Joy Beeson writes:
As I looked around, I noticed that every last beach house that wasn't very,
very cheap had wheels under it.
Exactly why I tried to get DH to agree to live in a large travel
trailer--most of the campgrounds around here are in a flood zone. But if
weather threatens, you can just
the only flood that i remember being in was in 1997 or 1998 here in
tennessee. i was staying at my grandmother's house, when a hard rain
came up and flooded almost up to her doorstep. i tried taking pictures
of it, but they didn't come out. i didn't have a flash on the camera,
but we were all
On Thu, Sep 29, 2005 at 10:52:38PM -0700, susan wrote:
i'm not sure who mentioned this wether it was weronica or you that
poland ( and i guess poland is communists. i'm not good at political
studies and only remember what you have written on this website) made
all the people in the city take
On Sep 29, 2005, at 2:48, susan wrote:
[...] how often do you see 2.5 million people leaving all
at the same time from one area of the u.s.? it is not likely.
Very unlikely. And, that evacuation - from Houston, before Rita - later
updated to 3 million, went relatively smoothly, with not
le 27/09/05 18:31, susan à [EMAIL PROTECTED] a écrit :
i have no crazy intentions to say they don't have a right to their
homeland and they shouldn't be allowed to rebuild, but the whole idea
to live behind a levy in a hurricane prone area should have never been
put into play.
yes but
At 08:51 AM 9/28/05 +0200, romdom wrote:
yes but ... what about all these areas where people have to do with
tornadoes and regularly rebuild their houses ?...what of those who must
suffer blizzards in the north ? ... i have the feeling a very large
part of the US would have no
we don't agree on anything, and my idea was a suggestion that maybe
they should have never built castles on sand. i'm sure after 300
years of living in a flood hole, they have no intention to move their
city regardless of what it costs. they make in revenue yearly what the
cost was, so the cost
On Sep 24, 2005, at 22:58, susan wrote:
every 2 or 3 months it will cost the government about 800 million
dollars to rebuild
Not the government, which is a very unclear concept quite often..
You, and me, and he and she will be paying. Same as we're paying for
scores of other bright ideas,
Hi All --
Some people might be interested in this article on rebuilding New Orleans --
at least, I thought it was interestingBut then again, I'm easily amused!
(Even if it's really not funny)
http://www.realestatejournal.com/regionalnews/20050922-corkery.html?rejcontent=mail
Regards,
On Sep 25, 2005, at 4:18, romdom (Dominique) wrote:
i read in a paper that's the old french quarter didn't get flooded
because
it had been built higher than the flood level . the ancients did
have
good ideas sometimes..
And more options?
If you study the history of the development
Perhaps the fact that Rita has also caused flooding in New Orleans
will wake up even those who feel that a 100-year-event is
guaranteed to come only every 100 years...
I love you, Jane, but your comment that because the river hasn't
flooded your area in 250 years and you're in a 100-year zone
I wonder also whether people will want to
return to live somewhere where they have experienced such devastation -
It may not be an issue of wanting. It may be more of returning to an
environment we know and to where our support system, lives, family, friends,
schools, culture are. For the
every 2 or 3 months it will cost the government about 800 million
dollars to rebuild (
http://www.kare11.com/news/news_article.aspx?storyid=107917 ) and no
telling how many lives there will be that are lost, but ok, go ahead
and rebuild the city the way it is.
maybe they should give it to the
On Sep 23, 2005, at 22:50, susan wrote:
the areas in new orleans should be left as tourist areas only,
And who's gonna flip their burgers for them? Scrub the bathrooms, do
the laundry, change the bulbs and see to the plumbing in their hotels?
Remove the trash? Maintain the souvenir shops,
Tamara wrote: But immediate profit - low premiums *now* and let's hope
nothing happens later - is a fairly common policy when trying to sell a lot
of insurance. People (those who could afford to) paid what they were *asked*
to pay, in good faith.
BUT, and the biggest but in all this is that
Yes, I'm aware that Holland is below sea level and has managed to keep itself
afloat for centuries. However, it is not in the direct path of tropical
hurricanes, as New Orleans is. That seems to me to alter the equations a bit.
Also, I've had the impression that since the entire country is a
Yes, I'm aware that Holland is below sea level and has managed to keep itself
afloat for centuries. However, it is not in the direct path of tropical
hurricanes, as New Orleans is. That seems to me to alter the equations a bit.
Also, I've had the impression that since the entire country is a
On Sep 20, 2005, at 13:57, Jean Nathan wrote:
Was the news report that George Bush had announced that New Orleans
will be rebuilt whatever the cost wrong?
Wasn't wrong. In fact, some of the phrases he used in that speech made
me wonder if he actually knew which Gulf he was talking about :)
I wonder how many insurance companies are going to go broke from
this? I'll bet they didn't charge premiums that would anywhere near
cover this kind of disaster, whether or not they have to pay for
flooded as well as blown-down homes and businesses and cars.
Hoping that in the rebuild, they
been a believer, I'd have begged God's pardon for using the term). We
cannot assume that, because the Oz dumps were mostly criminal, they
had been more savvy than the slave dumps deposited on the US
shores.
the u.s.a. was also created by dumping out european or u.k. prisons.
that is why
Hi All, I can't quite follow all the discussion since I read things out of
order. I am very interested to know the perception from other countries.
Though I think George W. putting on his wellies and giving a hand when he
went to see the areas that were hit by the hurricane would have done a lot
21 matches
Mail list logo
