This page is a permanent link to the reply below and its nested replies. See all post replies »
Ontheroad · M
I've got mixed feelings about this and past FEMA money being dolled out. My first instinctual feeling is we need to do what is needed.
However, that feeling comes with a caveat. Not for those who insist on building and living in the same place storm after storm, after storm.
Same for those who live where these massive fires occur... again, again, and again.
Ditto floods.
Insure yourself and if nobody will insure you, move. Don't want to? Fine, you get zero help from the taxpayer.
I know this last one wreaked havoc and destruction in areas that normally aren't affected... fine, help those people, but the others... sorry, your bad, not mine.
However, that feeling comes with a caveat. Not for those who insist on building and living in the same place storm after storm, after storm.
Same for those who live where these massive fires occur... again, again, and again.
Ditto floods.
Insure yourself and if nobody will insure you, move. Don't want to? Fine, you get zero help from the taxpayer.
I know this last one wreaked havoc and destruction in areas that normally aren't affected... fine, help those people, but the others... sorry, your bad, not mine.
JimboSaturn · 56-60, M
@Ontheroad I get that. If I couldn't be insured against these catastrophies, I don't think I would live there.
This comment is hidden.
Show Comment
MarkPaul · 26-30, M
@Ontheroad The massive problem with your line of thinking is you are eliminating a lot of land area from being used for housing. And, with climate change, that unsuitable (to you) land area is only going to increase. Suggesting that all coastal areas and all wildfire areas should be off-limits for human population is one of the most unworkable solutions I have ever (EVER) heard.
This comment is hidden.
Show Comment