SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

   Strategies & Market TrendsThe Residential Real Estate Crash Index


Previous 10 Next 10 
To: Jim McMannis who wrote (40768)9/6/2005 2:13:26 PM
From: Don Green
of 306829
 
Jim

What is the talk in the Jupiter - Stuart area after Katrina? Anyone talking that they should move elsewhere? Anyone expecting an exodus? Might this pop the local bubble?
How do new buyers deal with insurance? Still pondering whether to seel those last two houses there. Both got new roofs from last years storms.

Thanks

Don

Share KeepReplyMark as Last Read


To: shades who wrote (40751)9/6/2005 2:15:27 PM
From: average joe
of 306829
 
The children are our future - Whitney Houston

Words to live by from a crack-head?

Share KeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (1)


To: Lizzie Tudor who wrote (40760)9/6/2005 2:33:43 PM
From: Elroy Jetson
of 306829
 
The primary problem with KB Homes (ex-Kaufman & Broad) is that Bruce Karatz is willing to build on land that KB can buy cheaply because other builders consider the land unsafe. Land that requires more fill than is safe, land with drainage problems, floodplains, infiltrated with faultlines, etc. I'd never buy a home built by KB.

I've heard good things about David Weekley.

Nate Shapell, based in Beverly Hills, has a long history of not paying his contractors until he is sued. He always has a very buxom black woman working as his secretary. Two brothers who run a paving business once pushed past Nate's secretary of the moment, into Nate's office to demand payment. Although he was not at his desk, they found him hiding in his closet. He then wrote them a check for what they were owed with a shaking hand. I have no idea why people still work for him.

Does this affect the quality of his homes? Not that I know of, but the best contractors won't work for him. I also wonder if there were a problem with a Shapell home, would he treat you the same way he treats his contractors?
.

Share KeepReplyMark as Last Read


To: Jim Fleming who wrote (40457)9/6/2005 2:50:32 PM
From: GraceZ
of 306829
 
Does the Governor have the right to call the 6000 Louisiana troops home from Iraq.



First off, LA doesn't have 6000 National Guard troops in Iraq. It has around 2700 troops in Iraq. The 6000 number you so quickly quoted is a number that is both Mississippi and Louisiana. As I said before, all the states have reciprocal agreements.

Second, it would be faster to use the remaining troops positioned in this country and in LA don't you think?

I live i n an area where I can see the weekend warriors running drills, so I know they aren't all in Iraq, in fact more of them have been called up to active duty and are running drills here than there were prior to 911 in anticipation of other terrorist attacks.

Nationally, 78,000 of the 437,000 members of the National Guard force are serving overseas. This leaves approximately 359,000 here or 82% of the force.

Share KeepReplyMark as Last Read


To: CaBum who wrote (40454)9/6/2005 2:59:51 PM
From: GraceZ
of 306829
 
Global warming is a major factor in the big increase in tropical storms,

Of the dumb stuff that has been said about this hurricane, this is the easiest to refute:

nhc.noaa.gov

The loss of life associated with natural disasters is far lower than in the past even in under-developed nations but especially in developed nations.

What has been increasing has been the economic damage done by hurricanes. This is true because economic development has put more assets in the path of hurricanes, earthquakes and floods.

Needless to say, I'm sure you won't let facts get in the way of your political views.

Share KeepReplyMark as Last Read


To: endless who wrote (40540)9/6/2005 3:08:50 PM
From: GraceZ
of 306829
 
That's leadership - he should run for higher public office!


He's running for governor. As I said earlier there is great political capital to gained from helping people rebuild. Expect all these guys to give press conferences telling everyone what they did and what the other guy didn't. It makes me sick to my stomach to see this tragedy politicized as it has been here on this thread and in the press as well as among my friends and family.

We've transformed from a country where men women and children walked across the continent or endured 2 months in steerage to get to a better life to a country filled with weaklings, whiners and looters who all want to know what the government can do for them and who they can blame their sorry state on.

Share KeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (1)


To: GraceZ who wrote (40780)9/6/2005 3:16:34 PM
From: redfish
of 306829
 
We should stomp those evacuees into the mud!!! Bunch of lame whiners!!

Share KeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (4)


To: shades who wrote (40773)9/6/2005 3:18:59 PM
From: Moominoid
of 306829
 
Maybe because the anti-Soros conspiracy theorists are also into gold? Whereas pro-Soros sources don't care much about it?

Share KeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (1)


To: redfish who wrote (40781)9/6/2005 3:23:50 PM
From: patron_anejo_por_favor
of 306829
 
LOL, "Compassionate conservatism is neither compassionate nor conservative". Discuss amongst yerselves!<G>

Share KeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (1)


From: Tradelite9/6/2005 3:48:47 PM
of 306829
 
Time for a Tough Question: Why Rebuild?

From op-ed page of Washington Post

By Klaus Jacob
Tuesday, September 6, 2005; A25

It is time to swim against the tide. The direction of public discourse in the wake of Katrina goes like this: First we save lives and provide some basic assistance to the victims. Then we clean up New Orleans. And then we rebuild the city. Most will rightly agree on the first two. But should we rebuild New Orleans, 10 feet below sea level, just so it can be wiped out again?

Some say we can raise and strengthen the levees to fully protect the city. Here is some unpleasant truth: The higher the defenses, the deeper the floods that will inevitably follow. The current political climate is not conducive to having scientific arguments heard before political decisions are made. But not doing so leads to the kind of chaos we are seeing now.

This is not a natural disaster. It is a social, political, human and -- to a lesser degree -- engineering disaster. To many experts, it is a disaster that was waiting to happen. In fact, Katrina is not even the worst-case scenario. Had the eye of the storm made landfall just west of the city (instead of to the east, as it did) the wind speeds and its associated coastal storm surge would have been higher in New Orleans (and lower in Gulfport, Miss.). The city would have flooded faster, and the loss of life would have been greater.

What scientific facts do we need before making fateful political, social and economic decisions about New Orleans's future? Here are just two:

First, all river deltas tend to subside as fresh sediment (supplied during floods) compacts and is transformed into rock. The Mississippi River delta is no exception. In the early to mid-20th century, the Army Corps of Engineers was charged with protecting New Orleans from recurring natural floods. At the same time, the Corps kept the river (and some related canals) along defined pathways. These well-intended defensive measures prevented the natural transport of fresh sediments into the geologically subsiding areas. The protected land and the growing city sank, some of it to the point that it is now 10 feet below sea level. Over time, some of the defenses were raised and strengthened to keep up with land subsidence and to protect against river floods and storm surges. But the defenses were never designed to safeguard the city against a direct hit by a Category 5 hurricane (on the Saffir-Simpson scale) or a Category 4 hurricane making landfall just west of the city.

Second, global sea levels have risen less than a foot in the past century, and will rise one to three feet by the end of this century. Yes, there is uncertainty. But there is no doubt in the scientific community that the rise in global sea levels will accelerate.

What does this mean for New Orleans's future? Government officials and academic experts have said for years that in about 100 years, New Orleans may no longer exist. Period.

It is time to face up to some geological realities and start a carefully planned deconstruction of New Orleans, assessing what can or needs to be preserved, or vertically raised and, if affordable, by how much. Some of New Orleans could be transformed into a "floating city" using platforms not unlike the oil platforms offshore, or, over the short term, into a city of boathouses, to allow floods to fill in the 'bowl' with fresh sediment.

If realized, this "American Venice" would still need protection from the worst of storms. Restoration of mangroves and wetlands between the coast and the city would need to be carefully planned and executed. Much engineering talent would have to go into anchoring the floating assets to prevent chaos during storms. As for oil production, refining and transshipment facilities, buffer zones would have to be established to protect them from the direct onslaught of coastal storm surges.

Many ancient coastal cities of great fame have disappeared or are now shells of their former grandeur. Parts of ancient Alexandria suffered from the subsidence of the Nile delta, and earthquakes and tsunamis toppled the city's famed lighthouse, one of the "Seven Wonders of the Ancient World."

It is time that quantitative, science-based risk assessment became a cornerstone of urban and coastal land-use planning to prevent such disasters from happening again. Politicians and others must not make hollow promises for a future, safe New Orleans. Ten feet below sea level and sinking is not safe. It is time to constructively deconstruct, not destructively reconstruct.

The writer, a geophysicist, is an adjunct professor at Columbia University's School of International and Public Affairs. He teaches and does research on disaster risk management.

© 2005 The Washington Post Company

Share KeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (1)
Previous 10 Next 10