uhhm dennis was a trop storm?
TDC says you should read and understand before start suing
- Thread starter steel1man
- Start date
-
Trouble logging in? Send us a message with your username and/or email address for help.
Dennis was a fairly intense but relatively wee hurricane that made landfall at the Naval Live Oaks area of Gulf Islands National Seashore and had hurricane force winds pretty much limited to the area between Navarre and Pensacola.
http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/pdf/TCR-AL042005_Dennis.pdf
http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/pdf/TCR-AL042005_Dennis.pdf
Hurricane Dennis had a lot of impact here. See page 21 of report for effect on Walton County: http://bcs.dep.state.fl.us/reports/dennis.pdf
Last edited:
So, more "fairly intense" than "relatively wee". That was always my assessment. As for my angle of attack theory, I hate it when facts and scientific data interrupt my brilliant, although uneducated, theories. Am I turning into a Republican?
I'm not trying to be a smart a$$ here ....perhaps it's the fact I don't really understand the issue so, here is my question.
Why is it the federal governments responsibility to restore/reimburse someone who *knowingly* purchased land where flood insurance is practically non-existent, hurricanes are a fact of life and destruction is the norm? I sort of understand the re-nourishment of *public areas* but I don't get the private property owners beef.
Misty, your presumptions are, IMO, flawed. People purchase land and build houses in tornado prone areas. It is much the same rationale for those living on the beach. I live on the beach. I have flood insurance. Once again, it did not cover any of our losses. In other words, people pick where they live for many reasons but the one most usually prevalent is that they would enjoy the area, their abode and are able to afford iving there. Weather is always a factor to be dealt with no matter where one resides. As far as private beach property's owners beef, I don't get it, either.
Andy, we all know that you think any one who doesn't agree with you is "flawed". I accept that as part of your domineering personality.
My point was/is that if you knowingly purchase property in areas prone to devastation hurricanes/tornadoes/floods etc., it's not the feds responsibility to bail you out. This sorta reminds me of the feds bailing out the car industry some years back which included some of the largest lending institutions in America (Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac). You knowingly assume the risk of lending people money just as a buyer assumes the risk of purchasing property in an area where a category 2 thru 5 hurricane generally causes substantial damage. If you can't afford the cost of rebuilding...chances are you are living above your means which is as foolish as Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac expecting a bail out by the feds because someone defaulted on a loan. They knew the risks just as a potential home buyer should *beware*.
No, Misty, I do not think that all disagreement with me is "flawed". It is just that many know so much that isn't true with which I diagree.
End of the day, it's actually quite hard to find a place in this country that isn't prone to natural disasters whether they be hurricane/cyclone, tornado, earthquake, tsunami, general flash flooding.... My in-laws in Michigan had $8K of damage to their finished basement a few years back when the remnants of a tropical storm decided to stall out over the Great Lakes.
So the line between 'good places to build' and 'bad places to build' isn't really as cut and dry as many people think.
So the line between 'good places to build' and 'bad places to build' isn't really as cut and dry as many people think.
So when does a private property disaster become a federal problem....should the feds have bailed out your in-laws?