@@michellealvarez8160 Are you talking to your other self in the mirror again? That's exactly why I'm writing that so they will change their stupid way of building homes that fly with the wind - so people will be safe in their own homes! This way of building houses should be illegal!!! There's much better options out there.
@@freeoldut2502 Even though many who could afford the extra costs involved in building to those higher standards might appreciate the greater safety -- for just in case -- there will always be those who will complain about government forcing them to do this or that, and forcing the citizens to pay for those requisites, even in areas that are historically prone to such storms, because like it or not, there are few places in this country where the extra costs of, say, requiring storm shelters in every new house built, can be in any way justified. Oklahoma City and some of its suburbs are one of the very few places in the country where such legal requirements could even pass legal, statistical, meteorological, and public muster. And, by the way, I think that a few towns in that area were able to pass such measures, a few years ago. But you -- and any of us who have to listen to you -- will be well served by your looking into that situation and perhaps adding some useful data to the discussion.
@@flatulenceone We're talking about human lives - what can be more important? Costs??? The focus of the Gov is wrong. If you build the house right then it will stand still against such storms with minor damages. Think how many people are killed each year and how much money is spent every year disaster relief money. It doesn't make sense we can do better than that.
@@freeoldut2502 I think that you ought to try thinking a little more specifically on this topic, keeping in mind what would be the most beneficial in various areas of the country, depending on the most likely natural disasters that occur in the area. The argument that seems to me to be the most important and compelling is the amount of money spent on disaster relief, which, as you know is horrendous. If we could somehow get Florida to sink completely below the ocean and gulf, and, somehow, make sure that it never resurfaces again, a lot of the excessive amounts of aid and insurance payouts could be directed elsewhere. But here's another problem, some of the areas of the country that are destined to suffer the most from the complications of global warming are the areas that are seeing some of the greatest levels of immigration from other parts of the country. In terms of solid construction for protection of not only property, but also protection of human life, I'd like to compare the cost per square foot of that concrete house in Mexico Beach (that survived Hurricane Michael) to the cost per square foot of any other nearby houses that are being built to current codes. That would be a good place to start, if someone were to take the idea of better building standards to heart and do a cost comparison of sorts.
@@Edemce1it's true. Republicans hate on the blue states constantly but Texas always has their hand out for their money. I thought y'all had all that oil money, but you want to keep that for yourself.
