The Green New Deal

How about areas more likely to have a tornado, an earthquake, a mudslide, or a hurricane?

Here is my position in a nutshell and it has more to do with flooding than anything (I don't think there is a federal fire insurance program) but there shouldn't be a federal flood insurance program. Build in a flood prone area sorry about your bad luck if you can't find insurance. I don't understand why companies write policies in fire prone areas like CA.

Mudslides are almost always due to human activity.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 82_VOL_83 and AM64
Here is my position in a nutshell and it has more to do with flooding than anything (I don't think there is a federal fire insurance program) but there shouldn't be a federal flood insurance program. Build in a flood prone area sorry about your bad luck if you can't find insurance. I don't understand why companies write policies in fire prone areas like CA.

Mudslides are almost always due to human activity.
Just wondering where you draw the line. I have a house about 120 yards from the ocean where a Cat 4 or 5 hurricane hit in October. No house on that peninsula is covered by FEMA, and I can understand why. If you want flood insurance, you have to get it privately, and it is very expensive and doesn't cover but up to a certain amount as I understand it. My house is on a high spot and not in even a 500 year floodplain, so I don't have flood insurance, but have wind damage insurance.

Many houses suffered water damage way back from the water. Is it your position that no business or house should be built within 300-400 yards of the ocean, or okay if have private insurance? I agree the government shouldn't subsidize it, even though they profit from the taxes of ocean front land handsomely.
 
Just wondering where you draw the line. I have a house about 120 yards from the ocean where a Cat 4 or 5 hurricane hit in October. No house on that peninsula is covered by FEMA, and I can understand why. If you want flood insurance, you have to get it privately, and it is very expensive and doesn't cover but up to a certain amount as I understand it. My house is on a high spot and not in even a 500 year floodplain, so I don't have flood insurance, but have wind damage insurance.

Many houses suffered water damage way back from the water. Is it your position that no business or house should be built within 300-400 yards of the ocean, or okay if have private insurance? I agree the government shouldn't subsidize it, even though they profit from the taxes of ocean front land handsomely.

I don't think we should develop any more of our shoreline but yeah if you can forgo insurance or find it privately do what you want. Even if a state decides to set up their own program I'm good with that. I just think the Feds need to to be out of the flood insurance game.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64
Here is my position in a nutshell and it has more to do with flooding than anything (I don't think there is a federal fire insurance program) but there shouldn't be a federal flood insurance program. Build in a flood prone area sorry about your bad luck if you can't find insurance. I don't understand why companies write policies in fire prone areas like CA.

Mudslides are almost always due to human activity.
Humans have nothing to do with mudslides. There were mudslides millions of years ago, they're just cyclical and we do not have enough data to know how long each cycle lasts or the time between cycles. It's basically just propaganda from a group of bought and paid for "scientists" who have a hidden agenda to keep people from stripping all of the vegetation from mountains and hillsides. Elroy down to the Five and Dime will vouch that I"m right.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BartW and Mick
Humans have nothing to do with mudslides. There were mudslides millions of years ago, they're just cyclical and we do not have enough data to know how long each cycle lasts or the time between cycles. It's basically just propaganda from a group of bought and paid for "scientists" who have a hidden agenda to keep people from stripping all of the vegetation from mountains and hillsides. Elroy down to the Five and Dime will vouch that I"m right.

Cute. Dumb but cute.
 
I don't think we should develop any more of our shoreline but yeah if you can forgo insurance or find it privately do what you want. Even if a state decides to set up their own program I'm good with that. I just think the Feds need to to be out of the flood insurance game.
From what I was told when we were looking at houses in Florida, the government was in the process of raising their flood insurance rates gradually over a period of a few years to have rates competitive to what was available from the private sector. In other words, they were lowering their subsidies of their flood insurance.

That is why several places were for sale because if you have a loan on a house there, you must carry very expensive flood insurance, and it was going up in the area just off the peninsula where FEMA was available. Some folks couldn't afford several thousand a year on top of their house payment. I agree with you that the government shouldn't be involved though.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64
From what I was told when we were looking at houses in Florida, the government was in the process of raising their flood insurance rates gradually over a period of a few years to have rates competitive to what was available from the private sector. In other words, they were lowering their subsidies of their flood insurance.

That is why several places were for sale because if you have a loan on a house there, you must carry very expensive flood insurance, and it was going up in the area just off the peninsula where FEMA was available. Some folks couldn't afford several thousand a year on top of their house payment. I agree with you that the government shouldn't be involved though.

Being older, I miss the days of seeing beaches when they didn't have huge concrete condos ruining the coastline.
 
Being older, I miss the days of seeing beaches when they didn't have huge concrete condos ruining the coastline.
That is exactly why I bought where I did. It is on a small peninsula with no building allowed over 3 stories. There isn't even a motel on the peninsula. No putt putts, waterslides, fast food, etc. There is one small beach shop, and 2 convenience stores, one of which sells gas.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64 and VolStrom
That is exactly why I bought where I did. It is on a small peninsula with no building allowed over 3 stories. There isn't even a motel on the peninsula. No putt putts, waterslides, fast food, etc. There is one small beach shop, and 2 convenience stores, one of which sells gas.

Sounds nice! No putt putt would be a no go for me though.
 
That is exactly why I bought where I did. It is on a small peninsula with no building allowed over 3 stories. There isn't even a motel on the peninsula. No putt putts, waterslides, fast food, etc. There is one small beach shop, and 2 convenience stores, one of which sells gas.
Which is exactly why I looked into purchasing down there. Glad I did not now but man what a beautiful place. Terrible what happened.
 
Which is exactly why I looked into purchasing down there. Glad I did not now but man what a beautiful place. Terrible what happened.
Mexico Beach is a disaster, but Cape San Blas will be okay before you know it. They are still having temporary water and cable outages, 4 months after the fact. Some of it is caused by road construction, some by not being able to fix a leak right away because it's under 15 feet of rubble. I am also very glad that I didn't buy in Mexico Beach because we checked it at the same time. It will NEVER be the same, and will take years to rebuild.
 
If the Californians had any brain they would take that money and invest in irrigation and canals and pump stations from the ocean to make sure they never have to pay billions for another wild fire. But, hey, too stupid to understand they have a freaking ocean on the coast to prevent wildfires from growing out of control.

All PVC and never have to worry about corrosion.
Those are very large straws and are banned in California.
 
Mexico Beach is a disaster, but Cape San Blas will be okay before you know it. They are still having temporary water and cable outages, 4 months after the fact. Some of it is caused by road construction, some by not being able to fix a leak right away because it's under 15 feet of rubble. I am also very glad that I didn't buy in Mexico Beach because we checked it at the same time. It will NEVER be the same, and will take years to rebuild.

We're going to Grayton beach in Oct, how did they fare over that way?
 
Humans have nothing to do with mudslides. There were mudslides millions of years ago, they're just cyclical and we do not have enough data to know how long each cycle lasts or the time between cycles. It's basically just propaganda from a group of bought and paid for "scientists" who have a hidden agenda to keep people from stripping all of the vegetation from mountains and hillsides. Elroy down to the Five and Dime will vouch that I"m right.

There was a lot of ice laying around before man had the ability to change much of anything, but a lot of your buddies blame man for running up the temperature.

When man goes out and does stupid stuff that uncovers hill sides and makes areas prone to fire damage (destroying ground cover), then, yeah, I'd say there's some pretty direct correlation to man and some mudslides. There once was an area covered in sod; man plowed the sod; the winds blew; and the dust flew. Had there been hills and rain, the mud would certainly have flowed.
 
There was a lot of ice laying around before man had the ability to change much of anything, but a lot of your buddies blame man for running up the temperature.

When man goes out and does stupid stuff that uncovers hill sides and makes areas prone to fire damage (destroying ground cover), then, yeah, I'd say there's some pretty direct correlation to man and some mudslides. There once was an area covered in sod; man plowed the sod; the winds blew; and the dust flew. Had there been hills and rain, the mud would certainly have flowed.
So the conclusion is that man can and does change the environment. So now the only debate is how and how much. Progress
 
  • Like
Reactions: Mick
So the conclusion is that man can and does change the environment. So now the only debate is how and how much. Progress

In moderate amounts man can change the environment. I would think even you would agree that is the reason for environmental cleanup funds. Doesn't mean that you can take a lighter and go out and melt a glacier, but you can certainly dump toxic waste that leaches into groundwater or lies in the soil waiting for an unsuspecting homeowner or kid to dig it up. Who knows; if it kills the vegetation, toxic waste might even be a part of a mudslide.
 
That way we can come up with more tax initiatives to give to the sun gods.

It's funny when you consider what happens ever day - it gets hotter when the sun is shining, that a lot of people have yet to connect the sun god's solar tantrums and associated heat with warming and cooling patterns down here. Apparently the sun is just a big yellow blob in the sky that never changes or changes much of anything.
 

VN Store



Back
Top