[adsjhdashkj]

I dunno, it does seem reasonable to me. Including your (albeit too wide) statement.

I refuse to live in a flood plain. Why would you? Not only do i not want my house to be destroyed, but the insurance alone is a good incentive to not live there.

If fire repeatedly pops up in my neighborhood i'll do the same thing, move. Why wouldn't you?

If the insurance would be insane because statistically it's likely to repeatedly happen why should taxpayers fund that sinkhole? I'm normally super liberal with taxes, but there has to be a balance. I believe in "free" healthcare, but we can't promote bad health patterns, as it would be a needless drain on the healthcare costs. Likewise i'd support taxpayers covering these types of disasters, but if you know the area is insanely prone to disasters why should the taxpayers fund it?

You're playing the victim card too hard mate. I get your point, but i don't think it's a "region bigot" issue here. Yes, people should move out of fire prone areas, why on earth would you think otherwise?

[jofer]

By the logic you'd have to use to claim all of this area is "in a flood plain and uninhabitable", you'd have to apply the same to virtually every other city in the US.

The flood plains mostly aren't inhabited here. (Yes, there are some exceptions.)

The area isn't what everyone seems to think it is.

[adsjhdashkj]

I'm not talking about any specific location. Just the idea that it's some bigoted idea to say that, if year after year an area is burned to the ground, we shouldn't spend taxpayers dollars to fund a disaster area.

If insurance can calculate costs and decide what is too expensive to insure, we can too. That's all.

[jofer]

Yeah, but the original was _very_ much targeted at a specific region.

First off, the idea that this entire area is all in a floodplain or is repeatedly being rebuilt is just plain false. It ain't. End of story.

The bigotry comment is due to the history of the region. Flood control has historically been used to forcibly evict black communities, particularly along the gulf coast. Its a bit of a dog whistle here.

Yes, I'm a white guy. Yes, I'm still bringing it up.

Ever notice how it's only the majority non-white cities people are calling for forcibly evicting everyone from? Case in point: Houston, but not Galveston or Corpus Christi. New Orleans but not Baton Rouge or Covington.

Ever notice how it's the poorest communities that are at risk of losing their land, and not the wealthy-but-equally-flood-prone communities next door? (E.g. no one's saying "force people out of Katy", they're saying "force people out of the third ward")

Maybe you don't, but here, it's a big deal.

Historically, that same argument (it'd be better for everybody if no one lives there) is at the heart of a lot of egregious behavior by local and state governments (mostly local).

It's the reason people were _so_ pissed off about the arguments that big swaths of New Orleans shouldn't be rebuilt. It's why "we will rebuild" was such a rallying cry.

And it's why targeting the main African American population center in the state specifically (Houston -- I'm not talking about Lake Jackson in this, as I don't know it that well.) and falsely claiming it's flooding all the time and constantly having to be rebuilt at taxpayer expense tends to provoke a strong response here.

[adsjhdashkj]

(small preface: a lot of my replies to your comments are not intended to be combative or smug, but i fear they may come off as such. Apologies. I don't intend it, but i'm also too tired to rewrite. So fair warning :)

> Flood control has historically been used to forcibly evict black communities, particularly along the gulf coast. Its a bit of a dog whistle here.

To what end? I'm not disputing you here because frankly i have completely zero idea - but i struggle to even understand the assumed motivation. Evict black communities from their home, but then later let them return (as most evacuations are temporary)?

Or is eviction different than evacuation here? Do they kick out the black communities calling the area unsafe, then move white communities in? Seems bizarre, but i'm often quite abstracted and puzzled by racist behavior. Again, not disputing, merely questioning.

> Ever notice how it's only the majority non-white cities people are calling for forcibly evicting everyone from? Case in point: Houston, but not Galveston or Corpus Christi. New Orleans but not Baton Rouge or Covington.

I really haven't, but this isn't something i pay attention to. I certainly wouldn't have read someones comment about forcibly evicting someone to assume they wanted to then, later, move white folks in.

> Ever notice how it's the poorest communities that are at risk of losing their land, and not the wealthy-but-equally-flood-prone communities next door? (E.g. no one's saying "force people out of Katy", they're saying "force people out of the third ward")

I'd be in favor of this situation if the state/taxes were paying for the "third ward", but less so Katy. Rich folks tend to live in nice areas, regardless of how much of a risk that area was in before money moved in.

Which isn't to say that taxpayers didn't _also_ cover the rich folks. I'm just saying i wouldn't immediately assume rich areas need tax payers to have their homes protected from floods. And, i'm generally against tax payers helping constant flood areas. Seems a waste of resources.

> Historically, that same argument (it'd be better for everybody if no one lives there) is at the heart of a lot of egregious behavior by local and state governments (mostly local).

Plenty of things have been used to commit horrible things - i don't see that as an argument of the idea being inherently bad. You can do good or bad with just about any tool/power.

You may be correct, but does it make living in Tornado Alley (or w/e random example) any more safe? Any less of a burden on the taxpayer? I'd imagine not.

> And it's why targeting the main African American population center in the state specifically (Houston -- I'm not talking about Lake Jackson in this, as I don't know it that well.) and falsely claiming it's flooding all the time and constantly having to be rebuilt at taxpayer expense tends to provoke a strong response here.

That seems perfectly fair. With all of this said, i haven't changed my view, but i imagine we agree more than disagree. Since i'm not making, imo, any grand exclamations. Merely saying that we shouldn't live in areas that cost too much to be worth it.

I know very, very little about the New Orleans incident, rebuild, etc. It just seems foolish to build a house on sand, is all.

[jofer]

By "eviction" here, I mean permanently not being able to return to your home, regardless of the exact mechanism.

Historically, the evictions are eminent domain. There's no returning. The local government simply forces you off your property, nominally paying you something, but often pennies on the dollar. At a broad brush, national-level, this is a good start: https://www.hsdl.org/?view&did=756342 I'll try to find some gulf-coast specific historical summaries in a bit.

The land usually then gets sold, often to developers. Here, the rationale is "flood control". Elsewhere it's "urban renewal". The end result is the same: "You can't stay here. Go to some other state/county".

Next, there's development. The real culprit in a lot of urban flooding is more urbanization than climate change. When you pave over more and more of the watershed, water reaches the streams more quickly. This leads to more flash floods, as more water reaches the trunk stream quickly (or reaches a drain that can't handle the volume in a lot of cases). Zoning doesn't help with this much. Buildings, roads, and parking lots just don't slow down and trap water the way trees and winding bayous do.

The main issue is that the poor communities are in the lower-lying / downstream areas, usually. Development happens upstream / in higher areas. Places downstream that _never_ flooded before now flood multiple times a year, because everything upstream is paved. The community that paved things over does great, the community downstream suddenly has to deal with all kinds of issues.

The community that paved things over then complains about the "taxpayer dollars that are going to support those stupid people that built where it floods". The folks downstream are forced out, and their property is sold to developers, and the cycle repeats.

This is the historical pattern that explains a lot of why people get _really_ touchy about the whole "why would you live here" part.

At present, the main controversy is around targeted buyouts, which can be a very reasonable way of handling things overall. They're voluntary (we'll give you X for your house, will you take it?), and only offered if a property has flooded multiple times or is deemed at extremely high risk of flooding. They're supposed to be held by govt and kept in an undeveloped state. In practice, it often gets more murky, with the properties quickly being sold, yet again, to developers. Targeted buyouts are a very good way to handle things -- it's the execution that folks often object to. Again, history plays a role.

One thing to end on: Nowhere is particularly immune to disasters. There are certainly lower-risk and higher-risk areas, but trying to mark _vast_ swaths off-limits will end poorly. My point is, saying all of the broader Houston-Beaumont region is uninhabitable is just silly. We have floods due to hurricanes. Other places have fires, or droughts, or earthquakes, etc. It's a game of "pick your poison". We're higher risk than, say, Denver, sure. We're lower risk than say, SF, or Seattle, or Miami though.