Here is an interesting read:
http://www.politico.com/magazine/sto...ocation-215565
Tim
Here is an interesting read:
http://www.politico.com/magazine/sto...ocation-215565
Tim
Yup. How many times do you have to be hit over the head before you say, "Hey, that's enough, that really hurts, stop, stop, stop it."Originally Posted by tspear
Or as an op/ed piece I just read stated:
" I've never understood the appetite for disaster journalism. It's so unlike the news. We have pictures, they can't get enough and the supply is endless. The emphasis isn't on the event and it's cause, it's on the aftermath and the interminable rescues, slipping often toward rescue porn. It seems heroic but is essentially passive and reactive. It harkens back to Noah, the original flood rescuer, with no emphasis on making rescues unnecessary in the future. At least God promised Noah, via the rainbow sign, that He wouldn't do it again, by flood anyway. He never mentioned global warming."
Last edited by Floatsflyer; 09-01-2017 at 06:31 PM.
I'd move to Houston if the price was right. Build one of those shipping container houses,
big generator and I'd be good to go.
Say what you want about it being stupid to live there in a flood plain, but I am fairly sure that not too many of us are flying electric aircraft. We all love the by product of these people living there.. Oil. I work down there at two of the largest steel facilities in the country. We exist to service the OIL industry. Short of someone finally inventing a Star Trek type transporter, people have to live THERE. Don't be so quick to judge those that do, everywhere in the nation has its faults. Midwest and their daily supercell T-storms, the south and hurricanes, Ron's volcano(s).... Instead, let's just do what we can to help, even if it is only to take a few seconds out of our day and say a prayer or send a good thought.
Rick
p.s. Even here in paradise it is only a matter of time before the caldera lets go and ends life as we know it anyway. +/- 10000 years
Mike, that sounds suspect. Talk to another agent. I'm a retiree and have home insurance with USAA - maybe it is geographical...I live in Maine. We have the occasional ice storm...
In 1890 Houston was destroyed due to flooding. They rebuilt in the same location. This has been going on over hundred years.
As for the oil industry, how many people are working on a rig in Houston? That is about the only thing that needs to be physically where it is.
All over the country, people pay directly or indirectly to deal with local inclement conditions. e.g. Snow removal, earthquakes.... Instead, Texas, Louisiana, and Florida all have instead depended on the federal bail out when nature arrives versus having zoning rules, taxes, building codes to prevent significantly mitigate the costs when nature arrives.
Tim
It would s not just the rigs. It is infrastructure, transportation, maintenance, healthcare etc.. All of that plus more extraneous services that add up to a population that I am sure comes close to a million people of the 5 or so million that live there. The company I work for employs 45,000 people in the Houston are alone, and we only supply steel.
Rick
Rick,
You stated you are there to service the oil industry. That is fine. What about the oil industry is geographically required to be in the Houston flood plain? Outside of oil rigs, I can think of nothing.
If Houston and Texas stopped getting bailed out by the feds, and actually followed free market concepts the politicians espouse, then guess what. The cost of flood insurance, bankruptcy and other market forces would convince people and businesses to move someplace else. The reason is because the cost of living would skyrocket, or they would face significant building code costs (such as building on stilts). The result of such costs is that Detroit might become more cost competitive for the oil industry and your steel company....
Tim
Tim, on the surface, I somewhat agree with your assertion. However, there's more to play here. I don't work in oil, gas, or related infrastructure (I'm a SW guy...). So anything I'm about to say can most likely be shot down easily.
Houston may have been there first, but not to the extent and scope of the way it is now. Oil made it that way. Houston accepts all those large supertankers bringing (well, used to bring; dunno how much now) all that foreign oil to be refined. Yes, Detroit has access to the great lakes, but I'm not sure if a supertanker can navigate the lakes. So, even if the load were transferred to smaller boats, that's still a time (and $$$) impact as opposed to just pulling up to the Port of Houston.
But, perhaps the biggest reason is that: it's already there. How many cities would ALLOW, much less embrace, oil refineries? Aside from the environmental impacts, folks just don't want any type of infrastructure projects impacting their view/lifes/health. See any new nuke plants lately? Much cleaner than refineries, yet the specter of OMG!!! we have a meltdown!!!! remains regardless of technology improvements.
Why don't we just build super pipelines from a major port (pick a port, any port) to ship the oil to Detroit or someplace else in need of jobs? Same reason. There's someone, somewhere, with a truly credible reason why a new pipeline shouldn't cross their land.
Of course, if Elon Musk has his way, we'll only have to worry about lithium in the future, and oil refineries will be a quaint novelty.
Oh, and BTW, EVERYONE gets bailed out by the feds. Think mudslide homes in California. Toxic cleanup sites in NJ. Tornado horrors just about anyplace in the country. Why don't folks leave Moore OK? (not picking on them; I just drive thru there and it was the first place that came to mind. It's hard to create a utopian paradise where all is fair and perfect without *someone* *somewhere* having to deal with the unpleasant necessities of life. Think sewage treatment plans.
Last edited by CarlOrton; 09-05-2017 at 11:54 AM.
Like you I just picked a city. In this Detroit because the previous poster worked in the steel industry.
You can keep the refinery in TX, just move it two hundred miles inland. Not exactly a huge pipeline at that point to get to the coast.
There is a principle called a moral hazard. Looking at the history of FEMA, and the rebuilding along the gulf coast and Florida; we have come to the point where these societies now depend on a bail out.
I can give multiple examples of how Houston, New Orleans and others have failed to prepare. Further, the state of Texas has a rainy day fund of 10B. Yes, that is correct of 10 Billion dollars sitting there, and they are looking to the Feds to solve the problem instead of touching the rainy day funds.
At some, it becomes enough. I think we need to wind down all reconstruction aspects and let FEMA go back to what it was initially supposed to do. Handle the initial emergency only.
Tim
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote