Posted on 08/16/2004 4:26:54 PM PDT by jolie560
CAPTIVA - The ritzy barrier islands that Hurricane Charley pummeled first before raging across the state appear to have survived far better than their neighbors farther inland.
Although damage assessments had yet to be completed for the islands Sunday night, Lee County officials said they were confident that damage could be repaired and the islands could recover their identity as an idyllic vacation getaway.
"Nearly all (buildings) had some damage, but it was varying degrees, because these are big homes and well-put-together homes," said Pat O'Rourke, spokeswoman for the Lee County Emergency Operations Center. "It's a matter of the integrity of the structures."
While many resort homes on Captiva and North Captiva Island saw some damage, most lost rooftops, not walls. A St. Petersburg Times reporter and photographer who toured the area in a boat noted some damage to homes on the tip of North Captiva Island but not to the extent of those damaged in Punta Gorda and Port Charlotte.
(Excerpt) Read more at sptimes.com ...
Upgrade construction codes for tents next?
Mobile or manufactured homes could take this kind of wind with only cosmetic damage if they used adequate fasteners. The cost shouldn't be significantly more.
Another case of the rich being favored over the poor. It's Bush's fault.
To what extent are insurance premiums based upon construction quality? If quality is not adequately factored into premiums, it may be cheaper for a homeowner to build something marginal and have the insurance rebuild it as needed than to build something stronger.
Mr. & Miss Hurricane and Mr. Tornado always love to play "kick the Cans" through the trailer parks.
Yeah, a hurricane comes within a hundred miles of a trailer park and it gets destroyed, while an expensive house has to be in the eye to get destroyed. It is kind of bigotted.
Also, the house I used to live in down in Cape Coral got flooded out. Good thing I moved back to Indiana!
Nevertheless, this article is purely intended to stir up resentment of those who can afford better housing. Who would expect anything less than better housing as the price goes up? This is written by a member of the same crowd who want to do away with SUVs because they come out on top in collisions with cheaper vehicles. Truly annoying, IMHO.
This is in the 'beat your head on a brick wall if you couldn't figure this out ahead of time" category.
More expensive structures tend to be built better, and therefore tend to hold up to 145 MPH winds just a tad better. Go figure.
There is no reasonable way to build a 'manufactured home' that will stand up to Cat 3/4 winds. This strikes me as nothing more than class warfare liberal phlegm. I have great sympathy for thse who lost everything, but blaming it on the manufactured home industry or the govt. for not making those companies build a bulletproof tin can is simply rubbish. It's an act of God. Don't try to find someone on earth to blame. Although, I'm certain some will try, and John Edwards' trial lawyer buddies are probably salivating as we speak...
Bad Hurricane! Bad! Bad!
Women and minorities suffer most.
You do not have to build an expensive house to build a house that can withstand major hurricane damage. I could build a site built house that would stand up to a hurricane for less money than a manufactured home.
Another idea. Mobile home parks could put in hurricane "shelters" on their sites so people have a safe refuge to go to. (For example, I've heard of people emptying concrete water cisterns and holing up in there for the durration of a hurricane).
In general, people take unneccessary risks to have a home of larger square footage, rather than a well contructed smaller home.
Part of human nature I guess.
The problem with this approach is that much hurricane damage (and death) is due to parts of building flying into other buildings (and people). For example, much of the damage done to building which withstand hurricane winds, is done by parts of unsafe buildings and unsecured items flying into buildings which would otherwise suffer much less damage.
So built-in obselescence costs everyone money, and some people their lives.
This is untrue. Anyone who can afford a manufactured home can afford a home constructed to withstand hurricane force winds ... or without major structural damage.
Fact is, people want more square footage rather than well built. This is also true in site built homes. Quantity is almost always chosen over quality.
I see this decision making process occu every day. If it were not for codes (which are the minimum people should build to), I think most people would build the largest peice of %@#$ they could and not worry about structural soundness.
I feel for the victims too, I really do. But this myth that people can't afford safe homes is costing all of us more money (as the govenment bails out people time and time again).
But does shoddy construction expose a homeowner (or insurance carrier) to liability from damage that parts of their home do to other properties?
If the insurance and liability practices create a moral hazard, that would suggest a problem with such practices.
I remember when Andrew blew through a few years ago.
There was a report that said that the best built houses and the ones that withstood the hurricane the best were Habitat for Humanity homes.
They said that since amatuers built the houses, lots more nails and screws were used than homes built by professionals.
Thus they didn't blow down so easily.
they said the same thing after andrew.....as an architect and contractor, i can state the obvious that mobile home standards are the subject of politics and will probably not be changed........there's something about trailer parks.....never been able to figure it out....first thing when a tornado forms, it makes a beeline to the nearest trailer park.....
Building codes for mobile/modular homes did increase in the early 90's. Old code required the home to withstand 90mph winds. The current standard requires 130mph. Most of the homes destroyed were older homes that didn't have to meet the newer codes. The average home built now has over $500 just in hurricane hardware (straps, buckets, clips, hold downs, etc) in it.
Fasteners are those things used to tie pieces of wood together. Nails are one example.
Hey, it's the St. Petersburg Times. Liberal phlegm is the only thing they're good at.
I'm still wondering why mobile homes have not been banned in the path of hurricanes. Anyone know?
Do you mean to tell me that better built structures hold up better than poorly built ones in a major storm? This is shocking! I'm absolutely flabergasted!
Politics with a capital P
Forgive me but I don't understand. Mobile homes have all but been eliminated in California .. I think because they are a drag on property values. But in CA we have very stringent building codes to offset the threat of earthquakes. So I cannot understand Florida's not banning mobile homes. Who benefits when mobile homes collapse and people die?
"I'm still wondering why mobile homes have not been banned in the path of hurricanes. Anyone know?"
The huricane would no doubt make a point of relocating to find them!
Why not ban mobile homes from Florida .. period?
On a side note, Has anyone seen any video footage of the multi-million dollar homes that were damaged or destroyed on Sanibel Island or Captiva? Just curious as to how they faired.
"Mobile homes have all but been eliminated in California"
There are sure a lot of them in San Diego County.
Many retired people live in mobile homes in FLa. they have a huge lobby with the rat/libs, if they want trailers, they get trailers.
But that's true of mobile homes here in California. They are inhabited by retirees. That doesn't mean that they should not be banned. Which lends credance to the person who said it "was political".
The purpose of stringent building codes is to save lives, not to pander to a group, no matter how well deserving.
I can only point to foreign countries who suffer massive deaths in earthquakes because they will not pass building codes to withstand distruction.
You're nuts.
What do you propose we do with every home that was built before 1990 or is not up to "Code"? Why not just ban Cat 4 hurricanes? LOL
Yes I remember reading similar stories.
Well, there you go. Sounds like it is political.
I got in an argument with an aquaintance many years ago about the structural qualities of motorhomes. About 10 years later I helped him move stuff from his home when a huge hole appeared in his floor ... it was about 2 feet across. This doesn't happen in a normal home.
Well, there you go. Sounds like it is political.
I got in an argument with an aquaintance many years ago about the structural qualities of motorhomes. About 10 years later I helped him move stuff from his home when a huge hole appeared in his floor ... it was about 2 feet across. This doesn't happen in a normal home.
Forget it! There is no reason to ban Mobile homes for earthquakes... Mobiles don't collapse in earthquakes, they aren't heavy and they can bend. Old brick and masonry structures, and adobe and other kinds of construction are what leads to massive casualties in earthquakes. not to mention falling glass from large buildings.
The mobiles in Florida may not withstand hurricanes, but they are worth about $4,000 and most were unnoccupied.
Anybody that lives in a mobile home in a Huricane zone should know that probabilty that their home is going to be a goner if a storm strike. In fact, one weaker than Charley could get the job done.
It would be wise for those who can afford it to buy something a little more solid.
Well, LOL to you too. Building in California have to be brought up to code. I'm facing this with my 1986 built home in my current remodel. It must be brought up to code.
LOL.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.