The affected businesses and homes that were destroyed or damaged in the Pittsburgh area were not hit with flooding of any of the three rivers, most were no where near a river or any major body of water. The flooding was all a result of small creeks and streams, “bodies” of water that can normally be waded across without getting your knees wet, that flooded on a scale that should, statistically, happen only once every thousand years. These people aren’t on flood plains. Ironically, the people who do live in areas around Pittsburgh that routinely flood suffered little more than a few inches of water in their basements, if that.
Chartiers Creek, the “body” of water that affected the woman to whom Santorum referred, has had a series of anti-flooding measures installed, including dams. All of the major creeks and streams around the city have been likewise modified. Businesses have existed quite literally on their banks (nothing between their parking lots and the water but a 15-foot drop and some scrubby trees) for 30 years or more without ever experiencing a problem. But Pittsburgh is not a coastal city. It’s more than 1200 feet above sea level and more than 350 miles inland. It is well outside the norm for a storm system to move through that can put more than 9 inches of rainwater into the area in 12 hours. When that happened, none of those anti-flooding measures – measures which kept those communities safe when the rivers were 15 feet above flood stage and major roadways in Downtown Pittsburgh were underwater – were sufficient.
The people we’re talking about had 12 feet of water washing through their homes and businesses. A friend of mine lost everything she owns. She doesn’t have a spare pair of underwear. Her car floated away. Her house, on which she still owes tens of thousands of dollars, will never be inhabitable again. Her hamsters drowned. She carried insurance to recoup her losses if she had flooding from a sewer back-up, broken plumbing or a roof incursion, but not from Acts of God. Neither she nor her insurance agent (who you would think would want to sell more policies that would rarely be needed) thought that she needed a special policy to protect her from flooding from Chartiers Creek, which, before last Friday, was across a major four lane roadway, across a knoll and down an embankment from her home.
Was my friend irresponsible? Does she deserve compassion? Does she deserve something a little better than the $5,000 that FEMA is offering which can’t even replace her wardrobe and furniture, let alone get her a new place to live or a car? What about the people who were three streets away from the creek and were still ruined? We’re not talking about some little stream burbling up over its banks, we’re talking about something that’s normally a foot deep and twenty feet wide becoming a river rivaling the Ohio. There really isn’t any compassion for people who couldn’t foresee something so completely unforeseeable?
I remember that he campaigned for office on the platform of being tougher on drug crimes. He seems to find hot-button issues in which he can profit from a consevative stance while getting all the publicity for being “tough” on the issue.
While having insurance is a good idea, some types of insurance just seem to be an extra cost because the disaster insured against is so rare.TeaElle has it right, that no one expects the 100-year flooding here and now.
In 1977 Johnstown and the surrounding area got 7-11" of rain in one night, and over 80 people were killed in the resultant flooding. Several dams failed under the onslaught of the rain, and in the years since measures were taken to avoid that problem again. If there were building codes that prohibited building in all the areas hit by this latest storm, the low-lying areas and the natural flood channels, many towns would cease to exist and the cost would be greater than the cost of rebuilding from a flood!
I can imagine that flood insurance premiums are going to be rising due to all the claims being filed. The problem is cost- quite a few small businesses will not rebuild or reopen since they werte working on small budgets to begin with, and the costs to rebuild and insure the business are just too high.
So, Santorum is correct in his basic assumption, but not knowing whether flood insurance was a viable option for that person he took an attitude of being judgmental and appeared not to care about the circumstances of the problem. An elected official thet shows favoritism for one group over another just doesn’t want the votes of the people fromthe other group, and Santorum is definitely on the side of the haves in the endless struggle between those who have and those who don’t.
He has every right to have his opinion, but showing such callous disregard for a constituent in trouble is a fucked up thing to do.
Oh, and Dave? Santorum is a Steeler fan. That ought to change your mind.
Folks, let me tell you about what hit Pittsburgh 10 days ago and caused the flooding this woman is complaining about. In 24 hours, we got 7 inches of rain from the remnants of hurricane Ivan. The old record was 3.6 inches which was set just over a week earlier by the remnants of hurricane Charley. Because of the pounding Charley gave us, the ground was saturated. There was no place for the water to go. This was not a standard spring flood; it was, we were told, a once in a lifetime event. The local news media were telling people not to leave their homes, and flooding was being reported all over the place, including places which do not flood. The main interstate into Pittsburgh from the southwest was flooded and impassable; a landslide on the main interstate into Pittsburgh from the east was partially blocked by a landslide. My parents’ house, which is toward the top of a hill had an inch of water in the basement, we think from a rise in the water table. The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette will tell you more about it. Carnegie, the town Guinastasia talks about, had its business district wiped out by flooding.
I’m not surprised by Senator Santorum. Long ago, I came to the conclusion that he simply cannot understand someone who doesn’t live in the same fortunate circumstances he does. He simply doesn’t seem to know what it’s like not to be able to pay the rent or to have to drop health insurance because you cannot afford it. He’s the voice of calm, steady, upper-middle class stability, conformity and prosperity who represents people who act sensibly, which translates to just like him. I wrote to him once about an issue I disagreed with him and telling him why I did so. I got back a form letter thanking me for my support.
Here’s something some of you might be amused by. I go to a very outspokenly liberal church with a wonderful choir. Since we sometimes sing in Latin, I wonder what people are thinking when Sanctorum’s name is sung. Maybe it gets lost in the counterpoint?
You’re absolutely right. You know that it’s extremely bad when you’ve got 30 boats with docks still attached sitting around the fountain in Point State Park, and someone’s houseboat inside the fountain because of the flooding. US Route 19 was flooding so badly that rescue workers were boating to victims, and Bridgeville saw many business under water because of runoff and creeks that are normally less than knee deep and are half a mile from the car dealership and gas station that were wiped out.
It was bad, and it was one of those things that’s not supposed to happen, all this flooding in an area that’s not a flood plain. My coworker’s husband lost his entire business, and flood insurance was not available to him because he’s not in a flood plain.
Santorum is an idiot for blaming someone who had no access to the flood insurance for not having it. This whole thing was not the kind of thing that SW PA would expect to happen. Rather like the fraek tornado that hit Mt. Washington several years ago, or the earthquake north of the city in either 1998 or 1999. Hell, in Washington PA we lost water for days because the flooding took out water plants. Oh, and it’s raining here today.
I think the good Senator used a poor choice of words, myself. And I like the guy. I worked for him once, years ago, in an internship for credit.
Let’s be clear about something, though. This disgusting nickname was given to him by a twisted sex columnist, the sort of guy who thought it would be fun to lick doorknobs when he had a raging case of the flu.
To say I don’t have much respect for Mr. Savage would be putting it mildly.
What about it? If they’re not in a flood plain and flood insurance wasn’t available to them, then obviously the situation changes. The government should help out.
That wasn’t made apparent in the OP and it just sounded like someone who was irresponsible wanted to be bailed out while the responsible people around her get stuck with responsibly paying premiums.
Because I’d rather pay the small extra amount than get hit by a once-in-a-lifetime event.
After reading this thread, I called my insurance agent, and asked him, “Have you ever heard of flood insurance being unavailable to a business because that business is NOT in a flood plain?”
Actually, I was driving in and around downtown Pittsburgh this morning, and there’s still a good-sized boat (meaning, “bigger than a motorboat”) about halfway up the slope on the Allegheny River side of Point State Park, which is right in downtown Pittsburgh. As far as I could tell from the Fort Duquesne Bridge, it was a good 10 or 20 feet above river level.
As for you, Bricker, I’m still not buying flood insurance because if where I am gets flooded, I’m looking for a guy in a very large boat, but should I buy earthquake insurance? After all, an earthquake, too, would be a once in a lifetime event. I’m also not entirely sure flood insurance is a “small extra amount”.
Just for thrills, I called my insurance agent today to inquire about flood insurance. I’m about the same distance from a small, benign creek as my friend was from Chartiers Creek. I am, however, much closer to the coast and should a hurricane threaten the NYC area I could easily be hit with the kinds of rains which devastated Pittsburgh on the 17th.
For the low low price of roughly $1,900 a year, I can add Act of God flood coverage to my existing homeowner’s policy. This would represent a 79% increase in my annual insurance costs.
This would not cover replacement of our vehicles should they float away or become unusable due to flooding. My auto policy will also not cover such loss, and coverage for such loss cannot be added to my auto policy.
Can you absorb a 79% increase what you pay for insurance to protect yourself against something which has as much chance of happening as winning the Powerball?
Not doubting your number, but that seems like an awfully large amount for such a small probability event. You rhome is probably far more likley to be destroyed by fire, yet the insurance is less (I assumeyou have fire insurance). That doesn’t make any sense.
The company I worked for didn’t cover flood because it is a catastrophic event. Floods tend to wipe out a lot of people at once, not just one house and the company wouldn’t be able to cover that much loss at once. The government has a Federal Flood Insurance program that is available to anyone.
When I would sell a home owner policy, I would always tell them what wasn’t covered (flood, earthquake, volcano, war) and let them know about the federal program. Most people who didn’t live in a flood plain didn’t even bother asking for the number.
The article implied that other people in the area had flood insurance, which would seem to state that the person in question was being cavalier about insuring her business and then expecting the Government to bail her out. If no flood insurance was available for anyone, than of course we’re talking about a whole different ball game, and I would not blame the woman in that case.
That said, this “having no flood insurance available at all” seems somewhat fishy to me.
$1900/yr sounds very high for AOG coverage, baring unusual outside factors (like being a Ferrari dealership located in an abandoned mine shaft),but even so it’s only an extra $160/mo. That’s not pennies, but it’s not exactly a fortune either, it seems most businesses should be able to absorb such a relatively small increase in costs.
