Bush needs to rebuild Tahoe

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(daronspicher @ Jun 27 2007, 07:19 AM) [snapback]468775[/snapback]</div>

Just what is your point?

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(daronspicher @ Jun 27 2007, 11:47 AM) [snapback]468834[/snapback]</div>

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

Yeah dammit! wheres all the protesters? Wheres FEMA when they are needed, dammit we'll just blame the republican president!!! :angry: :lol: :lol:

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(daronspicher @ Jun 27 2007, 09:19 AM) [snapback]468775[/snapback]</div>

What a waste of a post. Regardless of how much money they have - their homes and their belongings were destroyed by a fire!

FYI- A friend of mine, who is not a millionaire, has a cabin in Tahoe.

Yes, the NOLA fiasco was just that - a total fiasco. It wasn't the people in Tahoe that said to give them crappy care. It was FEMA.

My family lives in South Florida. They deal with those shitty hurricanes and dumbass FEMA people all the time. They also have insurance that is outrageous. My grandma is 88 and her insurance company was nice enough to pay for 50% of the damages from last years hurricanes. How very generous of them. If you complain then they just cancel your insurance and your stuck with the state insurance which is beyond expensive.

 

Send them hot dogs and a package of marshmallows.

Tom

 

Home insurance covers fire. It does not cover flood damage.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Darwood @ Jun 27 2007, 01:49 PM) [snapback]468951[/snapback]</div>

Flood insurance covers flood damage.

 

Says the compassionate conservative!

 

Im a little tired of hearing about the "Rich" people in Tahoe! There are A LOT of really nice very hard working, WORKING CLASS people that live there that have lost everything. These are small towns with people that have lived there all thier lives. Just because you have a zip code in Tahoe or San Francisco for that matter does not mean that you have oodles of money.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(lokicat @ Jun 27 2007, 02:21 PM) [snapback]468976[/snapback]</div>

Exactly my point.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Sassy Pamela @ Jun 27 2007, 01:13 PM) [snapback]468876[/snapback]</div>

They could move somewhere where natural disasters don't occur on a regular basis and therefore insurance would be less expensive.

 

This whole thread reminds me of the recent exchange between Mrs. Edwards and Ms. Colter. Edwards calmly requested directly to Colter that C stop saying untruths about the recently dead Edwards son. Colter started in about how the wife of a presidential candidate was now trying to limit her free speech. While I am supposing there is a good amount of facetiousness in the OP, that facetiousness is really just a cover-up for bad manners which have become the hallmark of the republican discourse. It has become so bad that the poor critters don't even see their sniping as destructive to public discourse.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Sassy Pamela @ Jun 27 2007, 12:13 PM) [snapback]468876[/snapback]</div>

You can't expect insurance companies to continually rebuild houses and have low rates. They are for-profit businesses. I'm not sure why any insurance company even provides coverage on the coasts anymore. Let me guess, the state insurance is so expensive because they are required by law to insure anyone regardless of how many times their house on the barrier island has been swept away in the past?

Where I used to live in Virginia Beach there was a peninsula created by the last big hurricane. Basically it is a big sandbar. Now it has luxury condos on it! Any guess as to what will happen to those condos when the next big hurricane comes? Do people have no memories?

If you don't want to deal with hurricanes don't live in a hurricane zone.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Marlin @ Jun 27 2007, 02:31 PM) [snapback]468986[/snapback]</div>

Yes, they definitely could. Wasn't really my point but thanks for the suggestion.

 

I'd have to agree. If one chooses to live in a higher-risk area, one should expect to shoulder the responsibility for those risks, in the form of higher insurance premiums/other reminders.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(daronspicher @ Jun 27 2007, 07:19 AM) [snapback]468775[/snapback]</div>

Believe it or not, I won't disagree with that statement.

Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness . . . if, for them, that entails living in a high fire danger area . . . rock on. I just hope they updated their insurance policies recently.

Yes, it is the fault of our "government' that this fire had become this big of a catastrophe . . .
Especially in the Tahoe Basin, there are many competing governmental agencies, private interests, business and environmental groups, and homeowners which have been fighting amongst themselves for their own special interest.

So why the catastrophic fire? The group/special interests which won-out were the ones which made it illegal for property owners in the Tahoe Basin to clear fire defensible space around their house . . . to the point that they were not even allowed to cut very small trees within a few feet of their houses. THEY WERE NOT EVEN ALLOWED TO RAKE UP PINE NEEDLES!!!! . . . the trees so houses wouldn't be seen from the lake; pine needles to filter water going into the lake. :huh: :blink:

So now what do they have? Hundreds of destroyed houses, three thousand plus acres of burnt forest (seven percent of the Upper Truckee River watershed which flows into Lake Tahoe), and ash piles lining the east shore of the lake. The clarity of Lake Tahoe will take a big hit from being protected to death.

Way to "Save Tahoe" folks. <_<
http://www.sacbee.com/994/story/243749.html

This web site has Google Earth and Map images of the fire area.
http://www.northtreefire.com/gis/virtual.php

 

It's funny how the Sac Bee article lumps ash particles from the fire --which have always occurred and are part of a natural process-- with runoff from human activities, as culprits for clouding the lake...when, actually, the two have nothing in common.

Sounds like lots of the 'protective' measures were actually put in place to protect property values and as a makeshift way of filtering runoff which shouldn't have been finding its way to the lake in the first place.

Uh oh...maybe this *is* a problem which the more wealthy Tahoe residents created (with the help of the Government)...? These concerns don't sound quite like those of the "working class."

 

My most vivid memory of Lake Tahoe was water so clear you could count the beer cans on the lake bottom.