Aesop points out that building homes in fire-prone areas, or places exposed to weather hazards such as hurricanes, is fundamentally stupid, particularly because:
- it costs local and state authorities huge amounts to maintain access to such areas to protect them, fire and rescue departments to aid those living there during disasters, etc.;
- Insurance companies typically won't insure against hazards that are so easily foreseen, meaning that either they have to be compelled to do so through legislation, and/or subsidized to do so from taxpayers' coffers, and/or have state-aided insurance plans such as flood insurance to cover the risks they will not.
I'd just like to add that the true cost of pandering to those who want to build their homes and/or businesses in such high-risk areas is staggering. Think about it:
- There's all the infrastructure (roads, power, water, sewage processing and disposal, maintenance, etc.). That's not just capital cost to provide them all, but ongoing running costs year in, year out.
- There's the expense of subsidizing and/or providing insurance coverage.
- There's the burden of restoring services to such areas when natural disasters disrupt them (which also means the resources devoted to doing that can't be used in other areas where they may be needed, imposing additional delays and costs).
- There's the additional bureaucracy and complexity of legislation and/or regulation accompanying all of the above.
It was jackassical government greed that let some mid-century idiot build there in the first place, to maximize the county's taxable property value. Which then requires more brush crews to save it, and more roads to maintain to get to it.And then more disaster funds when it repeatedly gets burned up.
Government created this problem.
Smaller government would start by ripping out the paved road that gets there, closing the nearest fire stations, condemning the land, and turning it into permanent natural habitat. But that breaks five or ten government rice bowls, and gets entitled idiots all riled up.
I've only seen this about 5M times in my lifetime in this state [Aesop lives in California].
If some idiot wants to build his own private road, or make do by getting supplies in and out by pack mule, and carries the liability for such an idiotic house out of his own pocket, that should be the only way that place gets built.
Dollars to donuts the owner also gets all bent up when coyotes eat his pets, and mountain lions start eyeing his kids, and screams to Uncle Government to "do something". Then pisses and moans when the local fire department tells him that with trees and brush 20' from the house, they've already written it off when a fire breaks out. And he's likely the first in line at the trough when they declare a "disaster" (as opposed to "natural causes x human stupidity", which is also the plot recipe for every episode of Rescue 9-1-1, USCG: Cape Disappointment, and 57 other reality-based shows) once his house is a charred chimney surrounded by ashes.
It was big government that started such nonsense, A to Z, in the first place. Like people along the Mississippi found out a few years back, some places shouldn't have houses on them, ever, unless there's an annual stupidity tax on the property equal to 100% of its assessed value.
If government withdraws all services to such parcels save tax assessments, and cancels utility easements, which currently start a goodly number of brushfires up there in competition with lightning (you could look it up) the problem self-corrects within years, if not months, with no further effort nor public expenditure.
That's minimal government.
Amen!
Next step: calculate how much government is going to be asked to pay (in repairs, compensation, welfare, and other assistance) in the aftermath of Hurricane Helene, currently tearing up Florida and Georgia. It's sure to be in the billions of dollars - which we haven't got to spare. How many of the homes that are currently being swamped have government-subsidized flood insurance, the ultimate cost of which comes out of our taxpayer pockets?
There may be those who ask, in so many words, "But what about tornadoes or other natural hazards? Surely people deserve some help in such disasters?" To that I can only say, "I agree - but who says that help should come from the government?" In the not too recent past, churches and other community organizations organized such help, raised the necessary funds from their own efforts, and directed it to where it would do the most good. (Incidentally, they also made sure it did not go to those who would waste or abuse it, because they knew their own people and whether or not they were trustworthy.) It's only with the rise of "Big Government" that the state tried (not very effectively) to take it over . . . and that's one of the main reasons why we have "Big Government" today. As wiser men have said before:
Words of wisdom. Why have we forgotten them?
Peter
38 comments:
Home insurance has gone bonkers in Florida as the cost of rebuilding the coastal island communities after a hurricane is amortized across all homes insured in the state.
Guy who lives in a desert region, that gets all their water from N. Cal via aqueducts shouldn't be complaining about where others have homes. Don't forget he's in a earthquake prone part of the world either.
All of the points you make are valid, but if refusal to insure a structure in sketchy area is done, that property is rendered far less valuable to the landowner and would also decrease the locations where structures are built, increasing the competition to safer locations.
OTOH - lower cost property to some would be welcome news. DIY could build structures designed to fight the danger from the beginning.
Building to last hurricane zones is possible, but you have to build different than in other areas. This is generally true for any environment. The problem is that we build using only minor variations on a common construction technology.
One size does not fit all.
We're in rural ranch country, chose to live where we live because...lifestyle away from the fray...it's quiet and requires direct daily input. Property is pasture mixed with trees...but also has the potential for wildfires as it's in the West, so we created a place that is defensible, from the house outward. Takes effort and diligence, not whining and demanding government do something. There are 50 properties, weekend places in the nice weather, but only 3 full time residents...and we're at the rain snow line. I grade our portion of the road (it's an Association)...because tractor therapy works...and I can, like to help out and prefer keeping the road nice or else you lose it.
I also plow when it snows. Got a particularly heavy snow, newest "resident" (good guy) texted me, " When does the Association plow the roads." My response was polite but direct..."The Association doesn't plow the roads, I do, and only after I've had my breakfast, assuming I feel like it." Response, "Oh, okay...got it." Another resident behind us bought a place, immediately got himself a plow truck because they go to town everyday...we tag team. He gets it.
Aesop and you are 100% correct....people have this idea that rural living, or living in those "idyllic" areas, comes without any consequence -- you want to build there then it's your responsibility, not mine.
Now don't get me started on the moronic Colorado "wolf reintroduction" (they were already here geniuses)...why not start by reintroducing them in Boulder County and see how long that lasts when Fifi et al. get snatched off the back deck.
He spends way too much time talking about what steps government should do to prevent people from living in dangerous places before getting to the meat of the matter, which is that taxpayers shouldn't have to subsidize those choices. Rip out existing roads? Why? That's an expense. He wants smaller government but then he complains that government "let" someone build there? Why is his hypothetical smaller government in the business of telling people where they can't live?
His conclusion works however, he just doesn't take it far enough. Stop subsidizing where people live, period. Fire company? Paid for out of my homeowner taxes. Ditto police, roads, and schools. Insurance for various things? Paid for out of my pocket. Emergency assistance funding, not a government function.
As far as churches and other community organizations, they are about dead. People don't belong and they have no money other than that fed to them by Uncle Sugar. Not a reason to depend on government, I'd eliminate the "safety net" and that perhaps would force people to start reconsidering family and community.
Little chance of hurricanes, earthquakes and fires? New York City.
I rather (and did) take my chances with hurricanes.
I am torn between agreeing and disagreeing with ya. If we don't "allow" them to build on marginal land; then the blighters will want to plant their crap on food production land.
In Wisconsin they passed a stupendously stupid law; that someone buying land for a home out in the "country" had to purchase 40 acres. Good farmable land/farms were carved up and sold to hyper rich folks. Now that is so dumb; because you can't make a living "farming" off of 40 acres and you just took multiple 40 acre plots out of production.
My better idea would be to only allow homes/residences on HEL's. Highly erodible lands. (the official designation for lands unproductive for farming). Every county has them.
where exactly would you build that isn't a 'high risk' area? between Hurricanes, Tornados, Blizzards, Wildfires, Earthquakes, Landslides, Drought and Flooding there isn't a lot of ground left to build on.
It seems to me that one thing state and local governments could do to mitigate fire and wind losses would be to amend building codes to enable/encourage earth sheltered housing. Whether the public would be willing to adopt such a radical change in housing is a different question.
Nope. These ideas only turn the government into a more tyrannical one with additional powers to use against citizens.
For example: Declare an area unbuildable, fire protection denied, insurance legally denied. All of these are straight tyranny.
No area is unbuildable if the owner of the property is willing to put out the bucks. In Oregon, a young man was denied a building permit on the 40 acres he owned because the county wanted him to have 80 acres. Tyranny.
Remove fire protection. That action is already in progress and we see the results with more wildfires and fires that harm the forest more than before. The Yellowstone fire sterilized the earth approximately 6 inches deep. A similar fire in Glacier resulted in erosion and did not start even grass or shrubs for decades. If the state provides fire protection it should continue to do so until that measure if voted out. Then allow commercial companies to contract with land owners. Clean it up, log it out or let it burn. Older guys will remember the days of both public and private forests having foresters cruising the woods spotting fire dangers and marking them for removal.
Legally denying insurance by state or federal laws is tyranny. Insurance is a contract between the insurer and the owner. Denying it by law is already in progress. California forced insurers out of the state by making them pay claims that the policies did not insure against. Let the insurance companies figure out their cost with the customer. Tyranny.
I have a condo on the Gulf coast. The Key it sits on has one road that runs down the center from end to end. The building we are in generates $4MM in tax revenue. On a per sq-ft basis it is $60 sq-ft per year. That is 6 times my house tax rate. The condo is also built like a brick shithouse and withstood 2 Cat 4 and a Cat 2 hurricane. The building wind insurance is $1MM a year. The units insurance is $2M. We rent out the unit for the weeks we don't use it. The rentals cover the yearly operating costs other than special assessments that come out of our pocket. Twenty families a year get to spend a week on the beach for a fraction of the cost if they owned. The families drive a local economy that allows for multiple jobs that are almost all small proprietorships. The American dream in micro. Weather happens everywhere. (personally been within 2 miles of
seven different F4 tornadoes)
Spin Drift
Maybe a minor point, but in a lot of these areas the fire departments are volunteer, made up of locals, so the idea of shutting down fire stations is just stupid ignorance of the reality on the ground.
Other than that, I've got no problem with people assuming the risks of their own decisions. There is no reason federal or state government needs to subsidize them. Now apply that to the entire country.
For everything. Hurricanes. Tornadoes. Earthquakes. Floods. Wildfires. Winter storms. Damaging winds.
Of course, the voters and taxpayers have chosen the governments that make these decisions. If Aesop doesn't like that, he free to try and change voters' minds. Good luck with that. I suspect most people think those costs are a more legitimate expenditure than most of what their money gets spent on.
Something tells me his fellow Californians won't want to end government assistance for earthquakes, wildfires, and tsunamis.
"They" can't get excited when Haitians eat Fifi. Do you think they'll be any different when wolves do it?
Many excellent points raised in the comments that I had not previously considered in full. I totally support more solid building better suited to local environments - - - but then comes the issue of building codes. As someone who now lives where there essentially aren't any, I also see the benefits of keeping the government out of telling me what to do.
I lived in Florida for 20 years, and in that time we had one serious tropical storm that dumped more rain on us than all the hurricanes I lived through combined. We got 36 inches of rain in 36 hours. Everything flooded. Except my neighborhood. We were high and dry, with not a single house in our development sustaining any water intrusion. Regardless, the next year our insurance company declared that our house was in a flood zone all of a sudden. Yes, thousands of houses in my county were flooded, but not anyone near me. Still, I got to share the burden. Now, living in Arkansas, all I have to worry about is the odd tornado.
I remember talking with someone 30 years ago, they had visited a friend's family house built on the seaside 100 years previous. What was over a mile walk to the beach was now dodging cars and multiple rows of houses.
Take the government out of it. Let insurance and local communities take care of it. I look out how my local churches want to use their tithes, and it's not for helping locally. We've taken the community out of community, and we've taken the consequence out of choice.
Of course, I'm for abolishing all taxes except a sales tax. 90% stays in the county, 6% to the state and 4% to the feds. If people really understood how much taxes were paid we wouldn't be in this mess.
Floods in the valleys, landslides on the hills, tornados in the Midwest, hurricanes in the Gulf and southern states. Earthquakes, rivers overflowing, brush fires, erosion and on and on.
A man had asked a geologist where in CA was safe to build? The answer was, 'no where'. I'm sure everyone here lives in the safest bubble.
FEMA paying taxpayer monies to private persons to rebuild is kooky.
This is a really god response. Build more resilient structures is a wise position
These people put houses up on that land so that they can collect farm subsidies; a total rip-off of the American taxpayer.
There is NO place on EARTH that doesn't come with inherent hazards to life and property. Aesop is living in a dream world...
Get rid of my property tax, building inspector, and let me self-insure; i.e. leave me ALONE
Home insurance in California does not include earthquake coverage, that is a separate state-run insurance with a 15% deductible and does not pay for clearing the lot of debris. I recently got a notice that they might not pay off anyway if there are a lot of claims. Fortunately earthquakes only affect individual structures and do not cause significant damage over large areas...oh wait!
Write off all of coastal California. The earthquake risks are totally unacceptable.
Sounds like the first steps to forcing people to live in SMART cities.
LOTS of things are allowed to be done or to happen because society has foolishly granted government the power to spread unnecessary risk over large groups of people. This happens because the process makes individuals dependent and governments powerful. And it's simply more proof that we are a clever species...NOT an intelligent one.
It is interesting how before the federal government came along, communities along the coast after a hurricane had to rebuild themselves without any government assistance in terms of financing or other resources. The Texas coast had a number of hurricanes from Brownsville on up the coast from the 1900s to 1920s.
Another issue it population. Thanks to government immigration policy we have more people building in these areas. America was much better off when it was around 200 million with a 90% white European minded population.
One of the major drivers of the fire problem is DIRECTLY attributable to government, here in the Western states. No one is allowed to cut down dead trees, or trim live ones, in any state or national forest. This idiocy is enforced to support the various firefighting groups. The government WANTS forest fires, obviously.
There is a fungus that kills oak trees, that has been spreading northward from the border for several decades. The proper name for dead trees is "firewood", or alternatively "fuel". You get a forest fire that is spectacularly destructive when a forest burns now. The ground gets damaged deep enough to keep new growth from starting.
All our water, Slick?
Not even.
Maybe you've heard about this little thing called the Colorado River.
Multip[le cities were here years before the aqueducts, btw. But without them, the cities would be 50K-100K, max.
Planning for growth by moving water from where it isn't needed to where it is, is called "vision".
It's why humans build dams and aqueducts, since ever.
Call me when L.A. burns to the ground (hint: 90% of all fire dept. calls in SoCal are medical, not fire-related), versus the idjits in the surrounding canyons.
But why let facts get in the way of a good screed?
If we're willing to withdraw all government support for such locational stupidity, before and after, IDC where you build.
Just own the consequences yourself.
But no one will do that.
Maintaining the roads is an everyday expense, forever. If the locals want to pay for it 100%, they can keep them. Most would scream like scalded cats.
Government granted permits for those builds.
That started the problem in the first place.
If they'd said "Go ahead, but you bear all responsibility for everything, before, during and after, forever, including redlining from any state or federal disaster relief" 99.9% of them would never have been built.
QED
Deny insurance? No.
Have the state insurance commission rule that no company is required to insure? Absolutely yes.
When your premiums are set by the insurance co. at 500% of the value of your house, you'll either build a bombproof house, or not build at all.
Deny taxpayer subsidy of your stupidity, especially after it's destroyed? Like I said, problem solved.
Stupid should hurt. Government should not intervene in that cause and effect, nor subsidize it whatsoever.
You want a road? build it there yourself.
You want to build there? Your house, your problem.
No one's coming to save you, or put out the fire, and services end at the end of the county road grid.
YOYO.
Welcome to true liberty: freedom of action, and owning the consequences yourself, 100%.
No tyranny involved.
As noted, most people scream like scalded cats when their nose is rubbed in actual liberty.
Exactly none of those FDs are volunteer.
CA doesn't do that. Back East, sure. Not here.
And most of California would happily end government assistance for wildfires for the idiots who build wood shake roof houses in brushfire-prone canyons, just as they'd end disaster assistance for the rich morons who build houses in the surf zone which then get pummeled by storms every other year.
Major earthquakes are a multi-state phenomenon, mitigated greatly by building codes (49 other states haven't learned that lesson yet, but they will, eventually), for twice-a-century events.
Brushfires, mudslides, and ocean tides are multiple events annually.
Apples and oranges.
Nope. Just not subsidizing them to live in dumb hinterlands, unless they assume all risk, forever.
Building a house out of kindling in a high fire risk zone and expecting everyone else to subsidize your stupid choices is living in delusion.
Take me off the list of people who have to subsidize other people's egregious stupidity, and we're fine.
Uh, no. For both.
No government services, of any kind, ever. Define it as a "No Service" area with the note that if any government employee ever shows up there it's because they're on their own time and they're lost. Build something there, way out beyond the right-of-way, and everything is on your hook from access to construction to handling trash. Government will require a one-time long term surety bond for a very high value - and we're talking in multiple, multiple millions of dollars - just in case Grizzly Shapiro does something stupid that impacts private or public land around him. Like starting a forest fire.
But, other than that, don't call us, we won't call you. We won't tax you (that would kill it as far as gummint bureaucracy is concerned because they want to tax everything and tax it forever) but since we're not providing any services and that means ANY services - we're not going to charge you taxes for what we're not doing.
^ That, exactly.
According to Aesop's rules, the people in western North Carolina need to find somewhere else to live as the remnants of Hurricane Helene caused a natural disaster. Since there is no safe place to live that natural disasters (hurricanes, tornados, earth quakes, floods, high winds, etc.) won't effect, the human race just needs to go away.
Yeah, Aesop, your snark can be over the top. You make some good points but take things too far at times. In your great state of California the government does get in the way moreso than some other states.
@BillB: I don't read Aesop's comments that way. The people in North Carolina are not in a "normal" hurricane zone: this one swung way west of their usual path, and struck communities that aren't expecting that sort of damage. Even so, I think Aesop is right in that situation as well, to some extent. By all means, let government restore the infrastructure needed for communities, farms, etc. to get back to the business of living, and while they're at it, build them stronger and more resilient to resist such unusual storms in future. However, for most of those who've suffered personal or family damage, I think there's still a strong case that government should not use public money to restore private property. That's up to the owners, who had all the time in the world to insure it, and also to local community organizations, who can raise funds and make sure they go to those who both need and deserve them. No bureaucrat in Washington D.C. can make that call.
Post a Comment