CA landslides and government

[Philip_P]

Curious as to how the issue of compensating the victims of the landslides in Laguna Beach plays out on the whole political/religious axis. Most of those who lost their homes will not be compensated by insurance, as they had to sign waivers before moving in. FEMA (Federal Emergency Managment Agency) seems to be pre-disposed against federal aid, saying that landslides don’t count (or something to that effect, don’t remember the exact quote I heard on the radio). And just to throw class into this, many of the homes where in the $2 million dollar category.

So, what if any compensation should property owners receive in a case like this? What about the idea of emergency aid generally, especially via government agencies like FEMA? How does this tie into moral thinking on government and social responsibility?

 

[Lisa_N]

Frankly my heart bleeds for these people…NOT. Apparently the area was known to have unstable ground and also apparently the building of a HUGE mansion may have triggered some of the slides. They built there anyway. Since all the owners undoubtedly have high priced attorneys, they can fight each other over whose fault it was. I say no government handouts. Maybe they have insurance?

Lisa N

 

[geezerbob]

I feel certain that for enough premium $$$, insurance compainies will waive their earthquake exclusion. While this is heartbreaking for the residents involved, it was not a slum that was destroyed. Hundreds or thousands of already destitute people have not been displaced. The residents of that area chose to build there knowing the dangers. Now it’s time to pay (and not the government).

 

[Philip_P]

Yeah my first impulse was not to feel too bad either, but then I started wondering if that was just because these were multimillion dollar homes that were destroyed…

I guess what I’d like to see here is maybe a deeper analysis on the whole concept of disaster relief, why and when it’s appropriate, and so forth. People living in river valleys are also, in a sense, just asking for it - the land is flat and fertile because it’s flooded in the past and will again - but seeing an entire town under water doesn’t seem at all the same situation as seeing a home tumbling down a hill.

Is it a question of how many people are affected? Is it a question of class? Some sort of “value” threshold? At some level there are moral questions, but exactly what these questions are and how to answer them seems a bit unclear.