Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Flood zones are changing as global warming increases flooding and hurricanes. I really don't know what can be done to predict or stop it.

Are you a scientist? Do you know anything about weather patterns? Do you know anything?

Much can be done to prevent the billions in losses that Harvey is predicted to cause.

First, rebuilding on flood plains must end. All building on flood plains must end. There should be no flood insurance for houses and any other type of structure built on a flood plain. If you choose to build on a flood plain, you're on your own.

It's a complicated problem, because avaricious governments and corporations and individuals have allowed tons of building on flood plains in the past, so all those structures must be relocated.

But to say or think it can't be done, is ridiculous. It can, and must be done. Period.

Should we also end building in Oregon and Washington, particularly west if the I-5 Corridor? Where do you propose we relocate millions of people to?

https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2015/07/20/the-really-big-one/amp

Relocate millions? What doesn't need to be in Houston due to proximity to the Gulf CAN go elsewhere. Shipping, refining need to be there but .... KISS example. Exxon was Standard Oil of NJ in NY and NJ. Exxon scooped up Mobile in Fairfax County VA. Within the last few years that went bye bye. I knew people who now perform the same jobs in Houston.

How much vacant housing [needing rehab] on GOOD land for building exists in other areas? Not glamorous but there is Baltimore and Philadelphia. Fema had buy outs in NJ. People took it and left their more flood prone spots for elsewhere in NJ. There are people in Houston area who left NOLA after Katrina.

Anonymous wrote:No less regulations! You can't tell me what to do!

That is part of Houston's problem. 1. There is no code requiring detention ponds. 2. Lack of zoning has resulted in an additional 25% of the county being paved over the the last two decades. Pavement forces more water runoff.

Also, it's really flat, and the bayous have been widened but not enough. That is not a matter of regulation, but it is a way local and state government affects the problem.


A lot of wealthy people have rebuilt homes that stand several feet up off the ground. I am curious to see how they fared, or whether they got flooded out anyway.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Flood zones are changing as global warming increases flooding and hurricanes. I really don't know what can be done to predict or stop it.

We could probably try to do something about global warming. That might help.

That. Urban planning might help, too.

Because urban planning has brought us urban corridors filled with drunk millennials while the poor they displaced huddle in newly created subsidized ghettos or flee to far flung suburbs where they cause social and crime problems

Oh no pp, the poors are living to close to you!!!

No less regulations! You can't tell me what to do!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Flood zones are changing as global warming increases flooding and hurricanes. I really don't know what can be done to predict or stop it.

Are you a scientist? Do you know anything about weather patterns? Do you know anything?

Much can be done to prevent the billions in losses that Harvey is predicted to cause.

First, rebuilding on flood plains must end. All building on flood plains must end. There should be no flood insurance for houses and any other type of structure built on a flood plain. If you choose to build on a flood plain, you're on your own.

It's a complicated problem, because avaricious governments and corporations and individuals have allowed tons of building on flood plains in the past, so all those structures must be relocated.

But to say or think it can't be done, is ridiculous. It can, and must be done. Period.

Should we also end building in Oregon and Washington, particularly west if the I-5 Corridor? Where do you propose we relocate millions of people to?

https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2015/07/20/the-really-big-one/amp

Anonymous wrote:Did I say get rid of mortgage interest deductions? No. Do they get casualty deductions. Yes. But we should never be supporting allowing construction in certain types of areas.

San Fran and earthquakes could happen. We know it rains and we get flooding ever year circling the Gulf. A tsunamai could hit Hawaii. Acts of nature that are not expected but could happen. Not regular annual or semi-annual events like the 4rth of July. People expect government to perform some functions like zoning, building codes, etc.

A reasonable expectation that careful thought and prudence went into the existence of a structure on a specific location. And that is not Houston. This woman in Port Arthur went to a shelter and that is now flooded:

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/video/2017/aug/30/harvey-tropical-storm-houston-shelter-is-flooded-video

Did I specify mortgage interest deductions? It is not that an Earthquake could happen in SF or the PNW, or that a Tsunami could inundate Hawaii. All of those things WILL happen. Scientists and government planners expect them to happen, the only question is when. And with the earthquakes, the devastation will be on a much bigger scale than the flooding in Houston or in NOLA.

All you are hanging your argument on is frequency while ignoring severity.

If you don't want to support construction in disaster prone areas, by all means, don't support it. But it makes no sense to not support construction in one disaster prone area (flooding) while supporting it in others (earthquakes, tornadoes, wildfires, etc...).

Anonymous wrote:Flood zones are changing as global warming increases flooding and hurricanes. I really don't know what can be done to predict or stop it.

Are you a scientist? Do you know anything about weather patterns? Do you know anything?

Much can be done to prevent the billions in losses that Harvey is predicted to cause.

First, rebuilding on flood plains must end. All building on flood plains must end. There should be no flood insurance for houses and any other type of structure built on a flood plain. If you choose to build on a flood plain, you're on your own.

It's a complicated problem, because avaricious governments and corporations and individuals have allowed tons of building on flood plains in the past, so all those structures must be relocated.

But to say or think it can't be done, is ridiculous. It can, and must be done. Period.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Flood zones are changing as global warming increases flooding and hurricanes. I really don't know what can be done to predict or stop it.

We could probably try to do something about global warming. That might help.

That. Urban planning might help, too.

Because urban planning has brought us urban corridors filled with drunk millennials while the poor they displaced huddle in newly created subsidized ghettos or flee to far flung suburbs where they cause social and crime problems

That doesn't seem really relevant?

But urban planning generally is:
http://www.builderonline.com/building/did-urban-planning-make-hurricane-harvey-worse-for-houston_c

Did I say get rid of mortgage interest deductions? No. Do they get casualty deductions. Yes. But we should never be supporting allowing construction in certain types of areas.

San Fran and earthquakes could happen. We know it rains and we get flooding ever year circling the Gulf. A tsunamai could hit Hawaii. Acts of nature that are not expected but could happen. Not regular annual or semi-annual events like the 4rth of July. People expect government to perform some functions like zoning, building codes, etc.

A reasonable expectation that careful thought and prudence went into the existence of a structure on a specific location. And that is not Houston. This woman in Port Arthur went to a shelter and that is now flooded:

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/video/2017/aug/30/harvey-tropical-storm-houston-shelter-is-flooded-video

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Flood insurance should be priced on an actuarial basis across the country. Let them build wherever they want as long as they are carrying the costs for building there. Problem solved.

What about tax deductions on top of the flood insurance? That gives federal money that otherwise would go to the treasury. Example-at a 35% rate you save .35 on every dollar of deduction.

Do you really think the people would stand for paying nominal tax rates? That isn't "money that would otherwise go to the treasures". The more likely outcome is that nominal rates would be reduced to roughly mirror current effective rates, that people would reduce their economic output (see the UK's recent experience), leave the country (see France's recent experience) or some combination of the above.

And no; you don't save ".35 on every dollar". You save .35 cents on every marginal dollar that would otherwise be subject to that .35 cent rate (ie, the amount of the deduction).

If you're asking about tax deductions for building in those zones, there is no reason not to give tax deductions to those builders/property owners that everybody else gets.

I understand the .35 on marginal dollars. That is money that otherwise would go to the treasury. Where else would it go assuming all other things constant? Any substantive changes after Ike, Katrina, Sandy? Do a sample and see your money subsidizing. My question is should flood insurance premiums more accurately reflect risk? Do an example for yourself. Should we all be paying for others beach/bay living AND/OR jurisdictions that ignore common sense zoning and urban planning?
http://www.npr.org/2016/08/26/491531827/after-hurricane-sandy-many-chose-to-move-rather-than-rebuild
On a far smaller scale Fairfax County is spending millions on levees for a persistently flooding area. Fox Beach on Staten island is a sensible solution.

All other things wouldn't remain constant. It is a widely accepted fact that people/organizations make economic decisions based on expected after-tax outcomes. There is simply no good reason to think that changes to the tax code won't alter human behavior and thus any argument that assumes all other things remain constant is an unserious argument.

I already said that flood insurance premiums should be based on actuarial analysis of risks with no subsidies.

If you're getting at removing general incentives through the tax code fhat end up benefiting those who build in risk-prone areas, you might as well remove those general incentives completely. First, I know of no area in that country that doesn't face natural disasters. Second, other areas of the country face this issue on a much grander scale.

You are not correct. Nowhere else has the massive flood potential. Now where have most FEMA dollars gone? NOLA and Texas. https://www.fema.gov/media-library/assets/documents/21068 65% o the 2001 Houston area flooding was not in flood zones. 2016 saw flood damage in areas not in zones. The zones do not account for spillover from adjacent flood zones. https://www.usnews.com/news/best-states/texas/articles/2017-08-30/flood-policies-plunge-in-houston-in-5-years-before-harvey

So if your property is zone x and in DC and you change some bushes whatever and get water in the basement should you be rated the same as a zone x next to a bayou area and spillway? KISS summary on the NPR article.

Well, you get an F for creativity. Hint: 85% of all property in the San Francisco Bay Area is not insured for earthquake damage. The Pacific Northwest is built on top of what is arguably the most dangerous fault line on the planet. It's only a matter of time before Hawaii is flooded by a tsunami. When those disasters inevitably strike, where do you think FEMA dollars will go?

Yet people keep building and living in those areas. Again, I already agree that insurance rates should be actuarial in these areas. No argument from me. But if you want to remove general tax incentives that also benefit people who live in disaster prone areas, you might as well scrap them entirely. Too many people live in earthquake zones, flood zones, hurricane zones, tornado zones, etc:.. that once you kill the tax benefit for them, you might as well just get rid of it entirely.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Flood zones are changing as global warming increases flooding and hurricanes. I really don't know what can be done to predict or stop it.

We could probably try to do something about global warming. That might help.

That. Urban planning might help, too.

I agree both are needed. Is it really true that Houston has NO zoning laws??

Yes, it is true.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Flood zones are changing as global warming increases flooding and hurricanes. I really don't know what can be done to predict or stop it.

We could probably try to do something about global warming. That might help.

That. Urban planning might help, too.

I agree both are needed. Is it really true that Houston has NO zoning laws??

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Flood insurance should be priced on an actuarial basis across the country. Let them build wherever they want as long as they are carrying the costs for building there. Problem solved.

What about tax deductions on top of the flood insurance? That gives federal money that otherwise would go to the treasury. Example-at a 35% rate you save .35 on every dollar of deduction.

Do you really think the people would stand for paying nominal tax rates? That isn't "money that would otherwise go to the treasures". The more likely outcome is that nominal rates would be reduced to roughly mirror current effective rates, that people would reduce their economic output (see the UK's recent experience), leave the country (see France's recent experience) or some combination of the above.

And no; you don't save ".35 on every dollar". You save .35 cents on every marginal dollar that would otherwise be subject to that .35 cent rate (ie, the amount of the deduction).

If you're asking about tax deductions for building in those zones, there is no reason not to give tax deductions to those builders/property owners that everybody else gets.

I understand the .35 on marginal dollars. That is money that otherwise would go to the treasury. Where else would it go assuming all other things constant? Any substantive changes after Ike, Katrina, Sandy? Do a sample and see your money subsidizing. My question is should flood insurance premiums more accurately reflect risk? Do an example for yourself. Should we all be paying for others beach/bay living AND/OR jurisdictions that ignore common sense zoning and urban planning?
http://www.npr.org/2016/08/26/491531827/after-hurricane-sandy-many-chose-to-move-rather-than-rebuild
On a far smaller scale Fairfax County is spending millions on levees for a persistently flooding area. Fox Beach on Staten island is a sensible solution.

All other things wouldn't remain constant. It is a widely accepted fact that people/organizations make economic decisions based on expected after-tax outcomes. There is simply no good reason to think that changes to the tax code won't alter human behavior and thus any argument that assumes all other things remain constant is an unserious argument.

I already said that flood insurance premiums should be based on actuarial analysis of risks with no subsidies.

If you're getting at removing general incentives through the tax code fhat end up benefiting those who build in risk-prone areas, you might as well remove those general incentives completely. First, I know of no area in that country that doesn't face natural disasters. Second, other areas of the country face this issue on a much grander scale.

You are not correct. Nowhere else has the massive flood potential. Now where have most FEMA dollars gone? NOLA and Texas. https://www.fema.gov/media-library/assets/documents/21068 65% o the 2001 Houston area flooding was not in flood zones. 2016 saw flood damage in areas not in zones. The zones do not account for spillover from adjacent flood zones. https://www.usnews.com/news/best-states/texas/articles/2017-08-30/flood-policies-plunge-in-houston-in-5-years-before-harvey

So if your property is zone x and in DC and you change some bushes whatever and get water in the basement should you be rated the same as a zone x next to a bayou area and spillway? KISS summary on the NPR article.

Bottom line is that the flood plain areas are known and the risks to build and live in them are known, yet our country continues to subsidize development in these areas and allow people to live in them, uninsured.

But hey, unfettered capitalism, right?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Flood zones are changing as global warming increases flooding and hurricanes. I really don't know what can be done to predict or stop it.

We could probably try to do something about global warming. That might help.

That. Urban planning might help, too.

Because urban planning has brought us urban corridors filled with drunk millennials while the poor they displaced huddle in newly created subsidized ghettos or flee to far flung suburbs where they cause social and crime problems