This Is the Story of the Hurricane

Gregg Easterbrook thinks Hurricane Isabel was overhyped. I don't know jack about meteorology, but he seems to make a good case, especially here:

[Y]ou'll hear that property damage is unprecedented. This will be cited by hype-meisters to justify the notion of Isabel as a phenomenal mega-event, and cited by enviros to back claims the hurricanes are increasing in intensity. But of course property damage will set new records: property is becoming more valuable. Between inflation, the strong market in housing values and a 30-year trend of building upscale housing in coastal areas, with each passing year, what stands in the paths of hurricanes is simply worth more.

Comments

[Steve in CO]

The hype not only helps the national and local media's bottom line, but innumerable other industries as well. Long distance companies cashed in on all of the phone calls made to relatives in the storm's path, local retailers for supplies, and don't forget, it serves nicely to bolster environmentals arguments, Homeland Security boosters, and other pigs at the trough.

😀

[Madog]

Up here in Connecticut a lot of people were needlessly worried. Even before we knew it wasn't going to hit us directly, I was reasurring people they had nothing to worry about. I used to get hurricanes and tropical storms like Isabel all the time when I lived in Florida. Just don't go outside in the rain and watch out for flying trailer homes.

[Mudflap]

I always like to see the news media try to make a large story out of a small one. This is the best indicator that all is fine outin the worldand I can go about my business.

Real story. My aunt lives along the Russian River in Northern California. Im not sure what agencys have been involved, but she has been given over half a million dollars compensating for flood damageCaused by three seprate floods. At no point has anyone in the goverment said, move or build it so that it doesnt get destroyed. They just write checks. So the Taxes I pay in fifteen years went to my aunt so she can live in a beutiful serene location. Somebody explain to me how this is moral or legal?

Anyway, we don't talk any more

Mudflap

[joe]

The government does the same thing in fire prone areas.

[Brian]

I agree with the negative comments regarding the feds (read you and me) paying for folks to rebuild on costal areas. My question is how far do you extend this argument?

What about folks who choose to build on flood plains or flood prone areas (i.e. anywhere near a river)? Of course, that would eliminate all the cities and towns along the Mississippi and other rivers and a whole bunch of farms in the midwest.

We (rightly) complain about rebuilding costal homes, but does anyone complain about government aid to farmers, etc. in the midwest when they get flooded out? Nope. Sure there should be some consideration of risk, but what's the difference between a 100 year hurricane risk and a 100 year flood risk? Recent experience has show that they both seem to happen more frequently than "100 years".

Oh yeah, San Francisco residents proabably shouldn't come begging to the feds when the next big quake hits. After all, they all should have know the risk they were taking by living there, right?

Anybody know of a 100% safe place to live???

[jack]

That is the point exactly. Don't come running to the government for help when your house gets knocked down by a foreseeable disaster. If you live in quake area, get quake insurance. If you live in a floodplain, get flood insurance or build on high ground. Live near the coast, get your damned hurricane/flood insurance. Just because every area in the US has its own type of weather that can knock your house flat doesn't mean it is the taxpayers responsibility to help you rebuild.

[Brian]

Jack -

I agree, but what do we do when the insurance companies go bankrupt due to the number of claims that get filed when a large scale disaster strikes? The government will bail them out. (I think this happend in Florida afetr hurricane Andrew, but don't quote me on it)

[StMack]

Maddog -

As a fellow CT resident I was amazed to see the level of panic over a storm that for several days before landfall clearly wawn't going to be an issue for us. Here's how bad it got in my town.

Brian --
I don't know of a 100% safe place to live. I do know that whichever set of risks I choose to accept I should be 100% responsible for the consequences.

[Anonymous]

"but what do we do when the insurance companies go bankrupt due to the number of claims that get filed "

Lump it. You ain't guaranteed squat. If your lifestyle doesn't contain a contigency plan for a serious problem, too bad for you. It's not difficult to conceive of a weather disaster or losing one's income for some reason. If you simply choose not to conceive of a rainy day in your life, why should I have to do it for you?

[Kenny Lay]

Yeah! Me too! What he just said!

[Keith]

Well, Duh.

The federal gov't = A major insurance company with sideline businesses in defense and homeland security.

[GaryM]

Brian: Your point is? Of course the government shouldn't be "insuring" any of those people or places.

[GaryM]

Let's not forget that one of the reasons for heavy property losses in hurricanes is the habit of governments of helping to pay for the damage caused to the property of people who choose to build on hurricane-prone coastal land. When risk is reduced, more people build, and there will be more damage when a storm hits.

[joe]

Not to mention, the country is always becoming more built. Ten years ago, town X had 2000 homes. Now it has 3000. Of course losses will be higher from the same storm.

[Anonymous]

If the damgage wasn't more, more, more, what reason would you have to keep watching the tv news?

[Grant]

I agree with StMack @ Hold The Mayo. "If an individual chooses to build a seaside home in an area that could be potentially hit with a hurricane or other severe weather, whatever damage they suffer is their own damn problem. And if they don't have insurance to cover the damages they better hope their own checkbook can cover it."

[Jason Ligon]

This must be because of the TMQ references yesterday ...

[Tim Cavanaugh]

Iron John Stossel did a great Gimme A Break segment one time about FEMA guarantees that essentially reward people for building and rebuilding homes in the most hurricane-exposed areas of the south-Atlantic region. The running gag was that Stossel himself had a beach home that he kept thanking the viewers for paying him to rebuild after it got rocked in a storm. There were assorted tales of serial rebuilders who had collected more than one federal paycheck to rebuild destroyed homes. Wackiness ensued. It was one of Stossel's finest hours.

[Brad S]

Tim - I remember that one very well, and it was a great example of our government reinforcing whacky behavior on the part of its citizens (repeatedly rebuilding extremely high-dollar homes in hurricane-prone coastland). It was one of the most well-thought-out investigative journalism stories I've ever seen. I've heard ABC and Stossel took a lot of heat for it. Because, you know, we can't hurt anyone's feelings or anything. And suggesting that maybe a hurricane-prone shoreline is not the best place to build one's home at the taxpayers' expense, you know, that hurts people's feelings.

[Lefty]

The only reason the whole country had to listen to three days of East Coast weather reports is because it's easy to report and has good visuals. TV news companies are huddled up in the northeast and all they had to do was stand outside, take some pictures and watch the big storm go by. For three days.

I crack up when the anchor talks to the death defying rain reporter and then concludes with "stay safe, now". He wants us to be sure that they are risking life and limb so we can get the real story.

I enjoy sitting on the porch and watching a good storm, too, but don't expect the rest of the world to give a rip.

[Anonymous]

My favorite idiocy of local Tv news is when the reporters (who all live in rich neighborhoods, especially the ones who didn't grow up in the area) are sent to do live shots from poor neighborhoods and they pronounce the street names, neighborhoods, etc. all wrong. Really helps the credibility out and shows how much they care.

[Anonymous]

Why aren't you guys focusing on the real story here? Clearly Bush's failure to sign Kyoto caused this hurricane.

[StMack]

My favorite is the radio reporter who holds his mike out into the wind so we can hear how hard it blowing.

FEMA needs to be done away with or limited to providing immediate disaster aid and relief. Rebuilding the beach house isn't the taxpayers problem.

p.s. Thanks for the link Grant.

[david]

Sheesh. A category 2 hurricane barely qualifies as news. The amount of coverage this one has received is just astonishing.

[arjay]

Brian

To my knowledge no insurance cos failed due to Hurricane Andrew (correction invited). Some stopped writing policies in FL an premiums statewide rose dramatically with the ones that stayed.

Much of the damage in Dade was due to shoddy const (eg 4 nails in a 4x8 sheet of roof sheathing) and many suits by ins cos against builders were filed.

[kevrob]

Govt. subsidized disaster insurance - flood insurance, especially - has "driven private companies out of that market." Or, one could say "insurance lobbyists have managed to get the government to place the risk on the taxpayers." I remember when my folks replaced a seaside bungalow with a two-story, with a basement and all the modern utilities. The bank writing the mortgage required that they get the subsidized flood insurance, as the house was X feet from the high tide line. The fact that most of that distance was measured in the VERTICAL - the house was on a 50-yard bluff overlooking the beach, which was on a HARBOR, well behind the breakwater, and near the top of a hill, to boot -meant nothing to the federal regulators. If your property was mapped as "flood-prone" you got the insurance. No need for an underwriter to go look at the property and assess the risk.
Sign here, please, and up goes your house payment.

If natural-disaster insurance is a requirement that private lenders want to put on building in risky areas, fine. This should be done at market prices, or else the costs of such risks will be borne by those not taking them.

Granted, a hurricane in 1934 (?) did destroy the stairs leading from the top of the bluff to the beach, but we weren't going to rebuild those.

BTW, insurers and "insured" were hurt by Andrew, big-time.

http://www.hurricanes.net/content/hdnreports/flafocus/andrew_insure.asp

Kevin

[Tobydog]

Do you ever hear the people complain when they are lounging by their costal resort? Somebody has to own costal properties so the rest of the US will have a place to vacation when their flood free, non fire hazzard, free from mother diasters home gets too boring!