On Tue, 30 Oct 2007 11:45:30 -0500, "Frank F. Matthews"
wrote:



Hatunen wrote:
On Sun, 28 Oct 2007 05:06:03 -0800, Icono Clast
wrote:

memiki wrote:

[In 1961] methinks most, if not all, insurance companies covering
BelAir property stipulated in order to be covered the homes had to
be rebuilt on the same property....so there was not much of a
choice. I don't know if this policy is still in effect

Let's hope not.

Those who suffered loss who are not permitted to rebuild will lose
the value of their lot. The lot might be worth nothing today but
could've been worth a fortune yesterday. 'Tis truly a tragedy.

On the other hand, it is hard to feel a great deal of sympathy
for those who build on the banks of rivers and lose their shirts
when the river floods, and it is hard to feel sorry for those who
build wooden houses on hillsides of the type that have a long
history of catching fire. In either case any fool should know
that it is a case of not "if", but "when".

However, it is also not unreasonable to describe as an idiot an
administrator who cuts funding for brush clearance projects. There are
lots of idiots involved. Unfortunately one of them runs (perhaps) the
executive branch of our government.

You raise an interesting philosophical point: should the
government, and the taxpayer, supply protection for those who
foolishly choose to live in hazardous locations, or is it their
own responsibility?

Should you and I pay for the improvement of the levees at New
Orleans in order that the people can move back to await the next
time?

Should you and I pay for brush clearance programs in areas of
(largely expensive) homes built among the trees and brush of
notoriously combustible California hillsides? And what shall you
and I do for those that survived when the denuded hillsides begin
to slide downhill after the rains, as they also notoriously do?

--
************* DAVE HATUNEN ) *************
* Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow *
* My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps *