Is it time for those in common hurricane paths to fend for themselves?

[RyJae]

Up in my neck of the woods, flooding happened about once every two years, FEMA would be called and people would get help rebuilding. Finally FEMA or whomever decided it would be in the best interest of the people and them, to either buy the land that flooded, either accept it, or not have FEMA to depend on the next time it flooded.

As of November 2004 for all FEMA 2004 Hurricane aid

Alabama $366.12 million
Delaware $123,700
Florida $3.11 billion
Georgia $17.95 million
Louisiana $11.11 million
Mississippi $27.95 million
New Jersey $3.76 million
New York $6.97 million
North Carolina $70.62 million
Ohio $39.61 million
Pennsylvania $85.71 million
Puerto Rico $421.12 million
South Carolina $15.91 million
Tennessee $2.39 million
Virgin Islands $210,313
Virginia $28.82 million
West Virginia $53.53 million
Source

With a combined 152.4 billion in damage according to this since 1980, hurricanes are a pretty large chunk of the estimated 390 billion in costs due to natural disasters* since then.
I know the government doesn’t eat all or even most of the cost, but you withdraw the government aid and perhaps people will think about re-locating to a spot less likely to get directly hit.

With this request, the total supplemental budget request for Hurricanes Charley, Frances, Ivan, and Jeanne will exceed $12.2 billion.

Source

So my question is, when our we going to make living in a place that hurricanes have a tendancy to hit, repeatedly year after year, a choice that you make knowing the costs of replacing everything yourself without government aid? If you live in New York and a hurricane hits you, we will help as its not a common occurance. If you live in coastal regions where they are known to hit, and you should of prepared for that when deciding to re-locate or just stay there, then its on you.

My proposal would be, pay for relocating all those who want to leave coastal regions in a 10 year plan, anyone moving into hurricane paths in those 10 years and after will be responsible for themselves in the event of a hurricane. Those living there now and not choosing to relocate will also be responsible for themselves.
Those who choose to take FEMA’s offer to relocate get X amount of dollars to relocate, spread out between 10 years, it may still be a huge loss in the short term but in the next 100 years it would seem to pay for itself.
For something that might, Og forbid, happen shortly, if New Orleans gets totaled, should the government help rebuild or just help people relocate above sea level?
*note the article only uses 1 billion dollar and more disasters in the totals.

[JXJohns]

Interesting thought. Would you consider granting the same offer to those in Tornado Alley, or those living on the San Andreas Fault line?

I would say limit FEMA subsidation and instead let those living in hurracaine prone areas insure themselves, paying rates commensurate with their risk. If you live in Florida, you must carry “hurracaine” insurance. This commodity would then be driven by market factors to determine rates and coverages. FEMA steps in if an Insurance Company goes broke or something.

[Metacom]

I’ve heard–and I’d like to get verification on this–that most of the catastrophic damage caused by hurricanes tends to be towards weak, temporary structures. Like mobile homes.

Maybe it’s time for to toughen up construction standards for them?

[RyJae]

@Metacom

I’ve heard–and I’d like to get verification on this–that most of the catastrophic damage caused by hurricanes tends to be towards weak, temporary structures. Like mobile homes.

Maybe it’s time for to toughen up construction standards for them?

I was going to reply to JXJohns post using the same thing except for tornado alley and trailers, I would like some verification as well. Maybe that should be the proposal. All homes in coastal areas prone to hurricanes get help in building hurricane resistant homes. And structures not up to standard lose any FEMA help after X number of years.

But that still leaves an area like New Orleans in question. We are fighting nature with NO’s and if this current hurricane misses, does that mean business as normal until the next one actually hits, or a sign to get above sea level starting now?

For those interested in possibly watching some of the storm if it goes to NO’s you may be able to see some on the webcams http://www.nola.com/fqcam/

[Metacom]

@LostGoals

I was going to reply to JXJohns post using the same thing except for tornado alley and trailers, I would like some verification as well.

Tornados and hurricanes are VERY different beasts. Hurricane unleash less destructive force over a broader area; tornadoes unleash more destructive force over a much more concentrated area. I think a tornado-proof home would be a bunker.

[RyJae]

@Metacom

Tornados and hurricanes are VERY different beasts. Hurricane unleash less destructive force over a broader area; tornadoes unleash more destructive force over a much more concentrated area. I think a tornado-proof home would be a bunker.

Although living in an am-cor tornado resistant home is as safe as living in a bunker, its appearance is traditional to the Southwest region.

http://www.am-cor.com/tornado.html

Nonetheless, you’re quite right in noting that mobile homes seem to sustain an inordinate amount of damage from twisters. In late March of 1984 tornadoes in the Carolinas killed 60 people, 23 of whom, or 38 percent, were mobile-home dwellers–an unusually high proportion by any standard.

http://www.straightdope.com/classics/a2_096b.html

Notice I said hurricane resistant, not proof. They may be different beasts but it seems to be sub standard construction that causes the most damage in tornado’s.

Building code violations of various sorts are often clearly seen in the parts of the path where damage has made them visible.

Considerable damage is associated with either building code violations or construction practices that fall within existing codes but which create weak links along the “load path” connecting roofs to walls and walls to foundations.

Source
Buildings under that standard (Like trailers) should not be allowed in the areas prone to such damage.

[ivylass]

I wonder how much of that money FEMA spent was wasted.

Cite

Problem is, when it’s the middle of summer and you have no water and no ice and no air conditioning and no electricty, you want it fixed now. So, does FEMA pay money willy-nilly, knowing some people are defrauding them, or do they hold up paying until they’ve thoroughly investigated all claims?

[PerditaX]

@Metacom

I’ve heard–and I’d like to get verification on this–that most of the catastrophic damage caused by hurricanes tends to be towards weak, temporary structures. Like mobile homes.

Maybe it’s time for to toughen up construction standards for them?

After Hurricane Andrew, they DID toughen up construction standards, which, after last year, appear to be working.

@St Petersburg Times

Buildings constructed after the new codes went into effect in 2002 made it through Charley surprisingly well, according to the preliminary findings of a team of scientists and engineers presented at a symposium in Tampa in early February.

The stricter standards, the experts said, saved lives and millions of dollars worth of insurance claims, though shoddy construction wreaked havoc on many roofs.

“The new codes are working,” said Scott Tezak, a structural engineer who led an investigative team of architects, engineers and scientists for the Federal Emergency Management Agency.

“The gloom and doom makes the news, but it’s misleading when all you’re seeing is damage. Roof covering damage was widespread, but most structures performed well.”

( Would someone please tell me how to make a linkie? I couldn’t find it in the FAQ)
I get a bit annoyed with people sneering at people who live in mobile homes in Florida. Guess what? I live in a mobile home in Florida (Plant City, for ivylass and BrainGlutton) . I’m not toothless trailer-trash; I have a B.A. in Literature. What I don’t have is a high-paying job. I couldn’t, and still can’t, afford a “real” house, but I’ve always been of the opinion that owning is preferable to renting. I bought this one new in 1987, and it’s been paid off since 2002. In 18 years, I only had to evacuate for a hurricane last year. I only had damage from a hurricane last year, and that was one broken window from Frances. I’ve never made a homeowner’s claim. But my insurance rates are sky high (I couldn’t even get insurance after Andrew except from the state’s Joint Underwriting Agency, and we didn’t get the first drop of rain from it).
That being said, I do think that there should at least be a “two strikes and you’re out” rule. In other words, if your house gets blown down, you get FEMA assistance to rebuild. If it blows down again, you get assistance again, but only if you rebuilt someplace else. If your house gets destroyed again, you’re on own - it’s God’s way of telling you not to build a house so @#$% close to the beach!!

[ivylass]

To make a link:

You type in {url=

Then you paste the link

Then you type a closing bracket }

Then you type whatever you want as the hyperlink, and close it with {/url}

To make it work, replace the {} with

If you hit reply on my previous post to quote it, you’ll see what it looks like.

[davenportavenger]

I notice nobody’s putting forth the same claim of bailing on San Francisco next time there’s an earthquake. I guess money’s only wasted if you spend it to better the lives of Southern trailer-park residents.

Almost every area of the country is prone to natural disasters. The South has floods. The West Coast has earthquakes and mudslides. The Midwest has tornadoes (which, while less destructive and different in nature than earthquakes and hurricanes, still cause death and property damage). The Far North and Alaska have cold weather that makes maintenance of infrastructure more expensive. Either you make everyone buy natural disaster coverage and take away government money for all or you cover anything.

Also, it really isn’t very easy to pick up and move. People have strong ties to areas where they grew up or that mean something to them, and a lot of them won’t be willing to leave without a fight.

[Metacom]

@davenportavenger

I notice nobody’s putting forth the same claim of bailing on San Francisco next time there’s an earthquake. I guess money’s only wasted if you spend it to better the lives of Southern trailer-park residents.

California’s building codes have provisions for reinforcements in earth-quake prone areas, and there’s been a lot of money spent bringing older buildings up to this code.

[Ogre]

Hurricane unleash less destructive force over a broader area; tornadoes unleash more destructive force over a much more concentrated area.

Only partly true, and incomplete besides. Hurricanes bring storm surge to bear on broad areas, which is quite as destructive as a tornado (flooding damage is enormously expensive to repair.) Also, hurricanes spawn tornadoes themselves…for instance, Hurricane Andrew’s famous F4/5 “tornado striping” in some urban areas, where lines of tornadoes scoured the area in parallel lines, leaving striped scars in the landscape and neighborhoods. Further, hurricanes can spawn far, far more tornadoes than a typical “line o’ storms” marching out of the Midwest (although not always. I know of some massive supercell storms that have spawned hundreds of twisters.)

[E-Sabbath]

I do suspect that mobile home parks attract tornados. Large, flat, wide areas, containing no tall buildings. And the roofs of the mobile homes are largely uniformly colored, right?

Always sounded to me like a good recipie for thermals.

[JRDelirious]

Actually, here in PR, FEMA has admonished its beneficiaries that reconstruction aid is to be used in such a manner as to mitigate future hazards, and that if you rebuild right in the same flood plain with the same cheap tin roof, they’re not gonna be too understanding next time around. Problem is, the aid is usually NOT enough to go get yourself a fine house in a safe location (*) .

In our case, there are a few aggravating circumstances though – it’s an island with very high population density and a housing shortage, so it’s not like there’s much room to relocate, and the relocations would be of tens of thousands of people so who’s gonna ante up the cash to buy them out?

Most of the damage here is water-related (flood or mudslide) anyway. Masonry construction that is built properly up to code here will survive a Cat 2 or 3 hurricane or a medium earthquake. But for instance in the last 30 years we’ve had hurricane or TS hits ONCE each in 89, 96, 98, and 04, the last Cat 4/5 was c. 1930, the last major quake was 1918. As mentioned, most structural damage is to communities with substandard housing.
(* And of course the restriction can be “gamed” by having money go to the municipality, wherein the Mayor will use it according to regs, but then use the municipal money that he did not have to spend thanks to the FEMA grant and give THAT to his registered voters to stay right where they are.)

[Zebra]

@E-Sabbath

I do suspect that mobile home parks attract tornados. Large, flat, wide areas, containing no tall buildings. And the roofs of the mobile homes are largely uniformly colored, right?

Always sounded to me like a good recipie for thermals.

You are joking, right? Tell me you’re joking, please.
Mobil home parks attract tornados. :rolleyes: :smack:

[Zebra]

As to the OP.

Are you ready to just give up the ports of New Orleans, Houston, ect? How much damage to our economy do you think leaving those who build in hurricane areas to ‘fend for themselves’.

[Acsenray]

To emphasize, PerditaX’s point, a lot of people live where they do because that’s what they can afford. To me, the OP’s suggestion smacks of another attempt to punish the poor for being poor.

[RyJae]

@acsenray

To emphasize, PerditaX’s point, a lot of people live where they do because that’s what they can afford. To me, the OP’s suggestion smacks of another attempt to punish the poor for being poor.

How would that smack of anything unless you didn’t read the OP,

My proposal would be, pay for relocating all those who want to leave coastal regions in a 10 year plan

*Added bolding

Notice how my proposal says to pay for relocating?

[RyJae]

@Zebra

As to the OP.

Are you ready to just give up the ports of New Orleans, Houston, ect? How much damage to our economy do you think leaving those who build in hurricane areas to ‘fend for themselves’.

The Ports do not require half a million residents as is in NO’s does it?

[Zebra]

Ummm…

Yes it does.

You can’t just have a port. Did you ever play SimCity? The people who work in the port have kids. These kids go to school. The schools have teachers. The people need to eat so there are grocery stores and restaurants. etc.

You want to reduce the population of Houston, New Orleans, Miami, and all of the east coast cities to less than half a million.

Fine, where are you going to relocate them and how much will that cost?