Thursday, October 03, 2024

How NC Republicans Left Homes Vulnerable to Helene

Over the past 15 years, North Carolina lawmakers have rejected limits on construction on steep slopes, which might have reduced the number of homes lost to landslides; blocked a rule requiring homes to be elevated above the height of an expected flood; weakened protections for wetlands, increasing the risk of dangerous storm water runoff; and slowed the adoption of updated building codes, making it harder for the state to qualify for federal climate-resilience grants.

Posted by tonyroma at 03:30 PM | 17 COMMENTS | permalink

More

Comments

Those decisions reflect the influence of North Carolina's home building industry, which has consistently fought rules forcing its members to construct homes to higher, more expensive standards, according to Kim Wooten, an engineer who serves on the North Carolina Building Code Council, the group that sets home building requirements for the state.

In 2009 and 2010, lawmakers from the state's mountainous western region wanted statewide rules to restrict construction on slopes with a high or moderate risk of landslides. Their legislation failed in the face of pushback from the home building and real estate industries, according to Pricey Harrison, a state lawmaker who supported the restrictions.

Efforts to weaken building standards in North Carolina picked up steam after Republicans won control of both houses of the state legislature in 2010.

In 2011, lawmakers proposed a law that limited the ability of local officials to account for sea-level rise in their planning. The comedian Stephen Colbert panned the change, quipping: "If your science gives you a result you don't like, pass a law saying the result is illegal. Problem solved."

Two years later, lawmakers overhauled the way North Carolina updates its building codes. That change attracted far less attention than the sea-level rule - but would be more consequential for Helene.

Rather than make elevation mandatory in flood zones around North Carolina, the state decided that the requirement should only apply if local officials chose to adopt it.

The decision most likely left more homes exposed to flooding, according to Chad Berginnis, executive director of the national Association of State Floodplain Managers.

If this wasn't enough for devastated North Carolinians, there's this additional kick in the nads.
Nearly all homes in counties hardest hit by Helene lack national flood insurance
Hopefully the RNC has enough money left over after paying Trump's legal bills to help rebuild homes for the constituency they failed to adequately protect and insure.

#1 | Posted by tonyroma at 2024-10-03 12:33 PM

"Over the past 15 years, North Carolina [Republican] lawmakers have rejected limits on construction on steep slopes, which might have reduced the number of homes lost to landslides"

Let them slide!

#2 | Posted by censored at 2024-10-03 04:05 PM

Now do California, ----.

#3 | Posted by lfthndthrds at 2024-10-03 04:07 PM

Now do California, ----.

#3 | POSTED BY LFTHNDTHRDS

Leave California out of your nasty mouth you creepy creeper.

California coastal regulations are some of the toughest in the nation. If not the world.

California's coastal regulations are considered some of the strictest in the world, and they can make it difficult to build housing along the coast. The California Coastal Act (Coastal Act) has many special requirements, including:

Building height: The Coastal Zone limits building height to 30 feet.
Public access: The Coastal Act requires public access to beaches and other coastal areas, including visual access.
Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Areas (ESHAs): The Coastal Act provides special protections for ESHAs.
Local Coastal Programs: The Coastal Commission approves local coastal programs that can restrict development.
Permits: Landowners need to secure permits from the Coastal Commission or local agencies.

#4 | Posted by donnerboy at 2024-10-03 04:23 PM

Turd-boy best beat it back to the nooner.

#5 | Posted by LegallyYourDead at 2024-10-03 04:31 PM

Now do California, ----.

Did it get devastated by torrential rain from the remnants of a hurricane 300 miles inland? Did it have entire towns washed away and destroyed due to homes being constructed under lax regulations preferred by the construction industry and its lobby, spending tens of millions funding Republicans who enshrined a law demanding that climate change CANNOT be considered when new building code legislation is passed and overrode the governor's veto multiple times?

Since the answer is a resounding NO, why should anyone look to California in search of explaining why North Carolina Republican supermajorities exacerbated an already intractable problem hitting people living thousands of feet above sea level, now dealing with catastrophic flooding heretofore never seen in the region?

#6 | Posted by tonyroma at 2024-10-03 04:57 PM

-The decision most likely left more homes exposed to flooding, according to Chad Berginnis, executive director of the national Association of State Floodplain Managers.

That's kind of weak. Why can't he say "definitely" rather than "most likely"?

that gets his opinion brushed under the rug.

#7 | Posted by eberly at 2024-10-03 05:20 PM

"Hopefully the RNC has enough money left over after paying Trump's legal bills to help rebuild homes for the constituency they failed to adequately protect and insure."

If you have evidence either party has drawn the flood plain maps the National Flood Insurance Program uses.....then please cite it.

#8 | Posted by eberly at 2024-10-03 05:24 PM

That's kind of weak. Why can't he say "definitely" rather than "most likely"?

Because he's giving an early, but informed, comment knowing that until a full forensic analysis of the event is complete there is a possibility that other factors may have contributed outside of lax building codes.

In essence he's articulating a theory, understanding that it's possible the theory may not be operative as the sole proximate cause as more data is gathered and analyzed.

#9 | Posted by tonyroma at 2024-10-03 05:26 PM

If you have evidence either party has drawn the flood plain maps the National Flood Insurance Program uses.....then please cite it.

I'm not referring to NFIP. I'm referring to lax building regulations the GOP voted down because the construction lobby paid them to.

#10 | Posted by tonyroma at 2024-10-03 05:28 PM

9

I know, but that's boring.

Throw some fire........LOL

#11 | Posted by eberly at 2024-10-03 05:29 PM

Correction: I'm referring to lax building regulations the GOP voted for because the construction lobby paid them to.

#12 | Posted by tonyroma at 2024-10-03 05:29 PM

But lax building regulations and flood insurance/NFIP are way different things. You brought in the flood insurance part...not me.

#13 | Posted by eberly at 2024-10-03 05:32 PM

You brought in the flood insurance part...not me.

Secondarily - If this wasn't enough for devastated North Carolinians... 'this' being having already lost their homes and possessions, which were not insured for flooding, so they'll have no insurance claims for the damage.

As I understand it, nothing was stopping these people from buying flood insurance had they chosen to. They would have received low rates because they didn't live in a documented flood zone.

And they didn't live in one - until the moment they did due to a historic tropical storm dropping unprecedented amounts of rain on their mountains, washing away their towns and buildings.

#14 | Posted by tonyroma at 2024-10-03 05:41 PM

Flood insurance is tough under any circumstances. Regardless of if it's required because you live in a flood plain AND you owe on a mortgage or if it's just purely voluntary.

It's hard to get it fully insured regardless, is my point.

The flood program sucks...plain and simple.

#15 | Posted by eberly at 2024-10-03 05:48 PM

The GQP is firmly aligned behind businesses that want to dismantle all regulations that protect the safety and lives of consumers and employees while simultaneously embracing increasing reliance on fossil fuels that create these catastrophic storms.

#16 | Posted by Nixon at 2024-10-04 09:23 AM

Duh... They're about graft, corruption, and making money the sloppy way.

Nothing to See Here.

#17 | Posted by Effeteposer at 2024-10-04 03:00 PM

Drudge Retort Headlines

Gaetz Withdraws (60 comments)

Texas Offers Trump Huge Ranch for Mass Deportation Plan (57 comments)

Gaetz Sent over $10K in Venmo Payments to Women who Testified (32 comments)

1 in 5 Adults Get Their News from Social Media Influencers (28 comments)

Trump Struggling with Treasury Pick for the Dumbest Reason (25 comments)

Mike Johnson Institutes Transgender Bathroom Ban for U.S. House (23 comments)

Nikki Haley Trashes Trump Picks RFK Jr. and Tulsi Gabbard (19 comments)

Murdoch's News Corp Accused of Undermining Democracy (18 comments)

Texas Education Board Backs Bible-Infused Lessons in Public Schools (17 comments)

Republicans on Ethics Panel Vote to Block Gaetz Report (16 comments)