[IP] more on A MUST MUST read on the real world of disaster prep
Begin forwarded message:
From: rod van meter <rdviii@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: September 7, 2005 7:57:47 PM EDT
To: dave@xxxxxxxxxx, beberg@xxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [IP] more on A MUST MUST read on the real world of
disaster prep
On 9/8/05, David Farber <dave@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Begin forwarded message:
From: Adam L Beberg <beberg@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: September 7, 2005 5:52:15 PM EDT
To: dave@xxxxxxxxxx
Cc: greenman.k@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [IP] A MUST MUST read on the real world of disaster prep
David Farber wrote on 9/7/2005 12:48 PM:
The correct question is do we have the will to tell people they can
live anywhere they want, but if that place is below sea level, or on
a beach in a hurricane zone, or right on top of a fault line, or in a
forest that burns down every 10 years, they cannot have insurance,
must buy houses with real cash not credit, and will not be bailed out
by the taxpayer for living somewhere in Mother Nature's "I warned
you!" zones.
And that would be where, exactly?
Let's see... not California...not near the New Madrid fault...not New
Orleans (or Houston, Alabama, Florida, or Mississippi)...not, based
on an earlier IP message, Pennsylvania...not in Tornado Alley...not
in the south of France, where heat waves kill tens of thousands...not
Hawaii (hurricanes AND volcanoes!)...not Seattle (Mt. St. Helens, you
know)...nowhere where severe winter storms threaten large
populations...AFAICT, this leaves, roughly, Columbus, Ohio. It'll be
a tight fit for all of us.
In my hometown (Williamson, WV), flooding is the big threat. After
the 1977 disaster, some govt agency (HUD?) helped with rebuilding --
but on the condition that you either move your house behind the big
new floodwall the Army Corp of Engineers erected for parts of town,
or raise your house above the 100 year flood plain, based on various
disaster statistics. There are now a number of awkward houses, brick
above a ten-foot-high cinder block "basement", with the porch up in
the air, and stairs that are difficult for the elderly to navigate.
Move up the hollers instead, you say? My sister, in another part of
the state, lived not beside but within walking distance of a small
creek, well away from the river, and wasn't required by her lender to
have flood insurance. The creek unexpectedly flooded, putting four
feet of water in her house in a matter of hours.
Risk is a gradient, not a step function. New Orleans (and Los
Angeles, and Williamson) are where they are for a variety of reasons,
some good, some bad, many historical but random. Relocating a small
community is disruptive and heart-wrenching; moving a big city is
impractical, at best. Moreover, it will alter but not eliminate the
risks. Should we perform a risk evaluation when making build
decisions? Yes. But saying we should effectively ban building in an
area because it crosses some arbitrary risk threshold (which is,
after all, only probabilistic, anyway) is simplistic and not very
helpful.
--Rod
-------------------------------------
You are subscribed as roessler@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
To manage your subscription, go to
http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=ip
Archives at: http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/