3 ms·

I must say that is a terrible idea. Should parts of CA or other earthquake prone areas be labelled uninhabitable? What about areas where forest fires are rout

I must say that is a terrible idea. Should parts of CA or other earthquake prone areas be labelled uninhabitable? What about areas where forest fires are routine? Flood prone areas? Tornado prone areas? High UV? Poor air quality? It makes no sense whatsoever to dictate that people cannot live on the coasts due to natural disasters which happen everywhere, all the time. Frankly, being told where to live is more garish than being told what to think and what to say.

lotsofpulp 4y ago
No one is being told where to live. But there is no reason to subsidize property prices in areas by providing federal taxpayer subsidized insurance. Providing taxpayer subsidized insurance allows people to buy properties with a larger mortgage (for which banks require flood insurance), which allows property prices to rise higher than they would have without taxpayer subsidized insurance.
- PM_me_your_math 4y ago
  "We need to push FEMA to have a 2 and done rule. After that the property must be returned back to dunes/parks/public spaces." My response was to this comment at the top, where it was, explicitly and objectively, supporting a policy that dictates where people should live.
  - lotsofpulp 4y ago
    Oh yes, sorry, I forgot that was the comment you were responding to.
  - smachiz 4y ago
    FEMA doesn't decide where you live, but they do provide federally subsidized flood insurance. He's suggesting that we should stop doing that for two total loss events on the same property. Folks have had their houses rebuilt with other people's money really often - and build it in the exact same spot, because the feds will come build it again. Even though it's going to get destroyed, again.
    - PM_me_your_math 4y ago
      I understand. However if gov does not provide disaster aid then you are effectively telling people where to live. Few will accept the risk without the prospect of disaster aid and insurance, which would be unobtainable if the area was ruled uninhabitable by the federal government. Entire communities, and their economic output, will vanish. A good example are communities whose entire existence is owed to revenue generated by commercial fishing. What do you do with all the fishermen who don't know any other line of work? Teach them to code? Long Island, NY is prone to flooding and wind-damage from hurricanes and nor'easters. Areas are routinely destroyed or heavily damaged. Notable years are 1950, 1954, 1960, 1986, and 1999. Asheville, NC is prone to flooding, land & rock slides, and the occasional earthquake. It is probably one of the state's most natural wonders, and the country-side a lovely place to live. During periods of heavy rain and tropical events, downtown NYC floods the subways and streets and doing expensive salt water damage. I know of no place on earth that is without some susceptibility to natural disaster. So where do we draw the line? Effectively, such a rule would define these and other places as uninhabitable and render them ineligible for both commercial insurance and federal disaster aid. That seems so foolish and counter to our tradition as a nation. Such a rule would see the splintering and end to many long-standing communities. If the concern is cost, you may want to turn your attention to discretionary federal expenditures. Surely we can find places to cut bloat, pork, and wasteful spending, particularly in areas that range from nothing to very-little to do with the United States, her citizens, or their needs and emergencies that are a part of living on planet earth. It is almost like that 75 billion we printed for Zelenskyy could have been used to help Americans. Lastly, where does it end? How do we define the formula for making these rules, and who gets the define and apply that formula? Best case scenario, if this rule was a thing, you'd be looking at consolidating large parts of American society into more 'manageable' locations and mega cities, which were decreed as somehow having the least amount of risk, and lowest possible expense... ...in a vain attempt at avoiding the risk and expenditures of natural disasters? ...that happen everywhere? ...routinely. It just seems foolish when you work through it to a practical end.
      - smachiz 4y ago
        Relocation assistance != disaster assistance Stop paying for them to keep rebuilding the house, give them the money to move. >I know of no place on earth that is without some susceptibility to natural disaster. So where do we draw the line? OP proposed twice, you objected. I think twice with no time horizon isn't useful. Twice in 50 years seems reasonable for someone who lives in a 100 year flood plain. But these flood plains are growing with climate change. Storms are getting worse and more frequent. Just continuing to pay to rebuild is not the answer.
  - adamsmith143 4y ago
    >My response was to this comment at the top, where it was, explicitly and objectively, supporting a policy that dictates where people should live. It's clearly not explicit or objective. "If you choose to live here you will not receive aid when your house is knocked down in a hurricane" is so clearly not the same as "You can not legally live here".
  - beowulfey 4y ago
    The language of the parent is strong, but the context is if those rebuilds were not subsidized, they probably would not happen anymore. If you get rid of the economic incentive to build there... no one would. Of course, to become public space, which is a logical use of damage-prone areas, the land would have to become so cheap from lack of interest that the state could buy it back. It would be a long process to get there, for sure.
    - PM_me_your_math 4y ago
      That sounds great, unless you own the property and are forced to sell it to the government for pennies on the dollar because some beaurocracy unilaterally decreed your land as uninhabitable and uninsurable.
smachiz 4y ago
I think you're misunderstanding what they're saying. They're saying that federal funds should not be used to repair/replace infrastructure in places that are highly prone to natural disasters. If you have two total-loss natural disasters in less than 50 years either the infrastructure is unsuitable to the risks, or there is no infrastructure suitable for the risks. Are you saying that unmitigated flood prone areas _should_ be habitable? And the cost of that underwritten with public funds? There are people who have their house rebuilt every ~15 years from hurricanes with public funds. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Flood_Insurance_Program https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Flood_Insurance_Progr... >The NFIP is managed and administered by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) through the Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration (FIMA).[1] The program is designed to provide an insurance alternative to disaster assistance to meet the escalating costs of repairing damage to buildings and their contents caused by floods.[2] As of August 2017, the program insured about 5 million homes (down from about 5.5 million homes in April 2010), the majority of which are in Texas and Florida.[3][4] The cost of the insurance program was fully covered by its premiums until the end of 2004, but it has had to steadily borrow funds since, primarily due to Hurricane Katrina and Hurricane Sandy, accumulating $25 billion of debt by August 2017.[3][5] In October 2017, Congress cancelled $16 billion of NFIP debt, making it possible for the program to pay claims. The NFIP owes $20.525 billion to the U.S. as of December 2020.[6] I think being that you're so ruggedly individualistic, maybe pull yourself up by your bootstraps and pay for your own repairs? If you're footing the bill for fair market insurance, those places quickly get returned to the environment because it makes no economic sense to build there. Or it does, and the federal government still doesn't have to pay for it.
adrienthebo 4y ago
> Should parts of CA or other earthquake prone areas be labelled uninhabitable? Major earthquakes happen an order of magnitude less frequently than major storms - but there's merit to reconsidering how much infrastructure we build right next to fault lines. So, possibly? > What about areas where forest fires are routine? Without appropriate fire breaks or building construction, possibly - if your house and property isn't constructed to survive a wildfire, then it's _going_ to burn. We can either adapt now or pay much higher costs later. > Flood prone areas? Oh jeez, yes, the fact that we build in flood plains is absolutely bonkers. > Tornado prone areas? Maybe, but it's a much lower risk than hurricanes. We really need to account for risks during building construction; our current approaches aren't working that well. > High UV? High UV is a bummer, not an repeated existential risk to all inhabitants. > Poor air quality? Poor air quality is also a bummer but is something we have more control over. Similar to high UV, poor air quality doesn't represent a regular, frequent, unavoidable, catastrophic risk to all of the inhabitants and all property in the vicinity. > It makes no sense whatsoever to dictate that people cannot live on the coasts due to natural disasters which happen everywhere, all the time. It makes even less sense to build in areas that are all but guaranteed to be destroyed several times per century. If you can build infrastructure that'll actually last or are willing to accept all liability when the inevitable occurs then by all means, build your house on stilts and cover the cost of reconstruction. But beyond freedom of choice, I don't understand why we think it's okay to assume obvious risk and expect society to provide compensation for a risk that's been known for decades if not centuries.
- PM_me_your_math 4y ago
  Who gets to defines the risk? Does it matter if a place gets a powerful earthquake every 5 years or 20 years? The entire premise of the suggestion is simply nonsense. >It makes even less sense to build in areas that are all but guaranteed to be destroyed several times per century. More people are killed in high crime areas than in storm prone areas, and they are killed daily. Do we tell people they can't live there, either? If you don't take any risk then you are not really living.
  - smachiz 4y ago
AnimalMuppet 4y ago
If earthquakes strong enough to destroy many buildings happen in the same location every five or 10 years, then yes, that area should be considered uninhabitable.
- PM_me_your_math 4y ago
  Oct. 21, 1868. Hayward March 26, 1872. Lone Pine April 18, 1906. San Francisco June 29, 1925. Santa Barbara March 10, 1933. Long Beach July 21, 1952. Kern County/Tehachapi March 22, 1957. San Francisco and Daly City March 27, 1964. Crescent City Feb. 9, 1971 San Fernando Oct. 1, 1987 Whittier Oct. 18, 1989 Loma Prieta April 25, 1992 Petrolia June 28, 1992 Landers Jan. 17, 1994 Northridge Dec. 22, 2003 San Simeon Aug. 24, 2014 Napa It seems that large parts of California are subject to ground shaking that is destructive occurring two or more times per decade with some variability. Is it really time to take away their insurance and disaster aid?
  - AnimalMuppet 4y ago
    That's not like Florida. If you said 1906 San Francisco 1911 San Francisco 1913 San Francisco 1922 San Francisco 1928 San Francisco ... then you 're in the neighborhood of what parts of Florida have been getting. It's not that the whole state keeps getting hit by hurricanes. It's that individual locations have been hit multiple times in a decade. So no, California is not comparable.
  - ProfessorLayton 4y ago
    California is the most populous and economically significant state in the United States, which alone could stand to be the 5th largest economy in the world. California subsidizes other states, including those much much more prone to flooding, while the reverse isn't true in regards to earthquake damage. A lot of federal disaster aid is just Californian's own money being used to help them when needed. This is true for other states like NY. Lastly, California does indeed offer a very high deductible form of earthquake insurance, and it isn't federally subsidized like FEMA is.

lotsofpulp 4y ago

No one is being told where to live. But there is no reason to subsidize property prices in areas by providing federal taxpayer subsidized insurance. Providing taxpayer subsidized insurance allows people to buy properties with a larger mortgage (for which banks require flood insurance), which allows property prices to rise higher than they would have without taxpayer subsidized insurance.

PM_me_your_math 4y ago
"We need to push FEMA to have a 2 and done rule. After that the property must be returned back to dunes/parks/public spaces." My response was to this comment at the top, where it was, explicitly and objectively, supporting a policy that dictates where people should live.
- lotsofpulp 4y ago
  Oh yes, sorry, I forgot that was the comment you were responding to.
- smachiz 4y ago
  FEMA doesn't decide where you live, but they do provide federally subsidized flood insurance. He's suggesting that we should stop doing that for two total loss events on the same property. Folks have had their houses rebuilt with other people's money really often - and build it in the exact same spot, because the feds will come build it again. Even though it's going to get destroyed, again.
  - PM_me_your_math 4y ago
    I understand. However if gov does not provide disaster aid then you are effectively telling people where to live. Few will accept the risk without the prospect of disaster aid and insurance, which would be unobtainable if the area was ruled uninhabitable by the federal government. Entire communities, and their economic output, will vanish. A good example are communities whose entire existence is owed to revenue generated by commercial fishing. What do you do with all the fishermen who don't know any other line of work? Teach them to code? Long Island, NY is prone to flooding and wind-damage from hurricanes and nor'easters. Areas are routinely destroyed or heavily damaged. Notable years are 1950, 1954, 1960, 1986, and 1999. Asheville, NC is prone to flooding, land & rock slides, and the occasional earthquake. It is probably one of the state's most natural wonders, and the country-side a lovely place to live. During periods of heavy rain and tropical events, downtown NYC floods the subways and streets and doing expensive salt water damage. I know of no place on earth that is without some susceptibility to natural disaster. So where do we draw the line? Effectively, such a rule would define these and other places as uninhabitable and render them ineligible for both commercial insurance and federal disaster aid. That seems so foolish and counter to our tradition as a nation. Such a rule would see the splintering and end to many long-standing communities. If the concern is cost, you may want to turn your attention to discretionary federal expenditures. Surely we can find places to cut bloat, pork, and wasteful spending, particularly in areas that range from nothing to very-little to do with the United States, her citizens, or their needs and emergencies that are a part of living on planet earth. It is almost like that 75 billion we printed for Zelenskyy could have been used to help Americans. Lastly, where does it end? How do we define the formula for making these rules, and who gets the define and apply that formula? Best case scenario, if this rule was a thing, you'd be looking at consolidating large parts of American society into more 'manageable' locations and mega cities, which were decreed as somehow having the least amount of risk, and lowest possible expense... ...in a vain attempt at avoiding the risk and expenditures of natural disasters? ...that happen everywhere? ...routinely. It just seems foolish when you work through it to a practical end.
    - smachiz 4y ago
      Relocation assistance != disaster assistance Stop paying for them to keep rebuilding the house, give them the money to move. >I know of no place on earth that is without some susceptibility to natural disaster. So where do we draw the line? OP proposed twice, you objected. I think twice with no time horizon isn't useful. Twice in 50 years seems reasonable for someone who lives in a 100 year flood plain. But these flood plains are growing with climate change. Storms are getting worse and more frequent. Just continuing to pay to rebuild is not the answer.
- adamsmith143 4y ago
  >My response was to this comment at the top, where it was, explicitly and objectively, supporting a policy that dictates where people should live. It's clearly not explicit or objective. "If you choose to live here you will not receive aid when your house is knocked down in a hurricane" is so clearly not the same as "You can not legally live here".
- beowulfey 4y ago
  The language of the parent is strong, but the context is if those rebuilds were not subsidized, they probably would not happen anymore. If you get rid of the economic incentive to build there... no one would. Of course, to become public space, which is a logical use of damage-prone areas, the land would have to become so cheap from lack of interest that the state could buy it back. It would be a long process to get there, for sure.
  - PM_me_your_math 4y ago
    That sounds great, unless you own the property and are forced to sell it to the government for pennies on the dollar because some beaurocracy unilaterally decreed your land as uninhabitable and uninsurable.

smachiz 4y ago

I think you're misunderstanding what they're saying. They're saying that federal funds should not be used to repair/replace infrastructure in places that are highly prone to natural disasters. If you have two total-loss natural disasters in less than 50 years either the infrastructure is unsuitable to the risks, or there is no infrastructure suitable for the risks. Are you saying that unmitigated flood prone areas _should_ be habitable? And the cost of that underwritten with public funds? There are people who have their house rebuilt every ~15 years from hurricanes with public funds. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Flood_Insurance_Program https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Flood_Insurance_Progr... >The NFIP is managed and administered by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) through the Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration (FIMA).[1] The program is designed to provide an insurance alternative to disaster assistance to meet the escalating costs of repairing damage to buildings and their contents caused by floods.[2] As of August 2017, the program insured about 5 million homes (down from about 5.5 million homes in April 2010), the majority of which are in Texas and Florida.[3][4] The cost of the insurance program was fully covered by its premiums until the end of 2004, but it has had to steadily borrow funds since, primarily due to Hurricane Katrina and Hurricane Sandy, accumulating $25 billion of debt by August 2017.[3][5] In October 2017, Congress cancelled $16 billion of NFIP debt, making it possible for the program to pay claims. The NFIP owes $20.525 billion to the U.S. as of December 2020.[6] I think being that you're so ruggedly individualistic, maybe pull yourself up by your bootstraps and pay for your own repairs? If you're footing the bill for fair market insurance, those places quickly get returned to the environment because it makes no economic sense to build there. Or it does, and the federal government still doesn't have to pay for it.

adrienthebo 4y ago

> Should parts of CA or other earthquake prone areas be labelled uninhabitable? Major earthquakes happen an order of magnitude less frequently than major storms - but there's merit to reconsidering how much infrastructure we build right next to fault lines. So, possibly? > What about areas where forest fires are routine? Without appropriate fire breaks or building construction, possibly - if your house and property isn't constructed to survive a wildfire, then it's _going_ to burn. We can either adapt now or pay much higher costs later. > Flood prone areas? Oh jeez, yes, the fact that we build in flood plains is absolutely bonkers. > Tornado prone areas? Maybe, but it's a much lower risk than hurricanes. We really need to account for risks during building construction; our current approaches aren't working that well. > High UV? High UV is a bummer, not an repeated existential risk to all inhabitants. > Poor air quality? Poor air quality is also a bummer but is something we have more control over. Similar to high UV, poor air quality doesn't represent a regular, frequent, unavoidable, catastrophic risk to all of the inhabitants and all property in the vicinity. > It makes no sense whatsoever to dictate that people cannot live on the coasts due to natural disasters which happen everywhere, all the time. It makes even less sense to build in areas that are all but guaranteed to be destroyed several times per century. If you can build infrastructure that'll actually last or are willing to accept all liability when the inevitable occurs then by all means, build your house on stilts and cover the cost of reconstruction. But beyond freedom of choice, I don't understand why we think it's okay to assume obvious risk and expect society to provide compensation for a risk that's been known for decades if not centuries.

PM_me_your_math 4y ago
Who gets to defines the risk? Does it matter if a place gets a powerful earthquake every 5 years or 20 years? The entire premise of the suggestion is simply nonsense. >It makes even less sense to build in areas that are all but guaranteed to be destroyed several times per century. More people are killed in high crime areas than in storm prone areas, and they are killed daily. Do we tell people they can't live there, either? If you don't take any risk then you are not really living.
- smachiz 4y ago

AnimalMuppet 4y ago

If earthquakes strong enough to destroy many buildings happen in the same location every five or 10 years, then yes, that area should be considered uninhabitable.

PM_me_your_math 4y ago
Oct. 21, 1868. Hayward March 26, 1872. Lone Pine April 18, 1906. San Francisco June 29, 1925. Santa Barbara March 10, 1933. Long Beach July 21, 1952. Kern County/Tehachapi March 22, 1957. San Francisco and Daly City March 27, 1964. Crescent City Feb. 9, 1971 San Fernando Oct. 1, 1987 Whittier Oct. 18, 1989 Loma Prieta April 25, 1992 Petrolia June 28, 1992 Landers Jan. 17, 1994 Northridge Dec. 22, 2003 San Simeon Aug. 24, 2014 Napa It seems that large parts of California are subject to ground shaking that is destructive occurring two or more times per decade with some variability. Is it really time to take away their insurance and disaster aid?
- AnimalMuppet 4y ago
  That's not like Florida. If you said 1906 San Francisco 1911 San Francisco 1913 San Francisco 1922 San Francisco 1928 San Francisco ... then you 're in the neighborhood of what parts of Florida have been getting. It's not that the whole state keeps getting hit by hurricanes. It's that individual locations have been hit multiple times in a decade. So no, California is not comparable.
- ProfessorLayton 4y ago
  California is the most populous and economically significant state in the United States, which alone could stand to be the 5th largest economy in the world. California subsidizes other states, including those much much more prone to flooding, while the reverse isn't true in regards to earthquake damage. A lot of federal disaster aid is just Californian's own money being used to help them when needed. This is true for other states like NY. Lastly, California does indeed offer a very high deductible form of earthquake insurance, and it isn't federally subsidized like FEMA is.