“It doesn’t happen inland. That’s the point.
Folks shouldn’t live in low areas that are prone to hurricanes.”
So... in -your world-, we should vacate New York, Florida, Louisiana Mississippi, the Carolinas, and Texas? And even more comically, you claim floods never happen in Missouri, Iowa, the Dakotas, Minnesota, Ohio, etc. “Doesn’t happen inland”...LOL
I want some of the dope you’re smoking.
If you can’t see any place along the coast that shouldn’t be built on, then I’m quite comfortable with you thinking my comments were comical.
The insurance rates for people across the nation are elevated by nimrods who don’t have enough common sense to avoid obvious places where one shouldn’t build. Other government funds are spilled out when they should have to have been, because people didn’t use common sense. Then you get folks who get all upset because you suggest this might not be a good idea. Comical?
I’m not suggesting that folks avoid everything along the coast, and you should have realized that. Nope, you couldn’t grasp that.
If a place floods even during normal heavy rains, why should people be building there? If it’s in an area where hurricanes can and do happen, then building codes should be such that structures should able to either withstand the treat, or at the very least keep damage to a minimum.
We have areas along the coast that are indefensible. You know damn well every structure in that area is going to be a total loss, but folks build there anyway.
Sure there are areas where risk is elevated, and you can’t avoid every place where there is a problem, but you do your best to avoid them.
Here in California we clear hillsides of brush so they won’t be fire hazards. We have building codes that seek to lessen damage from earthquakes or avoid damage to them altogether.
Some of the homes in the areas affected by this storm should be off limits.
Foam at the mouth all you like.