Question Non-Fishing

[eric1978]

So I assume then, that people shouldn't be allowed to build homes in Tornado Alley? At the very least, they should be denied insurance or federal aid.

[ozark trout fisher]

Look, these people were effected by a fairly serious natural disaster. Just me, but I guess that sympathy might actually be an appropriate response.

[Feathers and Fins]

So I assume then, that people shouldn't be allowed to build homes in Tornado Alley? At the very least, they should be denied insurance or federal aid.

Did you read what i said?

You cannot predict a tornado or wildfire or even an earthquake, you can build and do maintenance to try and protect when they happen BUT when you build in an area that you KNOW a hurricane will sooner or later hit, well " you cant fis xtupid " but we shouldnt pay for stupid either

[Justin Spencer]

So I assume then, that people shouldn't be allowed to build homes in Tornado Alley? At the very least, they should be denied insurance or federal aid.

. You cannot predict a tornado or wildfire or even an earthquake,

Tornado much different than building in a "risky spot", the single home that gets hit by a tornado is the guy that really gets screwed. If he has no insurance no one cares because it is not a big natural disaster.

Look, these people were effected by a fairly serious natural disaster. Just me, but I guess that sympathy might actually be an appropriate response.

I think most of us sympathize with these people, but they are naïve when they build back just hoping it won't happen again. Everytime I clean up my campground and campstore, riverhouse, bathhouse, etc. after a flood, I hope it won't happen again, but it will. I don't ask (or receive) govt. help and no one feels too bad for me because I live in a beautiful place where floods are expected to happen. This doesn't make it easier on me, but at least I understand the reality of the situation and am prepared to deal with it. Weather is changing and these events will become more and more common, we will have to use some tax money to deal with infrastructure improvements following these disasters, but at some point it is up to the individuals to take responsibility, and I'm sure the vast majority do.

[Jack Jones]

Actually, by now you can predict that a general area will have tornados, earthquakes, and wildfires. They have them every year. And a lot more frequently than off-shore hurricanes.

Any excuse to pick a fight and bash the coasts.....

[MOPanfisher]

Having deployed for several hurricanes and for the Joplin tornado I can tell you that there is a LOT of difference between the two. Joplin had a tremendous loss of life, but it was not wiped off the map, a swatch roughly a mile wide and 7 miles long was pretty much destroyed and 160+ people died, horrible. Move a few blocks off the path of the tornado and you are back into a semblance of normalcy. Now Hurricane Katrina a swath of say 200 miles wide by 30 or more deep, with no electric, few habitable homes etc. etc. and you begin to see the difference in scale. Add in the difference in population density between tornado alley and the Eastern seaboard, along with the cost of living there and it quickly adds up. I'm certainly not saying Joplin was a minor incident, but in my mind when a big natural disaster happens it is part of the job of the federal government to come in and help restore order and basic necessities such as roads, water and electric. FEMA has a lot of different rules for private property depending upon insurance etc. etc. Do I think that the Government should pay for the re-building of the homes, no, maybe underwrite the loans or something but not simply build them a new house. I'll not even get into the politics of disaster recovery efforts.

[eric1978]

Did you read what i said?

Did you read what Jack said? You own a home in an area where you KNOW tornadoes blow by every year. Should you be denied insurance coverage because of that imminent threat? Or is it a double standard because the odds you play are slightly better than someone else's?

[Al Agnew]

Nope, still comparing apples to oranges here. Yes, Missouri is in tornado alley. But there are towns in Missouri that have NEVER been hit by a tornado. There are people who have lived in Missouri all their lives that have never been in one. The chances of a single given town, or a single given piece of property, in Missouri being hit by a tornado are pretty tiny, AND you cannot predict that happening because a tornado is pretty much a random event. It's the exact thing that insurance is designed for...the random bad event that can't be predicted and might never happen. PLUS, there is nothing you can do to make your chances of being hit by a tornado any less, the only thing you can possibly do is make sure you have a storm shelter to retreat to and hope for the best.

On the other hand, if you live next to the Atlantic Ocean in an area that historically has been hit by hurricanes, and you're in a place where any kind of storm surge will get you, it's not a random thing. It's going to happen. The only question is when. AND, you can avoid being seriously affected by it simply by moving a very short distance, not by moving to Canada. In the risk assessment game, it's a FAR greater risk to insure a single given person living in a hurricane prone area (same as a flood prone area) than it is to insure that single person living somewhere in the Midwest against tornado damage.

So I agree, the smart thing to do is, where possible, to move people out very low-lying areas along the coast that WILL be flooded by the next hurricane. Problem is, this country (or any other country, for that matter) has never been smart about that stuff. Heck, we also know the Mississippi will one day have another 1993 type flood, but what did we do after the last one? We rebuilt the levees a little higher and put three times as much expensive development behind them as what was destroyed. It's the same stupidity. When the next big flood comes along, we'll see the same huge economic impact as homes and businesses go underwater.

And the reality is that at this point, we really haven't got a lot of choice. We can move the individual homeowners and businesses that are in flood prone areas, but it will cost. The cost would be a one time thing, but it would be considerable, and one way or another it would affect the economy. And we simply can't move areas that are highly developed. Katrina was the perfect example of that. To be really smart, we should have moved New Orleans. But where would we have put it, given that it's where it is because that's where it needs to be, at the mouth of the Mississippi? And how much would THAT have cost?

Hey, if insurance companies want to insure people in areas prone to that kind of damage, fine. The government needs to be a little smarter about not subsidizing FUTURE development in flood prone areas by underwriting the insurance, and by, where possible, encouraging people to move out of flood prone areas. But we're stuck with the situation we have, for the most part.

[Wayne SW/MO]

I don't think the comparisons can hold water. There's a difference between living near the sea and virtually on it. I don't see the low coastal areas of New Jersey any different then living in the Mississippi or Missouri bottoms. You aren't likely to live a lifetime on either without disaster striking, but millions live in tornado alley all their lives without damage. They shouldn't expect people to underwrite their beautiful surroundings and it can't be compared with the bread basket that is vital to nation and populated out of necessity..

[Feathers and Fins]

Did you read what Jack said? You own a home in an area where you KNOW tornadoes blow by every year. Should you be denied insurance coverage because of that imminent threat? Or is it a double standard because the odds you play are slightly better than someone else's?

Yes I did and thats why I asked him.. Al hit on it pretty good but allow me to go in to more detail.

I have worked in Restoration Construction my entire Adult life and understand them pretty good. 1st you can prepare by building for them that gives a person a better chance of survival and property loss minimalization such as Miami Dade Building Code and California Earthquake codes both are designed to aid in reducing structural damage. I witnessed them both work well in person. You can protect against wildfire by buidling and by proper clearing of debris from your property as well seen that in person as well so i know it works.

I also know that for Insurance YOU pay your own insurance premiums and deductibles. But in Flood insurance WE THE TAXPAYER pay for that The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) oversees the flood insurance program. its rewarding people in a way for building in flood zones. There are maps after maps that show those zones and Building in High risk zones is utter stupidity and should not be allowed as when the disaster hits it burdens the taxpayers ( thats you and me ). Yes many natural disasters happen and can ANYPLACE PEOPLE LIVE! However buidling and insuring in areas where there is ZERO doubt it will happen frequesntly is just simply foolish.

Hurricanes are massive storms and when they hit the emergency management teams know the danager areas by those maps its not a secret! A twister can be from a few hundred feet wide to a mile wide and is NOT predictable as to where and when they hit its risk is minimal and covered by the insurance YOU pay for.

Here look for yourself http://nationalatlas.gov/mapmaker?AppCmd=CUSTOM&LayerList=hur198%3B14&visCats=CAT-climate,CAT-tropicalcyclones doesnt take a 3rd grader to figure out someone is going to get hit frequently.