|
MasterG2kTR -> Future Bailouts - California and the Big one (11/9/2008 5:09:30 PM)
|
All right, I've thought about this most of the day since I saw a program earlier on History channel talking about it. With all the talk here about bailouts going already it got me going.
The backbone of the topic is: Living on the fault lines in earthquake prone areas of the US.
I must also put up my disclaimer that I realize this is definitely going to irritate, annoy and totally piss off some, while others may see it the same as I do. So..I invite all to throw in your 2 cents.
The show I saw (obviously) focused primarily on southern California and the numerous fault lines that criss cross the area. They talked about all the damage that will occur when (not IF) the big one hits. The loss of life expected will be in the thousands (possibly tens of thousands), and loss of property in the billions.
While I agree that the loss of life would certainly be a great tragedy (this is where it's gonna get ugly), I say, so what, tough shit!! The people who live there have made a clear and conscious choice to do so and have accepted those risks associated with living there. It's not like weather phenomena that may or may not affect you (tornadoes, torrential rains, etc.), because they are random. Earthquakes, more specifically, fault lines, don't move or strike random areas, they are always in the same place!
(here's the question)
So, when the next "Big one" hits the west coast, why should the rest of the nation be expected to "bail out" the few who choose to live in a known danger zone? Because you know they will most certainly ask for help. The best thing that could happen is to have it fall into the ocean like Atlantis, then there would be nothing to bail out. Bear in mind that I am not opposed to humanitarian support/aid/assistance, but I would draw the line at any payments made for loss of property, be it private, corporate, or otherwise.
When I was much younger I had a free opportunity to live in the San Francisco area, but I declined to do so, in part because of earthquakes. I live in the upper midwest where the worst we deal with is brutal winters. I will gladly take that over wildfires, earthquakes, and potential tsunamis associated with those earthquakes, at least they aren't likely to kill me or take away my livelihood.
This is simply my opinion on it....what's yours? Ok....let the bashing begin, I'm ready to accept it. I also do not intend to defend my position with any flaming follow ups in this thread, so don't be surprised if this is my only post in this one. Just wondering what other think and why.
|
|
|
|
