strathspey@strathspey.org:40325

John Chambers

inquiry about California

Jan. 16, 2005, 9:27 p.m. (Message 40325, in reply to message 40321)

Some other John wrote:
| At 02:31 PM 1/15/2005 -0800, Richard Goss wrote
|
|  > "Why does the government let people build houses in
|
|  >"torrents", flood plains, etc."
|
| Because, in "A Free Country" it is none of the Governments
| Business where people build their houses.

Actually, it probably has more to do  with  the  fact  that
very  few of those houses were built by the people who live
in them.  Most housing in the US  is  built  by  developers
whose  primary  motive is to sell them to whoever will buy.
And when selling a house, there's  little  motive  for  the
seller to be forthcoming about any local dangers that might
exist.  It's mostly "buyer beware", but the  typical  buyer
has  little  if any understanding of the problems or how to
find relevant information.

Then, when the predictable disasters happen, the people who
bought  the  houses  (mostly because they were for sale and
within reach of jobs) get blamed for  being  suckered  into
living there.

There is a problem in that there is hardly  any  place  you
can  live  in the US that isn't susceptible to some sort of
natural disaster. This is probably true of much of the rest
of  the  world,  especially since most humans live within a
few km of ocean shores.

I am constantly baffled by why anyone still  lives  in  New
Orleans.   Yeah, it's a great place to visit.  But it's all
below sea level, protected  by  levees,  on  land  that  is
sinking.   I'd  think  that any intelligent person would be
keeping a close eye on the weather forecasts, with an  idea
of getting out fast.

Meanwhile, there are plans afoot to install tsunami warning
equipment in the Caribbean and western Atlantic ...