Poll: Open Bangkok Flood Gates Yes Or No?

[monkfish]

It's a difficult decision but has to be made by someone, so I am just wondering what the TV Expat community view is.

Please take a look at the map below and together with news, personal experience, information maybe from friends family of those effected please try to make a decision.

The image will change over time and for updated high resolution images go here:

http://www.gistda.or.th/gistda_n/

This is a private poll and nobody knows what you vote

I wish very good luck to everyone who is badly effected by the floods as many of my own friends and family are and currently out of work.

[monkfish]

Would also like to add that if central Bangkok does flood my own business will be effected.

I really hope it is not the case but this is not a normal situation it's a national catastrophe.

My vote is YES.

[balo]

Of course not , the answer is NO

[cdnvic]

Typo in topic description fixed

[thaicbr]

I say NO. For many reasons but mainly because i believe it will do MORE long term harm to the country than it will alleviate.

Also on the outskirts of Bangkok there are say 3 million people in Bangkok there are 9 million how do you propose to feed and supply drinking water to them when you flood them.. All the tap water will be destroyed.

How do you propose to refill the shops with food? There are more poorer people in BKK than rich people.

HOW ARE YOU GOING TO PROVIDE FOR THEM?

PS: Where i am it's dry now but in the next few days it will be flooded. I'm lucky i'm moving further west.

Oh and the bkk flood gates are open but the whole system was not designed for northern runoff it was designed for catchment canal for excess rain fall most need pumping out into the chao phraya or in some cases west to the tha chin.

pps. start getting your head around the fact that the water is creeping towards the sea. the reason it's now going slower is because the land it's travelling on is pretty much the same level.

a very straightforward way to see what is going on.

[richard_smith237]

thaicbr +1

An intellegent 'big picture' response to this issue.

The only logic I see from those who say open the gates is 'we had it, Bkk deserves it'.... Or 'if Bkk takes a foot of water we'll drop from 3ft to 2ft....

The issue I see is the huge amount of people living in central Bangkok (as thaicbr mentioned) most of whom are not wealthy... who will provide them with food and water? what about the additional industries currently operating but which would be flood damaged.

If Bangkok were to become damaged to such a point whereby 'it' (as a city) became in operable it would further devastate the countries economy and delay the recovery of the country on a whole.

That said, a trickle of water (i.e up to a foot) can't do much damage, but who and how is that controlled? I don't believe it can be controlled that well.

[monkfish]

thaicbr +1

An intellegent 'big picture' response to this issue.

The only logic I see from those who say open the gates is 'we had it, Bkk deserves it'.... Or 'if Bkk takes a foot of water we'll drop from 3ft to 2ft....

The issue I see is the huge amount of people living in central Bangkok (as thaicbr mentioned) most of whom are not wealthy... who will provide them with food and water? what about the additional industries currently operating but which would be flood damaged.

If Bangkok were to become damaged to such a point whereby 'it' (as a city) became in operable it would further devastate the countries economy and delay the recovery of the country on a whole.

That said, a trickle of water (i.e up to a foot) can't do much damage, but who and how is that controlled? I don't believe it can be controlled that well.

Do 12 million people really live in that central Bangkok protected zone?

Does that zone represent the entire Bangkok population?

[whybother]

Do 12 million people really live in that central Bangkok protected zone?

Does that zone represent the entire Bangkok population?

Do you think it's worth flooding 6 million?

The current number of people directly affected is about 2.5 - 3 million. Do you want it doubled?

[Ulysses G.]

I voted no. Flooding central Bangkok would make everything much worse.

[saengsureeya]

Simple choise:

3 months of flooded areas North, West and East of Bangkok or

3 maybe 4 days of "disaster" flowing through Bangkok; the rest of the water will find its way in a natural way.

My answer: YES......Let it flow!

[Fookhaht]

Flood downtown, and shut the mouths of the "poor vs. rich" whiners. YES

[jackr]

Simple choise:

3 months of flooded areas North, West and East of Bangkok or

3 maybe 4 days of "disaster" flowing through Bangkok; the rest of the water will find its way in a natural way.

How did you work that one out then? It's a small gradient and would still take ages unless perhaps you also believe that a 1,000 boats would help.

A big no, but just as well this type of decision is not up to a bunch of online muppets, eh!

[gregb]

My house is innundated under 2.7 meters of water in Pathumthani. There is no value in opening the flood gates now. Everything I own is already destroyed.

What the victims need right now is money, and lots of it. I've suffered over a million baht in losses.

The government should save Bangkok, but add a property tax and a rental tax on everyone in the city who was saved from the flooding. That money should be distributed to those who have lost their houses in the interest of saving Bangkok.

Everyone should do their part in this crisis. Those who are dry should not be flooded. But they should be forced to pay for their luck. That will spread the pain while minimizing the long term damage.

[thaicbr]

My house is innundated under 2.7 meters of water in Pathumthani. There is no value in opening the flood gates now. Everything I own is already destroyed.

What the victims need right now is money, and lots of it. I've suffered over a million baht in losses.

The government should save Bangkok, but add a property tax and a rental tax on everyone in the city who was saved from the flooding. That money should be distributed to those who have lost their houses in the interest of saving Bangkok.

Everyone should do their part in this crisis. Those who are dry should not be flooded. But they should be forced to pay for their luck. That will spread the pain while minimizing the long term damage.

by your reasoning every body in Pattaya and kanchanburi and ....etc should pay because they are not flooded. It is NOT the people of Bangkoks fault it is nature AND the ineffective politicians who are at fault.

Also the guy that said BKK would only get flooded for 3-4 days...Come on get real BKK is pretty much flat.

By the way sorry to hear about your house.

[Fookhaht]

My house is innundated under 2.7 meters of water in Pathumthani. There is no value in opening the flood gates now. Everything I own is already destroyed.

What the victims need right now is money, and lots of it. I've suffered over a million baht in losses.

The government should save Bangkok, but add a property tax and a rental tax on everyone in the city who was saved from the flooding. That money should be distributed to those who have lost their houses in the interest of saving Bangkok.

Everyone should do their part in this crisis. Those who are dry should not be flooded. But they should be forced to pay for their luck. That will spread the pain while minimizing the long term damage.

The gov't just announced a 30K THB payment to people whose houses are damaged/destroyed. Any idea if that will also go to expatriates whose homes were destroyed/damaged? Many of them are better off than most average Thais, but not all. I know, it's still a pittance.

[jybkk]

I said it in other threads but letting inner Bangkok flood is a bit like intentionally catching your neighbor's cold to show support.

Doesn't help him much but now it's the two of you who are sick.

Many seem to believe water is "stuck" north of Bangkok. Stabilization and even decrease of the level of water in the provinces indicate that water indeed isn't blocked. Additionally, the FROC announced that 550 million cubic meters of water are drained to the sea every day. Out of the 16 billion cubic meters, 10 already went past Bangkok. I know they don't have much credibility, but that's the best estimation we have, and so far, I haven't heard independent expert say otherwise.

But this might be difficult to observe in some basin areas, where the water look like stagnating. That's probably the reason for a lot of anger.

Another argument is that "lightly" flooding Bangkok would alleviate the areas already flooded without damaging too much the capital.

This is unrealistic because if you look at the area already flooded compared to the size of inner Bangkok, you realize that you'd have to probably bring a meter of water in the streets to lower the level of already flooded zones by maybe 20cm. Basically you'd damage a lot more homes (probably double of what is already flooded) and really essential infrastructure without bringing a significant improvement to the locations already flooded (going from 2m or 1.8m in your living room won't really help you much).

It is also very unlikely that you'd manage to flood all the city with the same levels, since there are up to 4m elevation differences between some areas. And the lowest lying areas happen to be mostly populated by medium to low income thais living townhouses (for example Wangthonglang and Saphan Sung). This represents several millions potential flood refugees to add to the list.

In short: water isn't stuck north of Bangkok, it's going through, and you can't realistically hope to let it go through the city without doubling the amount of property damage and refugees...

[impulse]

I wonder how many insurance companies will go bankrupt and not pay out because they don't have the reserves to weather a disaster of this magnitude. One thing is certain- it would be more if Central Bangkok were to get flooded.

It would be a little sad retribution if opening the flood gates was the straw that broke the camel's back- driving a few more insurance companies bankrupt, keeping them from paying out on the claims of the rural folks who thought they'd benefit by opening the floodgates.

I don't have a moral or ethical opinion on the matter- I just don't know enough. But I can't see where a few billion dollars of additional damage can do anyone any good.

[beano2274]

As far as I am aware Flooding is not covered in Insurance policies for houses, just fire. (from people who I work with who have lost their houses recently).