Reply With Quote
I would be embarrassed to have my name associated with this article.
You live on the water, you pay the price. The federal government has no business helping insure homes on the water.
And they want FEMA funds... Jesus...
Guadalupe floodplain homeowners seek FEMA funds to elevate homes
http://www.expressnews.com/news/loca...ds-5504119.php
I would be embarrassed to have my name associated with this article.
You live on the water, you pay the price. The federal government has no business helping insure homes on the water.
And they want FEMA funds... Jesus...
and it's not even FEMA insurance subsidy/break/discount, they want FEMA cash BEFORE THE NEXT FLOOD to raise their waterfront homes.
I understand that.
Its embarrassing to grovel while living in a nice house on the water. If they have to go to FEMA, they had no business buying that house in the first place.
For a brief time in 1808 a settlement grew up at the intersection of the Guadalupe River and the Old San Antonio Road, but flooding and the threat of Indian raids made the site untenable
The Guadalupe Waterpower Company was established in 1912, and by 1920 the company had built a series of dams between New Braunfels and Seguin in an effort to harness the river's power. Flooding, however, continued to be a problem.
http://www.tshaonline.org/handbook/online/articles/rng01
The Guadalupe River frequently flooded San Jose’s downtown and Alviso community, with numerous severe flooding events in its history.
Most recently, the river flooded in 1982, 1983, 1986 and 1995. In February 1986, the river overflowed its east bank upstream of St. John Street, flooding residences and businesses.
In January 1995, a similar flood occurred and flooded the same area. In March 1995, severe flooding occurred when the Guadalupe River and Los Gatos Creek combined to produce the highest flow in 50 years.
In the most extensive flooding of the city’s core in four decades, streets turned into rivers, forcing residents from their homes and driving office workers from high-rise buildings. Approximately 300 homes and businesses were flooded by four separate breakouts along the river, with damage estimates of up to $10 million. According to a 2001 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers report, average annual equivalent damages are $27.25 million.
http://www.grpg.org/flood-control
These rich assholes will probably get Federal dollars for raising their multi-$100K homes, but will vote down any aid for housing the homeless, eg, vets.
Rich or not, if you can afford to buy a home, don't buy a home in flood prone areas unless you can afford to replace it yourself. That's the way it should be. Same with building homes on cliffs that collapse. If you can afford that view of the pacific in Cali, be ready to replace it yourself.
If private insurance cannot get enough risk takers together to make a profit AND properly insure your house, then take a pause to think a bit. But the government wants growth...
As we type communities on the water are going up all along 35 between Rockport and Aransas Pass on marshland.
Like there has never been a hurricane before.
Federal Flood insurance fund is something like $25B in hole. When Feds tried to raise the rates, the WEALTHY got their way, as always, and the rates weren't raised so much. I'm sure there's plenty millionaires in Congress and upper govt with river and beach front property.
It doesn't matter. We shouldn't have to pay for others who could live on higher ground.
Maybe, but if the stupid liberals and RINO's fund it, should they be denied? Deny all, or allow all to apply. They have every right in the world to recoup their tax dollars if such a thing is funded.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
