The same area has been affected by wild fires on more than one occassion. Why should fire fighter's lives be endangered and tax payer dollars wasted for people to stay in a hazardous area?
2007-10-25 06:01:37 · 16 answers · asked by Chi Guy 5 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Sara E (below) If an area is declared a "national diaster" FEMA reimburses home owners up to $250K if I am not mistaken.
Not to mention the effects to insurance companies.
2007-10-25 06:09:10 · update #1
The Thing (below) LOL Why shocked? Oh, because I disagree with the Iraq war.
2007-10-25 06:10:25 · update #2
Golden (below) I saw that show. The guy has a mustache. He built somewhere east such as Newport or something. That aired a couple of years ago. He made an excellent point that went ignored.
2007-10-25 06:12:19 · update #3
caldude (below) I totally disagree. When have you seen Chicago or Denver receiving FEMA funds for a diaster?
How about, after a FEMA bailout, you are not eligable for another for ten or fifteen years?
2007-10-25 06:14:08 · update #4
I think you would be hard-pressed to find any place that isn't hazardous.
For instance, all of the West Coast is in Earthquake zones. All of the midwest gets tornados. The Rocky Mountain States all have snowstorms. The southwest has deserts and droughts. The southeast gets hit by an average of 3 hurricanes a year. The northeast has snowstorms. The Appalachcians have snowstorms and landslides. Any coastal state in the world is in danger of tsunamis.
According to FHA, every single residence in the country is in a flood zone of some kind.
So, that is why we have a fire department, and also why we should have homeowners insurance.
Besides, do you really want to let this fire to continue to burn out of control and affect more people?
Also, FEMA only pays a small, minute fraction of the costs of "rebuilding".
Do you really think that these people should all just be left out in the forests with nothing?
How considerate....
2007-10-25 06:28:27 · answer #1 · answered by Cold Hard Fact 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
God, some of these answers are so dense. These are natural disasters EVERYWHERE! Saying victims of disasters shouldn't receive assistance (i.e. like firefighters - which we pay tax dollars!) is like saying you shouldn't receive medical attention when involved in an auto accident. After all, you know the statistics and how damaging an auto accident can be and you knew that risk before you got behind the wheel. . . That's absolutely inane! The Gulf Coast has hurricanes, the Mid West has tornadoes. . .
Plus, FEMA isn't giving up zilch so get your facts straight. If homeowners cover themselves with Homeowners Insurance, it's really none of your business, now is it? OUR (San Diego's) tax dollars are spent helping OUR residents. WE have insurance, which we pay for, so what do you have the right to complain about? We're not sitting on our butts waiting for a hand out from the government, WE are taking the initiative to make sure WE are taken care of. Quit bitching.
______________________
The effects to Insurance Companies? Since I HIGHLY doubt you have ANY knowledge of the Insurance industry, I suggest you don't open that can of worms.
2007-10-25 06:20:04 · answer #2 · answered by Miss C 2 · 2⤊ 0⤋
The question is, which areas in the US are not hazardous, one way or another?
If you don't live in a fire area, then most likely you live in an earthquake, flood, hurricane, severe winter storm, etc. area.
Anybody's home at any time could be destroyed by any number or type of natural disaster.
Should we rebuild Florida, New Orleans and the entire Gulf Coast area everytime a hurricane slams into the region?
What about the flooding in 1993 that affected North Dakota, South Dakota, Nebraska, Kansas, Minnesota, Iowa, Missouri? Lots of homes, public places, etc. were inundated from flood waters. Yet, FEMA rebuilt in the same location.
So where exactly is one, 100% safe from natural disasters?
chi guy: FYI: Denver is experiencing a very bad drought (eg: water supplies for residents is dwindling) and Chicago has a river running through the middle of downtown. I hope you aren't suggesting that neither area will ever require FEMA aid.
2007-10-25 06:09:51 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 1⤋
If an area is so harzardous that the people who choose to build there shouldn't be eligible for any sort of disaster relief, then, really, the area shouldn't ever have been zoned for human use in the first place.
Now, if there weren't zoning laws and poperty taxes, sure, there shouldn't be any bailout, either. But, as the government /does/ tell you where and what you can or can't build, then if they tell you it's OK to build on an unstable hill side, fire-prone canyon wall, or fault line, and charge you every year for the privellege, then, sure, they can bail you out, too.
2007-10-25 06:13:59 · answer #4 · answered by B.Kevorkian 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
"If Muslims hate what we stand for..." Before you make that statement, please visit every Muslim in the world (there are billions) and if they ALL say yes, then I won't call you a liar. "...look down on the way our women are held up as equals to men..." Women aren't exactly equals in this country. Just go and see the Gender Studies section of this site, there are so many sexist questions that it's just unbelievable. Just because women can do what they want doesn't mean they're still seen equally. 100 years ago IN THIS COUNTRY, women could not vote because they weren't seen as smart. There were even some debates that women didn't have a soul! And today, why is it that so many women suffer from body issues? Because the media pushes so many ads with half naked (photoshopped) women on them. You could go to the mall and pass by a Victoria's Secret shop with your children and see a HUGE poster of a half naked women on the window. Women are sexually exploited in the Western world even if you wan't to deny it. For example, people want to deny racism exists just because we think we're past it but remember some of the outrage that was sparked when Obama was elected as president back in 2008? "Why not stay in the middle east where they can practice their way of life in peace and harmony and not be exposed to our ways?" You think you know Islam but you've proved your ignorance all too well by assuming that all Muslims are from the Middle East. "Don't you think that if one is welcomed by a country, it's your duty to be thankful that there was somewhere to run to and respect their culture and not try to change it?" I honestly do not know where you got this from and I doubt you've ever met a true Muslim. I as a Muslim have never forced anyone to accept my views. Any by the way, many Muslims were born and raised in American and raised in a different religion. This is actually their home but they converted. Do you expect them to leave their home and go to some foreign land because of your bigotry?
2016-04-10 04:39:18 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Yes, Fema should pay. Where would you want all those that live on the east coast and the gulf to move to because of hurricanes. Being I live in Miami, and had extensive water damage from Hurricane Katina, and are still living here waiting for the next storm.
We have hurricanes on the east coast & gulf of Mexico , floods in the Midwest, fire and earthquakes in Ca, flash floods in Texas,. what we need is a national fund for catastrophic damage that all states fund. That way when major damage happens we do not have to bankrupt or fight with the insurance companies to rebuilt. My insurance is $6,000 dollars a year, and we consider ourselves lucky not to have to go into the state program
PS Fema did not pay us a dime, we should be so lucky to get something from Fema
2007-10-25 06:06:59 · answer #6 · answered by jean 7 · 4⤊ 2⤋
Wow, a sensible question. I don't the FEMA should offer assistance to rebuild your home in the high risk area. Especially in areas with frequent flooding or forest fires.
2007-10-25 06:23:48 · answer #7 · answered by asmith1022_2006 5 · 0⤊ 1⤋
No way FEMA (tax Payers) should pay to rebuild. What if I decide to build on a volcano, or under the sea? I don't understand why insurance companies cover them.
2007-10-25 06:08:07 · answer #8 · answered by Zardoz 7 · 0⤊ 3⤋
NO. watched some TV newsy show few years back. the host showed us his house on the beach. he unashamedly informed us that he's had it rebuilt three times i think it was. ironically his show was against the practice. maybe he was just jealous, said his neighbor has rebuilt five times.
personally, if my house was virtually distroyed every year or two, i'd think about moving.
2007-10-25 06:09:12 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 2⤋
Yeah, like 5 million people or so should move away from the San Diego area. That would be practical.
2007-10-25 06:07:17 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 6⤊ 3⤋