A Quick Visit from Chuck
So, Charley visited with us for a few hours yesterday. We heard from some friends that he was a terrible guest when he stayed with them in Florida and South Carolina, but he was on pretty good behavior when he hung out with us on Sunday. He was a bit of downer and cried the entire time, but he wasn’t passing much wind – so that was good.
But seriously, New England did luck out when you consider what Florida residents had to go through. Nobody deserves to lose everything (property and/or life) because of a storm (well, maybe a few people: Rick Santorum, Bill Frist, G.W., Jerry Falwell, et al).
Still, I find it frustrating when the news interviews the victims of the storm. For example, they interviewed a 60+ woman who lost her home to the storm. She said something to the extent of: “I never would have imagined in a million years that this could have happened to me.” How can that be? She lives in the most tropical state in the country that is prone to more hurricane strikes than any other state. She lives in a waterfront town and, the icing on the cake, she lives in a mobile home!
Maybe I’m being insensitive, but I think it’s safe to assume that if you put yourself in that kind of environment – it’s pretty much a given that a hurricane is going to rip through someday. I also heard that countless properties and lives had been saved because of more strict building codes that were implemented after Hurricane Andrew 12 years ago. I think that’s a brilliant idea and I’m glad it worked. But why are they still allowing mobile homes then? It seems like those are the most vulnerable. I know they’re more affordable and all, but there must be a better housing solution.
I’m not saying these people shouldn’t get help (because they should)…I’m just wondering whether more can be done to prevent such damage in the future. I mean, we seem to learn from other bad experiences (improved fire codes based on catastrophic fires like the Coconut Grove, improved snow removal plans after the Blizzard of ’78, improved seismic codes after the 1906 and Loma Prieta earthquakes)…why isn’t more being done about hurricanes? Banning mobile homes in hurricane and tornado territory may be a good start. Obviously other buildings get damaged, too…but it seems to never fail that when we see helicopter shots over hurricane damage, they always show a mobile home park that was desimated.
15 Comments
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
Karls getting Ruff in his commentary. Are you wearing leather today?
Hey, David. No leather for me – just my watch band and shoes.
Actually, I wrote this entry based on concern/practicality. I just think more should be done to ensure safety. Not only is a flying mobile home dangerous to the person living in it, but it’s also dangerous to other home owners as bits and pieces become airborne!
I feel awful for the people that lost everything!
could YOU be coerced to move from your beloved MA if there were some sort of geological/meteorological event that threatened you every year?
just asking!
Hey, Chris! Welcome back from vacay!
Um, Yes, I think I could be coerced into leaving Massachusetts. I mean, I did it once before (1997) and moved to San Francisco (although we did ultimately return, it was Matt who initiated the idea to move back).
I’m definitely open to moving elsewhere – I just haven’t found that place yet. But I’m sure that no matter where I move, Boston will always hold a special place in my heart since it’s where I came of age; where I have so many memories.
Ironically, I’m a natural disaster freak. I love big storms and would likely move to another place that suffers from such storms/disasters. I would just live in a safer structure.
As for the woman in Florida that I quoted in my blog entry…she said she retired there a few years ago so it’s not as if she had sentimenal roots tied to that region (though, it’s tragic that she lost sentimental belongings like photo albums as a result of Charley). That’s what I would have the hardest time losing….my memories.
I actually agree with Karl –
examples:
The people who build their homes on the flood plains of the Mississippi River and then wonder why their home is flooded every couple of years and then apply for federal disaster relief at our expense –
and then the people who build their homes in amoungst the trees in California who sued the firemen for not saving their homes during the awful fires last year – and the firemen turned around and said they had no buisness building their homes in the deep wood with trees touching their houses and then wondering why the were burned down. Everyone is always looking for someone else to blame…
People are arrogant. We think that we’ve outsmarted nature. That’s our mistake, but we’ll probably never learn the lesson.
Fritz echoes Chad’s comment on those who knowingly settle on flood plains. And when we went to the Spoleto Festival in Charleston a couple of years ago, we saw huge condo colonies built on “land” that was just about five inches above water level at high tide in an area that had almost no protection from the open Atlantic. I think developers have to be held accountable for idiocies like that.
building a house on a hillside near a faultine prone to mudslides is sheer foolishness.
but if you want to, you can!
people live where they want to live: people oftentimes choose to live in a natural setting and unfortunately nature is an unpredictable force-should that keep people from living where they want because of disasters that may or may not happen? the answer is in the predictability of the disaster.
developers cant be help responsible for building structures that people WANT to live in. if people didnt buy into these buildings, they wouldnt continue to build them. only the govt can create those laws that state which land is suitable for development-and in the case for our national parks, anyplace can be sold. “if you build it they will come.”
devils advocate
Chris. I agree. People should be able to live wherever they want (barring building in a way that will negatively affect the environment, such as on wetlands).
But if somebody chooses to live in such a vulnerable place KNOWING and ACCEPTING the risks involved, why should my (and your) tax dollars be spent to build them a new home in the exact same vulnerable spot…where it could potentially happen again? If people are will to accept the risk, they should be willing to accept the financial burden of replacement, too.
My two cents. hehe
for arguements sake:
a)if people do persevere in their choice to live in an area prone to natural disasters, then they could/would take out an Insurance Policy on their home. EASY!
b)as for tax-dollars, our money went to a war most of us didnt want. do we really have any say in how the govt wants to spend our tax dollars? in this administration?
c) do you want the govt telling YOU where you can and cant live? (ie our native peoples)
d) govt contractors rely on our tax dollars to keep their businesses afloat, thus keeping the grand cycle of $$$ circulating.
does any of this make you angry? get involved!
*chris
Hey, Chris!FUN!
a) Insurance isn’t always an option. Many insurance agencies locally have been not issuing (and not renewing) policies on Cape Cod because of weather/ocean concerns. When we lived in San Francisco, earthquake insurance is minimal and useless. So, it’s not so easy!
b) exactly (about taxes). So why not limit the amount spent on stuff we don’t agree with and focus on stuff that people tend to agree on: education, crime enforcement/public safety, etc…
c)I definitely don’t want the government saying where I can live. BUT, by the same token, since I’m not letting them dictate where I live, I wouldn’t expect for them to bail me out when I stupidly build a cliff-side mobile home on stilts in earthquake, mudslide and hurricane territory.
d) even with better building codes, natural disasters will happen and properties will be damaged. Hence, government contractors will continue profiting. But for SAFETY’s sake, I just think guidelines should be implemented to prevent excess damages/expenses for people living in risky places.
im all for helping the unfortunate. im not for bailing the unfortunate out, only for them to make the same mistakes again. done get me wrong.
i do though like the idea of Making the Options nearly Impossible Financially for people to make an expensive mistake (deny insurance policies for residences in disaster prone places). this also ensures though that the $$$iest among us are the only people who will be able to enjoy ‘natural beauty’ because they will have the financial resouces to do so. thats another arguement altogether.
all about the benjamins *cp
This reminds me of the people who buy houses near O’Hare and then complain about noise from jets. And then they stand in the way of desperately needed airport expansion ‘cos that’ll mean more…you guessed it: jets!
The text was good, but i stil cant find the play ipdates. looking for it dude.
A heap of wheat, says the Song of Songs
but I’ve never seen wheat in a pile 🙂
did you like it?