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.

Technology Stocks : Intel Corporation (INTC) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Road Walker who wrote (171321)	9/27/2002 10:09:53 PM
From: BelowTheCrowd	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 186894

> if there were no insurance for the coastal areas, folks would not live there. < I suspect that most places in Florida, as well as in the rest of the country, are insurable under the right conditions. Price is certainly one of them, but so is construction type and house design. The three little piggies (well, the third one anyway) knew how to build a house that could not be blown down. It's not a huge secret. But it's a problem if you want to use cheap construction methods that are appropriate to a different climate. Of course, the "right" houses would be a lot more expensive, ane while the "cheap" houses might blow away in a storm, eveybody knows that they'll get a Federal bailout to solve that problem when it happens. Here in CA, insurance is less of an issue because most construction in the past 20 years has been done to a level that will withstand most earthquakes. Florida "enforcement" remains a joke, despite some "clampdowns" after Andrew. Personally, I'd get the government out of it too. Leave building codes and inspections up to the insurance companies and mortgage/construction lenders. If they were really on the hook for the results of a major catastrophe, they'd force much more stringent standards on anybody who didn't want to put all his own money at risk. Unfortunately, I know I'm leaning into the wind on that one... mg

To: Road Walker who wrote (171321)	9/27/2002 11:45:05 PM
From: Jim McMannis	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 186894

RE:"In the case of Florida, if there were no insurance for the coastal areas, folks would not live there." People would still take their chances. Banks would not be willing to loan. Prices would be only a fraction of what they are. People used to take their chances now they expect the government to bail them out. RE:"Since about 80% of the population (WAG) lives within 10 miles of the coast" Likely not true and also irrelevant. Coastal areas are designated by flood zone ratings. Usually they are less than 1/2 mile off the coasts. There are also low areas well off the coasts.