The U.S. Flooded One of Houston’s Richest Neighborhoods to Save Everyone Else(bloomberg.com)
bloomberg.com
The U.S. Flooded One of Houston’s Richest Neighborhoods to Save Everyone Else
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2017-11-16/the-u-s-flooded-one-of-houston-s-richest-neighborhoods-to-save-everyone-else
127 comments
Yeah there's a lot left out of that blog post. The assumption seems to be that flooding fields is always a good thing. That's goofy on its face; destroying all the crops in the field is at least a short-term harm to the farmer. Even if crop insurance covers most of the crop destruction, the field will also require regrading of some sort. If the field is inundated so that there is a current flowing over it rather than just still water backing up, which is very common around structures such as partially destroyed levees, topsoil is removed rather than deposited.
The weird thing about this point of view is that the US Army Corps of Engineers are lionized for their continued mismanagement of the War on Flowing Water (like all Wars the army fights, it loses this one too!) while private entities like Little River who have done a better job for a longer time are sneered at for their presumed lack of earthquake preparedness. (Why worry about excess rain it only comes once every couple of years; the earthquake that happens once a millennium should be the big worry!)
Blog post says more about the philosophy of blogger than about reality.
The weird thing about this point of view is that the US Army Corps of Engineers are lionized for their continued mismanagement of the War on Flowing Water (like all Wars the army fights, it loses this one too!) while private entities like Little River who have done a better job for a longer time are sneered at for their presumed lack of earthquake preparedness. (Why worry about excess rain it only comes once every couple of years; the earthquake that happens once a millennium should be the big worry!)
Blog post says more about the philosophy of blogger than about reality.
Fun Midwest fact: The name of Cairo, IL is pronounced differently than the city in Egypt. I've always heard it pronounced more like "Care-O"
And in Missouri we have New Madrid ("New MAD-rid") and Versailles ("Ver-SAILS") among several other similar re-pronunciations.
Many locals pronounce Johnny Carson's teenage hometown Norfolk, Nebraska as "Norfork."
I don't think it comes from ignorance though (and I'm not saying you're saying it does) but instead just a way of taking local ownership.
Many locals pronounce Johnny Carson's teenage hometown Norfolk, Nebraska as "Norfork."
I don't think it comes from ignorance though (and I'm not saying you're saying it does) but instead just a way of taking local ownership.
My grandfather in Kentucky pronounced Missouri 'Mizurah'.
I lived in the middle of Missouri from 1994 through 2014 and never once heard a voice say Missour-ah that wasn't coming from a candidate for office on TV.
(To be fair, there might have been some people in rural parts of the state who did talk like that. But usually it's coming from people who probably shouldn't.)
(To be fair, there might have been some people in rural parts of the state who did talk like that. But usually it's coming from people who probably shouldn't.)
The authentic pronunciation is more of a short "i" than a short "a". FYI, linguistic prescriptivism sucks.
I didn't say that people should pronounce Missouri only as "Missour-ee" and that other pronunciations are incorrect.
I offered my observation (intended with good humor) that it's not really true that Missourians by and large say "Missour-ah" -- or "Missour-ih" if you like -- but rather it's pretty much only politicians trying hard to sound folksy, and maybe a few older people in the most rural parts.
I offered my observation (intended with good humor) that it's not really true that Missourians by and large say "Missour-ah" -- or "Missour-ih" if you like -- but rather it's pretty much only politicians trying hard to sound folksy, and maybe a few older people in the most rural parts.
That's how The Outlaw Josie Wales pronounces it when he gives the red-legs chasing him, "a Missurah boat ride."
Sinai South Dakota is pronounced "Sign Yi."
California is rife with towns having mispronounced Spanish names.
> Basically, the Army blew the levee to save a town, Cairo, IL, at the expense of (a few) homes and (lots of) farmland on the MO side.
Are you sure about the "homes" part?
20 years ago, I was a professor at Southeast Missouri State University in Cape Girardeau. As part of new faculty orientation, we took a bus tour of the area. During the trip, we passed through the Birds Point-New Madrid Floodway. We were told that no one was allowed to live there, so that it could be flooded on short notice without endangering people or their homes.
Are you sure about the "homes" part?
20 years ago, I was a professor at Southeast Missouri State University in Cape Girardeau. As part of new faculty orientation, we took a bus tour of the area. During the trip, we passed through the Birds Point-New Madrid Floodway. We were told that no one was allowed to live there, so that it could be flooded on short notice without endangering people or their homes.
I'm sorry these people lost their homes, but it does seem pretty straightforward that if you build in a flood plane your home might flood. If there is any failure here it's that they weren't given adequate warning before they flooded the neighborhoods. It sounds like they announced it for the next morning but because of the pace of the water rising they had to blow it over night instead. That's something you start announcing over loudspeakers if you have to at that point.
The other issue I see is that for some reason Houston didn't require all of these people to have flood insurance. I feel like if you live in an area that gets hit with Hurricanes flood insurance should be a requirement period. This would all be a moot point if these people were adequately covered by insurance
The other issue I see is that for some reason Houston didn't require all of these people to have flood insurance. I feel like if you live in an area that gets hit with Hurricanes flood insurance should be a requirement period. This would all be a moot point if these people were adequately covered by insurance
There was recently another article covering the construction of homes in the flood reservoir area.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15472082
According to the article, it sounds pretty bad. The city and county knew where the flood reservoirs were. The developers knew, there were "small notices on the plats" for these properties (which developers fought). Homewoner's never saw these plats and had no idea they were in a flood zone.
"In the end, over significant opposition from developers, the county agreed to put a one-sentence disclosure of possible “controlled inundation” for plots of land in neighborhoods inside Barker. But the sentence was buried in the plat documents, which are not typically shown to homebuyers."
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15472082
According to the article, it sounds pretty bad. The city and county knew where the flood reservoirs were. The developers knew, there were "small notices on the plats" for these properties (which developers fought). Homewoner's never saw these plats and had no idea they were in a flood zone.
"In the end, over significant opposition from developers, the county agreed to put a one-sentence disclosure of possible “controlled inundation” for plots of land in neighborhoods inside Barker. But the sentence was buried in the plat documents, which are not typically shown to homebuyers."
> the sentence was buried in the plat documents, which are not typically shown to homebuyers
Sounds like the developers withheld material information from the homeowners. If so, it seems clear who is liable.
Sounds like the developers withheld material information from the homeowners. If so, it seems clear who is liable.
It sounds like the city or county (it was unclear to me from the article) also holds some responsibility. They agreed to this "compromise" with the developers.
"The other issue I see is that for some reason Houston didn't require all of these people to have flood insurance."
Banks require homeowners in flood plains with mortgages to maintain flood insurance. The problem is if you don't have a mortgage, you don't necessarily need insurance. However, perpetual Federal Government bailouts of homeowners creates moral hazard, and the expectation that Government will make you whole regardless of insurance, and thus bigger risks for all.
Banks require homeowners in flood plains with mortgages to maintain flood insurance. The problem is if you don't have a mortgage, you don't necessarily need insurance. However, perpetual Federal Government bailouts of homeowners creates moral hazard, and the expectation that Government will make you whole regardless of insurance, and thus bigger risks for all.
> The other issue I see is that for some reason Houston didn't require all of these people to have flood insurance.
They do for 100-year plains, just not 500-year. Are these requirements common elsewhere for 500-year? I am not sure, but I assume so since there is surprise that "for some reason Houston didn't require" it.
They do for 100-year plains, just not 500-year. Are these requirements common elsewhere for 500-year? I am not sure, but I assume so since there is surprise that "for some reason Houston didn't require" it.
I didn't understand this comment until I started to check out the FEMA maps myself. Indeed, almost all of Houston is in the "0.2% annual chance of flooding" zone (once every 500 years). To help put that in perspective, you can zoom into almost any area in the US and there will be a 20-30' zone on either side of almost any waterway (I'm talking very small rivers / creeks in my area) that has the same risk of flooding and I'd bet good money no one would criticize someone for not buying flood insurance in these zones.
Really nails home how overly critical we can be.
Really nails home how overly critical we can be.
Houston is proud of their low regulation and unrestrictive zoning. Requiring flooding insurance would be at odds with their philosophy.
However you can't have your cake and eat it too. Other regions have come up with regulations specifically because of the belief that a majority of the population benefits from them. The downside of regulation is cost and inconvenience—and a potential for corruption.
If a region decides against regulation then so be it. But then it incombs to its residents to plan their own contingencies (whether in the form of savings or insurance). The article's title is definitely on the click-bait side of the spectrum to cater to a narrative that the rich are overly bearing the burden of everyone else.
However you can't have your cake and eat it too. Other regions have come up with regulations specifically because of the belief that a majority of the population benefits from them. The downside of regulation is cost and inconvenience—and a potential for corruption.
If a region decides against regulation then so be it. But then it incombs to its residents to plan their own contingencies (whether in the form of savings or insurance). The article's title is definitely on the click-bait side of the spectrum to cater to a narrative that the rich are overly bearing the burden of everyone else.
I agree, for the folks that built in a 'flood pool' plain, even if they feel that wasn't adequately communicated to them when they purchased.
The folks outside of that pool, however, whose homes were only flooded because the Corp of Engineers decided to open the reservoir floodgates, have a reasonable claim for damages.
Their attorney is basing this claim on a violation of the 5th amendment, specifically relating to the state 'purposing private property for public use'.
The folks outside of that pool, however, whose homes were only flooded because the Corp of Engineers decided to open the reservoir floodgates, have a reasonable claim for damages.
Their attorney is basing this claim on a violation of the 5th amendment, specifically relating to the state 'purposing private property for public use'.
If the homes were flooded because the flood gates were opened, were they no by definition, in a flood plain?
> The other issue I see is that for some reason Houston didn't require all of these people to have flood insurance.
Not necessarily Houston. FEMA gets involved... if you're in a flood zone, FEMA mandates flood insurance (and so do the mortgage companies.)
Not necessarily Houston. FEMA gets involved... if you're in a flood zone, FEMA mandates flood insurance (and so do the mortgage companies.)
Zeeland (and other parts of the Netherlands) now have a similar strategy in place - they've spent billions over the years on sea defences, which are absolutely stunning to behold, but have now done the sums and realised they've entered diminishing returns. It's cheaper to let certain areas flood and compensate than it is to build ever more expensive defences.
There was an interesting story a few months back about how the city of Nashville has a process where they buy homes in flood-prone areas at a "fair market price", then demolish the homes and convert the property to "green space" (preventing new buildings from being constructed). The main idea was that this is cheaper in the long run than the continuing cost of disaster recovery, emergency services, etc. for people in these areas. I don't think Nashville is the only city doing this sort of thing, but it was news to me when I heard about it.
http://www.tennessean.com/story/news/2017/09/08/nashville-ma...
http://www.tennessean.com/story/news/2017/09/08/nashville-ma...
I have a feeling that at _some_ point, a politician is going to see all of this land that the city owns and get dollar signs in their eyes, and it will eventually be privately-owned and built-up again.
Austin has done that to homes along Onion Creek. Like you said - it's cheaper in the long run to buy the property so that people's homes don't get flooded, with all the knock-on effects afterwards.
Looks like a variant of the trolley problem, with the water playing the part of the trolley.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trolley_problem
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trolley_problem
When I worked in London near London bridge years ago one of the reasons we had two datacentres (with a whopping 10Mbs link) was they where worried about the Thames flooding our building - that was before the barrier was finished.
With an interesting twist to it. Is it more or less immoral to switch tracks if they’ve already been run over by another trolley? Do we try to minimize the total amount of suffering or maximize the number of people with no suffering? Do you reflood a neighborhood to spare another that hasn’t flooded yet?
Interesting. So it's like a real-life version of the trolley problem, but with property damage instead of human lives.
Had a damn failed there would have been far more loss of human life. Army corps definitely made the right call. They were getting sued either way.
This happened to us too (different country). They intentionally held up water using the dams and caused flooding in places that haven't seen a flood in 50 years to prevent downstream flooding. It really sucks.
Sorry that happened to you but I believe the corps made the right call. The choices were release into a high density downtown or low density suburbs. I do believe this happening in a rich suburb with the means to rebuild makes the victims less sympathetic than if they were lower middle class and had to bootstrap from measly FEMA checks.
My first house had flooding problems every spring and heavy rain.
Lesson learned: live on a hill.
Lesson learned: live on a hill.
Good luck finding one of those in Houston!
When a proper developer builds a home or sub-division in Houston, they bring in fill dirt and do compactions until the houses rest on small hills. You get frequent flooding (about once a year) but it rarely reaches the house before the flood prevention systems have a chance to divert and control it. The problem here is two-fold, as discussed in the article, these people built there homes INSIDE the flood diversion systems and never did due diligence on their home purchase to find out that they were in homes literally designed to be flooded and unscrupulous developers who improperly built or ignored the creation of new flood control when up-building developments that made previously safe areas at risk like the HP plant that flooded. Of course this implies that the city code/design/inspectors/etc. were not doing their jobs as well.
As others were saying, the developers actively wanted to exclude disclosure the flood status of these plots to potential buyers. Eventually the city "compromised" with them to hide a one-sentence warning deep in the paperwork.
Now granted, this did not prevent the homeowners from doing their own due-diligence, but I really think that the city officials that agreed to this, and the developers that lobbied for it should all be taken to task for their actions (and I think this regardless of what happened during the hurricane).
Now granted, this did not prevent the homeowners from doing their own due-diligence, but I really think that the city officials that agreed to this, and the developers that lobbied for it should all be taken to task for their actions (and I think this regardless of what happened during the hurricane).
There are some junk hills, filled with toxic waste. You wouldn't even try to snowboard these, lest build a home there.
The good thing about Houston is that everyone is there in together, the rich and the super rich.
The good thing about Houston is that everyone is there in together, the rich and the super rich.
I don't understand what's there to litigate. If they wouldn't have done the controlled release, the dams would have broken, and the very same homes wouldn't not only have been flooded even more, most of them would have been gone. Nada. Plus 10x more homes. Plus broken dams, without protection for the next storm.
When there is a storm in Houston, streets do flood for 30 minutes and traffic has to wait. Without the canals and the dams the city would stand still much longer, the damage would be intolerable.
Government did the right thing, but they should have warned them more timely. At 10pm, not 1am. With some acoustic alarm.
When there is a storm in Houston, streets do flood for 30 minutes and traffic has to wait. Without the canals and the dams the city would stand still much longer, the damage would be intolerable.
Government did the right thing, but they should have warned them more timely. At 10pm, not 1am. With some acoustic alarm.
It's really disturbing reading comments cheering the destruction because the victims are rich, or because they work for energy companies.
If hate is a necessary part of believing in climate change I'm not surprised people want nothing to do with that.
If hate is a necessary part of believing in climate change I'm not surprised people want nothing to do with that.
I wonder, is your comment intentional or is it just a failure of critical reasoning?
It's become a common tactic in public discourse to pretend as if issues are cleanly split between two coherent sides, with all action and words associated with the issue fully ascribable to one side or the other. But of course this is ridiculous, yahoos should get full credit for their yahoo ideas without it being necessary for anyone with even a vaguely similar position to denounce them.
It's become a common tactic in public discourse to pretend as if issues are cleanly split between two coherent sides, with all action and words associated with the issue fully ascribable to one side or the other. But of course this is ridiculous, yahoos should get full credit for their yahoo ideas without it being necessary for anyone with even a vaguely similar position to denounce them.
The only real problem is that this was a decision made ad hoc.
People whose neighborhoods are likely to be flooded by such a decision should know years in advance that they are designated for it.
People whose neighborhoods are likely to be flooded by such a decision should know years in advance that they are designated for it.
>> The only real problem is that this was a decision made ad hoc.
>> People whose neighborhoods are likely to be flooded by such a decision should know years in advance that they are designated for it.
From the Article: "This land and many of the homes to the north and west of the dams are located in what’s known as the flood pool — the upstream portion of the reservoirs. [...] Many homeowners west of the Barker dam claim they didn’t know they were in a flood pool, that they hadn’t spotted the fine print on the bottom of some of their subdivision maps. (“Who looks at a subdivision map?” one resident asks.) The text of one such map reads, “This subdivision is adjacent to Barker Reservoir and is subject to extended controlled inundation under the management of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.” "
Sounds like they were told, but didn't care enough. Other parts of the article state that many lawyers are refusing to take a lot of these lawsuits b/c they were in regions that are marked for exactly this scenario.
>> People whose neighborhoods are likely to be flooded by such a decision should know years in advance that they are designated for it.
From the Article: "This land and many of the homes to the north and west of the dams are located in what’s known as the flood pool — the upstream portion of the reservoirs. [...] Many homeowners west of the Barker dam claim they didn’t know they were in a flood pool, that they hadn’t spotted the fine print on the bottom of some of their subdivision maps. (“Who looks at a subdivision map?” one resident asks.) The text of one such map reads, “This subdivision is adjacent to Barker Reservoir and is subject to extended controlled inundation under the management of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.” "
Sounds like they were told, but didn't care enough. Other parts of the article state that many lawyers are refusing to take a lot of these lawsuits b/c they were in regions that are marked for exactly this scenario.
> Sounds like they were told
Read further:
"[...] many of the lawyers involved in the litigation asked [...] to separate claims from the north and west areas—the upstream ones—from downstream ones, to the south and east. [...] Most lawyers agree that the downstream cases stand the best chance of winning"
So when you say "they were told", you only mean some and not even the primary litigants they were talking with and the lawyer-of-interest was focused on. So it's not a case of "didn't care enough" and saying that confuses an already confusing issue.
Read further:
"[...] many of the lawyers involved in the litigation asked [...] to separate claims from the north and west areas—the upstream ones—from downstream ones, to the south and east. [...] Most lawyers agree that the downstream cases stand the best chance of winning"
So when you say "they were told", you only mean some and not even the primary litigants they were talking with and the lawyer-of-interest was focused on. So it's not a case of "didn't care enough" and saying that confuses an already confusing issue.
Flood zones are meticulously mapped, and owning a property in them usually requires Federally mandated flood insurance. [ http://www.harriscountyfemt.org/ ]
The insurance mandate is what's kept those flood zone maps from being updated, so it's not as meticulous as you might think.
And it's not so much the insurance as you having to build for the flood when you ask for a building permit.
And it's not so much the insurance as you having to build for the flood when you ask for a building permit.
Also, those neighborhoods are/were among the most expensive in Houston. Being reclassified as a flood zone would change that (it's one of the standard things a Houstonian looks at when buying land).
Meticulous may not be the best word choice.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2017/09/0...
The gist of it is that people don't want their properties classified as being in a flood zone (flood insurance in a high risk area is necessarily expensive) and this does influence the maps.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2017/09/0...
The gist of it is that people don't want their properties classified as being in a flood zone (flood insurance in a high risk area is necessarily expensive) and this does influence the maps.
I had a friend in Houston who knew well in advance that his street was in the splash zone, so to speak. He got out way before it became bad but his building was later completely destroyed (he was a renter so it couldve been much worse.
[deleted]
[deleted]
> total damages claimed could reach $10 billion or more, especially if the big energy and oil companies—whose presence in one section of West Houston gave it the nickname the Energy Corridor—sue over their flooded headquarters.
the irony that the home neighborhood of many of the worlds largest oil companies would want to sue because the global warming they're at the core of causing contributed towards the damage of their own buildings.
the irony that the home neighborhood of many of the worlds largest oil companies would want to sue because the global warming they're at the core of causing contributed towards the damage of their own buildings.
my thought exactly.
Crazy. All those oil companies forcing you to buy stuff that gets transported by trucks that use oil. You’re blaming the drug dealers for people choosing to shoot heroin.
Feel free to stop consuming oil. Even your Tesla has plastics made from oil and uses power generated using oil. If you buy a single thing made in China, you are buying products generally made using coal-fired electricity. Unless you live in a grass hut, you are part of the “problem.”
Feel free to stop consuming oil. Even your Tesla has plastics made from oil and uses power generated using oil. If you buy a single thing made in China, you are buying products generally made using coal-fired electricity. Unless you live in a grass hut, you are part of the “problem.”
The rest of the argument seemed kinda valid, but one nitpick:
> Even your Tesla has plastics made from oil
I think nearly all plastics are made out of natural gas, not oil.
> Even your Tesla has plastics made from oil
I think nearly all plastics are made out of natural gas, not oil.
To elaborate further:
"Chemical plants produce olefins by steam cracking of natural gas liquids like ethane and propane. Olefins are the basis for polymers and oligomers used in plastics, resins, fibers, elastomers, lubricants, and gels."
"Chemical plants produce olefins by steam cracking of natural gas liquids like ethane and propane. Olefins are the basis for polymers and oligomers used in plastics, resins, fibers, elastomers, lubricants, and gels."
> I think nearly all plastics are made out of natural gas, not oil.
Fracking monster
Fracking monster
> You’re blaming the drug dealers for people choosing to shoot heroin.
Grade-school libertarianism doesn't apply here. I'm blaming them for using their billions of dollars to pack my government with people like James Inhofe who willingly spread lies and misinformation about a regulatory subject they know nothing about:
http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/234026-sen-inho...
> Take a look at Inhofe's campaign funding. The major source, contributing half a million dollars over the past five years, has been the oil and gas industry... If Inhofe were to change his position on man-made global warming, is it credible that he would retain all this funding? No. He receives money from fossil fuel companies because he articulates the views to which these funders subscribe, and because he advances their interests in the Senate. Given that keeping your seat means spending a fortune on television advertising and other forms of campaigning, changing your views on a matter of great interest to your sponsors is likely to be political suicide.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/georgemonbiot/2012/a...
Grade-school libertarianism doesn't apply here. I'm blaming them for using their billions of dollars to pack my government with people like James Inhofe who willingly spread lies and misinformation about a regulatory subject they know nothing about:
http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/234026-sen-inho...
> Take a look at Inhofe's campaign funding. The major source, contributing half a million dollars over the past five years, has been the oil and gas industry... If Inhofe were to change his position on man-made global warming, is it credible that he would retain all this funding? No. He receives money from fossil fuel companies because he articulates the views to which these funders subscribe, and because he advances their interests in the Senate. Given that keeping your seat means spending a fortune on television advertising and other forms of campaigning, changing your views on a matter of great interest to your sponsors is likely to be political suicide.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/georgemonbiot/2012/a...
It's more like: you're blaming the drug dealers for telling people drugs are healthy and suppressing research that says they do any harm.
Reader mode is not displaying the article, what kind of dark-pattern trickery is this? (Safari)
Works fine in Reader mode for me.
Broken for me too, I just get everything up to the first big image.
With Firefox 57 reader mode works fine.
yardie(3)
It seems to me that flooding the neighbourhood to save the city was a perfectly justifiable decision, but it also seems perfectly reasonable to compensate those whose homes were thereby destroyed.
I would agree, assuming it wasn't clear that they were in a flood plain. The fact that they were makes this pretty easy to resolve: you should have had flood insurance. If you didn't, that's you're problem (since these areas were listed on maps as flood plains).
I agree, it seems exactly that simple.
That's what flood insurance is for. In a socialist democracy you'd be right, but in case of the USA, it seems more appropriate to require that homeowners get insurance.
Flood insurance is a government run program that is pretty "socialist" in the sense you seem to be implying.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Flood_Insurance_Progr...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Flood_Insurance_Progr...
I think in this case, you would actually require federal-government-decision insurance. The downstream residents very well might not have flooded had the federal government done nothing (of course we can agree that what they did was probably best). We should not pretend that another entity directly causing this shouldn't be held responsible, even if it was the right decision.
They might have, sure, but the plan for doing so was in place before the houses were built. They can't claim to be surprised about this.
People are cheering at this, but what if we raise the stakes a little: The government lined up 50 random people and executed them, to appease a foreign government that was holding 500x people captive. We're talking houses vs houses, not people vs people, but how is the morality different? Scape goat. Since it is property, the engineers probably assumed they'd be sued, and I bet they knew exactly what they were doing, and it was still cheaper than the alternative.
If you like this, then you should also support eminent domain, where the government can take whatever it wants to make the neighborhood better.
It definitely irks me when people say "oh they're just energy sector republicans", as if political disagreements makes anyone less deserving of rights under the law. Equality, people, is something you must enforce ESPECIALLY when you don't like the person receiving equality. This was a true thing to say to racists in the past, and to republican haters of the present.
To really get side-tracked: Is it okay to hate haters? Are you justified to do to them what they do? No, I would say love your enemy, if he is thirsty, give him something to drink. Your gifts will be like hot coals on his head.
If you like this, then you should also support eminent domain, where the government can take whatever it wants to make the neighborhood better.
It definitely irks me when people say "oh they're just energy sector republicans", as if political disagreements makes anyone less deserving of rights under the law. Equality, people, is something you must enforce ESPECIALLY when you don't like the person receiving equality. This was a true thing to say to racists in the past, and to republican haters of the present.
To really get side-tracked: Is it okay to hate haters? Are you justified to do to them what they do? No, I would say love your enemy, if he is thirsty, give him something to drink. Your gifts will be like hot coals on his head.
> We're talking houses vs houses, not people vs people, but how is the morality different?
If we'd be talking paperclips vs paperclips would that be morally similar? Or is the monetary value of houses somehow large enough to justify a similarity to human lives?
If we'd be talking paperclips vs paperclips would that be morally similar? Or is the monetary value of houses somehow large enough to justify a similarity to human lives?
Lets say you lose 10000 dollars worth of paper clips. Big deal, buy more. But if you lose 10000 dollars worth of photos, computers, files, etc, it is a big deal because they are harder to replace.
You're just arguing that houses are worth more than paperclips, but on another metric: sentimental value / effort spent.
Even so, none of those things matter (photos, computer files, etc) when you balance them with a human life.
Even so, none of those things matter (photos, computer files, etc) when you balance them with a human life.
People are harder to replace than houses.
People are self replicating, houses are not. Give them sufficient food and time, and there will soon be too many of them.
It would be more accurate to say 'People are more emotionally attached to people than houses'.
It would be more accurate to say 'People are more emotionally attached to people than houses'.
There are more people born each day (400,000 a day) than there are houses built each day (4,657 a day). So I'd say no, houses are harder to replace than people.
You can replace a house to the extent that the old residents are happy with the new house. You can't really replace a deceased family member with someone else.
I'm pretty sure more than 1.7M houses get built every year worldwide.
If you count "dwellings" or "housing units" then surely yes. Many/most of those will be apartments and multi-tenant buildings rather than houses per se.
And then there are all the "houses" built from salvaged materials in poor countries. Not sure if you'd want to count those. A person living in such a structure would still be considered homeless in many places.
And then there are all the "houses" built from salvaged materials in poor countries. Not sure if you'd want to count those. A person living in such a structure would still be considered homeless in many places.
Where did you get these numbers?
If they are harder to replace it is likely they are worth more than $10,000.
Maybe only to the people involved, but it's likely that a fairly accurate dollar value could still be assigned to the loss.
Maybe only to the people involved, but it's likely that a fairly accurate dollar value could still be assigned to the loss.
> The government lined up 50 random people and executed them, to appease a foreign government that was holding 500x people captive. We're talking houses vs houses, not people vs people, but how is the morality different? Scape goat. Since it is property, the engineers probably assumed they'd be sued, and I bet they knew exactly what they were doing, and it was still cheaper than the alternative.
I feel that the central thesis of your comment that the government is this faceless entity that has decided through force to violate lives and is thereby reprehensible to be something that's counter to the facts of the matter and the case at hand.
From the article, it quickly becomes clear that they were trying to avoid catastrophic failure by diverting water to a historic food plain;
> “If we don’t begin releasing now, the volume of uncontrolled water around the dams will be higher,” Colonel Lars Zetterstrom, the Corps’ Galveston district commander, was quoted as saying. “It’s going to be better to release the water through the gates directly into Buffalo Bayou.” The danger was that the water would flow uncontrolled into homes located upstream from the reservoir, crest the reservoir walls downstream, or crack a section of the Barker dam that was under repair. Had either dam failed, the Houston Chronicle later wrote, West Houston would have been left with “a week of corpses by the mile.”
In one cases, the failure would have been sudden and would have killed an unforeseeably large number of people. In another, they could act to preserve lives, but damage property that can be later rebuilt. They chose the latter, and I believe this was the most moral and correct response to the situation at hand.
Why aren't these people heroes for making this call? The Government in this case acted exactly as it should; as an entity that is meant to be representative of and beholden to its citizens and chose an action that preserved the lives of citizens over arbitrary property value that can be repaid through other means.
There is no version of this scenario that plays out well for anyone at all, but the fact that they minimized harm while reducing the risk of catastrophic failure shows that the system does work as intended. After all, homes can be rebuilt, but as far as I can tell, people can't be brought back from the dead.
I feel that the central thesis of your comment that the government is this faceless entity that has decided through force to violate lives and is thereby reprehensible to be something that's counter to the facts of the matter and the case at hand.
From the article, it quickly becomes clear that they were trying to avoid catastrophic failure by diverting water to a historic food plain;
> “If we don’t begin releasing now, the volume of uncontrolled water around the dams will be higher,” Colonel Lars Zetterstrom, the Corps’ Galveston district commander, was quoted as saying. “It’s going to be better to release the water through the gates directly into Buffalo Bayou.” The danger was that the water would flow uncontrolled into homes located upstream from the reservoir, crest the reservoir walls downstream, or crack a section of the Barker dam that was under repair. Had either dam failed, the Houston Chronicle later wrote, West Houston would have been left with “a week of corpses by the mile.”
In one cases, the failure would have been sudden and would have killed an unforeseeably large number of people. In another, they could act to preserve lives, but damage property that can be later rebuilt. They chose the latter, and I believe this was the most moral and correct response to the situation at hand.
Why aren't these people heroes for making this call? The Government in this case acted exactly as it should; as an entity that is meant to be representative of and beholden to its citizens and chose an action that preserved the lives of citizens over arbitrary property value that can be repaid through other means.
There is no version of this scenario that plays out well for anyone at all, but the fact that they minimized harm while reducing the risk of catastrophic failure shows that the system does work as intended. After all, homes can be rebuilt, but as far as I can tell, people can't be brought back from the dead.
> We're talking houses vs houses, not people vs people, but how is the morality different?
What makes you think that any kind of property is worth as much as a human life?
What makes you think that any kind of property is worth as much as a human life?
You could say it serves them right (rich people) for building in a flood plain - it's normally the newer less nice areas that get flooded in the UK - as in the past they where considered to risky
One thing not mentioned in this article is that there has been a lot of new housing development inside of the reservoir (upstream). So they had to start releasing water earlier because they couldn’t let it fill up as much as originally planned when the reservoir was built.
Seriously. I know one generally shouldn't blame victims, but it is their fault in this case. Humanity's hubris needs to be checked every once in a while. I hope the federal government prevails (though admittedly it doesn't look good for them).
technically every location can become a flooding plane if you build a man-made dam in that geographic location
technically not true because there needs to be water to dam for the plane to be flooded.
Basically, the Army blew the levee to save a town, Cairo, IL, at the expense of (a few) homes and (lots of) farmland on the MO side. Maciej (HN user idlewords) mentioned it in one of his interesting blog posts[1].
The blog post asserts:
> The farmers downriver got their fields fertilized with rich river silt and are wealthier and more resentful than ever. Like so many beneficiaries of big government, they remain its implacable foes.
which I've never been able to source, though I've been curious about it. AFAICT most of the farmers left and never returned to the area.
[0]http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/columns/pat-gauen/saving-...
[1] http://idlewords.com/2015/07/confronting_new_madrid_part_2.h...