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.
No one in North Dakota is subsidizing anything. While we do appreciate whatever it is those 10 citizens do, the money comes from other places.
This whole affair is strange. I remember posting explicitly on this board, years ago, about Houston's uncontrolled sprawl and the cost to maintaining infrastructure. I even made reference to hurricanes.
It was bound to happen sooner or later. I have no idea how we relocate the fourth-largest city in the nation, nor do I have any idea what we're going to do with Florida. That state will be destroyed by a hurricane if it isn't completely flooded first.
Get the right people in who know how to build, and it isn't an issue. Far as flooding goes there's only so much you can do with run off and where to put it.
Sinkholes can't be fixed unless you want to dig deep down and fill with concrete to act as bed rock... that gets expensive QUICK
Should be no reason to evacuate at all if structures are built stout enough and maintained properly. Flooding, I say make gigantic tanks to be filled and then pumped at a later date to be used for the west coasts wild fires.
? Are naples, sarasota etc seaports and why would you need to shove millions and millions of people into regions that people shouldnt be living in and the federal taxpayer has to pay for these dumb decisions? This isnt about seaports, its about people retiring and huge popualtion growth near the coast and massive unregulated growth in regions prone to flooding and hurricanes and natural disaters
Good lord. Now we need to rope off portions of the country because people "shouldn't be living" there? Where should we move them? Name a place that doesn't have some sort of natural disaster potential AND the space to house these folks.
Get the right people in who know how to build, and it isn't an issue. Far as flooding goes there's only so much you can do with run off and where to put it.
Sinkholes can't be fixed unless you want to dig deep down and fill with concrete to act as bed rock... that gets expensive QUICK
Should be no reason to evacuate at all if structures are built stout enough and maintained properly. Flooding, I say make gigantic tanks to be filled and then pumped at a later date to be used for the west coasts wild fires.
I think you may be underestimating just how large those tanks would have to be. Recent estimates have settled around 33 trillion gallons of water from Harvey. Considering the density of water, we know exactly how much volume that is, and... Again, I just have no idea what you do with 33,000,000,000 gallons of water. If Houston were not quite so flat, maybe it would be easier, but as things stand...
I don't mean to disparage you or your comment. I quite literally have no idea how one builds to withstand hurricane force winds or what infrastructure could possibly handle that much water at once.
Maybe we start requiring houses in Houston to have steel infrastructure? That way you could simply rebuild around the frame when everything else inevitably collapses.
Good lord. Now we need to rope off portions of the country because people "shouldn't be living" there? Where should we move them? Name a place that doesn't have some sort of natural disaster potential AND the space to house these folks.
Plenty of safe and sunny space out west. We make their roofs out of solar panels.
Its narcissism. As long as the person in North Dakota is subsidizing their lifestyle with these bailouts (tax dollars) and relief efforts they dont care. Make them pay triple the insurance premium with no handouts and they might think twice.
The person in North Dakota isn't subsidizing jack, they are disproportionately represented in Congress and in the white house and most likely have more than their fair share coming back to them in some sort of government farm subsidy or whatever the hell else.
Location: Live:Downtown Phoenix, AZ/Work:Greater Los Angeles, CA
27,606 posts, read 14,587,616 times
Reputation: 9169
Quote:
Originally Posted by evilnewbie
You live in coastal areas prone to these weather phenomenon and then wonder when the price tag is huge... Should we force Las Vegas residents to lose their homes and move because living in a desert is cost-inefficient? Do we force California residents to abandon all homes within 50 miles of a fault line? Do we tell people of New York that annual snowfall is hazardous to their health while driving? Do we forcefully relocate people from Hawaii because of volcanoes? What place do you know that is completely 100% safe, exactly? We could always tell them their residences are uninsurable, but I doubt states would do that and the wealthy would be very upset that their 5 million dollar home is now worthless...
I normally disagree with you, but we are in agreement here, repped 👍
The answer to the OP topic question is 90% (from what I have heard on the radio).
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.
