A question

rant & rave, shoot da'shit, drop a link, whatever....
Forum rules
"No Flaming" rule will be loosely enforced considering nature of discussion. All other forum rules still apply.

A question

Unread postby boomersooner » Tue May 08, 2018 4:59 pm

Why on Earth are people allowed to live in homes on top of a volcano? I understand that in an area with a high cost of living like Hawaii, some might have trouble affording homes elsewhere,, but I've seen the same situation occur in flood plains here on the mainland. I that case eventually, it becomes a "no building" zone and people are bought out to move elsewhere. Why not the same with areas that might be subject to volcanic fissures and eruptions as we are seeing in Hawaii at present? Boggles my mind.

From a CNN.com article:

Image


Residents wonder about fate of their homes

Residents voiced frustration and anxiety after being forced to evacuate their homes as lava and hazardous fumes spewed on the Big Island.
Many of them grappled with uncertainty, not knowing whether their homes are intact or have been engulfed in lava flows that by Tuesday covered at least 104 acres.
Residents on Monday night crammed into a community meeting, seeking answers.Is this situation going to go on for months? Can I go into my house to retrieve my pet if I wear a gas mask? Why am I being told I can't get into my neighborhood? There were no easy answers amid the toxic stew of sulfur dioxide and lava ripping through the ground. Meanwhile, authorities urged patience.


Code: Select all
https://www.cnn.com/2018/05/08/us/hawaii-kilauea-volcano/index.html


I'd say that the authorities must be the ones requiring the gift of patience.
...there is always a well-known solution to every human problem—neat, plausible, and wrong.

H.L. Mencken
User avatar
boomersooner
Senior Poster
 
Posts: 2330
Joined: Sun May 27, 2012 12:41 pm
Location: Oklahoma

Re: A question

Unread postby houndini » Wed May 09, 2018 10:17 am

It's called freedom. We here in Europe enjoy it. We can climb mountains, jump out of aircraft, descend into volcanic caldera, or even set up camp or live there. You in the USA have the illusion of freedom, the freedom for any punk to pull a gun and kill you or your loved ones (yea, the NRA calls it freedom!). the illusion of democracy (hanging chads anyone?) and the freedom to ingest genetically modified food whether you like to or not. I'm happy with my freedom to live near a volcano, and I'll live with the outcome, which I will have factored in to my financial plans. I sure as hell would not ALLOW you into my country if I had any say in the matter

houndini
houndini
Advanced Poster
 
Posts: 72
Joined: Mon Jan 12, 2009 4:06 pm

Re: A question

Unread postby Emily » Wed May 09, 2018 1:50 pm

Why not also ask why people live in places hit by tornadoes, hurricanes, and earthquakes. Sometimes it's not just freedom, but economic necessity. The big Island of Hawaii is the most affordable in the island chain. Most native Hawaiians live there, as do those pushed out of other areas of the islands by rising prices. Relocation to the mainland is costly and not possible for all.
Nothing limits intelligence more than ignorance; nothing fosters ignorance more than one's own opinions; nothing strengthens opinions more than refusing to look at reality.
Sherri Tepper
Emily
Senior Poster
 
Posts: 2134
Joined: Wed Jan 07, 2009 4:59 pm
Location: Tucson, Arizona

Re: A question

Unread postby boomersooner » Wed May 09, 2018 7:05 pm

Zoning ordinances are a given in the US and are written at local levels of government closest to the people, with public hearings involved in decisions. Maybe the area on or next to Kiluaea is not incorporated and there are no zoning laws.

Still, living near a volcano is not the same as living in a housing edition built on top of one that has been erupting continuously for the last 30 years. It looks to me like there are plenty of places to live on the Big Island that would be a little safer. But then, I read that homepwner's policies in Hawaii have to include destruction from lava same as any fire. Those rates must be a bit high.

Interesting reactions to my question. I still think it's idiotic. I hope it doesn't take deaths to change the local policy eventually
...there is always a well-known solution to every human problem—neat, plausible, and wrong.

H.L. Mencken
User avatar
boomersooner
Senior Poster
 
Posts: 2330
Joined: Sun May 27, 2012 12:41 pm
Location: Oklahoma

Re: A question

Unread postby GBDU » Thu May 10, 2018 5:08 am

Image
If it flies,floats or fucks, rent it!!
***************************************
User avatar
GBDU
Honored Member
 
Posts: 3862
Joined: Sun Dec 07, 2008 9:33 am

Re: A question

Unread postby boomersooner » Thu May 10, 2018 10:36 am

All volcanoes are not equal.

I almost mentioned agricultural motive for living near volcanoes in my original post, GBDU - just forgot, actually.. The only difference is that it isn't applicable in this case, Nor are most volcanoes we think of like the ones in Hawaii.. It isn't the same sort of risk when a volcano is in constant state of eruption and can literally spring a leak in your front yard :o That's different than being near one that hasn't erupted in years and years. or centuries, even.

Municipalities zone against flood plain development largely due to the incumbent costs that the community would have to bear when floods occur. The place I live at present has banned housing in the river flood plain, though street flooding is still a nuisance elsewhere - That risk has been addressed somewhat, however, in infrastructure improvements. The town I grew up in didn't have much construction near the river, but I don't know about the zoning issue there.. In another community I used to visit family at, I think the Feds bought everyone out in their river flood plain due to the frequency and severity of floods that occurred - higher risk and they would no longer sell flood insurance for that location. It can be complicated, with risk assessments, etc. and I make no claim at being remotely close to an expert.

Perhaps it will take insurance companies bowing their back and telling the state of Hawaii that they aren't going to insure homes in high risk portions of the island any longer or make the cost so prohibitive that no one could afford it. If the law says they can't do that, then they could raise everyone's rate so high that public pressure might come to bear on the state, or, then again, they could move their business elsewhere.

All in all, I didn't think I was starting much of an argument, and certainly didn't think I was stepping on toes, but I guess a little controversy isn't so bad :D .
...there is always a well-known solution to every human problem—neat, plausible, and wrong.

H.L. Mencken
User avatar
boomersooner
Senior Poster
 
Posts: 2330
Joined: Sun May 27, 2012 12:41 pm
Location: Oklahoma

Re: A question

Unread postby Mugwump » Thu May 10, 2018 1:11 pm

boomersooner wrote:All volcanoes are not equal.

I almost mentioned agricultural motive for living near volcanoes in my original post, GBDU - just forgot, actually.. The only difference is that it isn't applicable in this case, Nor are most volcanoes we think of like the ones in Hawaii.. It isn't the same sort of risk when a volcano is in constant state of eruption and can literally spring a leak in your front yard :o That's different than being near one that hasn't erupted in years and years. or centuries, even.

Municipalities zone against flood plain development largely due to the incumbent costs that the community would have to bear when floods occur. The place I live at present has banned housing in the river flood plain, though street flooding is still a nuisance elsewhere - That risk has been addressed somewhat, however, in infrastructure improvements. The town I grew up in didn't have much construction near the river, but I don't know about the zoning issue there.. In another community I used to visit family at, I think the Feds bought everyone out in their river flood plain due to the frequency and severity of floods that occurred - higher risk and they would no longer sell flood insurance for that location. It can be complicated, with risk assessments, etc. and I make no claim at being remotely close to an expert.

Perhaps it will take insurance companies bowing their back and telling the state of Hawaii that they aren't going to insure homes in high risk portions of the island any longer or make the cost so prohibitive that no one could afford it. If the law says they can't do that, then they could raise everyone's rate so high that public pressure might come to bear on the state, or, then again, they could move their business elsewhere.

All in all, I didn't think I was starting much of an argument, and certainly didn't think I was stepping on toes, but I guess a little controversy isn't so bad :D .


....what argument?...somebody disagreed with you that's all.....
User avatar
Mugwump
Senior Poster
 
Posts: 898
Joined: Sat Dec 27, 2008 3:11 pm

Re: A question

Unread postby boomersooner » Thu May 10, 2018 5:21 pm

Mugwump:
....what argument?...somebody disagreed with you that's all.....


I thought multiple disagreements were the same thing, but semantics don't need to be brought in. The "disagreement" already started out with my getting banned from Europe and accused of living in a repressive country :lol:

No harm, no foul.
.
...there is always a well-known solution to every human problem—neat, plausible, and wrong.

H.L. Mencken
User avatar
boomersooner
Senior Poster
 
Posts: 2330
Joined: Sun May 27, 2012 12:41 pm
Location: Oklahoma

Re: A question

Unread postby Vanman » Thu May 10, 2018 5:30 pm

When boomer is posing a question and houdini says he would not "allow" him in his country, while technically not an argument, it is aggressive.
User avatar
Vanman
Out Of The Blocks Poster
 
Posts: 24
Joined: Tue May 12, 2015 7:56 am

Re: A question

Unread postby Mugwump » Fri May 11, 2018 12:07 am

boomersooner wrote:Mugwump:
....what argument?...somebody disagreed with you that's all.....


I thought multiple disagreements were the same thing, but semantics don't need to be brought in. The "disagreement" already started out with my getting banned from Europe and accused of living in a repressive country :lol:

No harm, no foul.
.


...sounds good....I thought Houdini's statement as a pseudo leader of his country was chuckles....somehow it sounded familiar ?? :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
User avatar
Mugwump
Senior Poster
 
Posts: 898
Joined: Sat Dec 27, 2008 3:11 pm

Next

Return to da'Lounge

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest



All material submitted is sole responsibility of the original uploader.

Contact BeerFarts Public Relations Department at:
beerfarts2@protonmail.com

2009 - 2018 © All Rights Reserved- BeerFarts, LLC