Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Gold/Mining/Energy : Big Dog's Boom Boom Room -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Raymond Duray who wrote (6978)	2/25/2002 2:36:14 PM
From: kodiak_bull	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 206106

Ray: You know my answer: people who build in floodplains (which, see, North Dakota and various other paths of the Mighty Missouri) and who live in coastal areas (see Florida and California) assume the risk of normal natural catastrophes. If you own a vacation home on North Carolina's Outer Banks it is your job to either buy hurricane insurance, flood insurance, earthquake insurance or assume the risk of loss. It shouldn't fall on the taxpayer in Kentucky to bail out your ass on the eastern or western shore. That's why we have insurance. We ought to list the catastrophes people are assuming on the areas at risk. See John McPhee's excellent books on the overbuilding of California in the path of normal slides and storms. Which also brings up, should the US government compensate victims of Islamic terrorism? Why should they be compensated when victims of Timothy McVeigh's terrorism were not? Or, put more simply, isn't every victim of a crime a victim of terrorism? Who cares whether it's gangster inspired, gangsta-inspired, Red Brigades or Holy Jihad inspired, it's all criminal activity, it all elevates its own ends over any citizen's right to safety and security, it all has victims, and they all suffer. Of course, my answer is, no no no & no. Again, the US government (the US taxpayer) should not insure against criminal activity of any stripe. Not that it wouldn't be nice or helpful, but that it wouldn't be practical. You get mugged and slugged at the Port Authority, lose $500, a week's work and incur $5000 in medical expenses because of a criminal. Should the loss lie with Uncle Sam (that Kentucky taxpayer) or elsewhere? How about if a bully steals your lunch money during 5th grade recess? Kb

To: Raymond Duray who wrote (6978)	2/25/2002 3:29:37 PM
From: kodiak_bull	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 206106

Ray, Oh, I didn't recognize your "trick question." Sorry. So, the straw man you set up is "speculators" who have bought up coastline and are now "demanding that they be provided a profit", that is asking for compensation, "from the counties that sensibly have curtailed said development." Oh, and the best part is the implied "they never really were going to develop it anyway," concept, if I read it correctly. Sort of a bass-ackwards protection racket. Well, yes, of course, if you set it up this way, as a scam by "speculators" from the honest but hardworking "counties" (whatever they are) who have "sensibly" "curtailed" "said development." Well, by golly, I'm getting pretty incensed. No, dammit, I'm mad, and I'm not going to take it anymore. Jeez, Ray, what planet are you from, and aren't they calling you home yet? You really do live in a strange world of conspiracy and intrigue, don't you? Thank god we have the counties (which counties?) to sensibly protect the "people." Hey, I got a better idea. Howzabout just letting them develop and sell those coastline homes but just require full disclosure and insurance requirements or disclaimer of Federal/state assistance? Isn't that a better way? To a guy with a hammer, every problem is a nail. To a guy with paranoia, every transaction is a conspiracy. Kb

To: Raymond Duray who wrote (6978)	2/25/2002 9:00:06 PM
From: kodiak_bull	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 206106

Ray, Now that I have a little bit of time, let me deal with your "question" more fully. You wrote: "What do you think of the speculators who've bought up large swaths of the Carolina beach front, in spite of all sensible appreciation of the fact that any McMansions developed there would be prone to being destroyed in sea surges in regularly scheduled hurricane incidents, demanding that they be provided a profit from the counties that sensibly have curtailed said development? In other words, if a speculator is gaming the system, knows that his scheme is fraudelently conceived and has brass balls, should the community bend over for such boorish behavior, and reward it with compensation?" Let us reduce this to a set of facts and get rid of your prejudicial language. Just the facts. 1993, X buys 100 acres of Carolina coastal property for $5.8 million. To the north is a 66 acre development of 2 acre vacation homes, to the south is a 225 acre golf course and resort area. X's property is deemed developable, although it is not currently under any sort of plan. Current zoning is for 10 acre lots, but X hopes to get that switched to 5 acre lots. By 1999 the acreage's commercial development value has increased to $15 million. But in late 1999 the County declares the 100 acres to be valuable open seashore, excellent habitat for seagulls and some species of turtles, and determines that no building can take place in accordance with its plan. After the County's ruling the 100 acres are deemed to be worth no more than $300,000. Now, the only question, since we're leaving out "sensible" "gaming" "speculators" "brass balls" "fraud" etc. is how much, if anything, X has coming to him. There are 3 possible answers: 1) Nothing. He assumed the risk that the county would do this when he bought in 1993. Tough noogies. The county can take 100 acres for a public use any time it so wishes. 2) $5.8 million plus a reasonable, interest-rate of return. 3) $15 million, which was his reasonable expectation interest in his property before the county "took" it for the public good. Now, cleared of all your misinformational and disinformational prose, this is the issue. Before you answer it, just apply it across the board to anyone's property: a house, a car, a CD collection, an inheritance. These are the issues, not your ridiculous straw man. 3 responses, I believe I've covered the issue now. Kb