this post was submitted on 30 Aug 2023
636 points (95.7% liked)

World News

39096 readers
3454 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.


Lemmy World Partners

News !news@lemmy.world

Politics !politics@lemmy.world

World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world


Recommendations

For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] solstice@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

At least with the house on the cliff example it's the insurance companies paying for it though right? Hopefully their premiums were priced appropriately and the insurer doesn't raise everyone else's rates to cover their folly. I've no doubt they would if that's the case, but I presume their actuaries did a decent job computing that risk so who knows.

[–] deadbeef79000@lemmy.nz 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I'm fairly sure, but have no evidence, that the argument is "the council approved these plans therefore it's the council's fault my house is falling off the cliff". Floating over the fact that the council approved a plan where there was 50m of vegetation securing the cliff edge... All of which has mysteriously disappeared over the last 15 years.

Also apparently caveat emptor is only for poor people.

[–] solstice@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

What council? Wouldn't their insurance be on the hook then? Eventually somewhere an insurer has written a policy for that $10m cliff side house. Per my previous point, hopefully their actuaries accurately priced the risk.

[–] deadbeef79000@lemmy.nz 1 points 1 year ago

Sorry. I lapsed into some specifics of my locale. Didn't realise I was in world news.

We have city councils. They are responsible for approving building plan/permits. They tend to be either unless pedantic or grossly negligent.

There's been a trend here to blame that council for when a property becomes uninhabitable. E.g. by a cliff face eroding over time, accelerated by actions of the property owner.