Jump to content

Floods Destroy Homes: Insensitive Harper Does Nothing


Recommended Posts

Valid point on Fraser - I understand they cut funding in 2000 but not relevant to this thread IMHO

as it is about NB situation and there was no federally funded dredghing or dyking as far as I know

Original thread blames Harper unfairly when he responded quickly and toured sites with premier and said he would consider all requests for emergency assistance as they are presented by the province

Provincial EMO handles predictions and recommendations and feds act in a support role in disaster relief

see link below

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/new-brunswick/sto...th.html?ref=rss

Harper did the same thing with the Fraser. He came out west, jumped in a helicopter, flew up and down the river, went Hmm and said we will be there if everything turns to crap, which at that late date was about all he would be able to do. By the way, to my knowledge the municipalities were not reimbursed by the feds for any of the money they spent reinforcing the dikes.

I'm not blaming the Harper government any more than any other federal government for this policy because it is typical. I am just pointing out that federal governments in general are not pro active when it comes to disaster prevention. IMO they should be. In that respect at least, the OP has a point, that's all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Harper did the same thing with the Fraser. He came out west, jumped in a helicopter, flew up and down the river, went Hmm and said we will be there if everything turns to crap, which at that late date was about all he would be able to do. By the way, to my knowledge the municipalities were not reimbursed by the feds for any of the money they spent reinforcing the dikes.

I'm not blaming the Harper government any more than any other federal government for this policy because it is typical. I am just pointing out that federal governments in general are not pro active when it comes to disaster prevention. IMO they should be. In that respect at least, the OP has a point, that's all.

Fair enough - found this when i was researching disaster response - interesting overview

http://www.phac-aspc.gc.ca/cpip-pclcpi/ann-l-eng.php

still trying to figure out jurisdiction on dykes/dredging in river system

they have jurisdiction over navigable waters and that must have been premise for dredging in fraser

see they are still dredging under FREMP

http://www.bieapfremp.org/fremp/pdf_files/...%20Oct%2006.pdf

Good luck in future with that issue

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In the Netherlands, they have enough left-leaning representation to tax the rich more and fund infrastructure.

It's well documented that the Bush administration cut levy funding and emergency preparedness pre-Katrina, and if given the chance, Harper would copy the Neo-Con policy of his hero Bush. Profits, increased military funding, tax cuts for the rich and corporate tax cuts before people's LIVES.

Harper wanted to head (head over heels) into Iraq with Bush, wants to supress media access, wants to have Christian Conservatives determine tax break opportunities for artists, is now copying the draconian and persecutive American DEA drug war, is allowing Canadian standards to drop to the US standard for pesticides, and is gladly allowing Canadians to sub in for the mainly vacated American military Afghan role. Throw in privatization tendencies, and a smug disregard for transparency, and you have Stephen Harper : Bush-Bot.

There is NO Bush policy which Harper opposes.

A vote for Harper was/is a vote for BUSH.

Harper was likely smug and calm down in New orleans, thinking, "Gov't isn't good at saving people's lives/homes/hopes/dreams, and it SHOULDN'T be".

That's Neo-Con defeatism.

And it destroys people's lives.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Fair enough - found this when i was researching disaster response - interesting overview

http://www.phac-aspc.gc.ca/cpip-pclcpi/ann-l-eng.php

still trying to figure out jurisdiction on dykes/dredging in river system

they have jurisdiction over navigable waters and that must have been premise for dredging in fraser

see they are still dredging under FREMP

http://www.bieapfremp.org/fremp/pdf_files/...%20Oct%2006.pdf

Good luck in future with that issue

Thanks

The FREMP link you gave does mention both navigation and flood control but it would seem the focus is downstream from Mission. The map showing dredging operations is the main channel used by large ships which can go as far as New Westminster. While there is plenty of flood plain downstream from Mission, the concern of people in this area is upstream from there. Mission is a choke point and flood conditions for the river are monitored by gauge located there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks

The FREMP link you gave does mention both navigation and flood control but it would seem the focus is downstream from Mission. The map showing dredging operations is the main channel used by large ships which can go as far as New Westminster. While there is plenty of flood plain downstream from Mission, the concern of people in this area is upstream from there. Mission is a choke point and flood conditions for the river are monitored by gauge located there.

I have one question for you, why are you building/buying property on a flood plain? Does the name not give away what it is, and what will eventually happen? At what point should you take responsibilty for your actions? This reminds me of when i was writing home and farm insurance I went to look at a house that a client was just building and wanted to insure. When I got there I noticed that accross the river there was an old barn with a waterline just about 1/4 of the way up the building. After seeing that I asked the owners why they were building in that location, and how often the river floods to that level. I was told the the veiw was worth it and the river only got that high once in the ten years they had been in the area.

Now since insurance policies don't cover flood damage here should anyone on this board or anyone in Canada for that matter have to rebuild this couples home for them when they loose it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have one question for you, why are you building/buying property on a flood plain? Does the name not give away what it is, and what will eventually happen? At what point should you take responsibilty for your actions? This reminds me of when i was writing home and farm insurance I went to look at a house that a client was just building and wanted to insure. When I got there I noticed that accross the river there was an old barn with a waterline just about 1/4 of the way up the building. After seeing that I asked the owners why they were building in that location, and how often the river floods to that level. I was told the the veiw was worth it and the river only got that high once in the ten years they had been in the area.

Now since insurance policies don't cover flood damage here should anyone on this board or anyone in Canada for that matter have to rebuild this couples home for them when they loose it?

I don't live on the flood plain but if you knew a damn thing about the Fraser Valley and the three million people who live in it you would know what I am talking about. Some of the biggest cities in the world are on flood plains or are subject to the threat of flooding. London and Shanghai to name just a couple.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Now since insurance policies don't cover flood damage here should anyone on this board or anyone in Canada for that matter have to rebuild this couples home for them when they loose(sic) it?

Well, the majority of people on earth live on flood plains. 'Flood plains' is a very subjective term to insurance companies. For example, any valley on earth with a river running in the middle of it, is a flood plain. Manhatten, is a flood plain.. It's how often it floods. Normal people and insurance companies measure the probablility and frequency of the floods to determine premiums. Most of the land that was flooded here in NB this time was on a flood plain that was designated as 1/100. In other words a flood of this magnitude would be expectged to happen once per 100 years. People have and had flood insurance.

Do you think they should still be able to live there?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, the majority of people on earth live on flood plains. 'Flood plains' is a very subjective term to insurance companies. For example, any valley on earth with a river running in the middle of it, is a flood plain. Manhatten, is a flood plain.. It's how often it floods. Normal people and insurance companies measure the probablility and frequency of the floods to determine premiums. Most of the land that was flooded here in NB this time was on a flood plain that was designated as 1/100. In other words a flood of this magnitude would be expectged to happen once per 100 years. People have and had flood insurance.

Do you think they should still be able to live there?

Standard household insurance polices do not cover flooding, at least they don't here. And I live in a place that has never and likely will never experience surface flooding.

Sewer backup coverage is available, roof leakage due to ice dams, but any water running through basement windows is not covered. It is available here at significan t extra cost, same for earthquake coverage. In an area where floods are common, how can insurance companies afford to insure?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Standard household insurance polices do not cover flooding, at least they don't here. And I live in a place that has never and likely will never experience surface flooding.

Sewer backup coverage is available, roof leakage due to ice dams, but any water running through basement windows is not covered. It is available here at significan t extra cost, same for earthquake coverage. In an area where floods are common, how can insurance companies afford to insure?

If one is quick sewer backup can be explained for the damage in the basement. NMot every time mind you .

How can they afford it? By minimizing the exposure through high pricing (no one buys it) and a deductible equal to a couple of % points of the house. (anywhere from $10,000 on up)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, back to the thread title. Just this morning while getting ready for work they had a piece about the flood on the news. From what they said they are running full tilt in order to process claims under a Federal disaster relief program. So it would appear that "insensitive Harper" is indeed doing something, at least the Feds are, which amounts to the same thing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not in my lifetime. How do you explain away the torrent of water in the entire region? They also only offer sewer backup insurance in areas where it never or rarely happens.

I live on an island on this offending river and I have sewer backup insurance. and it's cheap.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, back to the thread title. Just this morning while getting ready for work they had a piece about the flood on the news. From what they said they are running full tilt in order to process claims under a Federal disaster relief program. So it would appear that "insensitive Harper" is indeed doing something, at least the Feds are, which amounts to the same thing.

Yep, and one of the main things they are doing is covering people's deductible on their insurance.

(why, not sure)

Edited by White Doors
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If one is quick sewer backup can be explained for the damage in the basement

Not in my lifetime. How do you explain away the torrent of water in the entire region? They also only offer sewer backup insurance in areas where it never or rarely happens.

It is tricky.

If one can show that the intital damage in your basement was caused by water coming from your floor drain before the water penetrated the building then sewer backup caused the damage. The water that then comes through your windows and doors is moot.

That said...not recommended.

Sewer backup is pretty universal theses days. Problem areas usually have a higher deductible but it is rarely excluded.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Tell a friend

    Love Repolitics.com - Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      10,431
    • Most Online
      1,403

    Newest Member
    Elvis98
    Joined
  • Recent Achievements

  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...