In my church days we would say the opposite - stuff is replaceable but people are not.
So many philosophies out there ... 😄
In my church days we would say the opposite - stuff is replaceable but people are not.
So many philosophies out there ... 😄
Of course it is true, I just like to poke a few here to get a rise.
But, I will say that 200 year old houses are not just “stuff” and it is disrespectiful to equate them with cheap crap from
China, replaceable at the local Walmart. They really cannot be replaced even if re-built. Original materials are gone.
I agree that it would be a real loss if the houses go. Sounds like it would be a great place to visit. When we were in New Orleans we visited some of the plantations. We actually are going again for 3 days before our cruise leaves. The last time I was there was 1999.
Remember the neutron bomb? It was designed to kill people while leaving architectural treasures intact.
It was actually designed for use in space against incoming nuclear warheads, and later for use against the Soviet's huge armored divisions in Europe. The warheads are relatively small, but would still cause significant damage to structures within the effective range of the intended target, and the area wouldn't be very pleasant to be in for some time afterwards - buildings of modern construction would likely have some of their metallic components become radioactive.
It wasn't really designed to kill people while preserving structures.
Homeowners insurance policies cover wind damage but not flood damage. Unless homeowners in the Carolinas arranged for separate insurance for flood, they will soon learn about the difference between the damage caused by the storm and the damage covered by their insurance.
Isn't that what happened with a lot of homeowners after Super Storm Sandy? Lots of arguing with the insurers.
And it may be too early to discuss this, but should all of those homes be rebuilt in the same area anyway? There was some reports that realtors and others had pushed back on any zoning restrictions in recent years and so housing was allowed where it shouldn't have been. Isn't it apparent now that these coastal areas are just not all feasible as places to build?
I have a lot of empathy for those who lost their house, but now comes the part when the federal gov't will be asked to help fund rebuilding and that's the part I don't think taxpayers should have to fund.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)