Habitat for Humanity

They do good works, of course. But I'm wondering when (or how) they should stop their re-building efforts in disaster-prone zones?

What do you think?

It's thier time to waste.

Interesting. I thought you'd be espousing the *wisdom* of private/charitable sectors over "big government".

Sigh, you are counting the wrong beans.

Again, it's thier time to waste. If they keep doing stupid things, then donations will stop.

Can't say the same for The Grand Imperial Federal Government.

Grand Imperial Federal Government, huh. :bulb:

So which is more stupid....cities and residents re-building in disaster areas, using federal gov't funds and state taxes, with outdated zoning and building regulations....or charitable organizations using voluntary money/labor to do the same?

Wrong Beans (and why is no one else interested in this discussion???).

Both are stupid. One will eventually stop however when the money dries up. One will not. One is voluntary, one is not.

Well, my threads aren't known for their popularity. :p

The title and OP inferred some extrapolation and tangential thought would be done by the reader. Oops?

When it comes to re-building after disasters (particularly after Sandy, but also in poor barrier islands like Haiti or Bahamas) it's disingenuous to blame "government"....when NGOs rush in to fix housing, but don't push for "government" to change policy.

I wasn't blaming any one in this case. Rebuilding in disaster prone areas should be reviewed...but when you mention Sandy...are you talking about the NY and NJ areas that were hit?

Yes, but Sandy's damage wasn't limited to NY and NJ. It blanketed some 13 states. States don't have to be disaster prone to experience disasters, or need federal assistance. Vermont is a recent example.

Now you are losing me.

I thought we were talking about rebuilding in unwise places that experience Nature's Wrath on a consistent basis...by both private and government assistance?

I know Sandy beat the snot out of more than just NY and NJ, I was just curious if you were including those two states in the unwise to rebuild category.

I've muddied the topic by saying "disaster-prone"....also not making distinctions between man-made and nature-related. :(

There's hardly a place in the US that doesn't have routine weather-related "disasters". Blizzards, high winds, tornadoes, etc. Those places could use sustainable housing in their rebuilds, with better construction materials and engineering. Replacing mobile homes in tornado alley with fixed foundation homes with basements, that's an example of volunteer Habitat for Humanity making a positive difference.

But many of our problems are related to poor zoning, building, planning or infrastructure maintenance. That includes effects of wildfires, heavy rains, snow melt, mud slides....and especially flooding. Those are man-makes-things-worse scenarios.

What's the point of re-building, or re-re-building....without demanding better planning and zoning first? And if we don't see the needed changes by city planners or legislators (and tax dollars) why don't the charitable/volunteer organizations use their political clout (and donations) to demand the changes?