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 : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: combjelly who wrote (326076)	2/19/2007 5:17:28 PM
From: TimF	Respond to of 1576160

"might be less likely to buy if they couldn't get insurance and they knew there would be no bailouts." "Might" is the operative word. Might in terms of each prospective buyer or builder. Its a near certainly that there would be some reduction. If the grass line moves, then so does the public land. If the grass line moves past your house, you cannot make repairs, nor can you sell the house. Texas apparently goes to far. I was advocating removing subsidies rather then forbidding new construction, but even forbidding new construction is more reasonable then forbidding repairs or sales of existing houses. Because when we do get a hurricane that roars ashore, they are lobbying and even suing the state to help them rebuild. I imagine they would lobby and even sue when the grass line moves and they aren't allowed to repair or sell. The required disclaimers might help out in this area but its unlikely that they would completely cure the problem. If such suits can be stopped then you could probably also stop the lawsuits about rebuilding aid.