If the govt floods your house to save the city, what compsensation (if any)?

[JEDI]

there's lots of flooding along the Mississippi river right now.

the army core of Engineers has already made a small hole in some levee/dam to save a town, but that flooded a few dozen homes downriver that the dam was suppose to protect.

now the army core of engineers plans to flood a small town to save New Orleans. The Gov of Louisianna said he'll approve this if the enginners go ahead with this.


obviously the flooded homeowners are going to sue everyone to get rich.

i say F the homeowners. small sacrifice to save the greater whole. you're insured, or suppose to be insured.
it's Kinda like jury duty. Bend over and take it because it's your public duty.

your take?
and What has the courts ruled in the past for this?

 

[Anubis]

fuck new Orleans

 

[LucJoe]

Best they can hope for is the government paying them fair market value for their house. Nobody is going to get rich from this...

 

[dave_the_nerd]

I'm pretty sure they're screwed. At least up north, sacrificial flood mitigation zones are pre-planned decades in advance.

 

[GodlessAstronomer]

fuck new Orleans

:hmm:

 

[Mike Gayner]

Why does America build so many towns/cities in flood-prone areas?

 

[Mo0o]

Pay for the house, pay for the crops, assist in recovery of the land. It's a shitty situation

 

[HardcoreRobot]

its very easy to tell OTHER people to pay, huh?

you shouldnt have to insure yourself against willful destruction by your federal government.

 

[Mike Gayner]

its very easy to tell OTHER people to pay, huh?

you shouldnt have to insure yourself against willful destruction by your federal government.

This. x1000.

 

[Farmer]

The cost should be spread amongst the citizens of the US, more so on the wealthier.

So, yes, the gov't should pay.

 

[Newbian]

Why does America build so many towns/cities in flood-prone areas?

Last I checked many NZ cities are in flood plains also, this was a issue it looks like during the major flooding there during 2004.

Just because it's not smart doesn't mean people won't stop building there.

 

[Bignate603]

i say F the homeowners. small sacrifice to save the greater whole. you're insured, or suppose to be insured.
it's Kinda like jury duty. Bend over and take it because it's your public duty.

your take?
and What has the courts ruled in the past for this?

If it was your house that got flooded I'm sure you'd scream bloody murder about how YOU chose to build your home in a place that was safe enough from flooding but now it's being sacrificed to protect the homes of people who chose to build in a more dangerous area. Whether or not they have insurance is moot, they wouldn't have needed it if the government didn't chose to flood their homes. That's like somebody crashing into your car then refusing to pay because "you should have had insurance".

Losing your home isn't comparable to a civic duty like jury duty. A few days or weeks of time is one thing. Losing something that takes decades to pay for and often has a huge non-monetary personal investment (time to fix things, to make it how you want it, sentimental value, etc) is life altering. The people are probably not going to be able to move all their possessions out of their homes either.

The people that are going to lose their homes should be compensated, and compensated quite well. However, the people that should pay for it are the people in New Orleans who are having their homes saved. They're the ones benefiting, it's their responsibility.

 

[PokerGuy]

small sacrifice to save the greater whole. you're insured, or suppose to be insured.

Nice attitude you have there, you'd fit right into living in China.

Sometimes hard choices are inevitable, choices were there is no "good for everyone" option, choices where you have to weigh one bad outcome versus another bad outcome. In that case you have to go with the greater good, but you have to compensate those who will lose everything. It's not their fault that they live in a perfectly safe area and you intend to flood it to save some other area.

I don't have flood insurance, nor do I need to because I'm not anywhere near a flood plain... If some freak thing occurs and they need to flood my area to save some other area, that's somehow my fault? That's absurd.

Nobody is going to get rich, but those people should be compensated just like when someone's property is taken by eminent domain for the greater good (don't even get me started on that).

 

[TwiceOver]

I was wondering about this myself. I'm sure they are getting paid for it, but the loss is far more than monetary.

 

[MrChad]

Why does America build so many towns/cities in flood-prone areas?

One reason: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Flood_Insurance_Program

 

[mugs]

Why does America build so many towns/cities in flood-prone areas?

Flood-prone areas are adjacent to rivers. Do you not understand the significance that rivers had in the development of towns for thousands of years?

 

[TwiceOver]

Why does America build so many towns/cities in flood-prone areas?

Yeah. Stupid americans. You should have begun developing your cities along the interstates instead. Dumbasses.

 

[Newbian]

Yeah. Stupid americans. You should have begun developing your cities along the interstates instead. Dumbasses.

They are as bad as those kiwi's that build cities over fault lines...

 

[frostedflakes]

I was wondering about this myself. I'm sure they are getting paid for it, but the loss is far more than monetary.

I actually wouldn't be surprised if they aren't getting paid a dime and have to spend many years in court fighting the state over this.

Just a really crappy situation. From a damage minimization standpoint it's the right thing to do, but I'm sure that's little consolation to the homeowners this will affect.

 

[Bignate603]

Flood-prone areas are adjacent to rivers. Do you not understand the significance that rivers had in the development of towns for thousands of years?

Yes, this is the same reason why people were living in Tsunami zones. Historically, people have always chosen to build near water. It can be a source of drinking water, irrigation for crops, food (fish and things), transportation (even today it's cheaper to send large non-time sensitive things by boat than it is by land), more moderate climates (coastal towns typically are warmer during the winter and cooler during the summer), etc.

 

[waggy]

no blame whatsover should be put on the homeowners. it is not there fault that this is happening.

the government should pay just above fair market value, help them get loans, find homes, move etc.

 

[Modelworks]

You are screwed if the government decides to do something like that. My brother lost his home in a flood years ago due to the government opening flood gates to protect the higher class part of town where the wealthiest people lived and there was nothing he could do about it because they use the Act of God clause that states the governments only requirement is to try to minimize damages otherwise they can be sued for negligence. In my brothers case the government could have been sued if they didn't open the flood gates since that part of town would cost more in money to repair.

 

[Modelworks]

I was wondering about this myself. I'm sure they are getting paid for it, but the loss is far more than monetary.

Pay comes in the form of a government backed low interest loan . You get to rebuild it with your own money.

 

[pcnerd37]

If you choose to live in an area prone to natural disasters like floods then it should be on you if something happens because of one. I don't care if it floods, hurricanes, volcanoes or whatever. You assume these risks when you choose to live there so you shouldn't start crying when something actually happens.

 

[Ns1]

If it was your house that got flooded I'm sure you'd scream bloody murder about how YOU chose to build your home in a place that was safe enough from flooding but now it's being sacrificed to protect the homes of people who chose to build in a more dangerous area. Whether or not they have insurance is moot, they wouldn't have needed it if the government didn't chose to flood their homes. That's like somebody crashing into your car then refusing to pay because "you should have had insurance".

.

Army Corp of Engineers sends them a letter every year explaining that their house may get flooded.