This is something that needs to be said.

[feederband]

It will never happen....People will just have to take what happens to them and move on...

[TrekkerCC]

I agree....

I see idiots on miami beach complaining about loosing their docks, and windows, and this and that.

You knew this was a hurricane area, you knew you were building on an island, it is your responsibility, your problem. I don't believe these people should be getting any money from FEMA.

Just my opinion.
-Eric

agree with the sentiment expressed in that we should eliminate the aid to people who build on an island in hurricane prone areas. I do want to expand upon it through. The federal government ties federal funds (highway, etc.) to force the states to enact state legislation to deal with an issue nationally (raise drinking age is one example). How about tying federal disaster aid funds to how close you are to the coast? Before buying a house, the person will be asked to sign a release attesting to their agreement that this is a hurricane prone area. This statement would also include language that the homeowners take some of the risk if a disaster should occur. If a disaster occurs, the federal funds would be distributed to the families by a formula to be published publicly before the disaster. Also, the formula will be tied to the scale and size of the disaster. For example, if your house is on the beach and a category 3 or 4 storm destroyed a person's home, then those homeowners would only be entitled to let say 10-20% of the funds they would have been entitled too. As you move further away from the coast, the percentage of funds a person receives in relation to entitled would also increase. About 10 miles away from the coast, one would receive about 85% to 95% of their entitled federal disaster aid. Also in geologically active areas (such as earthquakes and volcano prone areas), the government could also implement a similar plan in that a person assumes some risk in living there as well.

Hopefully, economics would steer people away from the coast. If they know that the government will formulate how much aid they will receive based on where they wish to live, I think that we could persuade more people from living too close from the coast. However, I don't think this violates anyone rights as people can still chose to live where they want despite the risks. They will not however be able to rely on the government as much for rebuilding aid.

-Trek

[abajan]

...We have lived with hurricanes for thousands if not hundreds of thousands of years...

Perhaps but it is highly unlikely that they have been travelling the same routes. Strong evidence suggests that there have been many ice ages over the last "hundreds of thousands of years". As little as a few thousand years ago, the world's climate would have been considerably different from what obtains presently.

Nevertheless, I do agree with the general gist of your argument, though it might have been more effective had it been put over (shall we say) a little less vigorously!

[Cookiely]

I'm just saying if you don't went to see hurricanes damaging your house. Or distroying your cities. I think we should move away from the coast. Where they cause most of there damage. We have to play it smart. In it will cost us less Money in more lifes.

The President needs to enforce this for our safety.

I guess we need to evacuate the entire state of California because of earthquakes. They also cost a lot of money. I think we need to concentrate on better construction.

[BayouVenteux]

In it will cost us less Money in more lifes.

The President needs to enforce this for our safety.

1. Less money? C'mon. How much money would it require to relocate the entire populations and infrastructures of every metropolitan area from Miami-Dade to Greater New Orleans!?
Lives? I would venture to guess that more residents would die in moving-related accidents in "the great relocation" than in all the landfalling hurricanes of the last 50 years.

2. The President can only enforce such draconian measures in third-rate made-for-TV disaster movies and in Jerry Bruckheimer summer blockbusters when he's played by Bill Pullman.

[HurryKane]

In it will cost us less Money in more lifes.

The President needs to enforce this for our safety.

1. Less money? C'mon. How much money would it require to relocate the entire populations and infrastructures of every metropolitan area from Miami-Dade to Greater New Orleans!?
Lives? I would venture to guess that more residents would die in moving-related accidents in "the great relocation" than in all the landfalling hurricanes of the last 50 years.

2. The President can only enforce such draconian measures in third-rate made-for-TV disaster movies and in Jerry Bruckheimer summer blockbusters when he's played by Bill Pullman.

This BayouVenteux, he/she is very very smart.

[simplyme]

50 miles???? wow! i couldn't even have my home and the city of west palm beach wouldn't even exist!

City of West Palm? The entire STATE of Delaware would have to be relocated. The DelMarVa peninsula as well. Hawaii would become deserted. We could kiss the Outer Banks in North Carolina goodbye as well.

Construction could be better, I'll concede that. But you can't economically design or build for the worst case scenario. It's just not feasible. Buildings these days are designed to meet wind codes, as are bridges, and even overhead sign structures and traffic signal structures.

Consider the cost of building something that had to withstand a 10.0 earthquake, or a category 5 hurricane, or a terrorist attack. How do you justify those costs? What do you tell all the people who live in "Tornado Alley"?

[angelwing]

Ok, hurricanes don't hit much on the Jersey coast, but can you imagine those casinos??? They are way too close, they never should have been built there-if they wanted them in NJ, try Wilwood-that beach you need a tram car just to get to the water!!!!

[vbhoutex]

a lot more reasonable that 50 miles matt! but then what wouldl happen with all the building that is already there??

See my post above re barrier islands. Basically no new move ins and as they are destroyed/vacated no new building/rebuilding. Obviously we can't move everyone off the barrier islands as they sit, but eventually they would become barrier islands again. As to the move inland that is another whole ball of wax that really just doesn't make sense. Has somewhat of basis towards safety, but a major part of the US would become unlivable if that was done.

[Skywatch_NC]

Over the last 50 years it has been very quiet with very few hurricanes hitting the coast line. We have taken it like a joke in built homes,Businesses/Buildings very close to the coast. History shows that hurricane seasons like last year is about the norm. The benny rabbit is coming back out of the bag.

We have lived with hurricanes for thousands if not hundreds of thousands of years. We need to live with them. Maybe make stronger homes/Building codes. Or better yet move inland.

What I'm trying to say why cry about something that has been on this planet for hundreds of millions of years? Why not be smart and move or build stronger? Because I want to see more discussion and less crying this year about this hurricane season. And believe me I don't want to see anyone die or lose everything. But that is what happens when you build on the coast.

That is all rant over!!!

Matt,

It's a fact of life that the waterfront is very attractive to many...heck even here in Raleigh...we had hurricane-force winds way inland here from Fran, etc.

[Brent]

a lot more reasonable that 50 miles matt! but then what wouldl happen with all the building that is already there??

See my post above re barrier islands. Basically no new move ins and as they are destroyed/vacated no new building/rebuilding. Obviously we can't move everyone off the barrier islands as they sit, but eventually they would become barrier islands again. As to the move inland that is another whole ball of wax that really just doesn't make sense. Has somewhat of basis towards safety, but a major part of the US would become unlivable if that was done.

I agree with that... you cannot just up and evacuate everyone within 50 miles of the coast. That would entail evacuating all of Mobile and Baldwin Counties here, that's a lot of people, but nothing compared to New Orleans or Miami. As someone else said, more people will die in car accidents during the evacuation than they would the actual hurricane.

[BayouVenteux]

Ok, hurricanes don't hit much on the Jersey coast, but can you imagine those casinos??? They are way too close, they never should have been built there-if they wanted them in NJ, try Wilwood-that beach you need a tram car just to get to the water!!!!

Two words: Gulfport/Biloxi.

[tailgater]

All we need to do is build a 70 foot seawall around the entire coastline. That as idiotic as it sounds would probably may more sense.

[jabber]

You said it....

Oh, it's gonna be a loooooong season.

[BayouVenteux]

All we need to do is build a 70 foot seawall around the entire coastline. That as idiotic as it sounds would probably may more sense.

Actually, if you venture to any desirable beach locale from Miami to Brownsville, you'll see that the project has been underway for some time. Large concrete monolith protection structures ranging from the aforementioned 70 feet to upwards of 300 - 400 feet, are being installed in an ongoing concerted effort to quell nature's seasonal wrath, protecting the jet ski lots, yacht marinas, gooney golf courses, parasail flotillas, casinos and outlet malls that inhabit our fragile coastal environs.

And to top it off, the structures are air conditioned!

Ain't technology grand!?

[GalvestonDuck]

I agree....

I see idiots on miami beach complaining about loosing their docks, and windows, and this and that.

You knew this was a hurricane area, you knew you were building on an island, it is your responsibility, your problem. I don't believe these people should be getting any money from FEMA.

Just my opinion.
-Eric

Here I go again with my "living on a barrier island" defense rant....

We might not be invincible here and I sure as heck would evacuate to save my life, but we have one heck of seawall that has offered protection to homes and landmarks since 1900.

I'll tell you what I tell vbhoutex -- Living here is no more dangerous than living in tornado alley, in flood plains, in the mountains where mudslides or avalanches occur, on fault lines where earthquakes shake the earth, in forests where fires burn, or up north with blizzards paralyze lives throughout the winter. If we could all find ONE nice cozy safe place on earth where we could live without EVER being at risk for a natural disaster, we'd end up being so darned overcrowded, underfed, diseased, and crime-ridden, it wouldn't be worth it. Or we'd all be packed into one nice, tight little perfect terrorist target, just right for dropping any sort of NBC weapon into.

BTW - the Red Cross' most responded-to disaster: simple one-home fires. The Galveston County Red Cross responds to at least 70 fires a month in our area, providing assistance and support to victims. It doesn't take a large-scale natural disaster to take a home or a life. And there's nowhere that's 100% safe to live.

Yes, I'll agree...those who lost their docks or windows or homes should have acted to protect their homes, or at most, their lives. But they can't be blamed for where they lived.

~Barrier-island-living Duck and proud of it

[vacanechaser]

[quote=I guess we need to evacuate the entire state of California because of earthquakes. They also cost a lot of money. I think we need to concentrate on better construction.[/quote]

Ohh and Nebraska and Oklahoma and the rest of the Plains states because they have to many tornados that can cause to much damage.. I agree with the comment about the barrier islands. I ahve said that for years. No one else should be allowed to build there, and if your home is destroyed during a storm, you can't rebuild there, you must move inland. The barriers are there for a reason but it is the arogance of man kind that thinks they can beat ma' nature..

Jesse V. Bass III
http://www.vastormphoto.com
Hurricane Intercept Research Team

[dhweather]

Ok, hurricanes don't hit much on the Jersey coast, but can you imagine those casinos??? They are way too close, they never should have been built there-if they wanted them in NJ, try Wilwood-that beach you need a tram car just to get to the water!!!!

Two words: Gulfport/Biloxi.

Funny you should mention this - Treasure Bay Casino in Gulfport
CAN NOT GET HURRICANE INSURANCE - nobody will write them anything
within reason, as they've had a lot of claims from storms.

I get the gist from the original post, but this a risk folks are willing to
live with. If you build a new home on or close to the beach/coast , you know what can happen.


what to expect.

[cajungal]

I agree ericinmia,

I think also we should make it a law that no building past 50 miles from the coast for the Gulf states in the Southeastern States. We should make it parks where people could go to the beach. But no building. We would save alot of money.

50 miles? I am only between 25-30 miles from the coast. And I don't live in Florida. I live in southeast Louisiana where we are even more vunerable.

[vbhoutex]

Duckie I still love ya despite your living arrangement!!

I have two problems with the barrier island issue. One is what I have stated before about what Mother Nature meant them to be. The other is the fact that EVERYONE pays when there is a barrier island disaster and federal aid is issured to those who have chosen to live in or play in their million dollar homes on these islands. I have literally seen millionaires, who can damn well afford to pay for it all themselves, get millions in assistance after a storm(Navarre Beach, FL), basically to rebuild the infrastructure to serve their million dollar weekend home. That is wrong imo. That money should be going to those who truly need it and did not build in an area that is obviously prone to destruction.