Open for discussion and vote

#1 Postby **Downdraft** » Sun Sep 21, 2003 7:08 pm

I'd like to get opinions on a very controversial subject. The question is should the government i.e, FEMA continue to fund repair and rebuilding for homes or businesses consistently threatened by hurricanes or for that matter other natural disasters such as river floods or earthquakes. Now it's a fact that people have to live somewhere but when you look at storm surge flooding or wind damage to luxury homes and condos built almost directly on the ocean or Gulf of Mexico you may question the policy of low cost loans to rebuild areas nature continues to reclaim as it's own. I'm even narrowing the point of discussion to say, "should the government offer low cost loans MORE than once?" As a member of emergency management I'd really be interested in how you all think pro and con. It should prove a interesting discussion on both sides.

Stormsfury · #2 Postby **Stormsfury** » Sun Sep 21, 2003 7:51 pm

There was a law passed just before Hurricane Hugo that in South Carolina that beach houses that were destroyed in future hurricanes could NOT be rebuilt ... I think something was featured on the news about this on 48 hours with Dan Rather focusing around a Hilton Head Island family ...

Even so, it costs quite a bit more to live right along the beaches in South Carolina than it does just a little bit inland.

SF

Guest · #3 Postby **Guest** » Sun Sep 21, 2003 7:55 pm

This is a difficult time for people and we should see that their being taken care of. Its a sad situation to lose everything you worked hard at getting and to see it gone. Disasters like hurricanes, tornado's, earthquakes. snowstorms ect... is something that can't be avoided and we must pull together to help those get back on their feet. This is just my opinion....my prayers go out to those in hard hit places like N/C, Virginia ect....

#4 Postby **vbhoutex** » Mon Sep 22, 2003 12:28 am

First and foremost my sympathies and prayers go out to all those affected by Isabel.

Just as sicnerely I have to say ONCE IS ENOUGH!!! I'm sure some of you have seen me and Galvestonduck going round and round about this. I am a stauch advocate of leaving the barrier islands, river floodways and other areas like that free of any construction other than infrastructure needed for recreational purposes.

weatherlover427 · #5 Postby **weatherlover427** » Mon Sep 22, 2003 12:53 am

I have to agree. Common sense should dictate not to build in areas prone to flooding, storm surge, brush fires, etc ... yet people do it anyway. When will they ever get it? :?

Lake Effect1 · #6 Postby **Lake Effect1** » Mon Sep 22, 2003 2:35 am

I am with vboutex on this. Once is enough!! You have a home on the beach,don't like the floor plan??wait for the next storm.!! Are these homes even insurable?? ( Maybe they are people I disagree with)

#7 Postby **janswizard** » Mon Sep 22, 2003 5:46 am

I hope I don't stick my foot in my mouth on this one but it's the way I feel so...

No, I don't think FEMA should even BE in the banking business. Face it, most coastal homes are high value real estate - most Americans wouldn't be able to afford to build on the ocean if they wanted to. If you can afford to buy or build in these areas, then you need to consider the replacement cost for your home when Mother Nature decides to take back what is hers. I am speaking about homes that are built on the barrier islands - they are called barrier islands for a reason.

I know this is a very touchy subject - especially since it is time-sensitive and I apologize in advance to those folks who live on the coast and were devastated by the recent storm. But that's just how I feel.

---

As a footnote: When Kennedy Space Center was being planned, Uncle Sam purchased all the homes in sections of the National Seashore. I'm sure it was more a security thing than anything else. Knowing the government, I'm sure these people were paid handsomely to relocate. The houses have all been removed and the area is part of the National Seashore now - open to the public to enjoy except when launches are made from the cape. I've spent many a day out there watching the wildlife and enjoying those beaches - something I would not have been able to do if these areas were privately owned.

Lindaloo · #8 Postby **Lindaloo** » Mon Sep 22, 2003 6:07 am

David... Gulf Shores is a prime example as well as Pensacola Beach.

#9 Postby **Downdraft** » Mon Sep 22, 2003 6:28 am

I remember watching a fellow that lived directly on the Mississippi river. His house was in the water up to it's roof. The news guy asked him what he would do and he proudly proclaimed rebuild. He then thanked FEMA for their assistance and said this was the third time he had used them to finance it. My thinking then and now was enough is enough. Of course we should help everyone recover from the disaster. My heart goes out to everyone touched by Isabel too. That being said why do we continue to refinance an area so it can happen again? I love the barrier island resorts such as Nags Head NC or S. Padre Island Texas. I enjoy the beaches the resorts all of it but when the big one comes as it has in the past and will in the future should we all foot the bill to make sure it can happen again? I agree some areas it just can't be helped. You can't relocate Los Angeles because it's on the San Andreas fault but you can stop luxury condos from being build 100 yards from the Atlantic Ocean!

Lutrastorm · #10 Postby **Lutrastorm** » Mon Sep 22, 2003 6:54 am

Eliminating Federal Flood insurance is not necessarily the solution. Here in Delaware as new oceanfront developments were being created in the 80's, the areas were cassified as Barrier Islands and as such didn't qualify for federal flood insurance. This did not stop development. Private insurers stepped to the plate for these huge policies. The owners have to pay considerably more in premiums, but they can still get full flood coverage. The lack of federal flood insurance hasn't stopped the building as most of these homes directly on the oceanfront now sell upwards of 3 million to 5 million dollars.

#11 Postby **vbhoutex** » Mon Sep 22, 2003 7:56 am

I'm not sure anyone is suggesting getting rid of the insurance. I think the idea is that the repeated use of it in areas "prone" to destruction(for lack of better words), should be curtailed.

Guest · #12 Postby **Guest** » Mon Sep 22, 2003 8:07 am

Yes maybe its risky to build near the water I for one wouldn't do it because its at a high risk to me. But in any case these people still need assistance. I wouldn't say turn your backs on them and not help them with some funding.....they should invest in getting some wall built around their homes high enough to withstand so many feet of water. Well this is just an opinion. I believe I heard when fabian hit bermuda they made those home to withstand hurricanes with so many mph of wind and their wires were underground so they wouldn't lose electricity ect this may just be a good idea....any views on this? :lol:

Lindaloo · #13 Postby **Lindaloo** » Mon Sep 22, 2003 8:24 am

I believe every state that has a coastline should adopt the same kind of law that South Carolina has. And should include casinos and hotels.

Aquawind · #14 Postby **Aquawind** » Mon Sep 22, 2003 9:03 am

Good Discussion Downdraft!
I think the the loans should be available for one time only for single family residential parcels of land. Has nothing to do with who owns or lives on the property. This is oceanfront property only. Multi-Family parcels should not be allowed period..thus they will be grandfathered in one time only..This would prevent the Developers from Building along the coast after a disaster..Also hinder them wanting to purchase the vacant lots after a disaster. That is the biggest fear..Developers with big bucks rebuilding and replacing the single family homes with bigger, uglier, costlier, multi-family homes because they can afford it.

Also it should be a federal law anyone not evacuating during a mandatory evacuation in the multi-family unit will forfet there ownership and must sell and move. Single family homes are a bit diferrent as some families have lived along the water for generations.

I do however think that the resorts should be given some AID provided they adhear to the all mandatory evacuations...people don't live onsite so the loss of personal belongings/Life would be limited..and we all love to come and be near the ocean. It's one thing to vacation along the beach it's another to die and/or loose the their personal belongings because you have nowhere to move it.

IMO

#15 Postby **BocaGirl** » Mon Sep 22, 2003 9:37 am

Sometimes the thing that makes the most sense intellectually gets lost in the shuffle. Of course it doesn't make sense to keep rebuilding homes where homes don't belong in the first place! However, we need to look at from a couple of different viewpoints to understand why the money keeps flowing, and rebuilding occurs after every storm.

The homes and condos along the coastline are usually among the most expensive real estate in a community. Eliminating those dwellings takes away a big chunk of real estate taxes. There aren't too many communities who can afford to do that- especially in these tough times. They need the money the real estate taxes dollars to run the services their communities provide. In most cases, their states have cut them way back and so has the federal government. Local governments hedge their bets that storms won't hit their communities.

Now let's look at from FEMA's view. FEMA is a big bureacracy. If FEMA eliminates the rebuilding program, well, how many FEMA employees lose their jobs? You can't expect FEMA to effectively police itself. It's the equivalent of giving a grave digger a shovel and asking him to dig a hole for his own potential grave. It just ain't gonna happen!

To me at least. it seems like a Catch 22 situation. I guess the only way to get the rebuilding to stop would be through legislation..............a long and tedious (and usually unpopular) process.

Just my somewhat jaded opinion.

BocaGirl
Barbara

#16 Postby **HurricaneQueen** » Mon Sep 22, 2003 9:45 am

I thought I had heard some years ago that FL enacted a law stating that any home within XXX feet of the shoreline that was destroyed as a result of a natural disaster would not be allowed to be rebuilt. I may be wrong on this or it might be that it is a county thing. Nevertheless, I for one am all for this one strike and you are out.

Sure, as much as I love the water, living on the beach with an unobstructed view of the Gulf, (ocean, whatever) has long been a dream of mine and then I think of the practicalities not to mention the expense and realize that's not a risk I am willing to take. Being less than a mile is close enough and in case of a storm approaching, we're "outta there". In addition to the obvious practical financial matters, there are the environmental issues that I won't even get into here. Beach renourishment-give me a break.

I don't think that FEMA (us) should have to pay for constant rebuilding. It's bad enough that our insurance rates have gone through the roof (if you can even get a policy). Hopefully, most of the beach dwellers are self-insured because we have plenty of other uses for our tax dollars.

I certainly don't want to ruffle any feathers at this very sensitive time in the aftermath of Isabel but building on the beach has long been a pet peeve of mine.

Lynn

opera ghost · #17 Postby **opera ghost** » Mon Sep 22, 2003 10:04 am

I've been pretty open aobut my thoughts on this- No I don't believe that that money should be given to the rebuilding of homes where they were destroyed. Instead the money should be used to mitigate and minimize the dangers of hurricanes to the stretches of coast that people build on. Glaveston is a *prime* example. In 1900 you could walk from your home onto the beach on any side of the island. Currently there's a 7 mile stretch of coastline that is built ~17~ feet up off the surf. The Seawall leaves beaches for the community (At sea level), and people can (and do!) build right on the other side of the road that runs along it... but they're not building right on top of the beach- at sea level. They're building 17 feet up. You have to walk down stairs to get to the beaches. THAT'S a good idea.

Pour the money that you would put into rebuilding homes along those beaches into developing things like the seawall- stabalizing barrier islands if needs be and securing coastline. The only downside is a downside that's impossible to change regardless- geologically speaking many of these islands are *designed* to shift thier coastlines constantly- they're building and rebuilding and changing every day (Take the Isabel created inlet in NC for instance) and when you stabalize parts of the area- you run into erosion and parts that are left alone changing. If I remember correctly- at one point Galveston had to import a massive amount of sand to reclaim some of the beaches that were drifting out to sea.

BUT I'd ride out a hurricane in Galveston before I'd ride it out in ANY other unsecured barrier island. I'd build in Galveston before I built on ANY other unsecured barrier island.

I don't think that we ~have~ to abandon the barrier islands and swamps and beaches- but they should either be abandoned or secured.. and that we should not continue to pay people to build thier homes on sandbars... It's just not reasonable or responsible.

#18 Postby **Dean4Storms** » Mon Sep 22, 2003 10:46 am

My .02 cents worth..... Being that people have already invested large sums of money on some of these risky properties, I think it would be best to limit all Americans to just one loan from FEMA. That way at least the people affected once could at least opt to sell the property to someone else and not left losing it all. To go and make risky property unsellable now would be unfair to those who have already purchased such.

#19 Postby **vbhoutex** » Mon Sep 22, 2003 10:55 am

I had never thought of that side of the coin BocaGirl!! YOu have brought up a very valid(unfortunately)point IMO. Beauracracy begets beaucracy sometimes and I think you could be right in this instance.

GLAD TO SEE YOU POSTING HERE!!!!! I've missed your always no nonsense, well thought out posts, no matter what the subject was!!

weatherluvr · #20 Postby **weatherluvr** » Mon Sep 22, 2003 11:17 am

The whole concept of FEMA and giving federal assistance for disaster relief should be to safeguard against the unexpected, or unusual, emergencies. People that build on coastlines of hurricane-prone areas need to be better educated about the risks they are taking. I wouldn't call being affected by a damaging hurricane every 10 or 20 years unexpected or unusual.

This debate came to the forefront 10 years ago, after Andrew and the 93 midwest floods. Several towns were rebuilt on higher ground after being washed away, and where their towns once stood, parks and golf courses now stand. They recognized the risks of living in flood-prone areas, and rather rebuild at the same spot, they gave nature a place to flood without affecting properties. I'm not saying that we should make the entire coastline a huge golf course, but rather assistance should be limited with regards to the risks a certain area has of being affected on average.

Open for discussion and vote

Open for discussion and vote

I think people should get some kind of assistance!

Tending to agree with the majority

Noone should be excluded from getting help!

The Almighty Dollar Rules

You bring up an interesting point!!

Who is online