Irresponsible Development

[Ætheling]

Irresponsible Development

Comrade. [emoji1]


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk[/quote]






Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Ætheling]

So what you're dying is you want MORE govt entrusion in our lives dictating what we can do with our properties

And then you want to bring the EPA into this because they are the ones that spearhead those environmental assessments



Hmmmmm

You are too funny. I love your posts, always good for a laugh.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Playa]

Libertarianism is not Anarchism.

Should we abolish the police and fire departments? How about laws against fraud, rape murder?

All im saying is stop corrupt county officials from putting people in danger by signing off on negligent development plans for a quick buck.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Slice how you want, but you have requested for more govt intervention leaning towards centralized planning. All for a once a millennium event


And I know how to spell comrade.

[centex_aggie]

Libertarianism is not Anarchism.

Should we abolish the police and fire departments? How about laws against fraud, rape murder?

All im saying is stop corrupt county officials from putting people in danger by signing off on negligent development plans for a quick buck.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Privatizing the fire departments would be a step in the right direction. Firefighters would make more money and have better equipment.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Ætheling]

Slice how you want, but you have requested for more govt intervention leaning towards centralized planning. All for a once a millennium event





And I know how to spell comrade.

3 times in 2 years is not once. I am requesting less govt interference. I said nothing of private land owners. Crooked developers and crooked politicians is who I mentioned. You want to buy a house in the middle of a flood plain go for it. More power to you. But a developer gives the appearance of safe haven which is false.


Example. I live next to you. We both have land and live in an area where it might flood once every hundred years. We are on even ground. I bring in dirt to raise my land 16 ft and drain it all to yours. Now my land is no longer flood prone. So can be approved for development. Every time we have a good rain your house is under 10 ft of water and you lose everything. I give the county commissioners a kickback and start a subdivision. Now its all concrete and theres more run off. Your house is now 12 ft under water. Laissez faire? Youll be just fine with that right?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Ætheling]

Privatizing the fire departments would be a step in the right direction. Firefighters would make more money and have better equipment.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Valid argument but it would still be paid for with tax dollars so overseen by the govt.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Playa]

3 times in 2 years is not once. I am requesting less govt interference. I said nothing of private land owners. Crooked developers and crooked politicians is who I mentioned. You want to buy a house in the middle of a flood plain go for it. More power to you. But a developer gives the appearance of safe haven which is false.


Example. I live next to you. We both have land and live in an area where it might flood once every hundred years. We are on even ground. I bring in dirt to raise my land 16 ft and drain it all to yours. Now my land is no longer flood prone. So can be approved for development. Every time we have a good rain your house is under 10 ft of water and you lose everything. I give the county commissioners a kickback and start a subdivision. Now its all concrete and theres more run off. Your house is now 12 ft under water. Laissez faire? Youll be just fine with that right?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

You live in a land of bayous, rivers and coastal plains..... it's going to flood. Do you cap the growth of the Houston metro because it's flood prone and land/real estate prices sky rocket because of low supply of buildable land?

C'mon up to Lubbock, we got 99 problems, flooding ain't one of em...


this is just general goading in a friendly way. You are very small govt guy, but in the face of disaster the call for prevention is to government!

[Ætheling]

You live in a land of bayous, rivers and coastal plains..... it's going to flood. Do you cap the growth of the Houston metro because it's flood prone and land/real estate prices sky rocket because of low supply of buildable land?

C'mon up to Lubbock, we got 99 problems, flooding ain't one of em...


this is just general goading in a friendly way. You are very small govt guy, but in the face of disaster the call for prevention is to government!

I don't understand how you are saying my call for prevention is to government. I am saying govt in the form of the county officials signing off on this stuff is the problem. Therefore govt is the problem. Establish a rule that precludes govt officials from screwing over people. That is in essence what our constitution and bill of rights is. Im not saying write a bunch of laws and start some agency to oversee them. I am only ONLY saying get corrupt govt officials out of flood zone development.

[tps7742]

J Sweet by starting this thread with its topic, you will have to defend your no government involvement from now on. People will not forget.

[RiverRat1]

You live in a land of bayous, rivers and coastal plains..... it's going to flood. Do you cap the growth of the Houston metro because it's flood prone and land/real estate prices sky rocket because of low supply of buildable land?

C'mon up to Lubbock, we got 99 problems, flooding ain't one of em...


this is just general goading in a friendly way. You are very small govt guy, but in the face of disaster the call for prevention is to government!

Here are my thoughts summed up.
People have/need to know where flood plains/lines are. We can all agree on that
Insurance companies need to pay up, not the taxpayers.

No need to cap the growth but Houston 100% knows it will flood again in the future. So just like we complain about bailing out liberal cities, we should complain about bailing out Houston. They should plan starting NOW for the next flood, not wait until it happens and then expect the government to rush in to rebuild.

The whole problem is "we" all complain about government spending UNTIL it's our turn. Then we have our hands out expecting money. "We" means individual people, counties, schools, cities, and States.

And I must repeat before I get bashed. I have no problem with man power rushing in to help. National guard and everyone else.

So should we "help" New Orleans rebuild again if Irma went that way and destroyed them again? Why? Does anyone with a brain not see N.O. going under water again mainly due to their own stupidity?

[Livin'2hunt]

Using a local politician as an example, I could see how this sort of thing could happen in Houston. The guy I'm referring to is as crooked as a politician gets and has made dozens (if not hundreds) of land deals based on his insider knowledge of where future roads will be built. He's never the buyer of said properties but he seems to be friends with all of them and seems to make a mighty handsome living on a lowly politician's salary.

I could see politicians in Houston or, any City, doing the same thing; turning a blind eye to engineering cautions about particular areas--for a nominal fee, of course. But you are absolutely correct, 50" is a lot of freakin' rain.

Playa, it sounds to me like y'all are making the same points in different words. I cited a local example early in this thread and didn't feel like remaking the point so, I quoted myself. I could be wrong but it sounds like this is what Sweet is saying.

[westtexducks]

Yall are ridiculous, 50+ inches of rain drops in a couple of days and the world is coming to an end and we are all going to float away. I buy the land I can build what I **** well please on it. Govt needs to get out of what I do and do not do with my land period. I want to build a house in a spot that floods out every year so be it. It isn't the govt job to tell me that is stupid and quit doing that long as I am willing to pay to try it and own then the govt can go pound sand. But this will never happen sadly we are already to far down the rabbit hole...

[tigerscowboy]

Yall are ridiculous, 50+ inches of rain drops in a couple of days and the world is coming to an end and we are all going to float away. I buy the land I can build what I **** well please on it. Govt needs to get out of what I do and do not do with my land period. I want to build a house in a spot that floods out every year so be it. It isn't the govt job to tell me that is stupid and quit doing that long as I am willing to pay to try it and own then the govt can go pound sand. But this will never happen sadly we are already to far down the rabbit hole...

Bingo

[sir shovelhands]

Privatizing the fire departments would be a step in the right direction. Firefighters would make more money and have better equipment.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I'm not so sure pay and equipment would improve. A privatized fire department would be given the same amount of money from the government (though likely significantly less, in order to win the contract), yet now they would need to make a profit. If you cant increase your revenue, the only way to increase profit is by cutting costs. Some of this cost cutting can be seen in cutting through bureaucracy, getting better deals on equipment, etc. But that only saves you so much, and the goal of any company is to maximize profits. That ultimately means cutting pay and equipment.

[centex_aggie]

I'm not so sure pay and equipment would improve. A privatized fire department would be given the same amount of money from the government (though likely significantly less, in order to win the contract), yet now they would need to make a profit. If you cant increase your revenue, the only way to increase profit is by cutting costs. Some of this cost cutting can be seen in cutting through bureaucracy, getting better deals on equipment, etc. But that only saves you so much, and the goal of any company is to maximize profits. That ultimately means cutting pay and equipment.

I wouldn't have the government awarding the contracts. Private individuals would pay each station for their services. Everyone would be free to choose if they wanted fire station response. I'm all about self reliance. You want something, you pay for it. Sadly fewer and fewer people want anything to do with self reliance.