly. If you don't ban people from living there, there willbe political pressure to protect them and compensate them for their losses.

but I'm not saying ban people; I'm saying don't rebuild there at taxpayer expense. Some modest levees perhaps to protect reasonably protectable higher ground. But nothing more. And inform people that based on science/surveys/etc., that any place marked on this map in red is a place likely to have severe flooding every 5 years. Move in at your own risk.


As for those other places, sure. But it's impossible to make a credible political commitment not to help. Much as i hate the federal flood insurance program because it encourages settlement in flood-prone locations, its one saving grace is that at least the people have to pay a bit of the cost up front.

I'm OK with compensating people to an extent for bad luck -- and this was partly bad luck. I don't think we should rebuild for them, though, there's the issue of putting infrastructure back in. Not sure to what extent the infrastructure is ruined as opposed to just needing to be cleaned up and put back into operation. I'm not opposed to helping people with temp housing until they get back on their feet somewhere else and/or everyone has a better idea of what's going on in NO.

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by Spanky
Anyone get this in their email. I assume it is B.S. because there is not actual specific cite for the information but I was just curious.
***
Please Forward this message to all your friends and family members toinform them about this initiation ritual. You can save someone's life ifyou heed to this warning.

My wife told me about this several years ago, in more general terms, as something "she had heard" which should answer your question.

S_A_M

[Bad_Rich_Chic]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
but I'm not saying ban people; I'm saying don't rebuild there at taxpayer expense. Some modest levees perhaps to protect reasonably protectable higher ground. But nothing more.

The main purpose of
the New Orleans levee
system is to keep passable
the lower Mississippi,

Not to save private houses
or other properties.
The river wouldn't be navigable
without the levees.

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by Bad_Rich_Chic
The main purpose of
the New Orleans levee
system is to keep passable
the lower Mississippi,

Not to save private houses
or other properties.
The river wouldn't be navigable
without the levees.

We can rebuild them to that point, then. I should have known that. I think it's like the definition of a levee, which now that I am thinking about it is not synonymous with floodwall.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Bad_Rich_Chic
I have heard it said
They now think the levees
Fell from bad construction
Instead of rough seas.

That said, I don't see
How Feds predict for sure
An Act of God
(Or at least Force Majeure).
I'm afraid to say, Spanks,
That is seems it is so -
You find assumed risk and bad luck,
And you throw at it dough.

Bravo