formatting link
Aieeeee.
- posted
19 years ago
Can "They" fix this?
Loading thread data ...
- Vote on answer
- posted
19 years ago
I'd consider it a losing battle. Folks should sign a waiver when they build or buy on such geologically active areas. Tom Work at your leisure!
- Vote on answer
- posted
19 years ago
looks like another case of 'despite all the warnings, it wont happen to us."
followed by: "and now that it did, we want someone to blame, and pay"
randy
- Vote on answer
- posted
19 years ago
We pay because the insurance company isn't intrested enough to look where people build, so when a flood, earthquake, homes near the beach flood due to hurricane we all pay.
Tom
- Vote on answer
- posted
19 years ago
On Wed, 19 Jan 2005 06:28:50 -0600, "twfsa" scribbled this interesting note:
The answer is simple...don't live there!
Here in Texas, down on the Gulf, it is well known that the beaches erode. Sure, it is fun and nice to go down and rent a beachfront house and spend some vacation time there. If I owned one (and I don't) I'd go into it knowing full well that the land the house is built on will disappear. It isn't a matter of if, but a matter of when. That being the case, while I owned it, I'd try to keep it rented out as much as possible, make as much money off it as I could, and when it goes away (again, not if, but when) consider myself to be money ahead since there was obviously no insurance on the place, but I got revenue off it as well as some much enjoyed use out of it.
Similarly, no one forced those folks out in California to live under a big pile of dirt that they know will someday slide down on top of them when enough water gets poured onto it. Again, it isn't a matter of if, but when. Why should I pay for their misguided thinking and poor judgment?
-- John Willis (Remove the Primes before e-mailing me)
- Vote on answer
- posted
19 years ago
The government should be a lot tougher regarding insurance in those areas. There is a river in my area that floods every 100+ years. The last flood was over 30 years ago and after that the government requires that you buy flood insurance if you live in the flood plain. It is an additional insurance above and beyond home insurance. The government said they will not pay to rebuild/replace your property if there is a flood and you chose not to have the insurance. I don't understand why this doesn't apply to the beach houses and other construction in areas where it is just a matter of time before the property *will* be damaged or destroyed.
- Vote on answer
- posted
19 years ago
City Manager Jepsen said a geotechnical consultant who viewed the homes last week will be sent out again today. The consultant was not available for comment.
"I had been apprised by city staff, but I was not aware of the magnitude of the problem," Jepsen said.
Well, at least one person knew....
- Vote on answer
- posted
19 years ago
i know where those houses are in san diego. it doesnt take a geotechnical consultant to see that eventually those houses are going surfing one day
randy
- Vote on answer
- posted
19 years ago
I seem to remember that once a normal tide washes over the land, it belongs to the state. So, maybe you want those renters to each bring a load of sand.
- Vote on answer
- posted
19 years ago
It's a tough position to find ones-self in...
Bear in mind that these homes are miles from the beach, not in a 100 yr flood plain, and have stood, in many cases, for nearly 30 years...
The damage is not yet complete as these houses continue to slide down the slope onto the homes below them...
See yahoo maps and enter Arroyo Ave and Oceanside, CA when the 'street' map appears, start clicking 'Zoom out' until the Pacific Ocean appears....
Rick
- Vote on answer
- posted
19 years ago
But they're up on unstable hillsides w/ inadequate terracing/shoring...
30 yrs is a mere pittance in the overall estimate of weather extremes...- Vote on answer
- posted
19 years ago
Here's the story in the Oceanside newspaper
formatting link
Rick
- Vote on answer
- posted
19 years ago
I'm of two minds about it...
On the one hand, people should know better than to buy a house on a mud pile, near a flooding river, at the top of a steep hill they can't drive up in the winter, in a hole that will flood and/or they can't get out of in the winter; but people do all those things.
On the other hand, what is the point of having building codes if the city will allow developers to build on poor soil?
- Vote on answer
- posted
19 years ago
Perhaps because if they *don't* allow developers to build just anywhere they'll get thrown out of office by the "we don't need no steenking gubbermint reggylayshun" brigade.
Perce
On 01/19/05 06:38 pm Mac Cool tossed the following ingredients into the ever-growing pot of cybersoup:
- Vote on answer
- posted
19 years ago
I think you've hit on the issue, Perce.
- Vote on answer
- posted
19 years ago
: > It's a tough position to find ones-self in... : >
: > Bear in mind that these homes are miles from the beach, not in a 100 yr : > flood plain, and have stood, in many cases, for nearly 30 years... : ... : : But they're up on unstable hillsides w/ inadequate terracing/shoring... : : 30 yrs is a mere pittance in the overall estimate of weather extremes...
Yes, 30 years is only a 'small' number in the overall scheme of things, but to a humans 'lifespan', it's almost half ;-)
So let's address the 'unstable hillsides w/ inadequate terracing/shoring'...
Is it the homeowner's fault? No... (Unless they had performed un-permitted work)
Is it the builders fault? Maybe... the 10 year limit on construction defect litigation has easily expired...
Is it the cities fault? After all, the city approved the work and 'signed off' on it. Well, the city is going to absolve themselves of any liability.
In essence, the homeowners are screwed...
Act of god? - Apparently so...
Rick
- Vote on answer
- posted
19 years ago
: : Similarly, no one forced those folks out in California to live under a : big pile of dirt that they know will someday slide down on top of them : when enough water gets poured onto it. Again, it isn't a matter of if, : but when. Why should I pay for their misguided thinking and poor : judgment? :
Well John, it appears that 'we' will be paying as this falls into an area deemed to be a 'disaster area' and low cost government loans will be made available..
I take it you are of the mind that any mountain/hill is simply a big pile of dirt...
However, I wholeheartedly agree with the rest of your post ;-)
Rick
- Vote on answer
- posted
19 years ago
: i know where those houses are in san diego. it doesnt take a geotechnical : consultant to see that eventually those houses are going surfing one day <
Define 'eventually' xwronger - In this case, these houses are at least a
1,000 years from being 'beachfront property'.Rick
- Vote on answer
- posted
19 years ago
On Thu, 20 Jan 2005 00:39:17 GMT, "pray4surf" scribbled this interesting note:
Nope. I've seen sites that were blasted level before building. No chance of those houses having foundation problems!:~)
-- John Willis (Remove the Primes before e-mailing me)
- Vote on answer
- posted
19 years ago
On Thu, 20 Jan 2005 00:33:56 GMT, "pray4surf" scribbled this interesting note:
But the structure will most likely be there until the mud comes sliding down...which it will.
Well, an argument could be made that the homeowner(s) screwed themselves by not doing their research beforehand.
No god was needed for anyone who can see to predict this was going to happen...eventually.
-- John Willis (Remove the Primes before e-mailing me)