Alberta flood zone development was a mistake, former MLA says


Machjo
#1
Yahoo! News Canada - Latest News & Headlines

Seems like they were warned!
 
Mowich
Conservative
+4
#2
Of course they were warned, machjo..........just like those who built in low-lying areas in Manitoba and BC - doesn't mean 'city father's' aren't going to bend to the whims of developers and their big bucks.
 
petros
+3
#3
Wow, this guy is a genius.
 
hunboldt
Free Thinker
+1
#4
They have been warned by consulting engineers since at least the 1960's - when the flood control dams on the Elbow river weren't built.
 
petros
+2
#5
Quote: Originally Posted by hunboldtView Post

They have been warned by consulting engineers since at least the 1960's - when the flood control dams on the Elbow river weren't built.

But that's not greeeeeeen. F*cking moonbeams. I hope they are soaked to the gills.
 
Machjo
#6
Thanks, Petros.
 
taxslave
No Party Affiliation
+2
#7
Same mentality as people that build under a runway and complain about the noise from jets. Why insurance companies give them flood insurance is beyond me.
 
petros
#8
They don't. The insurance companies took the time to study the flood history.
 
tay
+1
#9
Alberta Warned - Stop Development on Flood Plains - Nobody Listened, as Usual


Back in 2006, the Alberta legislature had a flood mitigation committee that, among other things, looked into the risks of unrestricted development on flood plains. The committee issued a report that recommended, not surprisingly, that construction not be allowed in places that were just going to flood anyway.

Now, here's the thing. That report came out in 2006 but the Alberta government sat on it until just last year. And that's got the former MLA who chaired that committee a bit angry.



The Flood Zone Plan

#2 says the Feds pay 90% of the disaster assitance fund.


Alberta flood zone development was a mistake, former MLA says - Canada - CBC News




 
Cliffy
Free Thinker
+7
#10  Top Rated Post
Duh! I blame the idiotic craze for waterfront property. People pay a premium to watch their property flood. How stupid is that?
 
B00Mer
Libertarian
#11
Quote: Originally Posted by CliffyView Post

Duh! I blame the idiotic craze for waterfront property. People pay a premium to watch their property flood. How stupid is that?



Yup and they build them so sturdy along the water front, what could ever happen to them in a 150mph wind and tidal surge..
 
darkbeaver
Republican
+2
#12
This is Harpers fault.
 
hunboldt
Free Thinker
+1
#13
Quote: Originally Posted by petrosView Post

But that's not greeeeeeen. F*cking moonbeams. I hope they are soaked to the gills.

Good point,

I bet the 'Save the little Bow ' pixies from ten years ago , who still reside in High River, are being Awfully silent now...

No crash dikes, no swale channel, no water storage impoundments

Now - no town of 14,000 people...

High River 'a disaster' | Alberta | News | Calgary Sun
 
gopher
No Party Affiliation
+1
#14
Interesting comment by one who posted in the CBC article,


Like the story goes - more money than brains and people let the conservatives lead them around by the nose using total bigotry against the rest of Canada.
 
captain morgan
Bloc Québécois
#15
Quote: Originally Posted by darkbeaverView Post

This is Harpers fault.

That bastard!

Quote: Originally Posted by tayView Post

Alberta Warned - Stop Development on Flood Plains - Nobody Listened, as Usual

Now, here's the thing. That report came out in 2006 but the Alberta government sat on it until just last year. And that's got the former MLA who chaired that committee a bit angry.


Great advice there... Some of the homes along the Elbow and Bow have been there for damn near 100 years... Why is this report so late?

Quote: Originally Posted by gopherView Post

Interesting comment by one who posted in the CBC article,


Like the story goes - more money than brains and people let the conservatives lead them around by the nose using total bigotry against the rest of Canada.

What does that really mean for those communities (and teh originaly city) that needed to build on the shores of the only river for miles?..... Like every major city in NorAm!
 
hunboldt
Free Thinker
#16
Quote: Originally Posted by captain morganView Post

That bastard!




Great advice there... Some of the homes along the Elbow and Bow have been there for damn near 100 years... Why is this report so late?



What does that really mean for those communities (and teh originaly city) that needed to build on the shores of the only river for miles?..... Like every major city in NorAm!

Austen, Dallas, Fort Worth, Columbia on the Brazos, San Antonio etc etc etc

You really need a trip to'Lukenbach country, 'CM.... Let them show you how its done!
 
Mowich
Conservative
#17
Quote: Originally Posted by taxslaveView Post

Same mentality as people that build under a runway and complain about the noise from jets.

Or by a pig/cattle/chicken farm then complain about the odor.
 
hunboldt
Free Thinker
#18
Quote: Originally Posted by hunboldtView Post

Austen, Dallas, Fort Worth, Columbia on the Brazos, San Antonio etc etc etc

You really need a trip to'Lukenbach country, 'CM.... Let them show you how its done!


Or better yet, a trip to Morris Manitoba, and 18 other ring dike protected communities in the RR Valley.
Groenevled was the MLA for high River- WHERE is the ring dike, George? Or the two short diversion channels?
 
tay
#19
High River homeowners could have properties seized if they refuse Alberta’s Offer










Mayor Craig Snodgrass said Wallaceville residents can voluntarily sell their homes to the province based on their 2013 property assessment, but the town — which made the decision to clear out the neighbourhood — may take more drastic measures if homeowners refused to leave.


“I just don’t see it turning out in a positive manner for homeowners that want to wait out for expropriation.


“You’ve got to assess everything and make your own decisions, without a doubt. We’ve made ours and told the community as to what direction we’re headed in.”


While the province is taking a lead on offering buyouts to affected homeowners, municipalities have the legal authority to expropriate land, which means they can seize properties.


If properties were taken, owners would receive current market values, Mr. Snodgrass said, which were considerably lower than assessed values.


Before extending the offer to Wallaceville, Premier Alison Redford said the province would not expropriate homes in extreme flood-risk areas, but the government would also not cover the costs for future deluges.




High River homeowners could have properties seized if they refuse Alberta’s offer to buy flood-ravaged land | National Post
 
damngrumpy
No Party Affiliation
+1
#20
A number of years ago there was a huge fire in the mountains above Penticton
many didn't have fire insurance. The reason it cost so much for the property and
to build the home they couldn't afford insurance. Of course insurance in the area
where they built was outrageously expensive if they could get it at all.
Makes you wonder people want the view from the mountains or the view from the
beach, they can't afford to insure it but they do it anyway. I think the expect some
government relief if there is a disaster. My answer to that is No Way.
 
taxslave
No Party Affiliation
#21
Quote: Originally Posted by damngrumpyView Post

A number of years ago there was a huge fire in the mountains above Penticton
many didn't have fire insurance. The reason it cost so much for the property and
to build the home they couldn't afford insurance. Of course insurance in the area
where they built was outrageously expensive if they could get it at all.
Makes you wonder people want the view from the mountains or the view from the
beach, they can't afford to insure it but they do it anyway. I think the expect some
government relief if there is a disaster. My answer to that is No Way.

Makes you wonder how they got a mortgage without insurance.
 
petros
#22
They get basic fire insurance but none for wildfires.
 
taxslave
No Party Affiliation
#23
Quote: Originally Posted by petrosView Post

They get basic fire insurance but none for wildfires.

Interesting thought .Must check just what mine says.
 
petros
+1
#24
Basic will cover a broken pipe but not a natural flood. Same goes for other high risk locations.
 

Similar Threads

1
Harper tours Manitoba flood zone
by mentalfloss | May 12th, 2011
1
Sonic 'Lasers' Head to Flood Zone
by jjw1965 | Sep 3rd, 2005
no new posts