California Still Not a Declared Federal Disaster Area

[IJ Reilly]

Both Sen. Boxer and (still) Gov. Gray Davis have asked President Bush to declare California a federal disaster area because of the fires, but as of this morning, no action had been taken on the request. I don't recall disaster declarations taking this long in the past, and certainly the issue of whether California qualifies as a disaster area should not be in question. Amid the news crush over the fires, nobody is taking about the politics of this yet, but I have to wonder whether the White House is foot-dragging on this, and if so, why.

[zimv20]

when does schwarzenegger get sworn in?

[mactastic]

Punishment for voting Gore in 2000. Same reason Bush took a really long time to come out here after his election, and only really spent time here once he started taking heat for it.

Now he is willing to spend time and money here because a) he has a political ally in the governors house (well not the actual house, but the office) and he sees a chance to make the democrats spend lots and lots of money in Californias sinkhole of a TV market by putting forth a presence here. Little chance he will win the state, but he hopes to sap precious resources from the opposition here.

Zim, mid November is the last I have heard. Super, cause it means my diploma will have Arnolds signature on it.:rolleyes:

[IJ Reilly]

The date I heard was Nov. 14, but I'm not sure if it's correct.

[Rower_CPU]

Last I heard, we've got FEMA support, but still no official word from the White House.

[Desertrat]

Sure no excuse for foot-dragging on this one.

How many houses, now? The Atlanta morning paper said around 600, IIRC, but the fires are bound to have gotten more. (Almost 5PM, EST.)

'Rat

[Rower_CPU]

Some of the AP and Reuters tallies place it at over 800 homes destroyed and over 300,000 acres burned.

This Reuter's story (http://reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=domesticNews&storyID=3698300&pageNumber=1) mentions Bush promising help, but not taking any specific action.
President Bush assured Californians on Monday that Washington was ready to help the state. "This is a devastating fire, and it's a dangerous fire. And we're prepared to help in any way we can," he told reporters at the White House.

[Frohickey]

Isn't this what home insurance policies are for?

[Rower_CPU]

Originally posted by Frohickey
Isn't this what home insurance policies are for?

Please tell me you're joking.

[IJ Reilly]

This image isn't nearly as dramatic as some I looked at yesterday, but it does provide some idea of the extensive area covered by the fires (taken 14:45 PDT). I also see a couple burning in Baja, which I had not heard about. For those unfamiliar with the geography, the area with the cluster of smoke plumes in the south is San Diego County (where I was yesterday), and the northern plumes are in Ventura County (where I live).

[Frohickey]

Originally posted by Rower_CPU
Please tell me you're joking.
So, don't even pay for home owners insurance then? Why pay for insurance if you are never going to collect if you incur damages agreed to on the policy?

[Rower_CPU]

Originally posted by Frohickey
So, don't even pay for home owners insurance then? Why pay for insurance if you are never going to collect if you incur damages agreed to on the policy?

This is about national disaster relief aid, not about handouts for people who lost their homes. Federal funds usually cover such things as:
- Firefighter, police officer, emergency worker salaries, overtime, etc
- Equipment costs
- Aid to those who lost homes; food, water, shelter
- Funds for repair of infrastructure

No-one ever said it would go to the people who lost homes, and to even suggest that it would belies an ignorance of what these funds are typically used for.

[IJ Reilly]

The federal government does not pay for the reconstruction of homes or reimburse individuals for property losses. FEMA helps with cleanup and relief efforts and coordinates loans with the SBA for those who qualify.

[mactastic]

I do believe we have finally gotten our Federal Disaster Declaration.

[Frohickey]

Originally posted by Rower_CPU
This is about national disaster relief aid, not about handouts for people who lost their homes. Federal funds usually cover such things as:
- Firefighter, police officer, emergency worker salaries, overtime, etc
- Equipment costs
- Aid to those who lost homes; food, water, shelter
- Funds for repair of infrastructure

No-one ever said it would go to the people who lost homes, and to even suggest that it would belies an ignorance of what these funds are typically used for.

Sorry. I had thought that declaration of a national disaster triggers govt handouts to rebuilding destroyed homes. FEMA is partially involved in this, via the Flood Insurance program (http://abcnews.go.com/sections/2020/GiveMeABreak/gmab_beaches030919.html).

[mactastic]

And people will go and rebuild in those areas. Same as they do in flood plains and other disaster prone areas. When does personal responsibility kick in here?

[Desertrat]

"When does personal responsibility kick in here?"

Right on! Eggzackly! Spoken like a proper conservative!

It's a refreshing change from the Modern American Mantra, "We need a government program to..."

I worked some with FEMA in its early days. Around 1977-ish, '78. Even before it took over some of the disaster relief work from the USCE, people had the idea that it would provide free cash for individuals. About the only benefit that kicks in is low interest rate loans to homeowners and businessmen.

Even elected officials at the municipal and county level don't understand that there are limits to the money available. They commonly self-insure against some more-rare events, and sometimes get bitten.

The bad thing about the federal subsidy for floodplain insurance is that the beachfront homeowner pays about 1/3 of the true premium; when a disaster hits, the taxpayers are out a fair-sized bundle. And then the doofi, having gotten a free ride, rebuild in the same danged place.

Be that as it may, it's always sad when folks lose their homes. It's not the house so much as the memories and lost memorabilia that really hurt...

'Rat

[IJ Reilly]

'Rat, your argument may seem so wonderfully logical but in reality it's a total fantasy. I defy you or anyone else to tell me where in the United States a person could build a home where it would not be subject to threat from one natural disaster or another. Assuming such a place could be found, would it be possible for everyone in the US to live there?

[Frohickey]

Originally posted by IJ Reilly
'Rat, your argument may seem so wonderfully logical but in reality it's a total fantasy. I defy you or anyone else to tell me where in the United States a person could build a home where it would not be subject to threat from one natural disaster or another. Assuming such a place could be found, would it be possible for everyone in the US to live there?

Hurricanes and flooding near the coasts...
Tornados and lightning strikes in the south and midwest...
Earthquakes and hurricanes in the west...
Volcanic eruptions in Hawaii...
Snowstorms in the northeast and Alaska...

But since when has it been government's duty to provide homeowners insurance or rebuilding assistance? That is what the homeowner should have, and there is a private industry solution to this problem... private insurance companies.

If only Madison listened (http://www.constitutionparty.com/the_general_welfare.htm) when he included 'general welfare' in the US Constitution, and the warnings of the anti-Federalists...
In Federalist No. 41, James Madison asked rhetorically: “For what purpose could the enumeration of particular powers be inserted, if these and all others were meant to be included in the preceding general power?”

Madison was replying to anti- Federalist writers who had warned that the “general welfare” clause opened the way to unlimited abuse. He haughtily accused those writers of “labour[ing] for objections” by “stooping to such a misconstruction” of the obvious sense of the passage, as defined and limited by those powers explicitly listed immediately after it.

[mactastic]

Tell me the private insurance company that writes reasonably priced earthquake insurance for homeowners. When the big one hits, who do you think is going to pick up the tab here? And would it be better if California were left to rot after something like that?

[IJ Reilly]

Originally posted by Frohickey
But since when has it been government's duty to provide homeowners insurance or rebuilding assistance? That is what the homeowner should have, and there is a private industry solution to this problem... private insurance companies.

But since when does the government actually do this? I think you'll find the government providing precious little in the way of insurance or rebuilding assistance. But haven't we been over this already?

That being said, one mistake I would not make is to assume that insurance companies are the best entities to decide where we should be able to live.

[Frohickey]

Thats the beauty of it all...

If you don't like what the insurance company says, you can go get another one that you like.

[Code101]

Originally posted by mactastic
I do believe we have finally gotten our Federal Disaster Declaration.

Yes!

And now the Bush haters here can stop your hate comments towards the President! I don't think anything he could do, would make you guys happy. If a major quake hit you would somehow spin it to say that Bush caused it.

You got your Federal aid, now worry about getting the fire out, not hating Bush!

[IJ Reilly]

Originally posted by Frohickey
Thats the beauty of it all...

If you don't like what the insurance company says, you can go get another one that you like.

Tried to buy any homeowner's insurance lately?

[Desertrat]

I have no problem whatsoever in getting homeowner's insurance. I consider the premium quite affordable and reasonable.

When people choose to live in an area of known natural hazards, these hazards must be taken into account before deciding on the location/value of a house or the availability of appropriate insurance. If they don't exercise forethought, shame on'em.

I've spent more time in hurricane and flood country than earthquake and forest fire areas. Know a little bit about tornadoes...

My conclusion isn't new: "Nature bats last."

:), 'Rat

[mactastic]

Originally posted by Code101
Yes!

And now the Bush haters here can stop your hate comments towards the President! I don't think anything he could do, would make you guys happy. If a major quake hit you would somehow spin it to say that Bush caused it.

You got your Federal aid, now worry about getting the fire out, not hating Bush!

Whhhaaaaaaaa everyone hates Bush, and I can't stand it when anyone criticizes him!

Show me the Bush hating comments in this thread. Mine were the only ones directly referencing him, and they were not "hate" only an observation made by many others about Bush's tendancy to help those he supports and harm those opposed to him. If you don't think this is true, try an actual response instead of a whining "everyone hates Bush" statement without any support.

I suppose I'm just being unpatriotic anyway huh?

[zimv20]

Originally posted by Desertrat

My conclusion isn't new: "Nature bats last."


yes, some brown bats in the wild live to be 30 years old.

link (http://www.kidsplanet.org/factsheets/bat.html)

:-)

[IJ Reilly]

Originally posted by Desertrat
I have no problem whatsoever in getting homeowner's insurance. I consider the premium quite affordable and reasonable.

Since you live in Texas, you probably would not know that about five years ago many if not most of the major insurance companies simply stopped writing homeowners policies in California. It was just the most recent "insurance crisis" in the state. We've had plenty. Earthquake insurance? Hardly anybody can afford the premiums, and they all come with huge deductibles.

I understand your point about assuming risk, but the fact is, very few human beings are at all good at assessing personal risk. Everyone tends to think of others as being more exposed to risk -- it's the classic "it won't happen here" attitude. It's human nature, nobody is immune, and that viewpoint rarely changes even after disaster strikes home or close to home.

So, be honest with yourself. If your home was destroyed by a natural disaster (I believe they are known to occur in Texas), you are not going to look into that TV camera and be the one out of a million people who says, "I'm getting the hell out of here and never coming back!"

[Desertrat]

Well, I didn't give a ton of thought to natural disasters down in the Big Bend country, but tornadoes are rare. It's a desert area, so forest fires aren't a factor around my house. I'm up on a mountainside, so I don't have to worry about floods. Our only "felt" earthquake reached up to a stratospheric 4.0. :D (I was in an 8.2 in the Philippines, so I sure know what "scared spitless" is.)

My house is practically weighted down with hurricane ties for all junctions of rafters and joists and sills, and the tin roof is screwed on. So far, 70 mph winds haven't bothered a thing.

I bought all the materials ahead of the job from the discount supply stores, and acted as prime contractor. (Plus being slave labor, along with my wife.) Ergo, a plain-vanilla 1,400 sq-ft house on 14 acres plus a garage and the water system and most of the furnishings for about $33 per sq-ft total. (Plus a left thumb beaten totally into submission during my five months of labor.)

If I lose, I don't want to lose a whole bunch, cheapskate that I am.

I dunno. During my working years, I always tried to minimize the time wasted in commuting. I looked for work in an area in which I wanted to be, and for a residence in an area of minimum hazard of whatever sort. Tried to put a package together such that risks were pretty much those of my own choosing. This sort of effort always struck me as just "homework", and the fact that many people don't seem to do that is just another one of those things I don't understand about people. It always seemed very simple, to me.

:), 'Rat

[wwworry]

Originally posted by IJ Reilly
'Rat, your argument may seem so wonderfully logical but in reality it's a total fantasy. I defy you or anyone else to tell me where in the United States a person could build a home where it would not be subject to threat from one natural disaster or another. Assuming such a place could be found, would it be possible for everyone in the US to live there?

Buffalo, NY is a good place.
Summer heat never over 90 degrees F
one of the sunniest places to live in the summer
Winter cold rarely under 10 degrees F
lots of snow but the streets are plowed and the people know how to handle it
plenty of fresh water
nice people
cheap houses
no jobs
oh well

museums, sports teams, universities, etc.
I'll shut up now.

[Desertrat]

Good on ya, wwworry!

IJ, it's not all that difficult to avoid a floodplain. Given the history of California wildfires, I wouldn't build in a vulnerable area. On an eastern or Gulf seacoast, I wouldn't build a palatial home on beachfront property.

You can't totally avoid hazards, but you surely could make an effort to minimize their effects.

'Rat

[IJ Reilly]

It was good of you both to go so far out of your way to prove my point, but it really wasn't necessary.

Yup, we all live in Lake Woebegon. We're all above average. And the really bad stuff only happens to people who aren't adequately prepared and live in places where God never intended them to live.

[mactastic]

So California just shouldn't be inhabited? Nor Florida, or any of the Gulf Coast, or Eastern Seaboard? Should we abandon the Pacific Northwest? Alaska? Where are people going to live?

[IJ Reilly]

Buffalo, NY, and the safe parts of Texas, obviously. The rest of the country will be returned to nature, or maybe to the Indians (who being sensible people may not want it back anyway, knowing how dangerous it is to live there).

[wwworry]

People do build in unsafe areas because of the availability of reasonably priced insurance. In Charleston, the barrier islands were practically leveled by hurricane Hugo. You would think people would think twice about rebuilding there but when they got the big insurance checks (that paid the value of rising beach-front equity) they built twice as big and closer to the ocean but, admittedly, with better technique.

IJ Reilly, you have always championed the intelligent use of resources. Now we are seeing huge growth in areas that, if the real costs of ownership were factored in, don't deserve it. Phoenix gets subsidized water, suburbs get subsidized roads and sewer systems and subsidized gas to get out to the cheap McMansion farms. Land is cheap on the flood-plain.

Before the availability of insurance people built in places that made sense, near water, near transportation, up on hills. (except no one can account for earthquakes because they happen so infrequently). Now people build in all kinds of stupid places. That much is true. The true costs are not factored in.

I would say if they are going to get money to rebuild then building codes would have to change to reflect the higher risk and their insurance rates should go up. I think government subsidizes insurance companies. or garuntees high risk insurance areas. Maybe that's not the right policy. Maybe building codes could require higher strength more energy efficient techniques like ICFs or SIPs. Maybe towns in Southern California need to have a herd of goats (for underbrush removal) to get insurance.

Buffalo is losing population. Phoenix is gaining population.

[mactastic]

I would actually be very curious to see the numbers on houses burned in so cal that met current code vs those that didn't. Problem with building codes is that you can't make them retroactive. If we update the building code, it only applies to the new houses built (and substantial remodels) not the existing structures.

To top that off, in hurricane Andrew (I believe) there was a lot of builders cutting corners in several subdivisions that didn't put in the correct nail spacing and hurricane clips etc. Those houses were heavily damaged while others built to code were not.

[Desertrat]

:) Those hurricane clips and ties becoming part of building codes resulted from work we did during the Texas Coastal Zone Management Program in the mid-1970s. We did a bunch of analysis of failure of houses during Hurricane Celia of August, 1970.

After Andrew, it was found that some contractors quit installing the clips after building inspectors had left. So, some houses with partial damage were intact where the clips had been used.

None of Carter's "habitat for humanity" houses failed from wind damage. None. (Debris and falling trees was a different matter.)

Regardless, many people refuse to investigate potential hazards before selecting a location for their residences. One example is the west side of Trinity Bay at Houston. Hurricane Carla pushed some 17 feet of storm surge up into the bay. Now, over 300,000 new people reside at or below the 17-foot contour.

(Proof that there're at least 300,000 folks dumber'n me! :D )

'Rat

[mactastic]

So what do we do about a sudden, large increase in homelessness after a natural disaster? Do we tell the people that lost homes "tough, you shoulda been as smart as me"? Do we create more government regulation saying where people would be eligible for insurance and where they wouldn't based on past disaster history? Do we hope that private charities can handle the crush of tens, perhaps hundreds of thousands of needy?

How do we deal with the reality of a natural disaster?

Seems part of human nature is to shake your fist at nature when she craps on you, and swear that she won't beat you. I have already seen many on TV in so cal vowing to rebuild. Should we let them? Should we close off hundreds of thousands of acres to developement? Or should we let people build there without insurance, then turn our backs when they get hit?

[IJ Reilly]

Originally posted by wwworry
IJ Reilly, you have always championed the intelligent use of resources. Now we are seeing huge growth in areas that, if the real costs of ownership were factored in, don't deserve it. Phoenix gets subsidized water, suburbs get subsidized roads and sewer systems and subsidized gas to get out to the cheap McMansion farms. Land is cheap on the flood-plain.

Before the availability of insurance people built in places that made sense, near water, near transportation, up on hills. (except no one can account for earthquakes because they happen so infrequently). Now people build in all kinds of stupid places. That much is true. The true costs are not factored in.

In fact human beings have never been as sensible as you suggest. The classic example is Mt. Vesuvius. People settled on the flanks of the mountain for centuries, knowing full well its volatile character. Other factors dictating settlement patterns often trump pure safety issues, particularly when the threat is rare or periodic.

In California, we often have the Hobson's choice of turning over prime agricultural land to urbanization, or pushing the development into hillside areas. The prevailing highest-and-best-use wisdom over the past few decades has been to as much as possible save bottomlands for agriculture. The point being, we can't fully reconcile the goals of preserving prime ag land and keeping homes off the hillsides.

If you were to really take full account of the natural hazards associated with living in California, you'd have to conclude that very little of the state is inhabitable, if only because of the constant threat of earthquakes. To be totally prudent, you'd have to send nearly all of California's residents someplace else to live. As much as the rest of the nation seem to enjoy sneering at California, particularly at times like these, I have an idea that the prospect of 32 million Californians coming their way might change a few minds.

[IJ Reilly]

Originally posted by mactastic
I would actually be very curious to see the numbers on houses burned in so cal that met current code vs those that didn't.

Firestorms don't have much respect for building codes. The main construction-related fire hazard, wood roofs, haven't been allowed for decades in these parts, and most of the older ones have already been replaced with Class A fire resistant materials. Still, wildfires like these get hot enough for buildings to burn from the inside out.

[mactastic]

There are new reg's relating to firebreaks around communities, and around individual homes, sprinkler requirements, provisions that help firefighters get around the neighborhood.... stuff like that.

[IJ Reilly]

This is true. Requirements for fire sprinklers in single family residences are becoming more common. Including them in new homes isn't very expensive, but retrofitting them into older homes is prohibitively costly in most cases. Brush clearance helps too obviously but these regulations can be tough to enforce, and many of the areas burning now aren't covered with brush but with trees.

[Desertrat]

mac, your "So what do we do about a sudden, large increase in homelessness after a natural disaster? Do we tell the people that lost homes "tough, you shoulda been as smart as me"? Do we create more government regulation saying where people would be eligible for insurance and where they wouldn't based on past disaster history? Do we hope that private charities can handle the crush of tens, perhaps hundreds of thousands of needy?

How do we deal with the reality of a natural disaster?" is a question that's been kicking around for a while.

Stipulating insurance, I have the opinion that they should move away from a floodplain, or from areas of a coast which are obviously hazardous. (But, whaddaya do with Miami? Or Galveston?) I guess my view is tied to obviating or minimizing rebuilding in a subsidized area...

Earthquake, tornado, forest fire? Any rebuild will be in accord with the latest applicable code. That's about as good as I can do, I guess.

And, to a great extent, folks will just keep on keeping on, as they've always done.

I guess my primary concern is that where and how people build minimizes the impact on the billfolds of other taxpayers. If you want to build in a floodplain, and pay the full cost of insurance, fine. I don't want to pay part of the premium...

'Rat

[zimv20]

this is going to become only more complicated:

1. US population is growing
2. rising global temperature will raise sea levels and flood coasts

[Frohickey]

Originally posted by zimv20
this is going to become only more complicated:

1. US population is growing
2. rising global temperature will raise sea levels and flood coasts

Did you know, that if you did not count immigration into the United States, that the US population is actually decreasing?

Researchers question key global-warming study (http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2003-10-28-schulz_x.htm)
In an interview, McKitrick said, "If a study is going to be the basis for a major policy decision, then the original data must be disseminated and the results have to be reproducible. That's why in our case we have posted everything online and invite outside scrutiny."

Mann never made his data available online — nor did many of the earlier researchers whose data Mann relied upon for his research. That by itself raises questions about the U.N. climate-change panel's scientific process.


:eek: What? All of these global warming theories are based on a study where the data was not made available for peer review?

[zimv20]

Originally posted by Frohickey

Researchers question key global-warming study (http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2003-10-28-schulz_x.htm)


the earth is experiencing a temperature upswing. this is largely accepted. the most prevalent point of contention is whether or not human activity is causing it.

giving the article the benefit of the doubt for the moment, maybe it is the case we're experiencing a non-human-related local maxima, and in the next 5000 years or so, we'll be on the downslope.

shall we sit around and wait for it?

[IJ Reilly]

Funny all this talk about floodplains when the issue at hand is fires ravaging areas where people build to get away from the floodplain. I'd call that an irony.

But if we're going to obsess about the wrong issue, it's worth pointing out that the definition of floodplain isn't fixed, so the question of where you allow people to build is hardly a matter of saying, "not on the floodplain." In that sense, the floodplain is exactly like so many of the hazardous areas where people live -- they have very inexact boundaries, and different threats with different periodicity, some quantifiable and some not. I have to laugh when I hear people suggest that they've taken the proper precautions against natural disasters -- unlike those other fools, of course.

This reminds me of a standard bit of aviation humor that goes this way: "There are two kinds of pilots -- those who have made gear-up landings, and those who will." A bit of humbling advice goes a long way, or at least it should.

[Frohickey]

Not really. Remember, we are not in the rainy season yet, and we have lost a substantial amount of vegetation already.

When the rains come, I would think that some of those houses that were saved from the fires would be subject to mudslides.

Granted, its not flooding, but its similar enough.

[Ugg]

Originally posted by Frohickey
Did you know, that if you did not count immigration into the United States, that the US population is actually decreasing?

:eek: What? All of these global warming theories are based on a study where the data was not made available for peer review?

Yes, if it weren't for immigration during the last 20 years it is doubtful that the US would have enjoyed the economic boom it has. Nothing like low priced labor to keep wages down and create a constant demand for new housing and comsumer products. You can't have your cake and eat it too!

There have been many studies and many have come to different conclusions about whether the world is warming or not. I think that the glaciers melting in Switzerland this summer, the thawing permafrost in Alaska and the diminishing snow on Mt. Tanzanika are pretty conclusive. The world is getting warmer. Are humans contributing? Probably. Does global warming present a danger to humans? Most definitely.

It's time to stop raising the red flag that it might not be caused by humans and to realize that it is happening whatever the cause and we need to plan for it if we can. The possibility of an abrupt change is large and the effects would be devastating.

More care needs to be given about building in fire and flood prone areas and those who insist upon doing so need to start paying more of a price.

[Frohickey]

Originally posted by Ugg
Yes, if it weren't for immigration during the last 20 years it is doubtful that the US would have enjoyed the economic boom it has.

There is legal and illegal. You want the former, not the latter.

As to global warming, it would be nice to have accurate peer-reviewed science behind it. I'm sure you wouldn't want your doctor to be performing surgery based in wrong information.

[IJ Reilly]

Originally posted by Ugg
More care needs to be given about building in fire and flood prone areas and those who insist upon doing so need to start paying more of a price.

All areas in California are prone to both, and losing your home is a pretty big price to pay.

[Ugg]

Originally posted by Frohickey
As to global warming, it would be nice to have accurate peer-reviewed science behind it. I'm sure you wouldn't want your doctor to be performing surgery based in wrong information.

That article raises questions about two things. 1. that there were problems with the study. 2. that Mann didn't publish his study on the web.

Well, they don't explain what those problems were nor do they say why they caused the discrepancy. The article does state, however, that Mann's results have been replicated in other studies. So we have a major issue here, have the two reviewers made a mistake or has Mann? The jury is out until more evidence is put forward. But the fact remains, the study has been backed up by research from other scientists using different methods.

The study came out in 1998 when the web was still in its infancy. Are we to believe that because Mann did not publish his study in that early year that it is somehow suspect? How many scientists were making their work available over the internet at that time?

Lastly, if I go to my doctor with respiratory problems I sure as hell don't want him to run a battery of tests before he takes a look down my throat to see if something is stuck there.

Common sense tells us that the globe is warming, science can only tell us whether it has been caused by humans or is a combination of natural causes and human causes.

Should we take precautions now or pay the full price later?

[Desertrat]

IJ, floodplain delineation is not voodoo. It's a tedious effort, however. The area of concern is that land which is below the level of what's called the 100-year flood--which is more accurately called a flood with odds of 100:1 of occurring in any one year.

Many parts of Texas have rainfall and flood records going back well into the 1800s. A lot of mapping has been done, but it's definitely tedious.

At some point, I imagine, somebody is gonna start commenting about the amount of CO2 from the Cal. forest fires. Then there can be a squabble about whether the CO2 acts more as a greenhouse gas and contributes to warming; or, whether the smoke and ash contributes to cooling by the reduction in sunlight reaching the earth. :D

'Rat

[pseudobrit]

Originally posted by Frohickey
As to global warming, it would be nice to have accurate peer-reviewed science behind it. I'm sure you wouldn't want your doctor to be performing surgery based in wrong information.

Unless you die waiting for that peer-reviewed science.

[IJ Reilly]

Originally posted by Desertrat
IJ, floodplain delineation is not voodoo. It's a tedious effort, however. The area of concern is that land which is below the level of what's called the 100-year flood--which is more accurately called a flood with odds of 100:1 of occurring in any one year.

I'm well aware of 100 year flood plains, and the FEMA maps on which they are delineated. I used to keep sets of these maps on my shelf back when I was a city planner. The fact is, these are arbitrary definitions build around the nice round number beloved by engineers, and beyond that mean very little.

Party A builds a home outside of the 100 flood plain, and a year later is taken out by a 150 year event. They rebuild, and ten years later are hit by another 150 year event. Does that make them imprudent for building, and rebuilding, in that location? If not, why not? Party B builds in the 100 year flood plain and the house stands for 200 years. Is Party B smarter then Party A, or just luckier?

These maps and the probabilities they represent are not instant public policy. They are also not instant definitions of where it prudent or imprudent to build.

The fires we've experience in Southern California this week are the most extensive anyone has ever witnessed. They could be a 250 year event, or something on that order, if understanding them statistically is of any practical use. What that says about any or all of the people who lived in the thousands of destroyed homes is not nearly so simple or straight-forward as you seem to be suggesting.

[wwworry]

So Cal is sprawly. If it were less sprawly you wouldn't have the push of houses into forests and up mountainsides. You could have a lot of gas savings, commute times lessened, utility connect savings, etc. However, the profit for developers would be less.

As for global warming, I think because of the enormous consequences and the relatively easy adjustments to our behavior we could make it is fair to say that even if there is a minimal risk we should make the adjustments. At what point does russian roulet become an acceptable everyday game?

[Desertrat]

IJ, the utility of the 100-year floodplain is how it affects such things as subdivision plat approval and building permits; and financing of existing houses below that level. And, what sort of insurance premiums are justified.

It may not be a raving success, but it tends to reduce the cost to the taxpayer for other folks' bad judgement.


wwworry, sprawl is a cultural thing, seems like. Right now, one of the big deals is "five acres, five miles from town". I've found it interesting how urban researchers concluded that the narrowwer lots and houses of the pre-WW II era led to more of a sense of community (or neighborhood) than the post-war wide lots and houses with A/C. The advent of TV had a tremendous impact on "community" as well...Prior to A/C and TV, folks sat on the front porch in the evenings, weather permitting, and visited with neighbors far more often than nowadays.

Now, as urban problems cause "white flight" (or "economically-able" flight), sprawl is increasing. Sprawl does not occur without reason; it's not a random thing.

'Rat

[mactastic]

Ok, lets talk sprawl. I don't know much about the situation in Texas, but in the urban areas I imagine it isn't much different from what we face here in California. Sprawl is the inevitable result of a lack of government regulation with regard to land use. Even with the regulations we have, there are no incentives built in to the system to encourage reinvestment in city cores. If it costs less to build on virgin land than to demolish and rebuild in a city core, what do you think a developer will do? And particularly here in California where Proposition 13 devestated the property tax revenue the governments could collect, cities can make more money off taxing an auto mall than they can collecting taxes from a residence. So the houses get built in cities that can't attract large businesses (ie. cities at the fringe of the developed area) and the cycle continues. As those cities grow, they are more able to attract businesses, and become less inclined to want to provide large quantities of housing stock. Particularly middle and low income housing. The only residence that makes fiscal sense for the city is a high-end one.

I could go on and on about sprawl, but I will stop for now and spare you all an extended rant on the subject. My current sig pretty much sums up my feelings on the subject.

Oh and for all you anti-tax people, if you aren't paying it in property taxes, you are paying it somewhere else, in fees for building, or school fees, or some other method. The state gets its cut no matter what. Remember, California ranks only 19th in overall tax burden once you figure in fees and other little dings to your wallet.

[wwworry]

I would say that most urban problems were caused by "white flight" rather than the other way around. City neighborhoods, both black and white, were relatively stable and safe until the middle class took off. What a mistake that was.

[IJ Reilly]

Originally posted by Desertrat
IJ, the utility of the 100-year floodplain is how it affects such things as subdivision plat approval and building permits; and financing of existing houses below that level. And, what sort of insurance premiums are justified.

It may not be a raving success, but it tends to reduce the cost to the taxpayer for other folks' bad judgement.

Maybe I'm being too subtle here. Saying again, flood plain definitions are not instant public policy. What they "tend" to do isn't especially relevant. If you're going to adopt a condescending (and dare I say, rather heartless) view towards people who have lost their homes in a major natural disaster, you'd better have some better justification for that attitude then FEMA's definitions of 100-year flood plains. Why? If only because no matter how much smarter you think you are then most people, those dice could easily come up snake-eyes for you or yours some day.

[wwworry]

just to clear things up I think we can all agree that people who have lost their homes need all the help they can get. As for rebuilding, better building code and technique is a good thing. (and goats - we need more goats or, perhaps, sheep)

Future zoning regulations should more accurately assess the cost building in certain areas. Those costs might include susceptibility to natural disaster and the environmental costs.

[Frohickey]

Originally posted by mactastic
Ok, lets talk sprawl. I don't know much about the situation in Texas, but in the urban areas I imagine it isn't much different from what we face here in California. Sprawl is the inevitable result of a lack of government regulation with regard to land use.

Central planning has already been proven to be a failure.

How about this instead? Give the homeowners, and only the homeowners the right and responsibility to take care of their property. If that includes cutting down trees or brush that is growing in the property in order to provide a firebreak, let it be.

I've read that some homeowner's associations and environmental groups have stopped brush-cutting in these areas.

[wwworry]

Originally posted by Frohickey
Central planning has already been proven to be a failure.


you are probably talking about communism because reasonable zoning laws have been a great success. You don't live next to a wholesale food distributer do you?

and just to head off any silly "healthy forests" mentionings, that policy gives logging companies the right to go in and selectively cut forests. They will cut down the biggest most useable trees and leave the smaller ones. This is the exact opposite of what a forest that resists fires looks like.

[Desertrat]

IJ, I've worked disaster areas. I know darned well what those folks are going through.

My gripe is with those people who could readily avoid trouble in the first place, and floodplains rank pretty close to #1. Floodplain management IS public policy in many places. Like many public policies, it isn't perfect, so I used the word "tend".

There were numerous reports of the problem of no firebreaks--or inadequate firebreaks--after some of the lesser fires in California, some years back. It was reported that some of the brushy areas could not be cleared because of environmental regulations. (I'm not tlaking about the actual forest, here.)

Regardless, the area is so large that no single element is at fault. It's a mix of landforms and tree cover, plus drouth effects, gypsy moth problems and then arson. Helluva mess.

By the way: I caught a squib on the west coast TV news, last night or the night before, where Arnie said FEMA money can be used to rebuild homes and businesses. Hmmm. Learning curve?

'Rat

[IJ Reilly]

This just brings me back to my original point: to avoid hazardous places in California means to avoid California. The entire state is subject to severe natural hazards of one type or more. I'd freely admit that land use planning leaves a lot to be desired in this state. But one other thing I do know is the impossibility of reconciling all of the conflicting goals faced by every planning agency in the state. I'm certainly also not going to argue against improved preparedness for natural disasters, both institutionally and individually. Yet, I witnessed over the last few days an emergency response system in virtual free-fall. Which only tells me that when a really big event arrives, it can easily outrun whatever planning and preparations one might have made, no matter wise they may have been.

[Ugg]

Originally posted by Frohickey
Central planning has already been proven to be a failure.

How about this instead? Give the homeowners, and only the homeowners the right and responsibility to take care of their property. If that includes cutting down trees or brush that is growing in the property in order to provide a firebreak, let it be.



Yeah, too bad the Turks didn't have central planning when that big quake hit a few years ago, or the quakes that hit Mexico City or the deforestation of the hillsides in Guatemala and Honduras that led to those massive land slides. Central planning and strict building codes do make a difference. Japan would not exist today if it were not for its very, very strict earthquake building codes. Is it perfect, no but it's a heck of a lot better than letting every Tom Dick and Harry decide that they really don't need that fire resistant roof or sprinkler system or, etc.

Homeowners tend to not want to spend money on things that are not deemed necessary and I doubt that it would be effective. For the most part it is not the brush around the house that is a problem, it is the canyons filled with chapparal and trees. The irony of course is that if it weren't for that brush in the canyons, they would end up flooding anyone downstream during heavy rains. There is no one easy solution.

[mactastic]

Originally posted by Frohickey
Central planning has already been proven to be a failure.

How about this instead? Give the homeowners, and only the homeowners the right and responsibility to take care of their property. If that includes cutting down trees or brush that is growing in the property in order to provide a firebreak, let it be.

I've read that some homeowner's associations and environmental groups have stopped brush-cutting in these areas.

Wrong, planning is done at the city level, with neighboring cities basically at war with each other instead of cooperating. This promotes sprawl by allowing one city that is prosperous to declare a strict growth control policy (which practically became a sport in referendum-happy California in the '80's) which promptly forced developers to move to the next available city to pressure the city council to allow subdivisions full of detached single-family homes (the profitable ones, for various reasons) at densities below 5 units per acre. Thus, while not soley at fault, the promotion of low density sprawl was an unintended consequence of local anti-growth policies.

Regional level planning would give a more balanced look at managing the cities versus the suburbs versus the open space.

Giving the homeowner control is tantamount to giving large corporate interests control, as it is easy to bribe people with cash to get whatever use you want out of it. Terrible idea. Besides, what you do on your property CAN affect me on my property, so there have to be limits to your rights as a property owner.

I'm guessing that there were conservatives whose houses burned along with the liberals who didn't cut the underbrush away from their property. Somehow I don't think it was just the "environmentalists" that failed to maintain proper fire protection.;)

[Desertrat]

mac, I don't understand this comment: "Giving the homeowner control is tantamount to giving large corporate interests control, as it is easy to bribe people with cash to get whatever use you want out of it."

For what is the corporate interest bribing the homeowner?

"Besides, what you do on your property CAN affect me on my property, so there have to be limits to your rights as a property owner."

Well, this is historic, insofar as laws and ordinances. Multitudes already exist. Are you calling for new ones, and if so, what?

'Rat

[mactastic]

Originally posted by Desertrat
mac, I don't understand this comment: "Giving the homeowner control is tantamount to giving large corporate interests control, as it is easy to bribe people with cash to get whatever use you want out of it."

For what is the corporate interest bribing the homeowner?

Ok, here's a scenario for you to chew on. Frohickey has gotten his wish, and all land use law has been abolished in favor of the ultimate right of a property owner to do whatever they want with their property. I decide I would like to have a pig rendering facility, or an ammunition production facility or some other unpleasant/hazadous business. I don't feel like having it on my property, because it is unpleasant/hazardous. So I pay the guy a few blocks over to house the facility on his property. He doesn't care, because he doesn't live there, it's a rental property already. Problem is, you live next door to that property. And you have no recourse when I fire up that rendering plant.

Or what if I decide to put a small steel production facility on one of my rental properties next to you? Or a pesticide factory? Would you want your kids playing near that? What would force me to put in any controls to prevent hazardous chemicals from leaching into the groundwater?

"Besides, what you do on your property CAN affect me on my property, so there have to be limits to your rights as a property owner."

Well, this is historic, insofar as laws and ordinances. Multitudes already exist. Are you calling for new ones, and if so, what?

'Rat

Nope, not calling for new ones at this moment. Just trying to show why such regulations exist in the face of people like Frohickey who think all land use regulations should be removed and the landowner should have "all rights and responsibilities" to their property. Problem is most people can't afford the costs of cleanup if they really screw up (ie. toxify) their land. And if they can, they sure don't want to spend that money. They'd rather just buy a nice new piece of land and try again.

[Desertrat]

Hokay. Gotcha. I like the idea of zoning and some amount of controls around the nearby environs of a municipality. I'm hesitant to extend them out into rural areas.

'Rat

[Frohickey]

Originally posted by mactastic
Ok, here's a scenario for you to chew on. Frohickey has gotten his wish, and all land use law has been abolished in favor of the ultimate right of a property owner to do whatever they want with their property.
...snip...
Problem is most people can't afford the costs of cleanup if they really screw up (ie. toxify) their land. And if they can, they sure don't want to spend that money. They'd rather just buy a nice new piece of land and try again.

Lets see... if the effluvium from that pig rendering place gets into your property, then your next door neighbor will need to compensate you for your loss, to your satisfaction.

It cuts both ways. Remember, your next door neighbor can do what he wants to his property, but so can you. He can't tell you what to do with your property either, same as you can't tell him what do do with his property.

[zimv20]

Originally posted by Frohickey

your next door neighbor can do what he wants to his property, but so can you. He can't tell you what to do with your property either, same as you can't tell him what do do with his property.

imo, a property owner has responsibility to cause no harm to:
1. anyone on the property
2. his neighbors
3. future inhabitants

if we agree, then we get to decide what it means to harm. does obscuring a view count as harm? what if it adversely affects resale value? what about noise pollution? odors?

ever live next to someone who stinks and constantly makes noise? it's not fun. if my neighbor can't behave responsibly in such a regard, i'd like there to be a higher authority to whom i can appeal.

[Ugg]

Originally posted by Frohickey
Lets see... if the effluvium from that pig rendering place gets into your property, then your next door neighbor will need to compensate you for your loss, to your satisfaction.

It cuts both ways. Remember, your next door neighbor can do what he wants to his property, but so can you. He can't tell you what to do with your property either, same as you can't tell him what do do with his property.

In order to do that you would need a huge justice system. In my mind it makes much more sense to have laws in place that limit unsavory and amoral actions.

Your argument sounds so simple but we have learned through hundreds of years that laws are needed to protect us from one another. Remember our legal system is based upon British common law. It is far from perfect but it has worked for hundreds of years. With the huge increase in population in the years to come I fear there is no hope for your schoolyard sense of fairplay. Good luck in finding or creating that utopia you want so badly!

[Sayhey]

Just a note on the recent Senate debate regarding the Forestry Bill, giving authorization of money to remove trees in areas that are near to population centers because of the So. Cal fires. It was an amazing grouping of strange bedfellows. I just thought Tom Harkin, one of the Senators from Iowa, made some of the most unbelievable remarks about "home owners who want to build in hazardous fire areas" (paraphrase). Normally, I like Mr. Harkin a lot, but wasn't it Iowa that had a great flood of the Mississippi less than 10 years ago? I don't remember Tom rejecting Federal aid at the time. I sure he didn't like folks telling Iowans how stupid they were for building on flood plains.

I guess it is just another example of how all politics are local.

[zimv20]

Originally posted by Frohickey
Remember, your next door neighbor can do what he wants to his property, but so can you. He can't tell you what to do with your property either, same as you can't tell him what do do with his property.

a thought --

forhickey, would you extend this argument to sovereign countries?

[Frohickey]

Originally posted by zimv20
imo, a property owner has responsibility to cause no harm to:
1. anyone on the property
2. his neighbors
3. future inhabitants

if we agree, then we get to decide what it means to harm. does obscuring a view count as harm? what if it adversely affects resale value? what about noise pollution? odors?

ever live next to someone who stinks and constantly makes noise? it's not fun. if my neighbor can't behave responsibly in such a regard, i'd like there to be a higher authority to whom i can appeal.

Yes, as far as odors and noise. These are 'events' that should be kept to allowable levels, and when someone exceeds that, then the injured party should be given compensation or relief. Meaning that if I make a stinky slaughterhouse, and the noise and odors get to your place, I should either pay you for your inconvenience, or I stop. But what if I my slaughterhouse is odorless and silent? It doesn't even have to be a slaughterhouse, it can be anything... daycare center, nursing home, etc.

As to views, maybe you should be paying me for your view, since you are overlooking MY property. Now, if I were overlooking your property, and vice versa, we can make a deal where we don't block each other. But what is happening here is that the person that already has his house in his property and enjoying the view out of someone else's property is trying to stop his neighbor from getting his house built, because it might lessen the FREE view that he is currently enjoying. How is that fair?

[mactastic]

So who sets these "allowable levels" you talk about? Government maybe? In the form of a land use regulation? No can't be. You wouldn't be suggesting that I'm sure. You must be saying that YOU are the one who decides if you are harming your neighbor. Or should your neighbor get to decide if you are harming them? And what mechanism are you proposing for sorting out all these disputes? More taxes to pay for more courthouses? Duels to the death? And how would you propose I collect damages from someone who doesn't want to pay. While I need the money to abate the hazard that has been created.

Maybe it just makes more sense to restrict the uses of certain areas of towns/cities for uses that are compatible with housing, and relegate other, more noxious uses, to less inhabited areas...

[zimv20]

Originally posted by Frohickey

As to views, maybe you should be paying me for your view, since you are overlooking MY property. Now, if I were overlooking your property, and vice versa, we can make a deal where we don't block each other. But what is happening here is that the person that already has his house in his property and enjoying the view out of someone else's property is trying to stop his neighbor from getting his house built, because it might lessen the FREE view that he is currently enjoying. How is that fair?

i doubt the initial view was free, as it was probably built into the purchase price.

if i have a view, i could reasonably expect that view to be altered somehow in the future. how should i set my expectations? if there are building codes, i can use those as a guideline. absent that, should i prepare for my neighbor to demolish his bungalow and erect a 6-story condo building?

part of home ownership, imo, is contributing to the look of the neighborhood, quite the opposite of my charging people to look across my property.