Posted on 08/16/2004 4:26:54 PM PDT by jolie560
CAPTIVA - The ritzy barrier islands that Hurricane Charley pummeled first before raging across the state appear to have survived far better than their neighbors farther inland.
Although damage assessments had yet to be completed for the islands Sunday night, Lee County officials said they were confident that damage could be repaired and the islands could recover their identity as an idyllic vacation getaway.
"Nearly all (buildings) had some damage, but it was varying degrees, because these are big homes and well-put-together homes," said Pat O'Rourke, spokeswoman for the Lee County Emergency Operations Center. "It's a matter of the integrity of the structures."
While many resort homes on Captiva and North Captiva Island saw some damage, most lost rooftops, not walls. A St. Petersburg Times reporter and photographer who toured the area in a boat noted some damage to homes on the tip of North Captiva Island but not to the extent of those damaged in Punta Gorda and Port Charlotte.
(Excerpt) Read more at sptimes.com ...
Yes, I need to brush up on my HTML. But not dumb enough to stay in a mobile home through a hurricane.
Sure, low value housing single family housing like mobile homes aren't usually found in any city.... But that is a different thing than "banned".
http://www.nbc-2.com/index.shtml
NBC2 and ABC7 spent Sunday afternoon taking a two-hour helicopter tour of damaged areas on Fort Myers Beach, Sanibel, Captiva, Bokeelia, Pine Island and south Fort Myers. Click above for a detailed, narrated look at the spectacular aftermath of Hurricane Charley.
Yippie for you and your team. This whole little side topic of yours is just pointless tilting at windmills.
You are amzing defensive. Do you own a mobilehome?
Exactly.
Construction of mobile homes is sub-par. Like I said, they drag down property values.
how many died in mobile homes in Punta Gorda?
I see from your profile you are from Hawaii. Are you a contractor? Builder? Realtor? What do you think a "Safe" home would cost to build? Just for fun, lets say 1000 sq feet. No permits, land costs or fees just raw materials. Simple concrete slab with either a block or wood framed structure. I have to go for the evening, I have a home to build tomorrow but I will await your answer.
Thanks for the link.
I agree with RightWhale.
Perhaps increase the number of rivets that hold the sheet metal to the frame by 50%. Especially at the seams so the wind can't get underneath and begin to peel it away. It might also help to decrease the stud spacing in the walls a bit. It would add a little more cost to construction, but they'd be somewhat sturdier.
No.... but I rent one on seven acres up here in Washington.
I am not poor, but it is cheap, and ideal for what I'm doing right now. I am not here to lobby for the trailer trash sect, but I don't like a snob that would ban trailers from Florida because ~bonk~ it just seems like a good idea and we wouldn't have to see the mess on TV.
Of course... they are built to be light and mobile and cheap. Build them heftier and they probably wouldn't be good cheap mobile housing!
Well, I've always wondered why people would want to live in flimsy houses in hurricane country. I'd be willing to bet that most of the people who live in Florida now weren't born there.
(And Maryland hasn't taken any guns. I live there and I've still got my pistols and "assault rifles.")
It's not about snobbism or what's cheap. In the case of Florida it's about what's safe. These homes are not safe. I have looked into their safety more than you know.
I did preface this conversation by saying that building codes here in California are NOT cheap. They are strict. But when there is an earthquake in Pakistan kills 60,000, the same magnitude here in California kills 10. So, strict building codes work.
I am remodeling my home now. It's not old, but strict building codes keep me safe in an earthquake. I know it.
Given that trailer housing is incredibly cheap compared to a conventional home/lot, I'd prefer that trailer dwellers simply accept full responsibility for their financial hardship in the event of a natural catastrophe. In other words, I'm not one to dictate to people where they can live, but I am one to object to our government bailing them out.
Private insurance can cover them as they see fit, based on probabilities and construction.
That cost is the land.... not the structure.
It is not fair that the rich should not suffer to the same extent as the poor. The two possible solutions are to upgrade construction codes for all dwellings to the point that no poor people can afford to live anywhere but on the street, or to outlaw superior constructions methods used by the rich. Both of these approaches will probably be tried in this situation...
Maybe. But in an area that is ravaged by hurricanes more than my area is by earthquakes then one has to wonder why the local government is not looking at strengthening the codes.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.