LOGIN | REGISTER

Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 21 to 27 of 27
  1. #21
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    in the grace of the most holy FSM
    Posts
    3,196
    the PROBLEM, as it's been called, is that there were, in fact, people living on these islands before the twentieth century. not as many, true, but implying that barrier islands are inhabited solely b/c of lobbyists & developers teaming up is so myopic as to be willfully ignorant. no matter what happens, some people will STILL want to live here, myself & my family included.

  2. #22
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    MD - VA
    Posts
    3,313
    Quote Originally Posted by njsurfer42 View Post
    the PROBLEM, as it's been called, is that there were, in fact, people living on these islands before the twentieth century. not as many, true, but implying that barrier islands are inhabited solely b/c of lobbyists & developers teaming up is so myopic as to be willfully ignorant. no matter what happens, some people will STILL want to live here, myself & my family included.
    Your opinion is perfectly valid.

    But I never ever stated, as you claim, that barrier islands are "inhabited solely because of lobbyists & developers..." I did cite the actual history of the massive coastal development in the USA that is a direct result of developers pressuring Congress to pass taxpayer-subsidized insurance plans for property owners located in coastal regions that are subject to total destruction of property.

    You're wrong in the sense that your terming "myopic" and "willfully ignorant" the huge impact that federally-guaranteed homeowner insurance brought about by special interests, i.e, the very history that you attempt to cite in the development of barrier islands as places for human habitation.

    Sure, there are always going to be people that choose to live on the barrier islands. That's their choice, it's a free country & their choice to do so should be respected. No problema.

    The 'however' comes in when those same folks can't afford the 15 - 20k per year in property insurance (that's an actual number, by the way: that would be the price of flood & storm insurance if it weren't subsidized by taxpayer dollars from places like Iowa & South Dakota & every other state in the union) & they get wiped out in a storm. Do you really believe they will re-build at their own expense? Once, perhaps. Twice? Three times? Or more? At their own expense. Highly unlikely.

    Secondly, the insurance companies won't insure anyone in those regions without the feds backing it up. And how do the feds back it up? With taxpayer dollars. So, sure, individuals have lived on the islands for years before 1968, but you're not gonna see hotels, condos & luxe homes, let alone very many Joe Citizen abodes without insurance.

    Pretty simple but the costs to all of us Americans are insane.
    Last edited by yankee; Nov 5, 2012 at 01:18 AM.

  3. #23
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    in the grace of the most holy FSM
    Posts
    3,196
    Quote Originally Posted by yankee View Post
    Your opinion is perfectly valid.

    But I never ever stated, as you claim, that barrier islands are "inhabited solely because of lobbyists & developers..." I did cite the actual history of the massive coastal development in the USA that is a direct result of developers pressuring Congress to pass taxpayer-subsidized insurance plans for property owners located in coastal regions that are subject to total destruction of property.

    You're wrong in the sense that your terming "myopic" and "willfully ignorant" the huge impact that federally-guaranteed homeowner insurance brought about by special interests, i.e, the very history that you attempt to cite in the development of barrier islands as places for human habitation.

    Sure, there are always going to be people that choose to live on the barrier islands. That's their choice, it's a free country & their choice to do so should be respected. No problema.

    The 'however' comes in when those same folks can't afford the 15 - 20k per year in property insurance (that's an actual number, by the way: that would be the price of flood & storm insurance if it weren't subsidized by taxpayer dollars from places like Iowa & South Dakota & every other state in the union) & they get wiped out in a storm. Do you really believe they will re-build at their own expense? Once, perhaps. Twice? Three times? Or more? At their own expense. Highly unlikely.

    Secondly, the insurance companies won't insure anyone in those regions without the feds backing it up. And how do the feds back it up? With taxpayer dollars. So, sure, individuals have lived on the islands for years before 1968, but you're not gonna see hotels, condos & luxe homes, let alone very many Joe Citizen abodes without insurance.

    Pretty simple but the costs to all of us Americans are insane.
    that's fine w/ me. no one, & i mean NO ONE, built directly on the beach. barrier island homes were constructed well back from the actual shoreline. it's stupid to do otherwise. i think we're in agreement w/ that. but i resent the suggestion that the islands be wiped out & turned into some kind of nature preserve. this is my HOME.

  4. #24
    Quote Originally Posted by yankee View Post
    Your opinion is perfectly valid.

    But I never ever stated, as you claim, that barrier islands are "inhabited solely because of lobbyists & developers..." I did cite the actual history of the massive coastal development in the USA that is a direct result of developers pressuring Congress to pass taxpayer-subsidized insurance plans for property owners located in coastal regions that are subject to total destruction of property.

    You're wrong in the sense that your terming "myopic" and "willfully ignorant" the huge impact that federally-guaranteed homeowner insurance brought about by special interests, i.e, the very history that you attempt to cite in the development of barrier islands as places for human habitation.

    Sure, there are always going to be people that choose to live on the barrier islands. That's their choice, it's a free country & their choice to do so should be respected. No problema.

    The 'however' comes in when those same folks can't afford the 15 - 20k per year in property insurance (that's an actual number, by the way: that would be the price of flood & storm insurance if it weren't subsidized by taxpayer dollars from places like Iowa & South Dakota & every other state in the union) & they get wiped out in a storm. Do you really believe they will re-build at their own expense? Once, perhaps. Twice? Three times? Or more? At their own expense. Highly unlikely.

    Secondly, the insurance companies won't insure anyone in those regions without the feds backing it up. And how do the feds back it up? With taxpayer dollars. So, sure, individuals have lived on the islands for years before 1968, but you're not gonna see hotels, condos & luxe homes, let alone very many Joe Citizen abodes without insurance.

    Pretty simple but the costs to all of us Americans are insane.

    Don't feel too bad for Iowa and Missouri. Guess who also qualifies for federal flood insurance? Everyone living in the flood plains of the Ohio, Missouri and Mississippi rivers which flood pretty much every year. And taxpayers pay for smokejumpers to protect Aspen and Boulder. Everyone loves socialism when they get to cash the check and hate it when they pay.

    Spent the day gathering and distributing supplies in OCNJ, many of which were being sent north to harder hit towns. Thanks to all who donated what they could and best to all in their recovery, whether on bedrock or sandbar...

  5. #25
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    MD - VA
    Posts
    3,313
    Quote Originally Posted by njsurfer42 View Post
    that's fine w/ me. no one, & i mean NO ONE, built directly on the beach. barrier island homes were constructed well back from the actual shoreline. it's stupid to do otherwise. i think we're in agreement w/ that. but i resent the suggestion that the islands be wiped out & turned into some kind of nature preserve. this is my HOME.
    I hear you loud & clear. No problema. Was just pointing out what stimulated the coast to go mad with growth. And we who escaped Sandy's wrath do feel your pain.

  6. #26
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    MD - VA
    Posts
    3,313
    [QUOTE=wombat;145539]Don't feel too bad for Iowa and Missouri. Guess who also qualifies for federal flood insurance? Everyone living in the flood plains of the Ohio, Missouri and Mississippi rivers which flood pretty much every year. And taxpayers pay for smokejumpers to protect Aspen and Boulder. Everyone loves socialism when they get to cash the check and hate it when they pay.
    __________________________________________________ _______________________________

    Hear ya.

    I recall driving to from St Louis to Decatur Illinois to play ball. And crossing the Mississippi R was eye-opening, 'cause there were literally miles & miles of land going east & west from that river with zero inhabitants, just barren land.

    I had no idea that the flood plain was that vast. I don't know the laws & regs there, but it seemed like building anything in those regions was totally forbidden.

    So, by extension, if the storms keep taking out coastal regions.....ya gotta wonder if the feds will pull the financial power, so to speak, the power of insurance subsidies for coastal areas, much as they have done in places like Missouri flood plains.

    Not saying I'm in favor of anything.....just wondering. Feds have so much power it's spooky.

  7. #27
    I don't live on a barrier island but I live in a beach town in Monmouth County that had some bad damage. The damage isn't nearly as bad as the barrier islands. It's a pretty crazy situation along the coast. This area never sees storms like this. This usually follow the gulf stream but this took a left into the coast which is crazy. Anyways people have lived near the coast for generations and many people come to the coast for enjoyment. Tax dollars which are very minimal when you break it down by non-local people from a federal/state perspective because locals pay a higher percentage for their town replinshment. If you don't want to fix the coast line with miminal dollars, then please don't visit.

    Everyone in my town are helping people with food, generators, fixing roofs. We aren't waiting for the federal govt. the FEMA funds should only be used for people who lost everything. I'm sure there will also be people who abuse the funds who shouldn't use it. Those are probably the same people collecting welfare without every trying to find a job, unemployment without taking any job they can get, food stamps, free healtcare etc. This people and illegals are costing the taxpayer way more in dollars over the years than rebuilding the coast line. It's probably best to change those programs before hard working American citizens who are here legally and never take anything from the government.

    If you are an American citizen who has lost their home in this tradegy and in other castrophic events elsewhere in the country, I feel they need help with donations/funds. If you are here illegally, to bad you shouldn't get anything!

    I'm also sick and tired of non-locals and other aholes that keep driving down my street looking at our houses like we are the freak show in the circus. Get some respect. First off, your getting in the way of the cleanup unless you are actually lending a hand. If you are helping, Thanks. Everyone is grateful.