Posted on 01/29/2006 2:17:44 PM PST by Uncle Sham
Wonder Warthog--
You and I are in agreement at last! :-)
I'm quite pleased, my FRiend!
--Gondring
Hint for the future. Dont live in a flood zone or get FULL flood insurance coverage.
1% is 3 million. It wont even be 1/10th of that number.
We are talking about entire cities the size of Beaumont and Port Arthur put together. Entire local economies have lost their tax base but are faced with massive cleanup efforts of basically every structure in town. This is what St Bernard is facing. This is what Cameron is facing. The homeowners in these areas are in limbo, awaiting the final screw-job from their insurance companies, and the beginning of monthly installments on mortgages that are worthless on homes they can't even live in.
When the scale of need is this large, we need to do something which might keep this from ever happening again. This plan does it. It was proposed by a republican. Feel better now?
Sorry, momentary brain fart. I used conventional mortgages so mine are not federally guaranteed I assume.
If the feds are dumb enough to insure those, like I said, current programs should handle it.
Just look at how long it took the NYC to deal with a small proportion of the vast ruined remains of Bronx tenenments that were burned down in the 70's and 80's. The city took over many of these derelict buildings and many sites are still not developed.
Having the government become landlord for these properties is a terrible terrible idea.
As I understand in the New Orleans area, their was a massive waste of money on all the levee construction, and that the flood wall that might have worked was blocked by environmentalists, while an unneeded channel was built against advice from the Corps of Engineers. 100 years of poor decisions in NO finally came home to roost.
Regardless of what the federal government said, I doubt any bankable promises were made. If insurance companies are defaulting on legitimate claims, you have plenty of reason to be POd, but from other recent disasters, including Hugo in SC, that is not unusual.
NO is an important port, but many are like me, and do not wish to see it become a large urban area again. Even though the levees were supposed to hold against a Category 3, until one happened, there was no way to tell. I don't think you could protect against a category 5 regardless of what is built, and with hurricanes increasing in the next ten years, I would not bet against one. New Orleans should be abandoned as an urban area.
You are correct that it shows what would happen in another large city crisis. The lesson would be to not depend on the federal government. The majority of people in NO didn't even have enough food for three days. If your local government and local people are not prepared, that is a disaster waiting to happen.
Nothing in this plan will keep it from happening again, and it's only four months until the start of hurricane season 2006.
Buying people's homes at some pre-storm value is rubbish. Why should I ensure my home if I can whine enough after it's destroyed that YOU should pay for it?
If people are getting the runaround from their insurance companies, that's wrong. I'd support legislation to make them pay quickly and fairly. I don't think the solution is for me to be forced to step into their shoes and pay for them.
We are a nation founded on personal responsibility and personal choices. We should act like it and not go all wobbly to reward bad decisions or insure against bad luck.
When Los Angeles gets flattened by an 8.2 earthquake, I'll have the same approach. Rescue the survivors and give them food and shelter until they figure out what to do on their own.
People can be pretty resourceful if they're not sitting on their butts waiting for someone to take care of them.
"Will not be rebuilt" has a built in assumption -- that the land will be converted to a wetland. Which means that some government is seizing it pursuant to the eminent domain process.
The government will hire an appraiser, the property owner will hire an appraiser, and a jury will decide. A local jury.
It's not a question of "expectation." It's a matter of law.
You are a conservative.
Therefore, you believe in the rule of law.
This means laws you don't like, laws you wouldn't have voted for, laws you wouldn't have passed.
The laws exist. The laws will be honored, like it or don't. If the requirements are met, there's no way around it.
You can pay them now, or you can pay them later, but you will pay.
If you don't like it, then may I suggest that in the future, in addition to not voting for Democrats, you don't vote for Big Government Republicans.
BUT -- laws can't be changed retroactively. The United States Constitution prohibits ex post facto laws.
SO -- like it or not, you will pay.
No kidding; then explain how it is that people who didn't bother to buy flood insurance are getting paid anyway?
And you better send Trent Lott an email informing him of that; he and his sleazy brother-in-law are going to court to change the LAW about flood insurance.
SO -- like it or not, you will pay.
You sound extremely happy about that; it's attitudes like that that are turning so many people OFF to the plight of New Orleans.
I've got family and friends in both New Orleans and coastal Mississippi. If it makes you feel any better (it doesn't for me) the people in coastal Mississippi are having almost as much trouble as the people in Louisiana.
That's with Haley Barbour as governor and Trent Lott as US senator running interference.
It's just a cluster-you-know-what.
What should the aftermath of a flood look like? In 1900 Galveston, Texas, was damaged much worse than N.O. and no federal aid was forthcoming, nor expected. It was rebuilt by the people who wanted to rebuild it and it has been a thriving city for over a century since then.
Surely you are not saying Texans are tougher than Cajuns! :-)
As a conservative, I do believe in the rule of law. I make no bones about it. The rule of law is the cornerstone of what's best about America.
This means even laws I don't like, even laws I wouldn't have passed or voted for.
Your opinion obviously differs.
The people who live in New Orleans (Creoles) predate the Cajuns. And my own Louisiana ancestors predate both! (1720, Pointe Coupee.)
But that's beside the point.
What "should be" or "should not be" are questions for public policy wonks, and ultimately for voters.
I am a lawyer. I don't deal in "what should be" or "what should not be." I deal in "what is."
And I am just telling it like it is. We can pay them now, or we can pay them later, but one way or the other, we will pay.
The Baker Plan means buying up these properties at sixty cents on the dollar. If we wait, we'll ultimately have to buy them up at 100 cents on the dollar, plus legal fees.
Not to mention what the default and bankruptcy of 300,000 people will do to our economy.
As a private investor, that's a decision you can make, and it's a good one, and if I were in your shoes, it's the decision I would make.
On the other hand, if I were a property owner, I'd be looking either for the highest bidder, or I'd just rebuild.
So, there's more than one set of interests involved in these transactions. You have yours, the private property owners have theirs, the developers have theirs, the City of New Orleans has its own agenda, the State of Louisiana has its own agenda, etc. The way to make public policy is to strike a balance between competing agendas.
What law is it that says I have to pay for the stupidity of the people of New Orleans?
There are several.
In no particular order -- as an American taxpayer, you are the ultimate guarantor for federally guaranteed flood insurance policies.
As an American taxpayer, you are the ultimate guarantor for all federally insured mortgages, which includes FHA mortgages and all VA mortgages.
As an American taxpayer, you foot the bill for defaults on student loans.
As an American taxpayer, you foot the bill for FEMA.
As an American taxpayer, you foot the bill for Medicaid.
As an American taxpayer, you foot the bill for Section Eight housing.
There's more but that's enough for starters.
We'll get to pay for their corruption too.
That very well could be.
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.