U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > New Jersey
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 11-29-2012, 09:05 AM
 
Location: Northern NJ
6,260 posts, read 6,276,642 times
Reputation: 8991

Advertisements

Quoting from an article in today's New York Times:

Quote:
“The irony is, if we allowed market forces to dictate at the coast, a lot of the development in the wrong places would never have gotten built,” said Jeffrey Tittel, director of the Sierra Club’s chapter in New Jersey. “But we didn’t. We subsidized that development with low insurance rates for decades. And we can’t afford to keep doing that. Should a person who lives in an apartment in Newark pay for someone’s beach house?”
[Emphasis mine]


Yes, ladies and gentlemen, open your eyes, you read that right. An eco-fascist seeing the light, momentarily, on the advantages of leaving real estate development to the free market.

So, here is the takeaway:

FEMA, another shining example of government meddling in the private market, has made it possible for homeowners to build, and rebuild, and rebuild, in blatant flood zones. In a private free market, where someone is actually on the hook for the investment, such building would never take place.

I have seen this myself first hand, appraising properties for bank loans in Pequannock, Wayne, Lincoln Park, etc where I trip over the skunk cabbage while taking pictures of a house that would not exist were it not for cheap taxpayer subsidized flood insurance.

So, basically, the government is directly responsible for the scope of the death and destruction caused by Sandy. That scope would have been drastically reduced in a free market. Because these damned homes would never be built. Or rebuilt. The cost of private insurance would be through the roof, and banks would not underwrite loans in these areas.

However, leave it to the NY Times to find a way to inject left wing envy-based class warfare into the argument:
Quote:
New York and New Jersey residents, just coming to grips with the enormous costs of repairing homes damaged or destroyed by Hurricane Sandy, will soon face another financial blow: soaring flood insurance rates and heightened standards for rebuilding that threaten to make seaside living, once and for all, a luxury only the wealthy can afford. "
[Emphasis mine]

Or:

Quote:
Ronald Schiffman, a former member of the New York City Planning Commission, said that barring intervention by Congress or the states, there would be “a massive displacement of low-income families from their historic communities.”
[Emphasis mine]

So there you have it. The solution to the death and destruction caused by state meddling in private affairs, which allowed development in flood zones, is to double down, get the state even more involved with yet another intervention and bring the damned people back to the flood zones. [indignation mine].

Or, we can take the implied advice of the Sierra Club, and let the PRIVATE MARKET do its job. In a free market, development would be sharply curtailed. And the structures that did get built, would be entirely at the risk of the owner of such property. NOT THE REST OF US. And those that are able to build in the flood zones would be forced by a lack of financing and a lack of available insurance, to put up structures that would withstand the floods and the winds, AT THEIR OWN EXPENSE.

Let's take the advice of the left wing in this case: Disband the National Flood Insurance Program. Taxpayers should NOT BE INSURING private development. In flood zones, or anywhere else.

There's a sharp parallel to be drawn with Obama voodoo-care, but I won't address that here or now.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 11-29-2012, 09:51 AM
PDD
 
Location: The Sand Hills of NC
8,776 posts, read 12,643,019 times
Reputation: 11737
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marc Paolella View Post
Quoting from an article in today's New York Times:

[Emphasis mine]

Yes, ladies and gentlemen, open your eyes, you read that right. An eco-fascist seeing the light, momentarily, on the advantages of leaving real estate development to the free market.

So, here is the takeaway:

FEMA, another shining example of government meddling in the private market, has made it possible for homeowners to build, and rebuild, and rebuild, in blatant flood zones. In a private free market, where someone is actually on the hook for the investment, such building would never take place.

I have seen this myself first hand, appraising properties for bank loans in Pequannock, Wayne, Lincoln Park, etc where I trip over the skunk cabbage while taking pictures of a house that would not exist were it not for cheap taxpayer subsidized flood insurance.

So, basically, the government is directly responsible for the scope of the death and destruction caused by Sandy. That scope would have been drastically reduced in a free market. Because these damned homes would never be built. Or rebuilt. The cost of private insurance would be through the roof, and banks would not underwrite loans in these areas.

However, leave it to the NY Times to find a way to inject left wing envy-based class warfare into the argument:
[Emphasis mine]

Or:


[Emphasis mine]

So there you have it. The solution to the death and destruction caused by state meddling in private affairs, which allowed development in flood zones, is to double down, get the state even more involved with yet another intervention and bring the damned people back to the flood zones. [indignation mine].

Or, we can take the implied advice of the Sierra Club, and let the PRIVATE MARKET do its job. In a free market, development would be sharply curtailed. And the structures that did get built, would be entirely at the risk of the owner of such property. NOT THE REST OF US. And those that are able to build in the flood zones would be forced by a lack of financing and a lack of available insurance, to put up structures that would withstand the floods and the winds, AT THEIR OWN EXPENSE.

Let's take the advice of the left wing in this case: Disband the National Flood Insurance Program. Taxpayers should NOT BE INSURING private development. In flood zones, or anywhere else.

There's a sharp parallel to be drawn with Obama voodoo-care, but I won't address that here or now.
Still can't get over that loss can you? I was agreeing with you and then you had to throw in your displeasure with the election outcome.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-29-2012, 10:14 AM
 
198 posts, read 328,432 times
Reputation: 176
Even the subsidized flood insurance rate wouldn't have been worth buying for ~50 years for my grandmother's shore house. Development "in the wrong places"? Does he mean all of the barrier islands? They've been there for longer than anyone here has been alive. Which areas survived and which didn't had nothing to do with flood insurance subsidy eligibility.

I think it's too easy to wrapped up in "what if" scenarios. I don't think free market would be a guarantee that the shore wouldn't have been highly developed. For all we know it still would've been developed, and without FEMA we'd just have a higher temporary homeless population due to the lack of long term shelters.

Unless someone here speaks soothe, it's just baseless speculation parading as truth.

Edit: According to Wikipedia, FEMA wasn't created until 1978...I wasn't alive then, but perhaps some of you older and wiser folks can confirm that the shore was pretty much undeveloped prior to this period just to clear that up.

Last edited by BrnTmr4Brkfst; 11-29-2012 at 10:42 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-29-2012, 10:26 AM
 
Location: NJ & NV
5,046 posts, read 10,840,795 times
Reputation: 1798
An eco-fascist ha ha, as long as he gets his percentage he will go away.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-29-2012, 12:18 PM
 
3,986 posts, read 5,194,731 times
Reputation: 2870
Marc - how many listings will you get in Mantoloking?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-29-2012, 01:16 PM
 
Location: Northern NJ
6,260 posts, read 6,276,642 times
Reputation: 8991
Quote:
Originally Posted by EBWick View Post
Marc - how many listings will you get in Mantoloking?
I leave the shore listings for my able and talented colleagues in Ocean County. The only money I make on the Jersey Shore is at a 2/5 NL Hold'em table at the Borg.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-29-2012, 02:07 PM
 
1,396 posts, read 1,538,787 times
Reputation: 728
Half the houses out there period wouldn't have gotten built in the past fifty years if it weren't for the government pushing it that way.
Then a lot more people would live in apartments. You know, those things that are perfectly fine, cheaper, and the only thing houses have over them is land, which only matters to people with dogs or gardeners, which a good chunk of homeowners are neither?

And maybe without all the subsidised risk protection, whenever someone DID build on the shore, maybe they'd build a house higher up on pilings, and with strong wind protection?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:



Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > New Jersey
View detailed profiles of:

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2017, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32 - Top