Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How do people not understand that you can't have such a huge influx of people and no restraint on development in Florida without these ramifications? No, you can't close Florida to newcomers. You can curb developers from developing too quickly and too shabbily.

Florida has some of the strongest building codes in the country. No idea what you're talking about.

Have you seen how windows and glass are rated now? HVHZ? Broward and Miami-Dade county standards?

New buildings are made out of cinder blocks. Have you been to Florida?

Yes, people there don't even know how to drive in a round-about traffic circle.

There's way too much traffic. There's way too many people. I don't know how people "love" DeSantis there. Friends of mine are still touting how much they "love" their governor, when they will have nothing but tarp to cover their roof.

I don’t live in FL, but listened to one of his press conferences today. The guy exudes competence and compassion. I can see why people love him.

+1

Anonymous wrote:I was reading an article about a woman in Sarasota who declared that she can't take it anymore and is leaving Florida due to the hurricanes.

I am sympathetic, but it's odd how people seem to think that all Floridians must live right on the coast on a barrier island. Living just a few miles inland dramatically reduces your hurricane risk.

Inland Florida? That is your choice? Have fun.

I was reading an article about a woman in Sarasota who declared that she can't take it anymore and is leaving Florida due to the hurricanes.

I am sympathetic, but it's odd how people seem to think that all Floridians must live right on the coast on a barrier island. Living just a few miles inland dramatically reduces your hurricane risk.

It should be pointed out that you don't have to drive 1000 miles away and stay at a hotel to evacuate. You can just go to a designated hurricane shelter. In Florida, many shelters are pet friendly and accommodate special needs.

Hurricane forecasting accuracy has advanced dramatically over the past 20 years. Tampa has a unique geography where a tiny shift north or south in the path decides whether the bay floods or not.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No, it was a Cat 5 and dropped as it approached the coast. It had winds of 185mph at one point.

The level really only matters when it hits land. It was a 3.

It was a category 5 as little as 6 hours before it hit. It didn't downgrade to Cat 4 until about 4-5 hours before it hit landfall. And that was in the early hours. It wasn't cat 4 until about 4:00 AM and it made landfall about 8:30 AM.

So, people are supposed to wait until 4:00 AM to decide whether to evacuate or not? Are they supposed to sit until the wee hours of the morning just a few hours before it makes landfall and then decide that it will not change and they need to evacuate?

As for when will the tech advance enough? The tech was pretty accurate. They predicted that it would slow down before it made landfall, but it was a prediction, not a guarantee and that was dangerous enough for people in the direct path to evacuate. Considering that it had spent 2 days going from Cat 4 to Cat 5, the cycle was not predictable as to how long it would sustain at each of those speeds and whether it would be closer to either point when it actually made landfall.

You sound ridiculous blaming the industry for not being able to advance the science and tech at the level that you want them to. Maybe you should get off your duff and work on trying to find a solution faster than those in the industry and come back and let us know how fast you are changing the technology.

Anonymous wrote:No, it was a Cat 5 and dropped as it approached the coast. It had winds of 185mph at one point.

The level really only matters when it hits land. It was a 3.

No, it was a Cat 5 and dropped as it approached the coast. It had winds of 185mph at one point.

So it was only a Cat 3 after all. When will tech improve to better predict these things?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I wonder if those who refused to leave, and then want taxpayers to rescue them, are MAGA. They support politicians who don't want to fund FEMA or provide aid to blue states when natural disasters hit, but then want taxpayers (from mostly blue states) to bail them out.

It's a mix of people and really just human psychology at play. Often people are scared of evacuation because there is so much unknown, they are scared to lose everything they have and they often do not have much and can't start over.

Then they shouldn't keep voting for people who want to deny federal aid to people.

You're not listening. I'm telling you it's not a political issue. Evacuations are the same awful mess whether you voted Trump or Biden. I think people outside of hurricane areas do not get that it's not about abstracts, it's about a series of very real, pragmatic steps to take: Are you in the cone? Are you getting sand bags? Are you boarding up? Do you have food and water? Should you evacuate? Where should you evacuate? Do you have enough gas to evacuate? The logistics are so complex and some people end up playing ostrich with it all.

I'm listening, but they aren't.

If they don't want to or can't evacuate, they should stop voting for politicians who don't want to fund federal aid to people like them.

This is a stupid comment. Your property is going to get the same amount of damage whether you are there or not.

Of course there are massive benefits for leaving, but property damage has nothing to do with it. Sheesh.

Whether they evacuate or not, they shouldn't expect taxpayers to bail them out if they continue to vote for politicians who decline to fund FEMA.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I wonder if those who refused to leave, and then want taxpayers to rescue them, are MAGA. They support politicians who don't want to fund FEMA or provide aid to blue states when natural disasters hit, but then want taxpayers (from mostly blue states) to bail them out.

It's a mix of people and really just human psychology at play. Often people are scared of evacuation because there is so much unknown, they are scared to lose everything they have and they often do not have much and can't start over.

Then they shouldn't keep voting for people who want to deny federal aid to people.

You're not listening. I'm telling you it's not a political issue. Evacuations are the same awful mess whether you voted Trump or Biden. I think people outside of hurricane areas do not get that it's not about abstracts, it's about a series of very real, pragmatic steps to take: Are you in the cone? Are you getting sand bags? Are you boarding up? Do you have food and water? Should you evacuate? Where should you evacuate? Do you have enough gas to evacuate? The logistics are so complex and some people end up playing ostrich with it all.

I'm listening, but they aren't.

If they don't want to or can't evacuate, they should stop voting for politicians who don't want to fund federal aid to people like them.

This is a stupid comment. Your property is going to get the same amount of damage whether you are there or not.

Of course there are massive benefits for leaving, but property damage has nothing to do with it. Sheesh.