After many weeks and years of fires and floods we are watching the same people crying over loosing their homes
and all their life's work. Yes its horrible but not the point.
These people continue to rebuild and start again over and over and over again. Why?
It's inevitable that these natural disasters will be back again. We support, assist, help, use alot of resources and
endless supply of money to help ( yes they need it ) but why?
IMO people need to relocate for many reasons, lives are lost and helpers getting injured.
These people become a burden to society due to their stubbornness to stay.
Thoughts?
I do feel compassion and upset watching/reading these stories but how many times do we help before they get moved
on or die.
Select to expand quoteyoungbull said...
[br]After many weeks and years of fires and floods we are watching the same people crying over loosing their homes
and all their life's work. Yes its horrible but not the point.
These people continue to rebuild and start again over and over and over again. Why?
It's inevitable that these natural disasters will be back again. We support, assist, help, use alot of resources and
endless supply of money to help ( yes they need it ) but why?
IMO people need to relocate for many reasons, lives are lost and helpers getting injured.
These people become a burden to society due to their stubbornness to stay.
Thoughts?
I do feel compassion and upset watching/reading these stories but how many times do we help before they get moved
on or die.
I see your point, but you can't be serious? We still live in a free country. Everyone is entitled to choose where they spend their hard earned to buy a block and build a home, pay thier taxes and work all week to pay the insurance man.
Yes serious
When a problem is permanently ongoing and lives are constantly at risk and other's are placing themselves at risk to help the same people over and over.
Whilst all these resources are helping those out of state other area's in their normal jurisdiction are minimal and now they are at risk and work capicity
is overstretched.
Australia is a fantastic country and we help everyone the best we can, but why because people choose to live in certain area's the country has to be burdened time after time.. It just makes more sense to relocate or stay at your own peril. Not being nasty just realistic.
Edit: at a job site people take risk analysis ( most sites mandatory) Now if we took these cards and risk assessed these locations the plan of action would be to unsafe, previous problem's. We would be ticking the catastrophic to major - almost certain which = a rating of 20 to 25, no company would allow this to take place and the action of building domestic housing would not be allowed.
I was a bit miffed watching the news yesterday when Western Power got the blame for starting the latest fire over here after it was attributed to another power pole failure. Today Western Power pointed out it was a private pole on private property, and they still got the blame because they didn't take responsibility for inspecting it. Better to blame government than the 86 year old lady not maintaining the property. Perhaps the son that was on the news should help maintain his inheritance rather than sit back and wait for it.
Perhaps Western Power should also just turn the electricity off on extreme or catastrophic fire danger days...
I feel sorry for those that want to live in the forest but do everything reasonable to mitigate the risk of fire and still lose their house. I have no sympathy for those that think the big red trucks will always save their house so they don't bother cleaning their gutters or pruning the trees. News flash, in the right conditions a fire will expand at an exponentially greater rate than the fire brigades capacity to turn out and fight it.
Where would you have these people go to rebuild their lives youngbull? Somewhere that hasn't been affected by a fire or flood...yet?
I think the issue is more with the style of homes being built. Maybe there needs to be a shift away from "normal" building styles and more consideration given to the risks in an area. Then build accordingly.
Traditional Queenslanders on stilts breeze through most floods while in the same streets cement slab brick houses are up to their ceilings in water.
Earth covered buildings could be the answer in some bush fire prone areas.
"My wife of the time was in a real panic as she had just driven home through the almost impenetrable smoke that filled the street. I hurried them all inside and in calming them down, there was great deal of comfort and satisfaction in my being able to say to them, 'there's no need to be afraid. You're inside now, you're safe - you live in one of the safest houses in the world. It had a remarkable effect on them to hear that, and it had a great effect on me, to be able to say it."
^^ That came from here: www.ecospecifier.com.au/knowledge-green/articles/bushfire-shelter-and-earth-covered-homes.aspx
Select to expand quoteyoungbull said..
These people continue to rebuild and start again over and over and over again. Why?
Thats the way this country was built.
We don't give up and walk away. Where would we be if our farmers walked away after a couple years drought? I bet you wouldn't be able to buy lamb in the supermarket. Thats the most un-Australian comment I have read for some time and it ****s me.
I think some home owners need to do a bit more to reduce the risk. Building a house amongst the trees is great but not in a bushfire prone area like the Perth hills.
As for floods, if we didn't rebuild after the odd flood then most of Brisbane would be history.
I think it's a bit rude when the insurance company tries to make up their losses on insuring such places by putting everyone elses insurance up 60% in one year, which is what they tried to do to me. I told them to stick it. My house is on top of a hill, 80 feet above sea level, and not surrounded by forests of bushland. There hasn't been a fire through here for a hundred years so I don't see why I should have to pay for the insurance companies stupidy in insuring all those who choose to live on the edge of a river bank or on a nice treed hillslope with bushland all around.
They can live there if they like but they should be aware, if it all turns pear shape then don't make others pay for their bad judgement.
Thanks Pweedas. I am not always good with words and I can come across misinterpreted.
What u said and alot of other reason of this nature.
Looking at buying a house soon. So I make a point to make sure I avoid these areas due to my original post.
It just make's sense. Why not others.
Ian1. Yes that's how the country was built but times have changed we adapt or get left behind. Due to the people left behind this country
is paying for there inability to adapt and move on.
Insurance companies will use any excuse to jack up premiums. This thread is not about people losing the right to do what they want. Its about people continually making wrong decisions and when there are bad consequences, everyone else has to bail them out.
I lived in the suburbs once. My premiums where up due do to a higher chance of burglary. I lived in north Australia once too. My premiums where high due to the greater threat of cyclones.
These days I am a resident of the Perth Hills. My premiums are up due to the risk of fire. My block is relatively clear and I have a sprinkler system on my roof cap for ambers. I also have a petrol fire pump with 2 40 metre 25mm fire hose and 1 30 metre 40mm fire hose. With all on full, I can still deliver a wall of water to the tops of the Marri/jarrah/gum trees from the other end of my yard with the 40mm hose. I have 9000lt tank full, solely for the purpose of defending against a fire. If I am home I will stay and defend my property. If I am not, then a firefighter if they see fit, can access the pump and defend mine and my surrounding neighbours property using my equipment leaving the rest of the crew and truck to concentrate their efforts else where. I am as prepared as possible with a clear plan to defend and or evacuate (family). I DO NOT see how you lot can construed this as using "bad judgement" or "continually making wrong decisions", just because we don't want to live so close to other people you can hear them fart.
I don't believe others should pay higher insurance if you are not in a risk area, but I don't believe I should be paying for floods or cyclones either. Oh and I shouldn't have to pay higher premiums on my tub just because there are an increasing number of drunk louts grounding their boats on sand banks or reef. But I do........
Australia has a weather/environment system as diverse as its people and we will all be affected by natural disaster one way or another. Its just some days you are the statue and other days the pigeon.
It is ironic to me that the OP of this post comes from a state where between floods, fires, drought and cyclones within the last 5 years, the majority of the state had been helped out by the kindness and generosity of Australians.
Select to expand quoteIan1 said..
Thats the way this country was built.
We don't give up and walk away.
Select to expand quoteyoungbull said..
Ian1. Yes that's how the country was built but times have changed we adapt or get left behind. Due to the people left behind this country
is paying for there inability to adapt and move on.
Yes I agree we need to adapt as in Toph's case. He has taken steps to mitigate the risk and adapted to the place he chooses to live.
Adapting is entirely different to to throwing in the towel and leaving.
Do you really expect all the people that where flooded in Brisbane recently to leave?
No Ian1 of course not. But these people are selling their homes to others or rebuilding and it will happen again and again.
If the dwelling is still habitable then its fine, but rebuilding or selling on, no.
without even worrying about increased insurance premiums etc. one of the big problems for these guys will be, "great got my building and contents insurance payout, now where am I going to build?"
That is, they get their money for their house and contents, but they are stuck with the land. If they want to move out of the area they still need to sell that land and that would be extremely difficult immediately after a fire/flood/cyclone/earthquake. Who is going to buy 5 acres of blackened bush?
They dont really have much choice but to build there again.
2 ways of dealing with living in a high risk area are
1. build your home to be very fire or flood resistant (can be done, but is expensive and not popular with architects / builders)
2. build your home to be lost every 10 years - ie limit the replacement cost of the whole building and contents to some arbitrary figure (say $50,000) that you could afford to replace without insurance.
Actually, after my initial offence of the insinuation that people in risk areas are a drain on the state coffers and community at large, I believe it or not actually agree to some degree with youngbull
After the 2011 Roleystone/Kelmscott fire, a lot of people, even those not affected greatly by it (physically), sold up and left the area. Some people got an arse kicking and better prepared themselves for the future while some of those whose houses burnt down rebuilt and remained. An awlful lot of people though did nothing and three years on some of the yards around my area would be undefendable in my opinion. They are the frustrating ones and they are the ones who you should be targeting in this discussion.
Select to expand quoteToph said..
I lived in the suburbs once. My premiums where up due do to a higher chance of burglary. I lived in north Australia once too. My premiums where high due to the greater threat of cyclones.
These days I am a resident of the Perth Hills. My premiums are up due to the risk of fire. My block is relatively clear and I have a sprinkler system on my roof cap for ambers. I also have a petrol fire pump with 2 40 metre 25mm fire hose and 1 30 metre 40mm fire hose. With all on full, I can still deliver a wall of water to the tops of the Marri/jarrah/gum trees from the other end of my yard with the 40mm hose. I have 9000lt tank full, solely for the purpose of defending against a fire. If I am home I will stay and defend my property. If I am not, then a firefighter if they see fit, can access the pump and defend mine and my surrounding neighbours property using my equipment leaving the rest of the crew and truck to concentrate their efforts else where. I am as prepared as possible with a clear plan to defend and or evacuate (family). I DO NOT see how you lot can construed this as using "bad judgement" or "continually making wrong decisions", just because we don't want to live so close to other people you can hear them fart.
I don't believe others should pay higher insurance if you are not in a risk area, but I don't believe I should be paying for floods or cyclones either. Oh and I shouldn't have to pay higher premiums on my tub just because there are an increasing number of drunk louts grounding their boats on sand banks or reef. But I do........
Australia has a weather/environment system as diverse as its people and we will all be affected by natural disaster one way or another. Its just some days you are the statue and other days the pigeon.
It is ironic to me that the OP of this post comes from a state where between floods, fires, drought and cyclones within the last 5 years, the majority of the state had been helped out by the kindness and generosity of Australians.
you are imo only probably the exception, prepared and prepared to spend the money and effortSelect to expand quotetmurray said..
2 ways of dealing with living in a high risk area are
1. build your home to be very fire or flood resistant (can be done, but is expensive and not popular with architects / builders)
2. build your home to be lost every 10 years - ie limit the replacement cost of the whole building and contents to some arbitrary figure (say $50,000) that you could afford to replace without insurance.
1. is wrong, i am a builder, most cant simply afford it. The fact is it costs significantly more to achieve this and people are happy to take the chance "it wont happen to me"
2. is not possible unless you live in a Donga and walk away at every fire
Great post youngbull, it is freedom of choice to do this, it is council/government job to make sure that we are not allowed or that the appropriate defences/building regs are put in place when building in these areas.
Is it our "right" to build anywhere and expect help ? i dont know
Being insured is not the only answer and insurance companies are like any other business whether you like it or not to maximize profit for shareholders. A lot business somewhat subsidizes other not so profitable areas of their business, or they would not provide any service/cover to these areas. Which if government were not so bogged down in bureaucratic procedure they could run this.
A Burden to Society! How offensive to judge someone's value to this country.
All new houses are built to a standard set by council, on approved land.
What is not fair is that is not everyone can get insurance if they live in a high risk area,
A flat rate for all would be fair. Except for young bull having to support the poor by
Paying his share too.
Fires and floods will always threaten people's homes, as it has happened before and
As before we get together and help.
That's abit rude Dezman. I am not having a go at anyone. Just because the council approves it does not mean you should live there.
I busted my ring in the floods a few years back helping everyone one the roads, clearing trees and so forth. My job was air conditioning at the time
countless sites I helped clean up the mess. I would help again in a heartbeat.
You are reading topic wrong.
A flat rate for all would be fair??
You are forgetting that you are selling your 'risk' to an insurance company. That's what insurance is.
Insurance companies paid out $977,000,000 for cyclone Oswald in Queensland alone.
Select to expand quotethe gibbo said..
you are imo only probably the exception, prepared and prepared to spend the money and effort
The frustrating thing Gibbo, is that besides the tank which was here when I moved in, the rest of it cost less then a weekend in Margs. And I didn't skimp on quality either. Select to expand quotethe gibbo said..
Is it our "right" to build anywhere and expect help ? i dont know
I believe we have the right to live where we want, but I don't believe we should expect help. Although help would be greatly appreciated if offered whether it came in the form of accommodation, a spare shirt or a cold beer.
Select to expand quoteyoungbull said..
That's abit rude Dezman. I am not having a go at anyone. Just because the council approves it does not mean you should live there.
I busted my ring in the floods a few years back helping everyone one the roads, clearing trees and so forth. My job was air conditioning at the time
countless sites I helped clean up the mess. I would help again in a heartbeat.
You are reading topic wrong.
Your words and I was not the only one to take it that way!
'Just because the council approves it does not mean you should live there!!!' Oh god give me strength.
I'm lost for words!
Select to expand quoteyoungbull said..
IMO people need to relocate for many reasons, lives are lost and helpers getting injured.
These people become a burden to society due to their stubbornness to stay.
Thoughts?
There are millions of coastal dwellers in this nation.
Are you seriously suggesting that all these folks walk away from their oceanside homes and relocate elsewhere ...?
cause there is a risk of flooding from swell-surge due to a cyclone event or massive stormfront,
which would be a terrible burden on the profit margin of the insurance company.
Youngbull consider the financial implications of what you are saying. If people were to move out of a fire or flood prone area then their land would be worthless because as you said they should not sell on.
With most families being up to their ears in debt they cannot afford to give up the value of their land. So the insurance gives them a payout to cover the cost of rebuilding and replacing their belongings. How do they afford to replace the land? I'm damn sure the banks won't give them a break so in many cases they have no choice but to rebuild.
Select to expand quoteMobydisc said..
Its about people continually making wrong decisions and when there are bad consequences, everyone else has to bail them out.
Insurance is about protecting against the unseen, but really fires, floods and every natural disaster will always happen 'except
Brisbane now it's got a dam to protect it from rare events'
"Wrong decisions"^ .....gee people try following the council rules as if they had a choice!
Try and cut some trees down to improve fire safety and see what the council says.
Select to expand quoteyoungbull said..
^ Easy.... go find another topic.
Look I'm not 'bulling you' and I'm sure you agree that some people will have different opinions to yours!
It's great you helped once and if I had a medal I'd pin it to your chest if I could find one. :))....
And yes it's Really a pain when stupid people make stupid mistakes and cost hardworking people like you,
The government should make laws against stupidity.
But then they could find themselves out of a job!
I'm sure you've got some great ideas on how to fix the problem, maybe you could find a forum and post them.
Select to expand quoteyoungbull said..
These people become a burden to society due to their stubbornness to stay.
Thoughts?
This is a water sports website. Don't we all want a waterfront property?
Having the sails rigged and ready sure beats the hell out of loading a car,driving, rigging, only to undo everything after a session. Sure,there is risk of flood or whatever, but it's human nature to take the risk. There's nothing you can say or do to stop it.
Select to expand quotegrumplestiltskin said..
without even worrying about increased insurance premiums etc. one of the big problems for these guys will be, "great got my building and contents insurance payout, now where am I going to build?"
That is, they get their money for their house and contents, but they are stuck with the land. If they want to move out of the area they still need to sell that land and that would be extremely difficult immediately after a fire/flood/cyclone/earthquake. Who is going to buy 5 acres of blackened bush?
They dont really have much choice but to build there again.
Aren't insurance payouts for houses that need to be rebuilt on a 'like for like' basis?
I remember reading about the Victoria's bush fires a few years ago
The recent fires in Australia and the loss of life and property were apparently compounded by a draconian policy that prevented people who lived in the fire threat zones from cutting trees and brush near their properties. We witnessed something equally tragic in Lake Tahoe fire in 2007, owing to similar eco driven government stupidity forcing heavy handed policies there. Residents couldn???t get permits to cut down brush and trees, the result was a firestorm of catastrophic proportions.
A family in Australia saw the threat, decided on civil disobedience, cleared a firebreak, and got fined $50,000. They feel vindicated now, because their house is one of the few in Reedy Creek, Victoria, still standing, the only one in a two kilometer radius.
www.smh.com.au/national/fined-for-illegal-clearing-family-now-feel-vindicated-20090212-85bd.html
Maybe all homes in bush land should have a compulsory 100m clearing around them.
