| Weatherlawyer 2005-09-26, 10:21 am |
|
Lil' Dave wrote:
> "Weatherlawyer" <Weatherlawyer@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1127598951.847582.175750@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
[color=darkred]
[color=darkred]
[color=darkred]
[color=darkred]
[color=darkred]
[color=darkred]
[color=darkred]
[color=darkred]
[color=darkred]
[color=darkred]
> {I}Believe {I} saw what you're talking about on CNN. Basically, its about
> FEMA provided flood insurance and a few people who wouldn't accept FEMA's
> money as it was inadequate per their perceptions.
> Some recent online FEMA advertisements for flood insurance also seem to
> indicate a lot more than what they actually provide per the same CNN
> broadcast.
> The news broadcast seems to insinuate false advertising statements.
> In my opinion, FEMA has no business providing any kind of property
> insurance.
But it is in the disaster business and if the insurance companies go
belly up it will be a federal disaster not a state one.
(Remember the season is in full spate and that you only got a brief
respite in time for Rita. It will get back to full throttle following
the lull of the previous lunar phase. (Just thought I'd throw that in
to rattle a few of the losers and dead heads on sci.geo.geology.))
This thread was intended as some sort of support for those who were
trying to squeeze every last cent out of what little they have in order
to begin living again. But I suppose it might be a cathartic for the
blinding frustration at the state of offence that is the US Federal Aid
Programme under the drunk slackers in charge.
> Its required by many mortgage companies financing housing within a flood
> zone. Other acts of God are relatively inexpensive to insure.
It is an order of magnitude greater than fire. A fire might destroy a
town but the foundations could be reusable and the clearing up would be
minimal with nothing septic once the air cleared.
With a flood, there may be uplift. There will certainly be massive
subsidence affecting not only housing but road and rail infrastructures
with everything from sheds to road bridges moving on their foundations.
> In rare occasions, like a hurricane, inland flooding inundates many not
> normally considered in a flood zone. A few years ago, similar happened in
> central Texas with a freak, extended, heavy rain period. Many living along
> rivers and lakes, not "normally" flooded, flooding destroyed or
> substantially damaged their homes. General consensus was that very few had
> flood insurance due to the infrequency of such a radical amount of rain in
> such a short time.
The problem being that as with FEMA reneging, the insurance will settle
every claim asap to avoid the follow on when the owners realise they
were duped into signing off on the claim. Some totally ingenuous souls
settled no doubt for a mere clean out with disinfectant and a prssure
wash.
> {I} Believe they called it a once in 200 year event. That
> was the reason the mortgage/financing companies did not require flood
> insurance. {I?}Am sure each homeowner, at one time or another, had observed
> floodwaters previously that came within distance to their homes. And, the
> thought of flood insurance did cross their minds. But did not follow
> through as it wasn't required, nor the chance of flooding seemed to indicate
> that.
And that should be the fault of the government if it cares for its
citizens. There should be a mandatory tax to cover such possibilities.
You will see that however badly it catered for the victims, there will
be a back dated tax of some sort raised to cover events.
(And pay for more torture chambers in Cuba.)
> The solution seems to be that the mortgage/financing companies need to
> rethink flooding insurance requirements to cover more rare occasions. This
> would increase the insurance funding base, and make flood insurance less
> expensive. FEMA does not have to get involved.
I was merely pointing out that it "had" become involved. FEMA had got
out of hand obviously and by the look of recent events all to no avail
for anyone at the sharp end.
I don't think I shall bother writing a transcript of the broadcast as I
am sure that the news will carry it all, all over again a few times
before the debacle is over.
In the meantime, here is when to expect to have the next lull:
November the 9th on. But here again it will only be for a week or so.
By then the focus may well have moved out to Australasia. Don't count
on it. Get your arses covered.
Goodness knows the Aussies can use the wet, if only to protect them
from the British tour but will it be at all possible in summer?
Rita could have bitten badly if it had not been for the spell starting
around the 18th and ending on the 25th. Let's hope there is time to go
shopping for insurance.
Want to bet there will be no takers?
|