STORM2K

Residents Of 75 Homes Allowed To Return After Road Collapse

"But for how long?" is the question.

"After landslides, homeowners typically sue cities or builders for allowing homes to be built on shifting land, said Candysse Miller, a spokeswoman for the Insurance Information Network of California, an industry trade group. Many insurers provide separate coverage against earthquakes and floods but they have shied away from landslides." - Yahoo article

Are most people stupid for building house on sides of cliffs? Do they not know that building on a side of a cliff is not a stable thing to do in a earthquake prone area?? Then they turn around and sue? I-D-I-O-T-S!

Kelarie wrote:Are most people stupid for building house on sides of cliffs? Do they not know that building on a side of a cliff is not a stable thing to do in a earthquake prone area?? Then they turn around and sue? I-D-I-O-T-S!

By acting as the authority to give permits for building, the government opens itself up to this kind of liability. I don't think it's unreasonable to expect the organization claiming such authority to exercise that authority judiciously and actually know what it's permitting. That's why states, counties, and municipalities hire civil engineers.

Good points gtalum.

gtalum wrote:

Kelarie wrote:Are most people stupid for building house on sides of cliffs? Do they not know that building on a side of a cliff is not a stable thing to do in a earthquake prone area?? Then they turn around and sue? I-D-I-O-T-S!

By acting as the authority to give permits for building, the government opens itself up to this kind of liability. I don't think it's unreasonable to expect the organization claiming such authority to exercise that authority judiciously and actually know what it's permitting. That's why states, counties, and municipalities hire civil engineers.

The biggest problem I have here, what you left out of the equation is personal responsibility. The bought a house on unstable ground. The southern part of Cali will at some point in time be islands off of Washington. Geology will have its way with you.

But one would think that a person would use a modicum of brain power and think the situation over. 1 - house on hill slide 2 - earthquake prone area 3 - slide prone area 4 - no matter how well something is engineered it will not withstand any of the above. Sorry, if anything they should have to pay for the environmental cleanup that will have to occur. Houses are full of nasty stuff. Am a Geologist who works in the enviironmental field. I just can't understand how stupid people are. No matter how great a view, it is not worth your life.

Kelarie wrote:The biggest problem I have here, what you left out of the equation is personal responsibility. The bought a house on unstable ground. The southern part of Cali will at some point in time be islands off of Washington. Geology will have its way with you.

But one would think that a person would use a modicum of brain power and think the situation over. 1 - house on hill slide 2 - earthquake prone area 3 - slide prone area 4 - no matter how well something is engineered it will not withstand any of the above. Sorry, if anything they should have to pay for the environmental cleanup that will have to occur. Houses are full of nasty stuff. Am a Geologist who works in the enviironmental field. I just can't understand how stupid people are. No matter how great a view, it is not worth your life.

I would agree with you 100% if the government didn't put itself in the position of officially permitting homebuilding. By issuing (and by corollary restricting) these permits and charging for the "service", they make themselves liable in these types of situations. It's only fair. If the governments don't want the liability, they shouldn't be in the permitting business, and they should let people and corporations take personal and corporate responsibility for what happens when they build homes in bad places.