Illusion or Delusion?

[GGT]

Evacuating California foothills, to get out of the way of mud slides, because the brush fires a few years ago removed natural barriers. The emergency basins are filling up due to heavy rains.

We've had these discussions before, usually aimed at the US coasts with people and homes always at the doorstep of some disaster.

When poor people suffer disasters made worse by man-made intervention, like New Orleans or Haiti, people are quick to blame government, or shoddy building standards, or people being stupid.

But, apparently, if you're wealthy and have a million dollar home, all you have to do is buy enough insurance. Then you can keep re-building in the same spots, with "better engineering", and pay higher taxes to fund fire departments and emergency services. Or expect massive efforts to dredge, reroute, create levees, fortify shorelines.

Is this an illusion or delusion, and on whose part?

[EyeKhan]

Evacuating California foothills, to get out of the way of mud slides, because the brush fires a few years ago removed natural barriers. The emergency basins are filling up due to heavy rains.

We've had these discussions before, usually aimed at the US coasts with people and homes always at the doorstep of some disaster.

When poor people suffer disasters made worse by man-made intervention, like New Orleans or Haiti, people are quick to blame government, or shoddy building standards, or people being stupid.

But, apparently, if you're wealthy and have a million dollar home, all you have to do is buy enough insurance. Then you can keep re-building in the same spots, with "better engineering", and pay higher taxes to fund fire departments and emergency services. Or expect massive efforts to dredge, reroute, create levees, fortify shorelines.

Is this an illusion or delusion, and on whose part?

Heh, I thought this was an Abuse Illusions thread.

Well, this is a deep subject. A few comments:

If I have the money to build a house in a flood plain or on a hillside that burns occasionally, and I have the money to insure that home against said disaster, and an insurance company's business model allows them to sell it to me, and when that disaster occurrs, the public doesn't pay much extra to address the fact that I'm living there (this is the kicker that doesn't happen in reality, I know), then what's the big deal? If all said criteria are met, then its a non-issue, isn't it?

However, obviously the government steps in to rescue people stranded by water on flood plains, fight fires in neighborhoods that were built in places that everyone knew would burn, evacuate people from coastlines that get hit with hurricanes once a decade, and blah blah blah. And equally obvious the bill is picked up by John Q and rarely is anyone held accountable for those bad zoning decisions. And it seems, and I'm not sure of this part, that people are allowed to go right back to the same places and do the same damn dumb thing all over again. Now, in light of this reality, I say this is one big fat important reason for land use zoning. And if local zoning boards are too interest conflicted and/or too monied up by builders to zone properly, then the state or even Federal government should draw up some sensible rules. That or it should be made clear that expensive rescues are over and then follow through with that policy. (yeah, right)

[agamemnus]

Well, I just saw this issue on Fox, and it seems that a lot of it is caused by the fact that an entire mountain had its trees burn off, and without the trees come mudslides. It was all fine before the fire...

They also mentioned that these things are actually unusual in that California is getting drier dry seasons and wetter wet seasons nowadays.

[EyeKhan]

They also mentioned that these things are actually unusual in that California is getting drier dry seasons and wetter wet seasons nowadays.

Did Fox News say that's likely caused by Global Warming?

[Cedar Point]

However, obviously the government steps in to rescue people stranded by water on flood plains, fight fires in neighborhoods that were built in places that everyone knew would burn, evacuate people from coastlines that get hit with hurricanes once a decade,

That's it right there. If "everyone knows it's gonna burn", then why build a neighborhood there? Why live in a flood plain? Hurricanes are unavoidable, because avoiding them would mean forfeiting all your coastline.

But in places like California and Nevada, why are there that many people there? The environment is clearly not meant to sustain that kind of population.

[Lewkowski]

Insurance protects against natural disasters. Keep in mind however that the government is constantly meddling with insurance companies and prevents them from charging an appropriate rate.

If insurance is high in hurricane prone (or other natural disaster prone areas) you should pay through the nose for it!

We have idiot fake Republicans like Crist in Florida calling on a national disaster insurance program like the chronically mismanaged flood insurance program.

[EyeKhan]

That's it right there. If "everyone knows it's gonna burn", then why build a neighborhood there? Why live in a flood plain? Hurricanes are unavoidable, because avoiding them would mean forfeiting all your coastline.

Because those are very pretty places to live. And because of that, people are willing to pay big bucks to builders to build. And builders are willing to grease the local zoning board to let them build. Yay for money!

[Being]

Because those are very pretty places to live. And because of that, people are willing to pay big bucks to builders to build. And builders are willing to grease the local zoning board to let them build. Yay for money!

Hey, if it wasn't for money we'd still have religion.

[EyeKhan]

Hey, if it wasn't for money we'd still have religion.

[GGT]

Insurance protects against natural disasters.

No it doesn't. Maybe you left out some key words in that sentence.

Keep in mind however that the government is constantly meddling with insurance companies and prevents them from charging an appropriate rate.

If insurance is high in hurricane prone (or other natural disaster prone areas) you should pay through the nose for it!

We have idiot fake Republicans like Crist in Florida calling on a national disaster insurance program like the chronically mismanaged flood insurance program.

We also have insurance companies giving people the delusion that they're 'protected' or 'in good hands' when they live in disaster prone areas. House gets damaged and company cuts a check at replacement value...to rebuild in the same place.

Then there's FEMA. Because we have the illusion that government (even Army Corps of Engineers) or seismologists or geology experts would never let humans live in dangerous areas, and they can use building technology to keep us safe. Would they.

[agamemnus]

I'm just saying that maybe it wasn't like this even 10 years ago, when these homes were possibly built -- not as many fires and not as many mudslides. Maybe it's not all (or even at all) the fault of these "rich interest groups" going around zoning 101?

[Dreadnaught]

Are the wealthy people building homes on mudslide prone hills demanding housing bailouts?

[Weber]

Insurance protects against natural disasters.

I had to lol at this! All the money in the world isn't going to protect against a natural disaster. I know what you meant though.

[littlelolligagged]

No it doesn't. Maybe you left out some key words in that sentence.

Well it does if you pay the appropriate extra amount for the extra coverage.

[GGT]

Well it does if you pay the appropriate extra amount for the extra coverage.

That was me being pedantic. :lol:

Insurance protects against policy holders' financial ruin following natural disasters.

[littlelolligagged]

That was me being pedantic. :lol:

Insurance protects against policy holders' financial ruin following natural disasters.

No, I'm telling you.

Lewk's God only loves you and keeps you safe if you have MONEY.

[EyeKhan]

Are the wealthy people building homes on mudslide prone hills demanding housing bailouts?

Is it a bailout when the giant brush fires threaten a community built in a brush fire prone area and the government pays millions to fight the fire?

[Dreadnaught]

Possibly, yes. But the opening posts mentions that they certainly pay high local taxes for these services.

[GGT]

...and California is broke. Their emergency/disaster services are being cut. Rolling shut-downs of fire departments.

[EyeKhan]

Possibly, yes. But the opening posts mentions that they certainly pay high local taxes for these services.

I'd be shocked if they're paying that much.

[Dreadnaught]

California has some of the highest taxes in the nation.

[GGT]

California has some of the highest taxes in the nation.

Not property taxes, tho. Go figure.

[EyeKhan]

California has some of the highest taxes in the nation.

Data please:

#1. Tax rates paid by Californians in relation to the rest of the country.

#2. Portion of those taxes earmarked for fighting fires around exurb communities.


Also, are you claiming all Californians are paying to help out with fires threatening the few that build their houses in dumb locations? If so, how's that not a bailout again?

[Dreadnaught]

I should have clarified that I meant income taxes -- as in California has lower property taxes, but higher income taxes and more tax brackets.

http://www.ccsce.com/pdf/Numbers-oct07-HighTaxState.pdf

You seem to be arguing a point, but I'm not sure what it is or if it's even controversial. If you're trying to say California isn't a bankrupt state, no one is going to disagree with you.

[GGT]

I should have clarified that I meant income taxes -- as in California has lower property taxes, but higher income taxes and more tax brackets.

http://www.ccsce.com/pdf/Numbers-oct07-HighTaxState.pdf

You seem to be arguing a point, but I'm not sure what it is or if it's even controversial. If you're trying to say California isn't a bankrupt state, no one is going to disagree with you.

It's a bankrupt state, no one denies that. If he's arguing a point relative to this thread, maybe it's about illusions and delusions about where people build their homes?

Who is the enabler for people who decide to ignore common sense and build/buy on California hillsides or Malibu shorelines?

Take it east and it's about the gulf coast, Miami, Lauderdale, Orlando and Key West. [Disney was able to convince FL that building their fantasy world on a vast swamp land was a good idea, think of the tourists and hotels and revenue!]

Take it even further and it's about the use of Water. Golf courses in deserts like Arizona?

Green lawns of grass in Nevada, just to attract people. To make money in the casinos and golf courses. It's an illusion, that's the very definition of Oasis.

[Dreadnaught]

Yes, bad government urban planning and pork spending have certainly helped places like Phoenix expand way beyond what's sustainable. But ultimately when it becomes unsustainable those who buy there will feel the consequences.

[Being]

Yes, bad government urban planning and pork spending have certainly helped places like Phoenix expand way beyond what's sustainable. But ultimately when it becomes unsustainable those who buy there will feel the consequences.

But the developers and the politicians in their pocket walked away with the money.

[EyeKhan]

I don't know, you said something about bailing out homeowners or something and I implied that fire fighting for dumb homeowners was a bailout and you said they paid higher taxes so its not a bailout. But, if its higher income tax that is used to pay firefighters, then it is a bailout. No?

[Dreadnaught]

If they are paying higher taxes for local services, then they are bailing themselves out.

[EyeKhan]

If they are paying higher taxes for local services, then they are bailing themselves out.

There's no way in hell their local taxes are covering a massive firefighting operation. Come on.

And where the hell are the emoticons? I want to roll my eyes but I can't find them.