Noticed that too. The only saving grace is maybe they are going to cover the wood frame with some type of cement boards or stone facade that will protect the wood structure. But yeah, had it been me, I would have gone with some sort of masonry structure all the way through from inside to out.
Yes. Just like they keep rebuilding on barrier islands in Hurricane prone areas.
Hey Bruce, were you watching Peter Santenello on YouTube? He’s got some great videos. Did one in MS & in Fairhope
And at least until a couple years ago if not still now, MS let's homes along the M River collect federal flood damage compensation year after year after year. This was per Paul Gallo and George Flaggs interview back then. They keep flooding and the Feds keep compensating
I was actually deployed there for Corp of engineers and oversaw crews that were involved in cleanup. The major cost to FEMA was pulling up foundations and these massive earthquake footers some I saw were 4 feet wide and 40 feet long buried 6 feet in the ground with 2-inch re-bar. The existing chimneys were all taken down and had to be tested for asbestos. You have to remember many homes/mansions were built when materials were much cheaper also. As they passed new building codes no more chimneys are allowed to be constructed. and most houses are going to be rebuilt with wood with 3-foot crawl spaces as if his ever happens again cleanup will be easier and less costly. a lot more involved but that is the synopsis. edited for Bruce
If you went by that stipulation then every city or town on a river would have to be abandoned.
No, they'd have to modify construction like they have on new projects on the beach. At some point, at least a little common sense should be incorporated, especially after a disaster. But, if it's your land and you don't mind dying on it and can afford to live with crazy insurance premiums, or with no insurance, I guess that's your call too. But then you get into how much our tax money should support people who do that as well.
It's a tactic. The delay puts financial stress on people who finally give up and sellout. And who will be there to pick up the pieces?
Many of those people had lost their insurance before the fire. The wealthy don't care and can build right back, the others were already done.
Not a lot of people would like paying CA property taxes on a lot with a burned out house on it. Especially when there are so many roadblocks being thrown up slowing down the rebuilding process.
Didn't say it was right, but the Insurance companies dropped their coverage due to "fire risk". We all know insurance (all types) and big Pharma run our government.
I found out being involved in the cleanup In the Palisades there were very rich people and those that thought they were rich...the later are headed out of state now. saw many tears!
Yep! There's a difference, but I get peoples land grab concerns too. Wealth makes the world go round.
My next question…. When insurance companies refuse to insure these, are we going to hear the outrage against State Farm all over again when the next fire occurs
Absolutely a valid question. This is the type of situation that government oversight is necessary to protect the tax base. There should be regulations in risk areas that say you can build here but you have to build a structure that can have the best chance possible to not cost the rest of us a bunch of money to recover. We all should not be force to accept the risk that an individual decides to take.
Damn, besides being fireproof it sounds like you are prepped and ready in case a Ruby Ridge type situation breaks out. Make sure you booby trap the perimeter.
Some years ago, I did a lot of work at Edwards AFB and houses were being built cookie-cutter style in Palmdale and Lancaster. The were basically 2x4 framing, something that looked like chicken wire over that, and then stucco. Presumably they insulated between the 2x4s on the inside. The roofs were clay tile. That area is prone to fast moving fires with creosote plants in the high desert.
Had a buddy in college whose family had a house up on stilts right outside (?) the levee near Natchez and his dad would claim flood damage every year on the same structure and personal property. No moral quandary at all.
How long have you known humans?*
No we do not learn.
All those craters weren’t dug for swimming holes. You think hail is rough on a roof!
This may have been true in the past, but the Flood Rating 2.0 which they did a couple of years ago dramatically increased the premiums for flood insurance in high-risk areas. We specifically sold our old house as our flood insurance was going from 2k a year to 18k a year. Insurance rate increases were capped at 18% increase per year until reaching the full amount. So high-risk areas either need to shore up or find a sucker to take it off your hands. I'm not saying some people don't find a way around it, but it's not nearly the terrible program for taxpayers that it used to be.
It's never been a terrible program for taxpayers in the grand scheme of things. There were things that needed to be cleaned up, particularly for some repeat loss properties, but since its establishment in 1968, its lost basically $395M per year. Not great, but basically a pittance in the scheme of the national government. And that accounting ignores that the NFIP has never invested surplus funds like a real insurance company would do.
Which is the same "play" and how work requirements for Medicaid health care saves money.
Sounds like homeowners actually learned that the Feds will continue to honor flood policies.
