Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Political Action Forum' started by eel river, Sep 3, 2017.
It was a yes or no question....he demands answers from you but gives a politician response.
It's a classic Trump diversion tactic. Weak, weak, weak.
Hobby in West it wasn't clear yes I think we have to buy these people out and in the future prevent anybody from building in such areas. 2 Reasons you spend the money now you know could have water should a dozen cut it it doesn't make any difference what should have been done the reality is those houses are there those homes are there you have to deal with that issue
In many areas those home sit in an area that is required for flood protection for other areas like up here where it's flat we don't have to put up huge huge mounds of dirt to keep the water back but we can put up berms and Dykes to keep the water at Bay over a large area with minimal impact but if that home is sitting there they affect the ability to put those dikes in place.
It is one of the reasons why I suggest buying those type of properties out leaving them either for water storage during events or building permanent protection for other areas.
Oh and swampy oh my comment about spreading the insurance cost around like the ACA was supposed to be was tongue-in-cheek sarcasm but of course you know that went right over your head
I wonder why the Feds ever came up with the NFIP. Flooding impacts more than just financial expense. It can be deadly.
The world's longest sentence?
Making cuts is hard for R's like Ron
Some day... maybe... we will all develop a talent for staying on subject.
Every body is focused on NFIP flood insurance now but does California have a Federal Earthquake insurance program?
If not, too big to fail will come into play for certain large insurers.
And Libs will justify it by blaming earthquakes in CA on AGW...