[gatorfast]

Why did they have to burn it down? Why not just walk away and let it eventually fall off the cliff?

[PINeely]

Originally Posted by gatorfast

Why did they have to burn it down? Why not just walk away and let it eventually fall off the cliff?

They're probably worried about kids playing in it and getting killed or something.

[gtron]

or heroin junkies!

[PINeely]

Originally Posted by gtron

or heroin junkies!

That would be a nice heroin hotel!

[TXSTYLE]

From what I understand, the neighbors were complaining of a "vacant and deemed unlivable residence" continuing to sit near their high priced homes. I can understand.

[M_Six]

Now they have a "vacant and deemed unlivable" hole near their high priced homes.

[grimlock]

How is burning it a good idea?

[Kwando]

Originally Posted by grimlock

How is burning it a good idea?

Did you not read this thread? It was probably the quickest and safest way to get rid of it.


The fire is also a metaphor for the neighbouring home values.

[Efthreeoh]

This is why you carry professional liability insurance if you are a civil engineer...

[deadmn1337]

If you guys haven't read the articles on this. They burned the house as the insurance company wasnt going to pay for anything and it cost $50k less to burn the house and clean up than to let it fall off, possibly harming someone/boat below.

[Rookie]

I was watching this live as well and also have been following this story on the news. I think they figured it would be alot easier and safer to pick up the burnt debris with a long arm excavator instead of fishing it all out of the water. I know they said the controlled burn was going to cost the home owner around 50k versus over 250k cleanup if the house fell into the water. Now they are going after their insurance company for fire damage, however, the last time i checked putting bales of hay covered in diesel fuel in your attic and lighting them on fire is arson lol. Curious to see what happens with this.

[M_Six]

Seriously. You can't burn down your own property and then put in a fire insurance claim.

[PINeely]

Originally Posted by Rookie

I was watching this live as well and also have been following this story on the news. I think they figured it would be alot easier and safer to pick up the burnt debris with a long arm excavator instead of fishing it all out of the water. I know they said the controlled burn was going to cost the home owner around 50k versus over 250k cleanup if the house fell into the water. Now they are going after their insurance company for fire damage, however, the last time i checked putting bales of hay covered in diesel fuel in your attic and lighting them on fire is arson lol. Curious to see what happens with this.

LOL

That should go well.

[MDamman003]

they did a controlled burn up at our place in Northern Michigan. The house next to where we were building ours was the one they burned. There was a stake with an orange piece of tape at the top of it sitting not even making this up probably between 1 and 2 feet away from the side of this house they were burning. The stick wasn't even touched. It is crazy how they can do that. My dad was standing 3 feet away at one point with one of the fireman during the burn taking pictures of it.

[MFL]

When in doubt, over-insure

[KingOfJericho]

Living in a flood zone, I've made every effort to over-insure. This is a prime example of why that is necessary.