This is a post from 24hcf member *stripbuckhunter* in response to a member who almost lost his home to wildfires.he is obviously just seeking attention or he has got to be the most ignorant human being I've ever had the pleasure of not meeting. so what say we give it to him.
You and others built in a fire prone forest in the middle of a well-known world record drought resulting in record timber lack-of moisture content cuz you still want your semi-privacy and you think it won't happen to you. Example....the Colorado Springs-Black Forest folks.........with 500 homes lost.The rest of us gotta live in a concrete jungle non-forested area if we wanna not take the chance.You gambled knowingly........and ya lost. Nut up.Quit yer whining now.
Posts: 178 Cry-babies have been building their trophy homes in inappropriate places all over the west since the riots and earthquake in SoCal in the early 1990's.Then they want the local residents who grew up here and have struggled to make a living here since birth to pay taxes in order to protect their humble abodes and belongings from Mother Nature............when it was all obvious beforehand.This just doesn't get it with me. And spare me your phony Christian prayers and such.Folks who think their rich built burned down homes lead to a different, higher amount of suffering are spoiled brats. Those of you who support them are the same.
Yeah, old Mother Nature couldn't possibly reach out and touch him ever. Sounds like he's got it all figured out...
I think your insurance should reflect the risk of the hazard. If you don't have enough to clear the sight and replace the loss that is on you.
If you want to build your house in a setting that makes it more likely that you will loose it in a fire, close to trees and brush, that is on you, a risk you take. Your insurance rates should reflect that. No different than building a house in a flood plain. If I build a house within a flood plain at say the 10 or 25 year occurrence level it would be stupid not to expect to deal with a flood within that time frame. And yes, your insurance does reflect that.
In the wildfire per-planning CIM outlines there are usually plans to check the fire given the expected flow (considering variables). I don't think they should really spend a great deal of those limited resources trying to create a cold spot within that fire zone. The objective is to stop the fire, not to protect property within that wildfire area. Lives yes, property no.
My risk here from nature is very high wind or tornado. I do have enough insurance to clear my sight and rebuild. (My house was built in 1906 and is vastly stronger than the match boxes built today). So pray for the safety of my family and don't worry about my personal property, I got that covered.
Pretty much right on the money..
USMCSS, you might want to learn how to use the site, specifically the quote function, before you do a callout thread. Otherwise it looks like it's you who is saying the stuff and not the guy you're talking about.
Oh yippee, another call-out thread! Only slightly less gay than Ricky Martin's personal masseuse.
Redneck, let me tell you about my house, just the roof. The rafters are 2x6 rough cut poplar. The roof was slate so it is covered by 1 inch thick purlins with about 1/2" gap average in between.
Two year ago I stripped that slate. I re-shot all the purlins with 3" ring shanks. Then I did an overlay with 5/8" OSB and shot that with 8 penny ring shanks. Then I went around the inside and installed two hurricane clips on each rafter.
I think it would take a pretty big blow to take that roof off.
Guess I won't comment here on the questionable wisdom of building homes in floodplains.
While his assessment may not be technically wrong, it is extremely poor judgment to voice it considering the situation.
That's right, Theo. Don't even get me started about Gov't subsidized insurance that increases risky behavior.
Thank you.
roughly worded considering the circumstances but i agree with the sentiment. i feel the same way for the people who buy/build right on the beach on the east coast and then complain when one of the semi-yearly hurricanes blows their sheeeit away. i have lived all over the world, from typhoon prone far east asia, to earthquake city california to mississippi gulf and central atlantic coast. one of the reasons i live where i live now is because there ain't no hurricanes, tornadoes, floods, earthquakes or wild fires coming anywhere near me. and no, i don't live in a concrete jungle either. i'd take a hurricane over that any day.
I remember when I was very young, we made a trip to California to visit some older relatives in San Bernardino. They were driving us around showing us some of the great new homes going up in steep sided brush laden canyons. They told us those canyons burned at least once every 10 years and those people building homes in there were absolute fools. I think that has proved out pretty well.
I do hate for people to lose their homes and possessions, and I am always willing to join forces to offer a prayer for those that are endangered. Where two or more are gathered....he is there.
Yes, insurance rates should reflect risk for a given location. Beyond that, what "stripbuckhunter" seems to be saying is that people who build in fire prone areas not only impact insurance rates, but cause government to incur additional costs trying to protect private property that logically shouldn't exist in such areas. Such homeowners not only cost taxpayer's money, but risk the lives of fire fighters by their choice to live in such areas. Then again homes in such areas may be paying a lot more in property tax to offset the extra cost, and if not, maybe such higher taxes are in order.
Where "stripbuckhunter" went off track is in expressing such sentiment to a person who just suffered such a loss and without the compassion such people deserve even if they have some responsibility for their own loss.
Guess I won't comment here on the questionable wisdom of building homes in floodplains.
or everything in the New Madrid fault system.....we are gonna loose a whole lot the next time that shakes including St Louis and Memphis.....it rang church bells in Richmond VA and shook pictures off the walls in Washington DC when it broke loose in Dec. 1811
Is SBH Whiskeyman? or Too dogs?
His prose seems very familiar...
Yes, insurance rates should reflect risk for a given location. Beyond that, what "stripbuckhunter" seems to be saying is that people who build in fire prone areas not only impact insurance rates, but cause government to incur additional costs trying to protect private property that logically shouldn't exist in such areas. Such homeowners not only cost taxpayer's money, but risk the lives of fire fighters by their choice to live in such areas. Then again homes in such areas may be paying a lot more in property tax to offset the extra cost, and if not, maybe such higher taxes are in order.
Where "stripbuckhunter" went off track is in expressing such sentiment to a person who just suffered such a loss and without the compassion such people deserve even if they have some responsibility for their own loss.
USMCSS needs to link that post, so we can see what he is talking about without a bunch of digging.
Truth sometimes needs to take a back seat to compassion. That does not mean lie, nor give a false message or intent. Sometimes that means just STFU.
Is SBH Whiskeyman? or Too dogs?
His prose seems very familiar...
Yep
I think your insurance should reflect the risk of the hazard. If you don't have enough to clear the sight and replace the loss that is on you.
If you want to build your house in a setting that makes it more likely that you will loose it in a fire, close to trees and brush, that is on you, a risk you take. Your insurance rates should reflect that. No different than building a house in a flood plain. If I build a house within a flood plain at say the 10 or 25 year occurrence level it would be stupid not to expect to deal with a flood within that time frame. And yes, your insurance does reflect that.
In the wildfire per-planning CIM outlines there are usually plans to check the fire given the expected flow (considering variables). I don't think they should really spend a great deal of those limited resources trying to create a cold spot within that fire zone. The objective is to stop the fire, not to protect property within that wildfire area. Lives yes, property no.
My risk here from nature is very high wind or tornado. I do have enough insurance to clear my sight and rebuild. (My house was built in 1906 and is vastly stronger than the match boxes built today). So pray for the safety of my family and don't worry about my personal property, I got that covered.
Yep
Our flood insurance just went up 25%
Snake
USMCSS, stripbuckhunter is clearly a troll. He gets his kicks from the replies he get to his outrageous posts. By replying to him or by calling him out only feed him.
Don't Feed The Trolls!
Instead, click on his name in on any post he makes and choose "Profile" from the drop down menu. Then click on "Ignore This User" Problem solved.
USMCSS, you might want to learn how to use the site, specifically the quote function, before you do a callout thread. Otherwise it looks like it's you who is saying the stuff and not the guy you're talking about.
Haha. I understand and can assure you these are not my statements, can I quote on one post and start another thread about that quote? If so please enlighten me. However correct you may be I'm sure my point was made and most had no problem getting my message. Thanks for your input.
I looked at the flood maps ect before picking my home. I ain't in one. Not a 100 year. SE NC is prone to hurricanes, I know that. I'm 25 miles from the coast. I know we get an occasional tornado. Wind damage, check.
I feel for those in storm ravaged areas. I'm partial to the Outer Banks of NC, but when I saw them building houses between the primary and secondary dunes I knew that was going to be future debris. And they rebuilt. Take the .gov money out of it and they will quit.
You guys aren't suggesting that there are government programs that could promote irresponsible behavior now are you?
I think your insurance should reflect the risk of the hazard. If you don't have enough to clear the sight and replace the loss that is on you.
If you want to build your house in a setting that makes it more likely that you will loose it in a fire, close to trees and brush, that is on you, a risk you take. Your insurance rates should reflect that. No different than building a house in a flood plain. If I build a house within a flood plain at say the 10 or 25 year occurrence level it would be stupid not to expect to deal with a flood within that time frame. And yes, your insurance does reflect that.
In the wildfire per-planning CIM outlines there are usually plans to check the fire given the expected flow (considering variables). I don't think they should really spend a great deal of those limited resources trying to create a cold spot within that fire zone. The objective is to stop the fire, not to protect property within that wildfire area. Lives yes, property no.
My risk here from nature is very high wind or tornado. I do have enough insurance to clear my sight and rebuild. (My house was built in 1906 and is vastly stronger than the match boxes built today). So pray for the safety of my family and don't worry about my personal property, I got that covered.
Agree 100%. If someone want to build in a fire or hurricane prone are, I'm OK - but just don't expect me to pick up the tab in Federal assistance or higher insurance premiums on my home.
You guys aren't suggesting that there are government programs that could promote irresponsible behavior now are you?
Subsidize stupidly and you get?
Personally, all my life i have chosen to live on hills. Just on last Friday, we had a very heavy 24-hour rainfall that was as heavy as I can remember, anywhere. The streams and road gutters (typically 3 feet deep here) were like a flash flood.
Farther down bore the brunt of it. We were fine. The only scary part is that there had been no other rain in August, so there was a concern about landslides. Fortunately we are on the side of a little extinct volcano, so it is rocky.
Planning is good.
Couple years ago a family member, over dinner, mentioned that they were about to buy a piece of property is a "historical" flood zone. Huh? Seller told them that, while it was technically a flood zone it had been sooo long sense any water damage in the area.
I shoot my mouth off, and as a result they didn't buy that house. Blamed me for spoiling it for them. The next year, you guessed it, they could see the flooding from the house they did buy...up on the hill.
very few places in the US arent prone to one natural disaster or another.....some places they just happen a lil more often.....
If you do not like what the fellow posts then you have the where-withal to ignore him.
It is working for me.
very few places in the US arent prone to one natural disaster or another.....some places they just happen a lil more often.....
[bleep],
I'd take my chances living in beautiful (dangerous) mountain country where I can shoot, piss off my deck, and walk around nekkid outside if I have to rather than a "safe" subdivision surrounded by concrete and asphalt with neighbors peering into your backyard and your business.
very few places in the US arent prone to one natural disaster or another.....some places they just happen a lil more often.....
Yes, there are geographical reasons why some areas are poorer than others.
I looked at the flood maps ect before picking my home. I ain't in one. Not a 100 year. SE NC is prone to hurricanes, I know that. I'm 25 miles from the coast. I know we get an occasional tornado. Wind damage, check.
I feel for those in storm ravaged areas. I'm partial to the Outer Banks of NC, but when I saw them building houses between the primary and secondary dunes I knew that was going to be future debris. And they rebuilt. Take the .gov money out of it and they will quit.
Try finding one in Galveston Texas.
In the City....
Our house is 5-6 feet higher than the street and the street is 5ft above sea level
That said, we still had 4 feet of water in the house during Ike
Snake
I live in a hurricane zone, just a part of life here. Also possibly in a 100 or 500 year flood plain, I am not sure and since the house isn't mortgage the lender doesn't require it.
I'm not sure about the accuracy of the flood plains either. A house that is owned by a family member (not occupied) is outside the 500 year flood plain in TX and was washed off it's beams/foundation in 2008 when we got 18" of rain in about 12-14 hours in the spring. The house was built around 1900.