Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Hurricane Ian damages in Southeast estimated at $100B to $120B

bondbuyer.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

191–200 of 237 posts

Re: Hurricane Ian damages in Southeast estimated at $100B to $120B

#191

Post by bigmattystyles »

thehappypm wrote: post #150
bigmattystyles wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No they were lawful asylum seekers.

This kind of feels like doublespeak. Most migrants come for work, not to escape persecution. Economic migrants use asylum as a way to avoid being deported.

Then change the law, you can't have it both ways. Also - if they weren't here legally before the stunt then the governor of Florida literally smuggled people into the country, which he cannot do as immigration is the federal government's purview. The thing is, there is a decent point that border states bare the brunt of illegal immigration issues but to draw attention to it at the expense of poor humans is just despicable.

Re: Hurricane Ian damages in Southeast estimated at $100B to $120B

#192

Post by notch656a »

peterangular wrote: post #184
notch656a wrote: post #178

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am for 100% open borders, I acknowledge asylum seekers are allowed in the country, and I agree your statement they are doing what many of us would do. I see nothing ethically wrong with what they're doing. That said, anyone who doesn't understand the undertone here, that the great majority will be denied asylum, that a great number are claiming asylum in a way that is coached/contrived/embellished, or that they cou…

> These are the things many of us know, but aren't supposed to say out loud in some polite circles. You're spending the majority of your comment saying "great numbers" of these folks are claiming asylum in bad-faith. You imply "great numbers" of them are here to game/play the system. You call a "great number" of them liars. You imply that they're criminals (not acting lawfully). > I applaud their efforts No you don't…

I'm fine calling anyone who lies to immigration a trustworthy patriot. Believe me, I've been fucked with endlessly by DHS/CBP. They even got a federal search warrant and cavity searched me, and racked up thousands in medical bills in my name by cuffing and dragging me to hospitals and lying to doctors claiming there were drugs up my ass. They (CBP) has threatened to deny me entry to the country (with a US passport), to revoke my passport (with no legal mechanism), and all sorts of bullshit -- they're the biggest liars in town! I think people who don't cooperate with immigration services are the trustworthy ones. Hell I think the asylum seekers are probably 'trustworthy' as anybody else -- just often not in their claims.

I understand 'bad-faith' is practically a requirement for many people claiming asylum. I get it.

I readily acknowledge they are generally more law abiding. I only contend that a great number of 'asylum seekers' are gaming the system. I find that perfectly moral, but I aint no fool about what's happening.

>Every study I have come across

The (2/2.5/4x) you cite from the study is undocumented immigrants, not people formally documented as asylum seekers and permitted into the country.

I appreciate you taking issue with my claims. Hopefully this feedback correct your behavior.

Re: Hurricane Ian damages in Southeast estimated at $100B to $120B

#193

Post by peterangular »

notch656a wrote: post #192
peterangular wrote: post #184

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> These are the things many of us know, but aren't supposed to say out loud in some polite circles. You're spending the majority of your comment saying "great numbers" of these folks are claiming asylum in bad-faith. You imply "great numbers" of them are here to game/play the system. You call a "great number" of them liars. You imply that they're criminals (not acting lawfully). > I applaud their efforts No you don't…

I'm fine calling anyone who lies to immigration a trustworthy patriot. Believe me, I've been fucked with endlessly by DHS/CBP. They even got a federal search warrant and cavity searched me, and racked up thousands in medical bills in my name by cuffing and dragging me to hospitals and lying to doctors claiming there were drugs up my ass. They (CBP) has threatened to deny me entry to the country (with a US passport),…

> Hopefully this feedback correct your behavior.

What behavior?

Re: Hurricane Ian damages in Southeast estimated at $100B to $120B

#194

Post by smachiz »

PM_me_your_math wrote: post #185
smachiz wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

FEMA doesn't decide where you live, but they do provide federally subsidized flood insurance. He's suggesting that we should stop doing that for two total loss events on the same property. Folks have had their houses rebuilt with other people's money really often - and build it in the exact same spot, because the feds will come build it again. Even though it's going to get destroyed, again.

I understand. However if gov does not provide disaster aid then you are effectively telling people where to live. Few will accept the risk without the prospect of disaster aid and insurance, which would be unobtainable if the area was ruled uninhabitable by the federal government. Entire communities, and their economic output, will vanish. A good example are communities whose entire existence is owed to revenue gener…

Relocation assistance != disaster assistance

Stop paying for them to keep rebuilding the house, give them the money to move.

>I know of no place on earth that is without some susceptibility to natural disaster. So where do we draw the line?

OP proposed twice, you objected. I think twice with no time horizon isn't useful. Twice in 50 years seems reasonable for someone who lives in a 100 year flood plain.

But these flood plains are growing with climate change. Storms are getting worse and more frequent. Just continuing to pay to rebuild is not the answer.

Re: Hurricane Ian damages in Southeast estimated at $100B to $120B

#196

Post by giantg2 »

iskander wrote: post #35
giantg2 wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If people focused on functional/survivable structures, then it wouldn't be an issue. Initial construction might be 1.5x-2x the cost, but it'd be better than rebuilding every couple decades. But I guess they wouldn't be as pretty as they'd want.

Miami has the sturdiest residential construction materials of any city I have lived in. Cinderblock is extremely common. It still doesn't save your home if you build at 5ft above sea level and a hurricane brings 15ft of storm surge.

Of course it will still be a mess. Most of the pictures I've seen on the news have been stickbuilts that are completely trashed.

Re: Hurricane Ian damages in Southeast estimated at $100B to $120B

#197

Post by PM_me_your_math »

beowulfey wrote: post #106
PM_me_your_math wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"We need to push FEMA to have a 2 and done rule. After that the property must be returned back to dunes/parks/public spaces." My response was to this comment at the top, where it was, explicitly and objectively, supporting a policy that dictates where people should live.

The language of the parent is strong, but the context is if those rebuilds were not subsidized, they probably would not happen anymore. If you get rid of the economic incentive to build there... no one would. Of course, to become public space, which is a logical use of damage-prone areas, the land would have to become so cheap from lack of interest that the state could buy it back. It would be a long process to get t…

That sounds great, unless you own the property and are forced to sell it to the government for pennies on the dollar because some beaurocracy unilaterally decreed your land as uninhabitable and uninsurable.

Re: Hurricane Ian damages in Southeast estimated at $100B to $120B

#198

Post by cycrutchfield »

thehappypm wrote: post #183
cycrutchfield wrote: post #172

Earlier quoted context omitted.

From a legal standpoint that is irrelevant. Until their asylum case is adjudicated, they are here legally.

all immigration is legal if you claim to be an asylum seeker. It’s not intended to be a deportation-delayer for economic migrants.

Cool. How do you decide who is an economic migrant?

Re: Hurricane Ian damages in Southeast estimated at $100B to $120B

#199

Post by PM_me_your_math »

AnimalMuppet wrote: post #120
PM_me_your_math wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I must say that is a terrible idea. Should parts of CA or other earthquake prone areas be labelled uninhabitable? What about areas where forest fires are routine? Flood prone areas? Tornado prone areas? High UV? Poor air quality? It makes no sense whatsoever to dictate that people cannot live on the coasts due to natural disasters which happen everywhere, all the time. Frankly, being told where to live is more garish…

If earthquakes strong enough to destroy many buildings happen in the same location every five or 10 years, then yes, that area should be considered uninhabitable.

Oct. 21, 1868. Hayward

March 26, 1872. Lone Pine

April 18, 1906. San Francisco

June 29, 1925. Santa Barbara

March 10, 1933. Long Beach

July 21, 1952. Kern County/Tehachapi

March 22, 1957. San Francisco and Daly City

March 27, 1964. Crescent City

Feb. 9, 1971 San Fernando

Oct. 1, 1987 Whittier

Oct. 18, 1989 Loma Prieta

April 25, 1992 Petrolia

June 28, 1992 Landers

Jan. 17, 1994 Northridge

Dec. 22, 2003 San Simeon

Aug. 24, 2014 Napa

It seems that large parts of California are subject to ground shaking that is destructive occurring two or more times per decade with some variability.

Is it really time to take away their insurance and disaster aid?

Re: Hurricane Ian damages in Southeast estimated at $100B to $120B

#200

Post by smachiz »

PM_me_your_math wrote: post #171
adrienthebo wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Should parts of CA or other earthquake prone areas be labelled uninhabitable? Major earthquakes happen an order of magnitude less frequently than major storms - but there's merit to reconsidering how much infrastructure we build right next to fault lines. So, possibly? > What about areas where forest fires are routine? Without appropriate fire breaks or building construction, possibly - if your house and property i…

Who gets to defines the risk? Does it matter if a place gets a powerful earthquake every 5 years or 20 years? The entire premise of the suggestion is simply nonsense. >It makes even less sense to build in areas that are all but guaranteed to be destroyed several times per century. More people are killed in high crime areas than in storm prone areas, and they are killed daily. Do we tell people they can't live there,…

> Who gets to defines the risk?

Free market insurance actuaries.

>Does it matter if a place gets a powerful earthquake every 5 years or 20 years?

Yes, of course.

>The entire premise of the suggestion is simply nonsense.

No, just needs more science and economics math on what makes sense and are reasonable lines to draw.

> More people are killed in high crime areas than in storm prone areas, and they are killed daily.

Do you have stats that back this up on a per capita basis?

> Do we tell people they can't live there, either?

If you can ascertain that the above is true per capita and that the federal government is footing the bill through social security survivorship benefits, maybe. The objection is not that people can't live and where they want - it's that they expect someone else to subsidize it.

Life insurance takes into account where you live. In non-FEMA flood insurance areas, flood insurance is significantly more expensive.

>If you don't take any risk then you are not really living.

The issue is they aren't taking risks - they're socializing their risks onto people who don't live in flood zones.

If they were actually taking the risk of having to rebuild, we wouldn't be having this conversation.

Post reply on HN