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.

Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: carranza2 who wrote (135199)	8/30/2005 11:51:17 AM
From: MulhollandDrive	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793554

The problem I have with thinking along your lines is that it is impossible to protect against everything what you are missing here is the idea that governments can 'protect' us against risk even when people choose to live in high risk areas so no... 'they' are not paying for their gamble.....'we' are paying for their gamble i am familiar with flooding first hand, i purchased a vacation home on a huge recreational lake that was created by damming a river, the flooding is 'controlled' by the dam until suddenly, hmmmm.... it stops...in other words when we had a deluge and the authorities were unable to release water faster than it was coming down (which btw, would only shift the area of flooding further downstream) my vacation home flooded....i had a foot of water on the lower level... but we didn't have the luxury of politicians declaring my location a disaster zone, so the risk was born (as it should be) by myself Carried to its logical conclusion, no one should live near the SA Fault, in islands where cyclones and tsunamis hit, etc. no, you miss the point...people choose to live in high risk areas because they have an enabling governmental entity that will allow them to escape the real risk involved...if people were forced to assume their own risk instead of shifting that responsibility onto taxpayers, perhaps there would be less damage and loss of life because those individuals would be forced to recognize that if there is catastrophic loss, it is their responsibility, and quite possibly relocate in a less hazardous area.....this is big, big country, and yes i realize people like to live near the water, but i am convinced that the true risk of living in these flood zones is not being properly bore by the people who live there...i personally love the gulf, i consider it a great place to visit, but do not want to LIVE there, seeing the repeated destruction and disruptive power of a hurricane when i bought my home on the lake i knew there was a risk of flooding and i assumed that risk (a relatively low risk, btw, as compared to the high risk of living in an area that is routinely in the path of hurricanes or the people who lived in the floodplain on the rivers who REPEATEDLY were allowed to rebuild ) so yes, we 'cannot protect against everything' but at the same time, it is absolutely foolhardy to build and build and rebuild in a geographical location that has a high probability of destruction you can sit there and say all you want that new orleans can 'build bigger and better levees' that will better protect against the next calamity.... and i will answer with, yes, that will work until it stops, which guaranteed, it will... my definition of insanity, doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result