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.
I really don't think there is any place in the USA that doesn't have the potential of some natural disaster. The East gets hurricanes, the Midwest gets tornadoes, the west has earthquakes and wildfires. All the Northern states can be buried by blizzards, the Southern states get drought or flooding.
There is no place to rebuild where the house will be 100% safe.
They should have it --- I would expect the half-way intelligent ones would have it.
The thing about these beachfront people, is that the average person had better not even look at THEIR beach and you can expect to drive for miles if you want to put a boat in or enjoy anything of the ocean --- until nature takes it's course and ruins their house -- then it's everyone's responsibility to pay for the rebuilding of it.
As for the government dependent, they need to be relocated to available housing that isn't near the beach.
If they own that piece of the beach they have a right to not allow trespassers. This issue shouldn't be about who has more money. Bailouts shouldn't happen. If you want to take a risk and go uninsured I think you should live with the consequences.
I really don't think there is any place in the USA that doesn't have the potential of some natural disaster. The East gets hurricanes, the Midwest gets tornadoes, the west has earthquakes and wildfires. All the Northern states can be buried by blizzards, the Southern states get drought or flooding.
There is no place to rebuild where the house will be 100% safe.
Here in the desert southwest, we're generally disaster proof. I say that knocking on a big ass piece of wood.
In any case, that's part of the reason why its hands down the best part of America to live in...among other reasons.
If they own that piece of the beach they have a right to not allow trespassers. This issue shouldn't be about who has more money. Bailouts shouldn't happen. If you want to take a risk and go uninsured I think you should live with the consequences.
I agree -- it's just that it seems many want the would-be tresspassers to pay for their nice house on the beach when things don't work out.
It would actually be better to just have the hurricane prone areas be public lands for all to enjoy and have no houses to rebuild over and over and over. But -- if people insist on owning a home on the beach, they should be prepared that it's not the smartest place to build. Nor are dry forests in the West a good place to build a house. Nature will do what nature does.
P.S. If they pay for flood insurance it's not a "bailout," it's called getting what you paid into all these years. Since you acknowledge more expensive homes will be damaged, do you not realize these types of homeowners generally PAY for their coverage?
If these beach front homeowners had to purchase private policies they would either be denied or pay much higher rates in line with the risks. The NFIP is just another government welfare program stealing from one group of Americans and rewarding others.
people who own beachfront property can afford to pay for their own damages.
they love to rail against big govt spending but when something bad happens to them they are first in line for a govt handout. such irony! and hypocrisy.
The thing about these beachfront people, is that the average person had better not even look at THEIR beach and you can expect to drive for miles if you want to put a boat in or enjoy anything of the ocean --- until nature takes it's course and ruins their house -- then it's everyone's responsibility to pay for the rebuilding of it.
Oh yeah, god forbid you decide to take a stroll on 'their' beach.
I wonder how many on the east coast have hurricane insurance though. Or what little nugget the insurance company can pull up in their policy to say they aren't covered from storm surge or what have you like they did after Katrina?
I'm sure we pay alot more for homeowners insurance than you do.
Odd how those posting on this dont live in the East. Is it streaming disaster news on Fox or something?.
Well then, I think if you don't have it there should be no bail out. I think what a lot of people don't realize is that floods happen everyday all the time. Pipes burst and basements flood. Iv' seen many an REO property where this has happened and owner bailed. There was no bail out for them as there shouldn't be for anyone else that doesn't prepare for this possibility.
Are you really a real estate agent?
Pipe burst damage is an entirely different situation than flooding which triggers flood insurance coverage. That insurance doesn't even come into play with your example, that's a Homeowner's issue.
And you're correct that floods happen everyday. Those who live in flood prone areas have Flood Insurance for that.
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.
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.
