Every freakin' year

[akdiver 3]

I sure am glad that I do not live someplace where, every freakin' year, I have to evacuate because of some weather problem. Good lord. The continued federal bailouts of places like New Orleans and similar places (including the west coast of Alaska) is just getting ridiculous. The federal government needs to say, "look. This place is dangerous. You have weather coming in here every year, it's a big problem. You can keep living here, but the federal government is no longer going to give you money every time a storm comes to town. If you want to stay here, its at your own risk and it will be up to your state government to solve the problem without federal assistance. You have been warned. Move out now, or else!!"

http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/weather/09/11/h...exas/index.html

http://www.bestsyndication.com/?q=20080827...l_platforms.htm

Edited September 11, 2008 by akdiver

[ginger1981 0]

We need to get those midwesterners out of tornado alley! And those Californians off the San Andreas fault! And those darn New Englanders...what if they get another Nor'easter? Those silly Minneasotans...how dare they live where it snows so much.

Edited September 11, 2008 by ginger1981

[akdiver 3]

We need to get those midwesterners out of tornado alley! And those Californians off the San Andreas fault! And those darn New Englanders...what if they get another Nor'easter? Those silly Minneasotans...how dare they live where it snows so much.

I'm not saying we need to get anyone to leave anywhere. I'm just saying that we need to get the federal government to stop giving them money for staying there.

BTW, no one is evacuating because of the threat of snow and earthquakes. I can't recall numerous instances of people evacuating because of tornados either.

Edited September 11, 2008 by akdiver

[Jenn! 918]

But really, in terms of the $$, the Gulf Coast and FL/GA/SC coast are extremely vulnerable due to the frequency and severity of hurricanes. It should all be declared a no-build zone.

[akdiver 3]

But really, in terms of the $$, the Gulf Coast and FL/GA/SC coast are extremely vulnerable due to the frequency and severity of hurricanes. It should all be declared a no-build zone.

Well, I don't want to take away anyone's freedom. They should be able to build there if they want to. They should just not be subsidized by the federal government for doing so.

[Otto 83]

I sure am glad that I do not live someplace where, every freakin' year, I have to evacuate because of some weather problem. Good lord. The continued federal bailouts of places like New Orleans and similar places (including the west coast of Alaska) is just getting ridiculous. The federal government needs to say, "look. This place is dangerous. You have weather coming in here every year, it's a big problem. You can keep living here, but the federal government is no longer going to give you money every time a storm comes to town. If you want to stay here, its at your own risk and it will be up to your state government to solve the problem without federal assistance. You have been warned. Move out now, or else!!"

http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/weather/09/11/h...exas/index.html

http://www.bestsyndication.com/?q=20080827...l_platforms.htm

Great idea.. hey, let's expand that to any coastal city.. Start with New York and work south until you got to the Florida Keys.. then up and around the Gulf - skip over Mexico and up into California..not so much hurricane problems there, but how many times do we have to bail out earthquake victims?

Lets not leave out those that are in Tornado Alley..can't live anywhere in Oklahoma (and the like)..

Mountainous regions not exempt either - do we have to tolerate digging out Denver and the like every year?... And oh! What about those along the Mississippi? MOVE!

So what's left? Fantastic idea...

[akdiver 3]

Great idea.. hey, let's expand that to any coastal city..

Nice sarcasm, but every coastal city does not seem to have this problem.

And again - all I am saying is that the federal government should not be picking up the costs - for any of these problems you mentioned. The state governments can pick up all the costs they want.

[MissStacey 1]

Before Katrina- the last big hurricane here that did some major damage was Betsy in 1965. No one expected another hurricane to hit like Gustav did only 3 years after Katrina.

[IAMX 3,055]

Er, except the southernmost part of the state, the San Andreas fault only directly affects the coastal areas of California.

And in case you forgot, Alaska (your state) has just as many quakes, especially on large scale, that California does:

Edited September 11, 2008 by SRVT

[akdiver 3]

Before Katrina- the last big hurricane here that did some major damage was Betsy in 1965. No one expected another hurricane to hit like Gustav did only 3 years after Katrina.

Oh come on. Lots of hurricanes have done lots of damage. Hurricane Andrew comes to mind.

Think about it this way - if your house was getting destroyed constantly by weather issues and you had to pay the costs to replace it every time, 100% out of your own pocket, would you keep doing so? The answer is NO. So why should the federal government essentially do the same?

And in case you forgot, Alaska (your state) has just as many quakes, especially on large scale, that California does.

Actually, Alaska has many more...some 600 per month.

[Jenn! 918]

But really, in terms of the $, the Gulf Coast and FL/GA/SC coast are extremely vulnerable due to the frequency and severity of hurricanes. It should all be declared a no-build zone.

Well, I don't want to take away anyone's freedom. They should be able to build there if they want to. They should just not be subsidized by the federal government for doing so.

But you know they would pick up the pieces, even if people were given plenty of fair warning. That's why I think it's better to just not allow people to build there at all.

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

How about places like Central NJ where there were no serious natural disasters before but a combination of poor planning and overdevelopment have created entire towns that go under water at least once a year?

The catchment area is now a main street full of strip clubs, bodegas and a train station. Where's the water to go?

Edited September 11, 2008 by A.J.

[IAMX 3,055]

Before Katrina- the last big hurricane here that did some major damage was Betsy in 1965. No one expected another hurricane to hit like Gustav did only 3 years after Katrina.

Oh come on. Lots of hurricanes have done lots of damage. Hurricane Andrew comes to mind.

Think about it this way - if your house was getting destroyed constantly by weather issues and you had to pay the costs to replace it every time, 100% out of your own pocket, would you keep doing so? The answer is NO. So why should the federal government essentially do the same?

And in case you forgot, Alaska (your state) has just as many quakes, especially on large scale, that California does.

Actually, Alaska has many more...some 600 per month.

Since those quakes include Anchorage, which is almost half of Alaska's population, and likely Fairbanks, I'd say Alaska is pretty much hellaciously on dangerous ground as much as those of us within proximity to the SA.

[akdiver 3]

How about places like Central NJ where there were no serious natural disasters before but a combination of poor planning and overdevelopment have created entire towns that go under water at least once a year?The catchment area is now a main street full of strip clubs, bodegas and a train station. Where's the water to go?

Federal government should not pick up the cost for that either.

Since those quakes include Anchorage, which is almost half of Alaska's population, and likely Fairbanks, I'd say Alaska is pretty much hellaciously on dangerous ground as much as those of us within proximity to the SA.

Yes, and if the city were being leveled every year by earthquakes, I don't think anyone would be living here.

It's not just danger - it's risk, which is a combination of danger and probability. If the Gulf Coast were being hit by a devestating hurricane once every 40 years, that would be one thing. It's the frequency of the devastation that makes it unreasonable to keep bailing it out with federal dollars.

By the way, Alaska is overdue for a big one. Insurance companies have been canceling earthquake insurance policies too.

Edited September 11, 2008 by akdiver

[IAMX 3,055]

Yes, and if the city were being leveled every year by earthquakes, I don't think anyone would be living here.

The last CA city to get leveled by a quake was SF in 1906, otherwise the last real damaging quake here was in 1989 (which I was here for), which didn't level cities, but terribly built infrastructure or weak roads/bridges, and caused, as usual for quakes, mudslides all over the rural roads and freeways that go through the mountainous regions (like the 17). Nothing even remotely comparable to New Orleans or even Florida disasters that displace millions.

Edited September 11, 2008 by SRVT