Frakenstorm predictions

[TimG]

Easy to say when you are the one not taking any risk.

Who says I am not taking any risk?

[WWWTT]

I think being prepared is just common sense and people who don't are foolish and complacent...

I think people in the past,say before WW2 were more prepared for unexpected inconveniences.

WWWTT

[WWWTT]

Who says I am not taking any risk?

Where is your residence located?

WWWTT

[wyly]

Easy to say when you are the one not taking any risk.

WWWTT

indeed...locally where I live people have questioned the city's responsibility to help people with flood damage, why should everyone be perpetually responsible to help those who choose to build or buy homes on the river flood plains? ...common sense tells you that someday the river will flood it's a guaranteed event why should I be financially responsible for some millionaires who want choice scenic locations on flood plains?...are they so dense to believe just because they built a home there the river will be nice and never overflow again?...

[WWWTT]

Simplistic thinking. Japan invested heavily in seawalls and emergency planning.

There were properties that I was looking at to potentially build a house on,however they were in low areas and the risk of flooding was higher so I passed on them.Even though these lots were priced lower.

WWWTT

[Topaz]

I heard today on the news that one of the subways has 50 feet of water in it and I hope no homeless person used it as a shelter. They also said that New York may find dead and alive rats within the subways. For New York, this is another 9/11 only worse, more personal damages.

[WWWTT]

indeed...locally where I live people have questioned the city's responsibility to help people with flood damage, why should everyone be perpetually responsible to help those who choose to build or buy homes on the river flood plains? ...common sense tells you that someday the river will flood it's a guaranteed event why should I be financially responsible for some millionaires who want choice scenic locations on flood plains?...are they so dense to believe just because they built a home there the river will be nice and never overflow again?...

I can not argue with this.

I have passed on lots that were to low in the past because of the risk (not to mention the high cost of the tri axles of fill required) of flooding!

WWWTT

[wyly]

I think people in the past,say before WW2 were more prepared for unexpected inconveniences.

WWWTT

well things were much more unpredictable back then and conveniences were rare you could only count on your own resources in immediate emergencies...infrastructure today is much more reliable today which is why the complacency, my kids can't imagine anything breaking down so have no idea how to be prepared which makes our society all the more vulnerable when it does happen...

[cybercoma]

New York, this is another 9/11 only worse

This is an astonishing thing to say.

[wyly]

There were properties that I was looking at to potentially build a house on,however they were in low areas and the risk of flooding was higher so I passed on them.Even though these lots were priced lower.

WWWTT

I learned the hard way never buy a home on the bottom of a hill...a plumber friend told me always buy a home on the top of the hill "shit don't flow uphill"...I now live on the highest hill in calgary Edited October 31, 2012 by wyly

[wyly]

I have a family member who is a realtor in Vancouver, there is one area in the valley that is not only in the river flood plain but is also an earthquake liquefaction zone ...he tells all his potential clients the facts but yet many are not deterred and still buy there...

[guyser]

indeed...locally where I live people have questioned the city's responsibility to help people with flood damage,

Are you talking about actual flood damage, or water damage?

why should everyone be perpetually responsible to help those who choose to build or buy homes on the river flood plains? ...common sense tells you that someday the river will flood it's a guaranteed event why should I be financially responsible for some millionaires who want choice scenic locations on flood plains?...are they so dense to believe just because they built a home there the river will be nice and never overflow again?...

They arent dense, they pay an enormous surcharge for flood insurance and should prior to closing have this registered with either the mortgagee or the city.

The city collects land tax on that land, the city can and should make mandatory (and likely does for any large metro area) flood ins for anyone on said flood plain.

And you are not financially responsible for any of them .

[wyly]

Are you talking about actual flood damage, or water damage?

They arent dense, they pay an enormous surcharge for flood insurance and should prior to closing have this registered with either the mortgagee or the city.

The city collects land tax on that land, the city can and should make mandatory (and likely does for any large metro area) flood ins for anyone on said flood plain.

And you are not financially responsible for any of them .

when a city or province builds a damn to prevent flooding everyone pays not just those who live in the flood plain...when people buy land/homes knowing they are subject to flooding they should be expected to pay the cost of protection and not request free help...

[TimG]

where I live people have questioned the city's responsibility to help people with flood damage, why should everyone be perpetually responsible to help those who choose to build or buy homes on the river flood plains?

There are these nifty things called dikes. They are very good at preventing flood damage. The only question is how big to build the dike.

Plus you have too look at the other side: Vancouver real estate is high already. How much higher would it be if 500,000 or so people had to find homes in areas off the flood plains? If you do the math it is likely cheaper to build bigger dikes.

Edited October 31, 2012 by TimG

[TimG]

They arent dense, they pay an enormous surcharge for flood insurance and should prior to closing have this registered with either the mortgagee or the city.

Insurance companies do not sell flood insurance at any cost to people in Vancouver. People have no choice but to depend on government if it worst happens. Edited October 31, 2012 by TimG

[TimG]

when a city or province builds a damn to prevent flooding everyone pays not just those who live in the flood plain...when people buy land/homes knowing they are subject to flooding they should be expected to pay the cost of protection and not request free help...

Things get kind of awkward when you start trying to assign blame because flood protection around one community increases the risk of floods in another (dikes narrow the Fraser river channel which increases the water level). You see the same phenomena in Manitoba where small prairie towns now face flood risks only because of the system set up to protect Winnipeg. Is it really fair to blame these people? Edited October 31, 2012 by TimG

[guyser]

Insurance companies do not sell flood insurance at any cost to people in Vancouver. People have no choice but to depend on government if it worst happens.

It is not sold for homeowners, but it is sold for commercial properties.

It isnt available for home because no one was buying it, They tried, but the numbers were far too low to be profitable.

[CPCFTW]

For New York, this is another 9/11 only worse, more personal damages.

More personal damages than 3000 deaths and 6000 injuries? What a horrible comment. Par for the course though from you though.

Edited October 31, 2012 by CPCFTW

[login]

There are these nifty things called dikes. They are very good at preventing flood damage. The only question is how big to build the dike.

Plus you have too look at the other side: Vancouver real estate is high already. How much higher would it be if 500,000 or so people had to find homes in areas off the flood plains? If you do the math it is likely cheaper to build bigger dikes.

dikes break and are subject to sabotouge.

[wyly]

Things get kind of awkward when you start trying to assign blame because flood protection around one community increases the risk of floods in another (dikes narrow the Fraser river channel which increases the water level). You see the same phenomena in Manitoba where small prairie towns now face flood risks only because of the system set up to protect Winnipeg. Is it really fair to blame these people?

no it isn't fair, Manitoba is different situation and the flood plain is enormous...in europe a newer thought to combat river flooding is tp widen the river basin and not try to contain it within it's man made banks, of coarse these means giving up land to the rivers permanently... Edited October 31, 2012 by wyly

[wyly]

There are these nifty things called dikes. They are very good at preventing flood damage. The only question is how big to build the dike.

river bank property owners aren't keen on dikes when there property runs down to the waters edge the dike would be on their property and ruin the view....

Plus you have too look at the other side: Vancouver real estate is high already. How much higher would it be if 500,000 or so people had to find homes in areas off the flood plains? If you do the math it is likely cheaper to build bigger dikes.

that doesn't make it any less reckless, dikes break, and soil liquefaction due to earthquakes isn't prevented with dikes...and an earhquake generated tsunami of the size that struck Japan would overwhelm any coastal dikes in vancouver, then advancing up the river devastation would reach far inland as well overwhelming any inland river dikes..I can't imagine the cost of building dikes capable of containing that much water or if there is even the political will to do it...probably won't happen until after there is a catastrophe and the consequences are understood...... Edited November 1, 2012 by wyly

[TimG]

river bank property owners aren't keen on dikes when there property runs down to the waters edge the dike would be on their property and ruin the view.

Now you are making stuff up. I have never see a house built on the edge of a flood prone river for the "view". I guess they probably exist but there are not enough to justify your diatribe.

that doesn't make it any less reckless, dikes break, and soil liquefaction due to earthquakes isn't prevented with dikes...and an earthquake generated tsunami of the size that struck Japan would overwhelm any coastal dikes in Vancouver

Except a tsunami the size of Japan can't occur in Vancouver because the major fault lines are on the other side of Vancouver Island. In fact, i am not certain that any tsunami could make it up the strait of Georgia.

http://www.richmond....unami_Study.htm

The investigation revealed no evidence of tsunami deposits in the Fraser River delta. Drs. Clague and Hutchinson could not completely rule out the possibility that tsunamis have inundated portions of the Fraser River delta in the past, but but that the tsunami threat to Richmond and Delta is very small

Just because you can imagine something that does not mean it is plausible.

Edited November 1, 2012 by TimG

[Bonam]

The value of adding or maintaining useable land in a city is very often worth the additional cost of doing so. In some parts of the world, cities are actually filling in land along the coastlines of nearby bodies of water to create new space to build on. The cost of periodic flooding tends to be taken into account, and in areas where it is not economically viable, it tends not to be done.

[WWWTT]

Now you are making stuff up. I have never see a house built on the edge of a flood prone river for the "view". I guess they probably exist but there are not enough to justify your diatribe.

I guess you never been to many different places around the world.

There is a place in China called Yangshou,Guangxi province where the river, (smaller creeks really) are directly adjacent to buildings in the centre of the town.And they are awesomely beautiful!

Of course these places get devastated when typhoons hit.

I personally would never live in a place like this because of the risk of your house getting swept away.

Another place I was at recently was Bangkok (not sure of the river name there).And the same thing there to,lots of buildings adjacent to the river.

WWWTT

[wyly]

Now you are making stuff up. I have never see a house built on the edge of a flood prone river for the "view". I guess they probably exist but there are not enough to justify your diatribe.

oh really...then it's a real mystery why riverside, lakeside, ocean view properties command considerably higher prices than homes just across the street...in calgary real estate dollars a home with a view can easily add 100K to the price of a home vs one across the street with no view...

Except a tsunami the size of Japan can't occur in Vancouver because the major fault lines are on the other side of Vancouver Island. In fact, i am not certain that any tsunami could make it up the strait of Georgia.

oh ya and a tsunami couldn't breach japans seawalls engineers planed for all possible scenarios and they most certainly take out a nuclear power plant, that could never happen, inconceivable...

and no tsunami could threaten the west coast that's not plausible, except it did in 1700 when an earthquake sent an enormous tidal wave right across the pacfic and caused devastation in japan and far inland on the North american west coast...ya your right that could never happen again ...only size and location of earthquakes is relevant, could there be an earthquake in the straight of georgia? absolutely...

just because you imagine something doesn't mean it can't happen...no way a nuclear power plant could have a melt down, nope...no way a tsunami could breach those Japanese sea walls, they were designed for tsunamis... ...