Read the articles below and discuss what obligations, if any, we have to rebuild disaster stricken areas over and over again.
As Coast Rebuilds.......Critics Ask Why
NY Times 11/19/2012
When Taxpayers Pay People to Rebuild in Harm's Way
NY Times 11/19/2012
Due November 29, 2012
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
12 comments:
I have always wondered this myself....but in a different angle. WHY DO PEOPLE LIVE IN THE AREAS THAT ALWAYS SEEM TO GET DEVASTATED BY HURRICANES, TORNADOES, ETC? But now this point being brought up pretty much says it all! I totally believe that a person who chooses to live in these areas need to be held more responsible for damage happening to their property in these high danger areas! They should be given minimal coverage!
79 etchsacWell there are two schools of thought on this, why do the priviledged, entitled beachfront property owners want to live there? easy, its gorgeous, they get to call our beaches their "property" and even in some cases limit those allowed to walk along them. It is a nice way to live if you can afford it. Then again there are the people that live inland, the people who work for the aformentioned population;housekeepers,mechanics,construction workers,sanitation people and childcare providers. Many people of this population have lived in these areas because they were born here, live down the street from grandma and walk to work or take buses. They live in studio aparments and share rent with another family member. These people CANT leave. They are stuck in this life. Either way there was a good program that we watched that showed how,why people live near active volcanos. It showed how the government was giving incentives for people to move. That is an idea.Now as for the priviledged and entitled ones that own the huge homes on our beaches, they should be forced to rely on private insurance policies to rebuild (either they can afford those, or they cant!)
There are not many obligations that I can think of, but the people who live in those areas are prone to natural disasters have their reasons to stay a call it "home." But once the storm hits, everyone or most people has to pitch in to help rebuild and clean up the mess. Plus most insurance companies can only do so much to help and most won't give full benefits. The same goes for people who live near the ocean they have more chances of disasters. Yea people live there because if the view and lifestyle.
Disaster relief is an important issue that will become more so as global climate change reeks havoc with with cities and towns prone to disaster. The issue of help for the less fortunate and displaced is definetly a must, but to do so time and time again in the same place is not logical. Resources spent in these economic times so that people can maintain a standard of living is unquestionably a bad decision both economicaly and politically. When these areas are hit, there should be an invstigation on whether there is a way to minimize future damages during the reconstruction process. If not then the people should be given a choice on if they stay in the area that they are responsible for future like events. Taxpayers should not be responsible for the property of others when there is a pattern. The only exclusion should be areas that do bring a significant amount to the economy or are needed for the good of the country as a whole. Such areas would include: New York, and the major cities on the Eastern seaboard and their counterparts around the country. The real problem with rebuilding after natural disasters is that the insurance companies are not being made to take responsibilty for their clients. It has always been the case that the government allows insurance companies to not pay out for act of god situations. What is needed is for those companies to not be allowed to shirk their responsibility and to be made to insure for thos acts and pay out in a timely manner. I belive that the insurance companies should be allowed to mitigate their expected loss by increasing primiums for thos in that area but be made to do the job they were designed to do.
I think those people who decided to live in areas prone to disasters should have to pay higher premiums and if you dont have the money to rebuild then you need to consider moving. everyone complains about how the government spends their money but are the same ones who are puttin their hand out when something effects their life.
We all have obligations in our lives and should help one another, taxes, well there going to up it or take it so people gotta plan and figure where and how to live. If you choose to live near all the weather disasters, you need to get insurance for your home, life insurance for home members because you just don't know. But when your governor is telling you to leave the area, leave!! They should have a just in case plan. But they get all sentimental of there "material" things, it's not worth it.
I think that obligation is an interesting word in this scenario. I feel that people who live in these diaster prone areas, need to understand that it affects others because their tax money is spent on helping them live in these areas. I do believe that we are obligated to think with the shoe on the other foot, so to speak. Just because the east coast is hit with hurricanes and the west coast has earthquakes, doesnt mean these people should find new places to live, but they should be paying higher taxes and have less property insurance coverage.
Jeremy Taliman
I think that obligation is an interesting word in this scenario. I feel that people who live in these diaster prone areas, need to understand that it affects others because their tax money is spent on helping them live in these areas. I do believe that we are obligated to think with the shoe on the other foot, so to speak. Just because the east coast is hit with hurricanes and the west coast has earthquakes, doesnt mean these people should find new places to live, but they should be paying higher taxes and have less property insurance coverage.
I can never understand why people choose to live in danger zones like tornado alley or in Neworlins knowing that there is a danger that exists in that area. Sure poverty plays a part in their decision to live there. What really don’t make sense to me is when there is danger on its way and people have been given plenty of warning to get the hell out of there and go somewhere safe, they choose to stay there in danger’s way. I have no sympathy for them because they could have made the choice and get the hell out.
I think people that choose to live in disaster prone areas should be held accountable for their decision. At some point, it's madness to keep rebuilding. Of course, I think there should be some type of aid to the population residing there but we are not dealing with 2 year olds who constantly need monitoring and help. People make decisions and are aware of the consequences so I think it is about time that the structure of these events changes so that it is cost effective and safe as possible for the people living there.
I think natural disasters are needed.Just as fire is needed for growth.If we understand the extreme forces which our planet can produce maybe then our houses wouldn't blow away.If contractors actually built houses that could withstand any natural disaster maybe it would be less devistating and easyier to clean up.Nature will always win,No Matter what we do.This earth is the only thing which Will last longer then anything,Anyone,Or any place.
I am extremely impressed with your writing skills and your article writing inspire me, thanks for all of this. Auto Insurance Discounts
Post a Comment