Oregon's Brazenly Stupid Repeal Of Tsunami Zone Building Restriction

[BendLocal]

Originally Posted by SocSciProf

But the connection between "I do something stupid, I pay" has been broken. It is now "I do something stupid, or risky, and someone else pays." That's a failed way for society to operate.

That is an interesting way to look at it.

[leastprime]

Originally Posted by SocSciProf

No, actually, completely like them. In this country it is a common response to ask, no demand, help after one's folly bites one in the butt.
[ ...snip...]
But the connection between "I do stupid, I pay" has been broken. It is now "I do something stupid, or risky, and someone else pays." That's a failed way for society to operate. Are you suggesting it is a good way for society to operate?

Agreed.
As I said earlier those who can afford the insurance and have the wealth, will build where they want. Else the acquired in an inheritance

[2bpurrfect]

Originally Posted by USDefault

HB3309 has to be the dumbest piece of legislation the Democrats and the Republicans voted for, and Kate Brown signed. How frighteningly stupid must one be to authorize building hospitals, prisons, and other public buildings in the tsunami inundation zone? When -- not if -- the next earthquake strikes the subduction zone, the evacuation time is between ten and thirty minutes, maximum, before the entire Pacific rises up and screams inland. And that's having to evacuate with destroyed roads, buildings, infrastructure, no power, etc. The people in these buildings are dead. Twenty thousand people died in Japan, and they were way, way more prepared for earthquakes and tsunamis than the West Coast ever will be. Just under three hundred thousand died when the massive subduction earthquake struck in the Indian Ocean.

A recent New Yorker article effectively guts this stupid building repeal, and puts the lie to the "economic development" argument put forth by mindnumbingly shortsighted politicians. The article's take on comparing tsunamis to tornadoes in Oklahoma:

Concerning the idiocy of this law from just an economic perspective:

Gotta agree. the whole coast should be building only in higher altitudes, and i mean way higher above the so called Tsunami Zone. There is plenty of space to do it, just that the precious National and State Forests must always take precedence, over human lives and housing for some idiotic reason. Build on those deserted inland highways that are on the hillsides, into small towns and villages. There is too little human habitation or pit stops and people actually get lost or disappear there. Those tsunamis could actually be much higher than these very low depth estimates they have now.

[2bpurrfect]

Originally Posted by leastprime

I think those who are able to buy insurance for the hazards will be OK.
Those who didn't or cannot buy insurance will eventually lose what they got ...The odds will eventually catch up to them.
I feel sorry for those who live in areas great hazards and suffered the hazard. Most will just walk away and give the keys to the lender who didn't ask/demand a risk premium.

JMO, those who built on the first dune, suffers the hazards. The original owners have now discovered why the first homes in PC (Pacific City) were built a good 1000 yards from the beach and on much higher ground. There are always new suckers.

HUH? this isn't about property loss, it is about loss of HUMAN LIVES. property is a very distant second.

[leastprime]

^ wish it to be true that lives matter ; But money is money and Property is worth far more than human life.
Millions of clams will die in a horrible death...Save the clams.

[pdxMIKEpdx]

So I have to ask, when was the last time in your lifetime when anything Oregon-wise from 100 miles from the coast inland has been totally destroyed by earthquakes and tsunamis wiping out human existence as we know it?

So, you don't want to live here because something *might* happen?

Have fun living in your concrete bunker that is miles from nowhere.

I'm not saying don't be prepared, but come on.