|
 
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2016 06:05
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 19:33 |
|
|
hooman posted:I strongly disagree that a person's net worth determines whether systematic failures have screwed them or not. Honestly this cuts perilously close to "rich refugee" arguments. If not the wealthy land-owning liberal-voting class, then who is responsible for the state of affairs re development guidelines? Seriously, I'm drawing a blank because I thought it was the relationship between capital, real estate and politics that was to blame, not because the greenies haven't yet legislated the protections.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2016 06:16
|
|
|
I like how Channel 9s breakfast show this morning had Washed up fuckwit Richard Wilkins talking about Ellen asking for support on the GBR conservation and actually framed it as 'isnt she just doing this to promote her new Finding Dory movie? does she really even care? makes u think'
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2016 06:22
|
|
|
asio posted:If not the wealthy land-owning liberal-voting class, then who is responsible for the state of affairs re development guidelines? Seriously, I'm drawing a blank because I thought it was the relationship between capital, real estate and politics that was to blame, not because the greenies haven't yet legislated the protections. I think we might be arguing at cross purposes. I've been arguing it's the responsibility of councils and governments to legislate in order to prevent poo poo like this happening and to be more proactive. I think you are arguing that the reason they can't/haven't is because of the relationship between capital, politics and development which the rich themselves are responsible for. I don't disagree with you, but that also doesn't make it ok when the rich are screwing over their own, as opposed to their usual game of screwing over the poor. I don't agree with the rich being able to screw over anyone and we should be putting more systems in place (especially taking that opportunity when other rich people are angry about it) to prevent it.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2016 06:28
|
|
|
hooman posted:laughing at rich mans pool fall in sea. if only there was some sort of information superhighway a person could use to ask questions like "what are the perils of buying a house on the beach" and "beachfront property risks"
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2016 06:29
|
|
|
You could say the same thing about smoking or non-safety glass shower screens or non-insulated wiring or whatever other peril the government is supposed to protect us from.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2016 06:36
|
|
|
Isn't there something in the bible about this? This isn't a problem people haven't seen coming.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2016 06:42
|
|
|
Living on the edge of the ocean is a lifestyle choice. The government shouldn't be forced to accomodate for the lifestyle choices of a select few individuals
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2016 06:43
|
|
|
starkebn posted:Isn't there something in the bible about this? This isn't a problem people haven't seen coming. Matthew 16:18 "And I tell you that you are Peter and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it." (The joke being his name in Greek was Petros which means rock, because Jesus loving LOVED puns) edit: OH you probably meant Jesus' explanation of the building code Matthew 7:24-27 Build Your House on the Rock 24 “Everyone then who hears these words of mine and does them will be like a wise man who built his house on the rock. 25 And the rain fell, and the floods came, and the winds blew and beat on that house, but it did not fall, because it had been founded on the rock. 26 And everyone who hears these words of mine and does not do them will be like a foolish man who built his house on the sand. 27 And the rain fell, and the floods came, and the winds blew and beat against that house, and it fell, and great was the fall of it.”
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2016 06:45
|
|
|
im the guy who doesn't understand erosion as a concept
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2016 06:54
|
|
|
Should have been listening during RE mate. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Eu5bBDRpzPM starkebn posted:Isn't there something in the bible about this? This isn't a problem people haven't seen coming. gently caress should have read the rest of the thread first. WhiskeyWhiskers fucked around with this message at 07:01 on Jun 9, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2016 06:58
|
|
|
Recoome posted:Living on the edge of the ocean is a lifestyle choice. The government shouldn't be forced to accomodate for the lifestyle choices of a select few individuals 
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2016 06:59
|
|
|
There is merit in having to disclose whether the foundations of a property is built on stone, clay, a swamp, a drainage basin, sand etc. There is even merit in having to disclose natural regional hazards such a bush fires, flooding, tornadoes, etc. But I thought they already did something like that anyway, given how scummy real estate agents and their penchant to legal the poo poo out of everything. Maybe I'm mistaken though since I have never looked into buying property. If there is a long dry spell of weather and the clay shrinks and destabilises the foundation. You will end up with an expensive underpinning and repair bill. Many homes are built on clay soil and damage from it a common problem. However, it isn't something that I'd expect the average person to be educated about, or even consider until it happens to them. You can't exactly legislate the problem away, or blame the real estate agent or previous owners. It is simply a consideration that must be made in the process of buying a home. As long as you are properly informed as to the soil type and geography, then there isn't much more you can do about it. In this case it is humorous because it is fairly obvious the house is on sand and located next to the ocean. And that the owners disregarded the dangers in order to own a piece of expensive waterfront property.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2016 07:03
|
|
|
hooman posted:Councils and the states failing to protect people through political cowardice and being compromised by capital still doesn't really make victim blaming ok. Like I said, I think this should be legislated and managed nation-wide but it isn't going to happen because the Feds don't want the responsibility let alone the work to set it up and administer it. And yeah, I do blame falling educational standards if this kind of thing is no longer taught in schools since my time, because jesus most of us live on the coast, its not a small issue for many Australians. But no, I'm not going to sympathise with Joe Q Rich Guy Who Doesn't Research, sorry. He had so many options, there is no excuse for stupidity and after-the-fact demands to have it fixed up. He just doesn't get a pass for this. If he had unknowingly bought in on a radioactive dump or a dodgy landfill redevelopment, then I could excuse those facts being actively hidden from him, but this is stuff you can research: there's news from the UK and the US every year of houses being washed away by storm tides. He'd have to have been living under a loving rock to ignore those hints. His cries of ignorance won't pass muster in court without a genius barrister, seriously. It's not a coincidence that insurers refuse to insure against actions of the sea, go look that up.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2016 07:19
|
|
|
IIRC, they would have had the risks outlined and the seawall option outlined too in the sale contract according to the council.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2016 07:31
|
|
|
Tokamak posted:There is merit in having to disclose whether the foundations of a property is built on stone, clay, a swamp, a drainage basin, sand etc. There is even merit in having to disclose natural regional hazards such a bush fires, flooding, tornadoes, etc. But I thought they already did something like that anyway, given how scummy real estate agents and their penchant to legal the poo poo out of everything. Maybe I'm mistaken though since I have never looked into buying property. One of the articles mentioned something about a paragraph on the dangers of coastal living and who to talk to if youd like to know about building a sea wall in the fine print when they bought the house
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2016 07:51
|
|
|
Surely the refusal of any insurance company to cover sea action have been a huge red flag?
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2016 07:52
|
|
|
It shouldn't really be legal to buy and sell property, or at least residential property, that can't be insured. Either the government should become an insurer of last resort, or they should be zoned so people can't live there. It's in no one's interest to have people losing their houses.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2016 07:55
|
|
|
open24hours posted:It shouldn't really be legal to buy and sell property, or at least residential property, that can't be insured. Either the government should become an insurer of last resort, or they should be zoned so people can't live there. It's in no one's interest to have people losing their houses. Its in the interest of the repairer/rebuilder.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2016 07:59
|
|
|
open24hours posted:It shouldn't really be legal to buy and sell property, or at least residential property, that can't be insured. Either the government should become an insurer of last resort, or they should be zoned so people can't live there. It's in no one's interest to have people losing their houses. This is a good post, although the flood thing in 2011 in Brisbane really hosed people around because although people were covered for floods, some people got flooded via water coming up from the drains so the insurance peeps didn't want to pay out for that.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2016 08:09
|
|
|
Laserface posted:I like how Channel 9s breakfast show this morning had Washed up fuckwit Richard Wilkins talking about Ellen asking for support on the GBR conservation and actually framed it as 'isnt she just doing this to promote her new Finding Dory movie? does she really even care? makes u think' lmao if self-interest is an invalid reason to pursue any agenda then you might as well wipe pretty much everyone off the map right the gently caress now
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2016 08:11
|
|
|
Recoome posted:This is a good post, although the flood thing in 2011 in Brisbane really hosed people around because although people were covered for floods, some people got flooded via water coming up from the drains so the insurance peeps didn't want to pay out for that. Yeah this is another thing. When you take out insurance on your house you should be insured against everything. None of this 'well you weren't insured against meteor strike so too bad'.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2016 08:27
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2016 08:32
|
|
|
Isnt it too late for him to be a candidate?
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2016 08:35
|
|
|
open24hours posted:Yeah this is another thing. When you take out insurance on your house you should be insured against everything. None of this 'well you weren't insured against meteor strike so too bad'. I dunno, it seems pretty pointless to pay for insurance against flooding when you live in Alice Springs. I think that insurance companies shouldnt try to weasel out of payments like in the Brisbane floods example, but picking and choosing what you are insured for isnt bad.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2016 08:38
|
|
|
open24hours posted:It shouldn't really be legal to buy and sell property, or at least residential property, that can't be insured. Either the government should become an insurer of last resort, or they should be zoned so people can't live there. It's in no one's interest to have people losing their houses. Isn't this kicking the problem further down the road? You would end up with a lot of people electing not to insure because the premiums are way too high. You'd still end up with the same problem where people put living next to the ocean or surrounded by bush above the safety of the building. You can mandate that every purchase agreement has an insurance quote on it, but people will ignore it. I suppose that you can make insurance mandatory. but it would be a cluster-gently caress to implement since insurers and leave people largely at the mercy of private insurers. It would also price many people out of where they live and be more of a political quagmire than negative gearing. You could subsidise it, but it just becomes another handout to rich people and idiots and a drain on treasury. I'm not sure this is a fixable problem or can be done in a manner that the public will support.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2016 08:39
|
|
|
are they wrong
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2016 08:40
|
|
|
Tokamak posted:Isn't this kicking the problem further down the road? You would end up with a lot of people electing not to insure because the premiums are way too high. You'd still end up with the same problem where people put living next to the ocean or surrounded by bush above the safety of the building. Sounds like an argument for a public insurer to me.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2016 08:41
|
|
|
Nothing worse than being late to your erection.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2016 08:47
|
|
|
Frogmanv2 posted:I dunno, it seems pretty pointless to pay for insurance against flooding when you live in Alice Springs. But why would it cost anything to insure against flooding in alice springs?
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2016 08:53
|
|
|
If you are insuring against everything, i would have very little faith in insurance companies removing services that arent needed.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2016 08:55
|
|
|
open24hours posted:Sounds like an argument for a public insurer to me. There's still that matter of premium affordability, and preventing massive overnight readjustments to property values.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2016 09:16
|
|
|
hooman posted:I think we might be arguing at cross purposes. I think the issue is whether it is Correct to point out that this is the petard he has hoisted. We seem to be in agreement on the solution. The blame in this specific case lies with the complaining land owner, who had every opportunity to not live there - the price, the council and the history with the "surfers and greenies", the experience with the insurance agency. If he had not been so desperate to find a way to wriggle through all that, to allow his greed to overcome all those warning signs, he would still have a backyard. Stronger regulations would have made it more difficult, but the history behind his acquiring the property suggest that he would have tried to get around them anyway. I also think governments should be very careful about legislating to try and protect people from themselves - but I had the fear put into me in a social work course about the lessons learned from the Stolen Generation.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2016 09:21
|
|
|
Hot
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2016 09:24
|
|
|
Anidav posted:Isnt it too late for him to be a candidate? Nominations closed midday today so he had until then
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2016 09:26
|
|
|
Zenithe posted:Jesus wept. Everyone therefore who hears these words of mine, and does them, I will liken him to a wise man, who built his house on a rock. The rain came down, the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat on that house; and it didn't fall, for it was founded on the rock. Everyone who hears these words of mine, and doesn't do them will be like a foolish man, who built his house on the sand. The rain came down, the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat on that house; and it fell—and great was its fall. Matthew 7:24–27 Oh, I got beat The Peccadillo fucked around with this message at 09:42 on Jun 9, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2016 09:31
|
|
|
hooman posted:But why would it cost anything to insure against flooding in alice springs? Because it actually happens? It's on the flood plain of the Todd River.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2016 09:31
|
|
|
Scylo posted:Nominations closed midday today so he had until then So we should expect an announcement tomorrow?
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2016 09:36
|
|
|
Tokamak posted:There's still that matter of premium affordability, and preventing massive overnight readjustments to property values. I'd guess that kind of thing could probably be worked out, but you're right. There's absolutely no political appetite for it.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2016 10:32
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 19:33 |
|
|
I don't really have a problem with "Insured against unintentional damage full-stop" because excluding flooding for instance is just gambling that you will ned this type of coverage but maybe not that type. The insurance companies are better at assesing that type of risk than you are. I guess excluding dangerous homebrew wiring, unsafe structural modifications etc means the fineprint never goes away. I still think people should be able to build deathtraps as long as they sign a contract that as adults they fully understand the risks and cannot hold anyone else liable, a warning on the front door lets visitors know the house is in that category (like Experimental Aircraft), and the deathtrap is not likely to take out neighbouring properties. RE David L: He has been active dealing with minorities who are likely to be pissed off at the nanny state. I'll scan some of his stuff from this month's Australian Shooter later tonight. It also features Ricky Muir and The Greens!
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2016 10:45
|
|
