Art

[Russ Bellinis]

I think there is a difference between judging the benefit as being worth the hassle of repairing damage. What I was getting at is a mind set that may be unique to rich folks living in California. We had a housing development in the hills of Orange County. The developer built 3/4 million $ homes at the bottom of the hill and million$ and multi-million $ homes on top of the hill. Then they discovered that the hill was not stable. The really expensive houses on top of the hill slid down the hill and destroyed the merely expensive houses at the bottom. The developer lost nothing because the County signed off on the projects, but the people who bought are out of luck because the County found some loop hole to get out of responsibility. They also are prohibited from rebuilding, but the insurance companies refused to cover the losses because it was caused by a natural disaster. I could take you along the beaches of So Cal and show you hill sides that are eroding out from under houses. The houses are not in danger of falling right now, but they have lost 1/2 of their back yards over the course of the last 50 years. They are sitting there, perched on a cliff, hoping that someone will figure out how to stop the erosion before their house succumbs to the elements. That first house in the picture that is 3/4 suspended in air, would have fallen long ago. If you build in such a place, there is no "hassle" of repairing damage to out weigh the benefit of living there. One day there is simply nothing left to repair and no land left to build on.