Floods and Warfare...choice?

Subject: Floods and Warfare...choice?
From: GUEST,ifor
Date: 22 Jul 07 - 05:39 PM

It seems to me that there is always money to be found to invade another country..say Iraq for example, where the British taxpayer has now spent well over 5 billion pounds on the invasion and occupation of that country.
However,when it comes to flood defences and the protection of homes and the environment this government has failed to come up with the dosh or the resolve or the public services to protect communities across the UK.
Of course Bush has spent trillions of dollars on his crazed Iraq adventure while New Orleans was allowed to drown in the waters and mud.
IFOR

Subject: RE: Floods and Warfare...choice?
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 22 Jul 07 - 05:56 PM

ifor,

You fail to grasp a simple fact: as far as floods are concerned the key priority is that the profits of property developers are protected.
And those profits are not at risk because it only the mugs who bought the houses in the flood-plains who are suffering.

I've just heard on the news that the latest Government green paper is suggesting that MORE building in flood-plains will be necessary to meet the "housing shortage" (Government speak for "property developers' insatiable demands for more and more and more profits").

You see we elect the politicians and pay our taxes and the politicians work for property developers - and other forms of Big Business (The Oil Industry, for example - hence Iraq).

Subject: RE: Floods and Warfare...choice?
From: autolycus
Date: 22 Jul 07 - 06:35 PM

The government is starting to talk about looking again at building in flood plains.


And why, why, why, why do people buy houses in flood plains?

The words 'thinking' and 'not' spring to mind.

If they do, that's the governmnet's fault? I dawnt fink saw.






       Ivor

Subject: RE: Floods and Warfare...choice?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 22 Jul 07 - 06:43 PM

People build in flood plains because it's conveniently close to something else they want to be near to, and because the ground there is nice and level. They've been doing it as long as anyone can remember.

Subject: RE: Floods and Warfare...choice?
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 22 Jul 07 - 07:44 PM

... and it's relatively cheap...

Subject: RE: Floods and Warfare...choice?
From: Sorcha
Date: 22 Jul 07 - 07:57 PM

Until you try to buy insurance, or have a flood. Or the levee breaks. Or the pumps fail. Or whatever.

Subject: RE: Floods and Warfare...choice?
From: Amos
Date: 22 Jul 07 - 08:15 PM

People do indeed build or buy in flood plains, out of ignorance or stupidity or gullibility for a con. They also think in ruts, buy junk food, eat trans fats, believe pharmaceutical companies, and trust politicians -- all of which are blazingly stupid choices.

So...what else is new?


A

Subject: RE: Floods and Warfare...choice?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 22 Jul 07 - 08:48 PM

"If you build it (a subdivision)...the people will come."

Subject: RE: Floods and Warfare...choice?
From: Sorcha
Date: 22 Jul 07 - 10:46 PM

Well, part of the problem, IMHO, is that quite often, people don't really have much of a choice, do they? We do what we 'can' right now and worry about the consequenses later.

Subject: RE: Floods and Warfare...choice?
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 23 Jul 07 - 07:38 AM

Did anyone catch the toff, David Cameron on the news last night? He was standing in his wellies (green ones, of course), in some town in deepest Toffshire, spouting about how it was all the Government's fault. It occurred to me that if he and his Tory toffs were in power the situation would be no different.

The problem is that politicians of all parties are now completely in thrall to 'The Market' and 'Market Forces' and reality, common sense and decency are now nothing more than dim memories. 'The Market' is an ideological construct and, as such, is a one-dimensional and incomplete model of reality. The recent weather has brought reality, literally, 'flooding in' (sorry!) and the model can't cope.

I heard the latest Housing Minister, whose name I've forgotten already, but who is really 'The Minister for Maximising Property Developers' Profits', on the radio this morning. She was attempting to justify the Government's new Green Paper which recommends that building in flood plains be allowed to continue. Apparently they are going to leave it all up to the discretion of those friends and staunch supporters of the property developers, Local Governments and their Planning Departments. Oh yes, and the Environment Agency will be able to veto the more outrageous proposals. The trouble is the Environment Agency is overstretched as it is and don't have enough resources (having been subject to Government cuts in the recent past). Still, there will be plenty of people to blame when the next round of floods hit!

Subject: RE: Floods and Warfare...choice?
From: Mr Red
Date: 23 Jul 07 - 08:11 AM

The problem with flood defences is that there are two kinds of flood.

The usual river filling-up - and that is greedy developers, building new, in the flood plane, and greedy estate agents ignoring history and bumping prices that were traditionally low because of flood risk. And ignorance in the buying public.

Then there is the deluge - and you don't have to be near a river for that, just a dip in the road.

Most flood defences were designed for a once in 50 year high. Now I am no expert at statisitics but the 50 years they refer to were the last 50. The probability of the last 50 years has been used up. And compared to the high of 1947 that was 60 years ago - we have been living on borrowed time for 10 years (statistically). We are now into the next 50 years and the stats are not in for that yet - PAL. I predict it will show a worse maximum. I am just not clever enough to predict the nearest year or month - let alone the day.

Last year Hungary, this year UK, next year - take a guess.

Personally I think King Canute should be connonised and revered daily.

Subject: RE: Floods and Warfare...choice?
From: GUEST,PMB
Date: 23 Jul 07 - 08:18 AM

People build on floodplains because floodplains are nice and empty- because in the past people had the sense not to build on floodplains. And building on floodplains makes them less water absorbent- the houses and furniture don't compensate for the covered up squogland- so making flooding worse because the water runs off quickly instead of soaking in and releasing over a longer period.

We also get some funny effects round here- not flooding as such, but old mine adits and soughs that normally don't have water in them, suddenly filling up and becoming copious springs. We had to introduce a bye-law prohibiting patriarchs from smiting rocks with their staffs.

Subject: RE: Floods and Warfare...choice?
From: Stu
Date: 23 Jul 07 - 08:34 AM

"'The Market' is an ideological construct and, as such, is a one-dimensional and incomplete model of reality."

The free market is hardly an ideological construct - it's an economic and political dogma and we're currently up to our nuts in the consequences of pursuing market-led social politics. It's not designed to be a model of reality in any terms except economic.

Let's get back to our old friend Thatcher, whose myopic belief in free market economics has partly exacerbated the current situation with regard to building on flood plains. By flogging off virtually the entire stock of social housing held by the nation a situation has arisen where developers are encouraged to build anywhere they can. The problem has been compunded by the fact the party of the people has become the party that wants to run with Thatchers twisted ideology and turn us all into consumers, not citizens.

Don't knock developers for protecting their vested interests and trying to turn a profit - that's what they are there to do. In a capitalist system such as the one we live in, they have no obligation to act as some sort of housing department for the masses - a role they would be utterly incapable of playing even if they wanted to.

It's the politicians, both local and national who are accountable for this debacle. By encouraging the non-intervention of the state when planning applications are approved national politicians have allowed this disaster to take place. I'm sure most people here in the UK could point to local planning decisions taken by their elected councils that beggar belief or have in some way blighted their locale.

You think this is bad? Wait until this green and pleasant land is bulldozed into oblivion with no thought for existing communities and the consequences of such rampant development on the nation - The Big Brown Floater himself announced the building of three million homes to try to address the current lack of affordable housing - the mess left by everyone from Thatcher onwards who sold off our social housing stock.

God help our children.

Subject: RE: Floods and Warfare...choice?
From: skipy
Date: 23 Jul 07 - 08:35 AM

(LH) Go the distance
Skipy

Subject: RE: Floods and Warfare...choice?
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 23 Jul 07 - 09:38 AM

Dear Stigweard,

I think that, basically, we agree - except that I do blame the developers who, I suspect, have bought the politicians who now work for them, not us.

Has anyone else done the arithmetic? Apparently Brown is planning to build 3 million houses by 2020 (let's say over 12 years). He promises that every year 70,000 of these houses will be "affordable". So, by 2020 we should have 840,000 more "affordable" new homes. But 840,000 is only 28% of 3 million. That means that 72% of the new homes will be "unaffordable".

This suggests to me that the Brown Government couldn't give a toss about the "housing crisis" but is just caving in to property developers' insatiable demands to build whatever they like, wherever they like, whenever they like.

Subject: RE: Floods and Warfare...choice?
From: Teribus
Date: 23 Jul 07 - 12:05 PM

I don't think for one second anybody would build a house if they knew they would not be able to sell it. The demand is there, that is the market.

Now did Grabber Brown say he was going to build 3 million houses or did he say he was going to build 3 million homes? There is a difference. Did he say that they were all to be built on flood plains? I would doubt it seeing the vast expanses of derelict industrial property going to waste in most UK towns and cities.

As for all this "social housing" people seem so keen on. Were they the housing stock that made up those vast estates that town and city councils could not afford to maintain? Which by such neglect were rapidly turning into slum areas and ghettos? Shudder to think what your council tax bills would be today if all that inventory of housing still remained on the books of the local authorities.

Subject: RE: Floods and Warfare...choice?
From: Mr Red
Date: 23 Jul 07 - 01:02 PM

I think we have a serious polution problem here.

Homo sapiens.

Imagine less people, globally - less tarmac and less competition for land. Less developers, prices, wars, toxicity, less belching cows blah blah blah.........

Now anyone left of Hitler got any solutions on this one?

Subject: RE: Floods and Warfare...choice?
From: greg stephens
Date: 23 Jul 07 - 01:06 PM

Building on flood plains is not necessaarily silly. My own house, for example, stands on stilts (though I don't live on a flood plain, the stilts were for another reason).

Subject: RE: Floods and Warfare...choice?
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 23 Jul 07 - 06:00 PM

You're right, Teribus, he did say "homes" and not "houses". Neverthless, only 28% of those homes are going to be "affordable" - which was the main point of my last posting (but you knew that, didn't you?).

As for: "I don't think for one second anybody would build a house if they knew they would not be able to sell it. The demand is there, that is the market."

I thought that the whole point of capitalism is that you keep on producing things until the market becomes saturated? This has certainly happened here in S. Manchester - where developers have built flats on every available scrap of land - and now the demand has evaporated and they can't sell them (I had to smile, the other day, when I observed a notice on the boundary fence of a largely empty block of new flats instructing estate agents not to erect 'for sale' signs - presumably too many of those makes it look like there's something wrong with the flats).
In other words capitalistic property development is just another form of gambling and the thought of such important things as housing and the environment being subject to the whims and hunches of a load of sleazy gamblers makes me very uneasy.

Subject: RE: Floods and Warfare...choice?
From: Teribus
Date: 23 Jul 07 - 06:19 PM

"I thought that the whole point of capitalism is that you keep on producing things until the market becomes saturated?"

Eh,No.

"This has certainly happened here in S. Manchester - where developers have built flats on every available scrap of land - and now the demand has evaporated and they can't sell them."

Who then is out of pocket? They will of course sell eventually, maybe not at the price they wanted to sell them for, but they will sell. And the one thing about property, the market you sell into, is the same market that you will be buying from. All swings and roundabouts.

Subject: RE: Floods and Warfare...choice?
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 24 Jul 07 - 12:42 PM

Are you a politician, Teribus? You're certainly as slippery as one!

Subject: RE: Floods and Warfare...choice?
From: Arnie
Date: 24 Jul 07 - 04:43 PM

A vicar in a recently-flooded church in Gloucestershire said that in 1769 the then vicar of that same church had to row up the aisle in a boat to conduct the Sunday service. Of course back then there weren't as many houses to get flooded and no global warming, but the flooding still happened. What must be worrying the denizens of S Yorkshire, Gloucs etc. is whether this is now going to happen on a fairly regular basis. Bet the insurance companies are getting a little worried too!

Subject: RE: Floods and Warfare...choice?
From: Folkiedave
Date: 24 Jul 07 - 05:07 PM

Most of central London is built on a flood plane...............Since Sheffield is built on hills and valleys it would be hard not to build near water. The problem is not that it is how it is controlled.

Build a block of apartments near water and see them sell.

This morning a BBC commentator wondered why a water treatment plant was built near water.........

Subject: RE: Floods and Warfare...choice?
From: PoppaGator
Date: 24 Jul 07 - 05:32 PM

Not only is central London built on a flood plain, but most of Tokyo and most of the nation of The Netherlands are below sea level. Not unlike my own hometown, New Orleans, and perhaps the most vulnerable of all great cities, Venice.

An awful lot of well-established human settlements are at low elevations, for reasons of trade, communications, travel, etc. Plus, of course, a lot of newer development is being built in the relatively few remaining empty areas, often prone to flooding, or being built near the water as vacation homes for recerational purposes.

It makes me sick to hear/read the smug comments of those who would refuse aid to flood victims because we "were so stupid as to build/buy in a dangerous area." Especially when these critics often themseves live near an earthquake fault line, in an area prone to wildfire, or tornados, or downstream from a dam, etc. There aren't to many places on erth that are completely sae from every hpe of calamity.

In Washington, D.C., of course, the answer is easy. Unlimited treasure and resources are readily availble for an ill-conceived war, while funds for rebuilding vast areas of devastation are not so easily appropriated. If your flooded home is in a state with a Republican governor, of course, the current administration has about twice as many dollars per capita for you, and will provide it much more quickly, than if you reside in the state next door which has a Demostractic administration (and many times more flooded homes).

Subject: RE: Floods and Warfare...choice?
From: GUEST,Bruce Michael Baillie
Date: 25 Jul 07 - 02:10 AM

Be like me, live AT THE TOP OF A HILL! Only when the general populace stops buying houses on flood plains or next to rivers will someone waken up and do something about it. If all of a sudden people stop buying properties in these places then something will be done because it will be hurting someones pocket! Somehow I don't think that will happen though

Subject: RE: Floods and Warfare...choice?
From: Mr Red
Date: 25 Jul 07 - 08:00 AM

Tewkesbury Abbey had water inside for the first time in 250 years. What that stat does not tell you is the hydrology then and now. The river has been dredged and wiered since. And run-off is swifter upstream because of the tarmac, concrete and houses and drains and and and.....

So reckon on this being worse than 250 years ago.

stats don't lie but only the gullible believe them. They are a guide at best. Probably.

Subject: RE: Floods and Warfare...choice?
From: BusyBee Paul
Date: 25 Jul 07 - 08:11 AM

Sorry BMB, being on top of a hill won't save you from flooding.

Here in Gainsborough, Lincs (UK) we had flooding after a long period of heavy rain in August 2004. My bungalow next to the River Trent was fine but houses in the uphills area were flooded because the drains up there couldn't cope with the water.

More recently in the flooding that hit our area about a month ago, the village of Blyton just north of Gainsborough (where I used to live)was flooded for days - because the hilltop there has a clay cap about 4 feet underground and the land above just gets saturated. So for a few days, us people living at the bottom of the hill were fine and dandy while those at the top were under 3 to 4 feet of water.

The other problem about building on a flood plain, apart from the fact that you may get flooded, is that the profile of the flood plain changes and this can cause problems in other areas. On the opposite side of the Trent to Gainsborough, the land is kept mainly clear and is farmed but the farmers know that it is likely to flood. When that does happen, a not uncommon occurence, the main road linking Nottinghamshire to Lincolnshire is impassable. I was at a meeting where the business community asked the Environment Agency why the road could not be raised to keep it clear of the flooding. The EA explained that this would change the characteristics of the flood plain and make other areas locally flood - ie: the flood plain wouldn't be able to do what it was designed for.

BBP

Subject: RE: Floods and Warfare...choice?
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 25 Jul 07 - 08:12 AM

"There aren't to many places on erth that are completely sae from every hpe of calamity."

There certainly aren't! And the more people there are, the more there are in the firing line when 'Mother Nature' decides to let rip!

Still, we must be sanguine (like 'Teribus', for example) and support the status quo. Remember the golden rules of modern society:

The planet's resources are infinite.

The planet's resources can be exploited indefinitely.

The planet's resources can be exploited at an exponential rate.

The only important living things are human beings (although some humans are more important than others).

Human populations can go on increasing indefinitely.

All other living things, except commercially useful ones, can be safely exterminated.

In spite of the over-arching importance of humans, profit is even more important.

It's a source of great frustration that 'Mother Nature' keeps on interfering in this 'master-plan' We must all pull together and conquer her! Nothing less than total victory!!

Subject: RE: Floods and Warfare...choice?
From: Mr Red
Date: 25 Jul 07 - 01:35 PM

You got it.

Subject: RE: Floods and Warfare...choice?
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 25 Jul 07 - 11:06 PM

Shimrod - that was loquacious - try

"Go forth and multiply".

Subject: RE: Floods and Warfare...choice?
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 26 Jul 07 - 04:16 AM

Loquacious - moi?

Subject: RE: Floods and Warfare...choice?
From: GUEST,Bruce Michael Baillie
Date: 27 Jul 07 - 01:33 AM

...Well there you go! nothing is ever simple is it? I stand corrected!
Someone writing a letter to the Daily Mirror echoed some of my own thoughts on the matter the other day, if they are going to build lots of house on flood plains, why not just come up with a different house design? either build them on stilts or make them so that the bottom floor is merely a storage space for items that wouldn't suffer much damage in the event of a flood and have the living area upstairs. Garages could be accessed via a ramp or maybe have a raised communal area where people could leave their cars if a flood was imminent. And also make it a condition that you couldn't tarmac or pave over your garden so water would soak away quicker? Surely it's not beyond the wit of some architect to come up with decent ideas?
...Any architects out there?

Subject: RE: Floods and Warfare...choice?
From: GUEST,PMB
Date: 27 Jul 07 - 08:33 AM

Someone (might have been Wolfgang?) said that the Dutch are anticipating the flooding of the polders (the reclaimed land with dykes- not Polshaws) by building houses on hollow concrete rafts. The idea is that in the event of flooding, the house will float. Presumably they are tethered to Poles, otherwise every Head of Household would need a master's certificate, and it might be embarrasing if you land in a red- light district or on a motorway junction when the floods go down.

Subject: RE: Floods and Warfare...choice?
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 27 Jul 07 - 09:08 AM

But won't the Poles object? Theyt haven't had the easiest History so far, you know...

Subject: RE: Floods and Warfare...choice?
From: Teribus
Date: 28 Jul 07 - 05:58 AM

"the Dutch are anticipating the flooding of the polders (the reclaimed land with dykes- not Polshaws) by building houses on hollow concrete rafts. The idea is that in the event of flooding, the house will float."

For that to happen it would necessitate a rather complex design of hollow concrete float, and quite an array of equipment. The buoyant uplift would have to be massive to counter the suction holding such a raft to the ground.

Subject: RE: Floods and Warfare...choice?
From: Rumncoke
Date: 28 Jul 07 - 08:33 AM

I saw some of those Dutch houses in a TV program about the recent floods here in the UK. They are already afloat alongside river banks or lake shores, with a central shaft down - I hope - to bedrock, and flexible, extensible connections to water, electricity - and presumably drainage.

They are expensive to make, but in a flood the ones shown can rise up to 4 metres and then sink again as the water subsides, with no damage.

Building on flood plains does seem to be rather dangerous - but if the houses are built to counter rising water - with large drains, elevated ground floors, and paving slabs or permiable surfaces rather than tarmac for pavements and driveways then at least there will be some reduction in the effect of flooding.

It might only reduce flash flooding and put the houses a few feet above the level they would most likely have been built at, but designing them with kitchens and living rooms elevated over - for instance - the garage and utility room should reduce the financial and emotional impact of inundations.

I often wonder when our government is actually going to do some governing instead of just interfering all the time....

Subject: RE: Floods and Warfare...choice?
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 28 Jul 07 - 09:53 AM

"when our government is actually going to do some governing instead of just interfering all the time...."

The problem, you see, that that they think they are in control of Society...

Subject: RE: Floods and Warfare...choice?
From: GUEST,ifor
Date: 28 Jul 07 - 02:01 PM

The News tonight reported that the privatised water companies in Britain spent a billion pounds less than they had promised last year.In addition one company,Trent Water,reportedly provided false statistics to OFWAT ,the government's regulator for the water industry in order to bump up profits.
ifor

Subject: RE: Floods and Warfare...choice?
From: GUEST,albert
Date: 29 Jul 07 - 05:02 AM

This morning the news reported that several top officials from the water company that sservice the flood damaged regions of southern England have large bonuses for effective flood prevention!!
albert

Subject: RE: Floods and Warfare...choice?
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 29 Jul 07 - 07:04 AM

Sounds like a load of bollocks to me! flood plains - sounds like something geography teachers and other serial bores go on about, no doubt someone ('in the tradition' of boring everyone shitless) will write a song for waterson Carthy - The Flood plains of waterloo - to mass acclaim.

In this overcrowded island, just one thing determines where you go and live - how much you can afford. If it had the right postcode most people would be glad if Phil and Kirsty found them a home on Grimpen Mire.

if you have enough to own property, you tend to have insurance. if you rent - theres a chance you may not.

Either way - we pay enough taxes in this country for there to be a safety net - whatever happens. if there isn't a safety net -it IS the governments fault - they should take care of people.

No one could have predicted this lot of weather - least of all that gang of idiots in the Met office. This time last year, Currys had sold out of room humidifiers (things with a bowl of a water and a fan in) and electric fans.

Subject: RE: Floods and Warfare...choice?
From: autolycus
Date: 29 Jul 07 - 11:13 AM

mrRed - how about mass suicide? especially given that in several thousand years we haven't found the reason for being here.

or maybe that's what we're doing anyway by bulding, building, building ad infinitum, especially on flood plains; all the stuff Shimrod said; generally carrying on regardless. Even thinking shopping is the answer.

if that's the answer, must be a hell of a question.

Perhaps, probably, the answer is Nietzschian, a transformation of values.

That would require greater courage than the courage to live.




in other words, the way of life we live, and are getting most of the rest of the world to live, is based on certain ideas about the point of being here. That is the way capitalism is an ideology, because it assumes certain answers to certain questions about life. Monks,for example, have come up with a different set.


There's a book currently available called
"50( or some such number) things to Buy before you Die".

I think the book is seriously meant as a guide to the best , but putting the idea that way makes it sound like a deep critique of our entire way of life.

Oh, so the whole point of life is to buy? (Capitalists may nod here.)





      Ivor

Subject: RE: Floods and Warfare...choice?
From: philgarringer
Date: 29 Jul 07 - 11:05 PM

"He who dies with the most toys is still dead."

Subject: RE: Floods and Warfare...choice?
From: autolycus
Date: 30 Jul 07 - 03:51 AM

Absolutely, 'and can't take it withem, either'.

Still one of my children bought me a poster called SHIT HAPPENS

Alongside Materialism it reads, "whoever dies with the most shit, wins".


If the governments of GB and the US poured tremendous efforts into getting the West Country and New Orleans back to fully civilised places (pleeeeeeeeeease don't be picky about that phrasing. Thank you), would the governments be governing or interfering?

getting rif Saddam was supposed to be to do with civilisation and democracy and humane values. So what does the situations of The West Country, South Yorkshire and New Orleans say about our supposed values.

just heard on the news that 2 years after Katrina, large areas of N.O. still much as they were 2 years ago.

Let the spin continue.





      Ivor

Subject: RE: Floods and Warfare...choice?
From: autolycus
Date: 01 Aug 07 - 01:43 AM

et - ahem - let. the. spin. ahem - . conti. nue.






       Ivor