OK; your house got badly flooded...

[Dave Fawthrop]

| | "Dave Fawthrop" wrote in | message news: [e-mail]... | > On 24 Sep 2005 23:17:49 -0700, "Weatherlawyer" | > | > wrote: | >

| > | | > | Dave Fawthrop wrote: | > | | > | | > | | > | I am glad you can smirk. It takes some doing with a trace | > of humanity | > | these days. I'm not saying you have a trace of humanity of | > course. Just | > | that I am glad you are not dead. | > | | > | I am not lying and I am not smirking. | > | | > | Now f*ck off. Go and waste it elsewhere. | >

| > Merely suggesting that anyone living on a flood plain should | > move to | > somewhere higher. | | | some people are dirt poor and need to live near their low rent | jobs ... below sea level in the ghetto is cheapest...and all | the relatives are there too....so there you have it.

As the Insurance companies ratchet up insurance cost, living on flood plains will become too expensive for the dirt poor.

When I was tenting I always tried to pitch on a six inch high hill to keep out of the puddles and boggy bits. One night it threw it down and there was a lot of noise outside. I checked that the tent was dry, and went back to sleep. In the morning we were on an island and all the tents around us had gone, flooded out.

[JR-jred]

If you had even the small amount of foresight required to keep a piece of styrofoam board for an eventual emergency, chances are you wouldn't be living there in the first place.

Having worked in ghettos, I can tell you that 99.9% of the residents are not capable of planning anything beyond the next few hours and that's one of the main reasons they are there in the first place.

[S Viemeister]

Standard US house insurance specifically excludes flood damage. Seperate, expensive, Federal flood insurance is available. But - many people don't actually read the fine print in their policy, and have no idea that they aren't covered.

Sheila

[Matt]

So the small print says it specifically excludes flooding by dihydrogen monoxide?

[Dave Fawthrop]

| Dave Fawthrop wrote: | > | > As the Insurance companies ratchet up insurance cost, living on flood | > plains will become too expensive for the dirt poor. | > | Standard US house insurance specifically excludes flood damage. Seperate, | expensive, Federal flood insurance is available. But - many people don't | actually read the fine print in their policy, and have no idea that they | aren't covered.

We are posting to uk.d-i-y. Why do you give US examples which are by definition irrelevant here?

[Rob Morley]

It started as a crosspost to alt.building.construction - as the legalities and construction methods vary greatly between UK and US it looked a bit trollish to me.

[S Viemeister]

Yes - the original post specifically referred to FEMA, and the recent floods in the US.

Sheila

[Dave Fawthrop]

| Rob Morley wrote: | > | > In article , | > [e-mail] says... | > > On Tue, 27 Sep 2005 08:35:24 -0400, S Viemeister | > > wrote: | > >

| > > | Dave Fawthrop wrote: | > > | >

| > > | > As the Insurance companies ratchet up insurance cost, living on flood | > > | > plains will become too expensive for the dirt poor. | > > | >

| > > | Standard US house insurance specifically excludes flood damage. Seperate, | > > | expensive, Federal flood insurance is available. But - many people don't | > > | actually read the fine print in their policy, and have no idea that they | > > | aren't covered. | > >

| > > We are posting to uk.d-i-y. | > > Why do you give US examples which are by definition irrelevant here? | > >

| > >

| > It started as a crosspost to alt.building.construction - as the | > legalities and construction methods vary greatly between UK and US it | > looked a bit trollish to me. | | Yes - the original post specifically referred to FEMA, and the recent | floods in the US.

So the whole thread was Off Topic, and I did not notice :-(