Laura

Profile

Username:
troutbend
Name:
Laura
Location:
Estes Park, CO
Birthday:
08/01
Status:
Married
Job / Career:
Hotel - Hospitality

Stats

Post Reads:
439,321
Posts:
1942
Photos:
15
Last Online:
> 30 days ago
View All »

My Friends

10 hours ago
10 days ago
> 30 days ago
> 30 days ago
> 30 days ago
> 30 days ago
> 30 days ago
> 30 days ago

Subscribe

This Oughta Be Good

Life & Events > Regional Resiliency
 

Regional Resiliency

Today I went to a presentation about how our region could become more resilient in order to be prepared for future natural disasters. Funded by a grant, a panel of urban land-planning experts from all around the United States spent four days interviewing various community leaders and touring the flood-damaged areas. I didn't know how much they could learn in such a short time, but was impressed with how much of what they said made sense.

They depict our river as an ecological corridor as opposed to a place people should be living, and suggested an aggressive program to remove the structures along it that are in the flood plain to get them out of harm's way. This would mean providing incentives to the landowners in the form of buying them out and paying for them to find new homes in a less-risky area (town). And also dis-incentives such as flood plain fees to be paid by the owners of homes and businesses in the risky area. The proceeds would either fund the buy-out program, or provide a sort of insurance fund that would be paid out for future flood recovery.

I am one of those who would be paying that fee, but I can see that it makes sense because why should the taxpayers in the other parts of the county have to carry the burden of our decision to live in a high-risk area? To be fair, they should have to pay a fee for living in areas prone to tornadoes.

Unfortunately, I also live in a wildfire-prone area, so there could be a fee for that, too.

This wasn't the only suggestion made, and whether any of the advice is taken will be something to look out for in years to come.

posted on June 27, 2014 9:48 PM ()

Comments:

"a study of which catsup pours faster" Oh!I should tell our city council about this. I don't think they've done that one yet.
comment by nittineedles on June 29, 2014 10:48 PM ()
insurance companies make sure you pay extra for any risks here you pay extra if you live in a larger than normal breakin area
and people actually get paid for some ridiculous surveys
comment by kevinshere on June 29, 2014 6:43 PM ()
We already pay higher insurance rates because we are on water. Also, not every insurance company will offer us insurance. We are now insured by a commercial company that gets federal subsidies for flood policies. We are also seen as high risk because of storm surge but there are several barrier islands between ours and the Gulf, so that is kind of taking advantage, but it is what it is.

Reading the comments, there seem to be few areas in the country that don't have their particular natural disasters. A friend in California once beseeched us to move elsewhere because of the hurricanes, but, sheesh, what about their massive wildfires and landslides? It's a crap shoot. Perhaps there should be a moderate tax for disaster relief, but (call me liberal), I think it is a federal obligation.
comment by tealstar on June 28, 2014 7:27 AM ()
If a flood risk fee is instituted around here, I hope it will delay the state passing a law that all the floodplain residents will have to purchase federal flood insurance because the rates are supposed to sky-rocket now that the federal government can no longer afford to subsidize that program.
reply by troutbend on June 28, 2014 10:35 AM ()
All of Oklahoma would have to pay fees because we live in tornado and
wild fire areas. Also what would happen to little towns like Drake?
Would they be required to move to Loveland? We are all penalized with
exorbitant insurance rates anyway.
comment by elderjane on June 28, 2014 6:51 AM ()
It's hard to see where the line would be drawn. A killer tornado in Colorado is as rare as a giant flood, but everyone is increasingly paying the price for disasters in other parts of the country. We keep having Hurricane Sandy brought up as an example, even though that area is by no means a paragon for flood mitigation, because that's what the FEMA people and other 'experts' who came here are experienced with.
reply by troutbend on June 28, 2014 10:40 AM ()
Ridiculous. Carpetbaggers. And they got a grant to tell you that?
comment by hobbie on June 28, 2014 5:16 AM ()
I don't know if this bunch got all of the $800,000 grant, or just part of it. The woman behind me in the audience said it's like hiring someone to do a study of which catsup pours faster. I need to spend more time with her.
reply by troutbend on June 28, 2014 10:41 AM ()
Did Californians pay a fee for building on mountain sides? Do Floridians pay a fee for building in flood sites? Do Oklahomians pay a fee for building near earthquake faults? I'm not talking extra insurance but fees???
comment by greatmartin on June 27, 2014 9:53 PM ()
Just about every part of the country could have some kind of fee to discourage risky building practices. You know how Republicans like to say No New Taxes but that just opens the door for a big bunch of fees. Maybe it's the coming trend.
reply by troutbend on June 28, 2014 10:44 AM ()

Comment on this article   


1,942 articles found   [ Previous Article ]  [ Next Article ]  [ First ]  [ Last ]