Anger Rises In Flooded Bangkok As Centre Stays Dry

[Heng]

If you own a better built house and better protected house in a neighborhood where many homes are flooded, it's a good bet that you'll start to get similar 'looks' from some neighbors (these are the folks who likely also drive in the emergency lane on a regular basis) who are standing knee deep in water. After a few weeks, your dry home starts to look like the 'reason' why they aren't 'only' calf deep in water.

Glad to hear you have some spare dry space.

Prepare to be billeted.

Well stocked with dry goods and ammo. This is the kind of situation we dream about in Texas.

[zorro1]

If you own a better built house and better protected house in a neighborhood where many homes are flooded, it's a good bet that you'll start to get similar 'looks' from some neighbors (these are the folks who likely also drive in the emergency lane on a regular basis) who are standing knee deep in water. After a few weeks, your dry home starts to look like the 'reason' why they aren't 'only' calf deep in water.

Glad to hear you have some spare dry space.

Prepare to be billeted.

Well stocked with dry goods and ammo. This is the kind of situation we dream about in Texas.

LOL thats funny even though you really mean it!

[Heng]

[forumuser10]

I get accused of being a Redshirt in these threads, so I shouldn't be supportive of the strategy to save Bangkok, should I?

I am glad the authorities are trying to protect Bangkok. . It is the right thing to do. Bangkok is the nerve center of Thailand. Sure, it would have made sense to not be so centralized and sure it would have made sense to have proper urban planning, but the reality is that Bangkok is the most valuable urban asset in the nation and the government cannot reverse urban strategies made over the past 50 years.. The city is filled with refugees from flooded areas. it is filled with the key financial and service industries that will help Thailand recover and that are keeping Thailand functioning. Yes, houses are flooded outside the protective ring, but inside the ring it would be highrises with thousands that would be flooded.

Some argue that the pain must be shared. That is a shortsighted and selfish approach. The flooded areas are damaged, and the property damage cannot be reversed by causing more property damage in Bangkok. If Bangkok is flooded the people have nowhere to go. What do the proponents of flooding Bangkok propose done with the 10 million or so people in the so far undamaged or slightly damaged areas? Keeping this population going provides a foundation for rebuilding after the floods, it also means that more resources can be directed to those in need. From a cost benefit analysis, keeping Bangkok working and functioning is the right decision. Flooding in Bangkok would mean the loss of key medical centers and if that happens thousands of people will die as they are denied medical care. Where do you think many of the patients from the flooded areas were taken? The decision to protect Bangkok is politically damaging to the national government, but it shows that the government is able to make the tough decisions even if it means alienating its key supporting districts. People wanted political unity, well they are getting it as the military and the Democrats are providing their tacit support to the government.

Totally agree, wish more people would be able to see this, unfortunately, humans are too stupid to see the big picture.

[ludditeman]

Totally agree, wish more people would be able to see this, unfortunately, humans are too stupid to see the big picture.

I must be one of the stupids because I think

when flooding is everywhere and only 50cm deep, everyone can save their possessions with the aid of a few bricks to stand everything on.

when flooding only covers one third of the surface area and the flooding in that area is 150cm deep, nothing will save your stuff.

So at the moment the decision would be between one third of the people losing everything they own, or all the people being inconvenienced.

And lets also face up to the fact that the flooded homes are now valueless, nobody will ever buy those homes. If everyone was flooded it wouldn't affect house values so dramatically.

Edited November 3, 2011 by ludditeman

[whybother]

Totally agree, wish more people would be able to see this, unfortunately, humans are too stupid to see the big picture.

I must be one of the stupids because I think

when flooding is everywhere and only 50cm deep, everyone can save their possessions with the aid of a few bricks to stand everything on.

when flooding only covers one third of the surface area and the flooding in that area is 150cm deep, nothing will save your stuff.

So at the moment the decision would be between one third of the people losing everything they own, or all the people being inconvenienced.

And lets also face up to the fact that the flooded homes are now valueless, nobody will ever buy those homes. If everyone was flooded it wouldn't affect house values so dramatically.

The flooded homes are ALREADY valueless. So there is no point in flooding more homes.

And it's not just about the homes. It's the businesses too. Flooding more homes and businesses just means that less people can work and more will need to be done for relief and recovery. In the end it just spreads the damage more without much gain.

[thaibeachlovers]

Totally agree, wish more people would be able to see this, unfortunately, humans are too stupid to see the big picture.

I must be one of the stupids because I think

when flooding is everywhere and only 50cm deep, everyone can save their possessions with the aid of a few bricks to stand everything on.

when flooding only covers one third of the surface area and the flooding in that area is 150cm deep, nothing will save your stuff.

So at the moment the decision would be between one third of the people losing everything they own, or all the people being inconvenienced.

And lets also face up to the fact that the flooded homes are now valueless, nobody will ever buy those homes. If everyone was flooded it wouldn't affect house values so dramatically.

I don't see that no one will buy those houses. If the multi billion flood protection scheme actually works, most concrete houses would be fine after the water has gone. It's not like European houses with plasterboard interior walls. One of my wife's relatives lives in a house with the tide mark from a previous flood 4 foot up the walls on the ground floor.

The house prices might drop, which would be a good thing, though.

What I want to know is what they're going to do with all those new cars in the Honda factory yard?

Edited November 3, 2011 by thaibeachlovers

[Krungbin]

Totally agree, wish more people would be able to see this, unfortunately, humans are too stupid to see the big picture.

I must be one of the stupids because I think

when flooding is everywhere and only 50cm deep, everyone can save their possessions with the aid of a few bricks to stand everything on.

when flooding only covers one third of the surface area and the flooding in that area is 150cm deep, nothing will save your stuff.

So at the moment the decision would be between one third of the people losing everything they own, or all the people being inconvenienced.

And lets also face up to the fact that the flooded homes are now valueless, nobody will ever buy those homes. If everyone was flooded it wouldn't affect house values so dramatically.

I don't see that no one will buy those houses. If the multi billion flood protection scheme actually works, most concrete houses would be fine after the water has gone. It's not like European houses with plasterboard interior walls. One of my wife's relatives lives in a house with the tide mark from a previous flood 4 foot up the walls on the ground floor.

The house prices might drop, which would be a good thing, though.

What I want to know is what they're going to do with all those new cars in the Honda factory yard?

They are lost, and if Honda is well insured...insurances' premium will be more expensive soon!

[thaibeachlovers]

Totally agree, wish more people would be able to see this, unfortunately, humans are too stupid to see the big picture.

I must be one of the stupids because I think

when flooding is everywhere and only 50cm deep, everyone can save their possessions with the aid of a few bricks to stand everything on.

when flooding only covers one third of the surface area and the flooding in that area is 150cm deep, nothing will save your stuff.

So at the moment the decision would be between one third of the people losing everything they own, or all the people being inconvenienced.

And lets also face up to the fact that the flooded homes are now valueless, nobody will ever buy those homes. If everyone was flooded it wouldn't affect house values so dramatically.

I don't see that no one will buy those houses. If the multi billion flood protection scheme actually works, most concrete houses would be fine after the water has gone. It's not like European houses with plasterboard interior walls. One of my wife's relatives lives in a house with the tide mark from a previous flood 4 foot up the walls on the ground floor.

The house prices might drop, which would be a good thing, though.

What I want to know is what they're going to do with all those new cars in the Honda factory yard?

They are lost, and if Honda is well insured...insurances' premium will be more expensive soon!

I'd disagree that they are beyond salvage for an experienced mechanic. Modern anti corrosion treatment, plastic trim and the floods beng fresh water would indicate to me that they would be usable if one didn't mind going without carpet.

Obviously the company isn't going to salvage them, but perhaps they'll put them up for auction.

[TAWP]

Totally agree, wish more people would be able to see this, unfortunately, humans are too stupid to see the big picture.

I must be one of the stupids because I think

when flooding is everywhere and only 50cm deep, everyone can save their possessions with the aid of a few bricks to stand everything on.

when flooding only covers one third of the surface area and the flooding in that area is 150cm deep, nothing will save your stuff.

So at the moment the decision would be between one third of the people losing everything they own, or all the people being inconvenienced.

And lets also face up to the fact that the flooded homes are now valueless, nobody will ever buy those homes. If everyone was flooded it wouldn't affect house values so dramatically.

This reasoning is only theoretical since it isn't based on the reality of how the area isn't perfectly flat.