Why are they rebuilding in mudslide areas?

This morning on the news I saw a woman crying and talking to Arnold, saying "We said it 10 years ago when we were wiped out, and we'll say it again - we'll be back!!"

Okay - so you had this happen 10 years ago - isn't that a clue that your house might not be in a safe spot? It's kind of like around here people build on flood plains and are shocked when there's...a flood!!!

Is mudslide risk any different?

some people are too stupid to realize that certain areas are not inhabitable and yet they're willing drain millions of dollars to keep their lovely view--only to see it get washed away! Well they'll never learn.

and because the "view is breathtaking," and because they think they can outwit Mother Nature.

Those guys didn't lose much if they survived the slide. The insurance industry will make sure they rebuild.

no longer feel safe in their home and they were not going to live there any more (on CNN or MSNBC).

-------------------------------------
Would Jesus love a liberal? You bet!
http://timeforachange.bluelemur.com/

to reflect that we allow people to live places mother nature doesn't intend for people to live.
our taxes help them to rebuild -- often people with life styles that far exceed mine, damn it!

we have to have a differnt plan when it comes to designing communities and where they are located.

in avalanche zones when the city tried to prohibit it.

However, the homes must be heavily engineered to withstand an avalanche, and the homes must be inhabited by the owner. They are not supposed to rent the single-family home.

The restrictions might not have been put in place at all if a woman hadn't testified to how her home was destroyed by an avalanche when she was a child. Her parents were killed in the avalanche.

At the base of a huuuge hill/mountain or whatever you call it, and not many trees on it. It was and is a disaster. I would never in this life build a house in such a spot because it's almost a given that the thing would slide sooner or later.

It will happen again right there given some heavy rains. Those people should all think about relocating.

It was a perfectly dry day in August, but I was terrified that rock was going to come loose. I could never have lived in that home . . . even though it had a great view.

Here in the San Diego area a huge boulder came down and into a house.

The people were not home, otherwise they would have been crushed.

I guess it's for the same reason people build in flood plains, and on the side of eroding hills, and at the edge of unstable cliffs, and under volcanoes and smack on top of known fault lines, etc. etc.

Either A) they are stupid beyond belief, or B) they crave drama in their life.

Anyone who looks Mother Nature in the eye and says "Bring it on" will soon discover who really calls the shots on planet Earth. To believe otherwise is to ignore reality.

and then bitch about the noise and try to shut the airport down. (Sorry, pilot speaking here) :)

right behind my friend who had five horses. Her home was zoned for horses, and they had been there for years and years.

However, the new resident complained to the city and he created all sorts of grief for my friend.

Seen it many times, and even if they can't shut it down we get stuck with dangerous noise-abatement procedures. :grr:

along the railroad tracks and then fight to stop the noise of the diesel horn blowing at the crossing. Then when they get their car plastered by a train, they bitch about not being warned.

Stupid fucks...

RL

Topanga canyon is a beautiful place that appeals to hippies and artist types even though fires scorch the area often enough to make it impossible to get house insurance. La Conchita is such a beautiful place right across the highway from the ocean and a lovely beach unsullied by too many beach goers. Those people, who live there, just don't want to think about the dangers.

to prevent construction where insurers won't go. Hell.

I know...property rights...

::sigh::

Here's one place 'big government' needs to be really BIG; banning construction in places that have been repeatedly wiped out by mudslides, floods, etc. Rebuilding beaches is another useless waste of taxpayer money.

Forget "you can't fool Mother Nature" -- you can't FIGHT her...she always wins.

these little pockets of pretty places subject to the rath of mother nature, appeal to the less affluent and downright poor at times. They are willing to gamble that the risk they are taking won't happen while they are there. I agree about tougher ordinances, but I really wish we would sock it to the ultra rich in property taxes in order to bring down the cost of real estate to more affordable levels for the working class families.

Just the other day I saw a sign for a new tract of housing in my town about a hundred miles up the road from Conchita. Guess what, they start at the lower $400,000. That's almost half a million dollars for a tract house with practically no yard. How are working class people who serve our tourist industry here supposed to afford that?

but yes...they either can afford insurance...or don't need it.

And I'm always in favor of socking it to the ultra-rich, like in the good old days. :)

Because if you do, I wish you would share.

I have no risk of mudslide but the wind put a 10-plus ton oak tree on my house. Yes, insurance paid. Yes, I rebuilt. "Yes, I was back." What else could I do?

If there are no trees, there are tornados. If you're not on a cliff or a mountain, you're in a flood plain.

Any of us can be at risk from a natural disaster. I thought I was perfectly safe and secure.

I was wrong. My partner was inches away from being decapitated by that tree. Plenty of people are killed every year by wind-blown trees. Two people died today in Arkansas from tree fall.

Should we not have houses in states where trees grow?

People rebuild because, quite likely, they can't afford to give up the only little patch of land they own. The man they interviewed who lost his wife and daughters in the mudslide...he did not strike me as a rich man who had big bucks to pay for a view.

We all do the best we can. Today is too soon to jump on people for wanting to rebuild the lives they've just seen destroyed. I don't mean to be nasty, but it might be best to assume most people do the best they can with the very limited funds they have.

The conservation movement is a breeding ground of communists
and other subversives. We intend to clean them out,
even if it means rounding up every birdwatcher in the country.
--John Mitchell, US Attorney General 1969-72

There are places that people shouldn't build, that are statistically WAY more likely to suffer disaster than, say, the random backyard that loses an oak.

I'm thinking Outer Banks, flood plains right on a river or creek, barrier islands, etc.

I dated a guy once who had a house right on the beach in a city where the beach on a barrier island that was constantly eroding and was battered by storms. He was insensed that the state of NJ wanted to prevent people whose houses were destroyed in any future hurricanes or storms from rebuilding (100% second homes - these weren't people's primary residences). It made sense to me, but he was furious about it.

I may be getting a little edgy, but in the last two days, it seems we've had threads telling people where to build a house, how big to build it, what type of car to park in the garage and how many kids to put inside it.

I think if you want to assume the risk, go for it.

that if you wanted to build in flood risk area you needed straight cash. Banks wouldn't finance you and no insurance company would touch you. You needed the cash in your own accounts. Federal flood insurance changed that whole equation. A coastline or flood plain could get hit by storm after storm and one could rebuild and rebuild.
I think there is something to be said for denying flood insurance in high risk areas

sometimes have reasons for being in dangerous places.

What pisses me off is when people who can afford the risk of these beachfront McMansions get FEMA help after a hurricane or millions+ tax dollars spent on a jetty to stop their expensive home from falling into the ocean.

Why should we subsidize the risk for some rich person's vacation home? They knew the risks when they built it. Gimme a break!

We should be subsidizing moving the poorer folks to higher ground or out of dangerous mobile homes and into more solid, safe housing.

n/t

Granted, people often build homes in areas that are an open invitation to disaster.

But not all places mudslides happen are prone to mudslides. Mudslides are often the direct result of wildfires the previous fire season. If there were still growing things holding down the topsoil, you wouldn't be seeing this level of damage.

The focus should be on regular controlled burns to prevent wildfires, imo.

As well as responsible planning/zoning, of course. Still, if you didn't put houses in any place in California not subject to flood, fire, or quake, no one would live here. I wonder if any of our neighboring states have enough housing to shelter all 35 million of us?

The question is, whose money is paying for it?

The people in the mudslide area are not rich. A Corp. planted some orchards above and saturated the ground with water for years. A law suit about that was filed a few years ago and is still in progress. Terraces could have helped but the state said too expensive. Each place has unique circumstances.

is was a banana farm irragation system above the hills that was saturating the ground. BUT....it said on the news, it wasnt the same part of the track that the mudslides hit this time around.

if you get enough rain. In southeast Ohio we had record rainfall we got over 2 feet more than our average. We're still cleaning up mudslides from last September. We had 9 1/2" of rain one day in September.

put the two together and you get a good idea of what things are like.
Mudslide risk is ubiquitous in Southern California. They try to re mediate it using a ground cover, if I remember correctly, ice plant. A sort of ground creeping cactus. The stuff is only any good for the first few inches of soil. Get hit with the storms that CA has been hit with the last few weeks and you're asking for mudslides. But hey, gotta have that house on the hillside!

and watched "developers" building in dangerous area . Selling houses in the summer and when rain came , folks were flooded out or hit by mud slides. Government laxity is responsible for this.But they keep on doing it. People are pretty dim about looking into the areas they buy in. I do not feel sorry for them. Sad that lives are lost but I would never live with a hill at my back along the coastline there.