You should read the whole article, but if you're lazy, here's the gist:
Across the nation, tens of billions of tax dollars have been spent on subsidizing coastal reconstruction in the aftermath of storms, usually with little consideration of whether it actually makes sense to keep rebuilding in disaster-prone areas. If history is any guide, a large fraction of the federal money allotted to New York, New Jersey and other states recovering from Hurricane Sandy — an amount that could exceed $30 billion — will be used the same way.
Tax money will go toward putting things back as they were, essentially duplicating the vulnerability that existed before the hurricane.
...
Lately, scientists, budget-conscious lawmakers and advocacy groups across the political spectrum have argued that these subsidies waste money, put lives at risk and make no sense in an era of changing climate and rising seas.
...
"The best thing that could possibly come out of Sandy is if the political establishment was willing to say, 'Let's have a conversation about how we do this differently the next time,'" said Dr. Young, a coastal geologist who directs the Program for the Study of Developed Shorelines at Western Carolina University. “We need to identify those areas — in advance — that it no longer makes sense to rebuild.”
"We simply can’t go on subsidizing enormous numbers of people to live in areas that are prone to huge natural disasters," said Eli Lehrer, the president of the conservative R Street Institute...
This is what I've been saying forever! Why are people building homes in places likely to get damaged, and then taking public money to rebuild them only so they can get damaged again? I mean, I believe in everybody's freedom to do whatever they want (within reason), but at some point they should do it at their own risk.
 |
| But not at your beach house. |
but if those places weren't rebuilt (and I agree that it seems kind of stupid), then what would happen to all those people? they'd have to move somewhere and frankly, I can't handle any more people in LA.
ReplyDelete(but more importantly, they would end up on gov't financial assistance as their jobs were lost due to non-rebuilding and they have no place to live) so in reality, isn't it probably about the same amount of money?
ReplyDelete1. Don't worry about crowding more people into your city... LA is not really the model of sustainability, and if I were the one approving the use of the money nobody would be relocated to LA. There's no water, there are constant fires, and when it rains too much, there's flooding and landslides. Not to mention the earthquakes.
ReplyDelete2. I don't think people will have to move/rebuild their houses very far away - they just need to move far enough away from the coast that their house won't get destroyed every few years.
3. Half those people don't need to move anyway - their coastal homes are their vacation homes. I have no pity for people who lose vacation homes.
4. I think i'm in a bad mood. "I have no pity for X" sounds pretty harsh.
Cali earthquakes. New Orleans and the generally-sinking Gulf Coast. All your coastal stuff. Commonly flooding rivers. Lots of people live in places like this. Wildfire-prone areas.
ReplyDeleteI feel as though if you're willing to pay to insure it, fine. You have those insurance issues like now about how this was both 'storm and flood' so it isn't covered. But yeah. In general, what % of humanity lives somewhere you don't approve of for natural disaster reasons? I would suggest it's quite hi.
Oh, I think people should be free to live wherever they want. I just don't think public funds should be used to help people rebuild houses that everybody was pretty sure would be destroyed at some point.
ReplyDeleteAnd, I must admit, earthquakes are different from floods and storms and general ocean craziness. People can build more or less earthquake-proof houses, but they haven't managed to (yet?) build houses that won't flood, or won't sink, in places where it was easily foreseen that flooding or sinking would likely occur. Like...NEXT TO THE OCEAN.
Theoretically, I completely agree with you.
ReplyDeletePractically, however, I think that to a certain extent this is one of the functions of government. At some point, not to assist, while certainly eliminate the moral hazard issues, etc, would just be too cruel.
I didn't read the article closely and don't know the details of this, but at the very least I'd expect these funds aren't rebuilding second homes and the like.
Also, my grandma's been here for two weeks now. She evac'd from Long Island after the storm and she didn't have any electricity and they were having trouble keeping her warm. Back now, but it took awhile. I guess we'll send her home next Wednesday, but it's been great getting to spend time with her away from my insane aunt.
ReplyDeleteAnd I've just opted to refinance my mortgage (again). But that's totally off topic.
Oh, I think we should help people whose lives have been devastated by storms absolutely. I just don't think we should do so in a way that doesn't mitigate future problems.
ReplyDeleteAnd happy times with grandma, yay.
ReplyDeleteDid you watch the Dustbowl documentary on PBS? Was watching that with grandma last night. Pretty grim.
ReplyDeleteBut I did recognize one of the songs on the soundtrack playing softly in the background - Texas Shorty and John Hartford's 'Georgia Boys' - and what a great choice - it's a favorite tune of mine.
I guess I feel as though there will always be disasters. And it's politically very hard to have hard long-term planning decisions after incidents like this to prevent things better - but how well can you prevent these things anyway?
Politics ruin everything.
ReplyDeleteOn topic.
ReplyDelete"Protect, Redesign, Rebuild, Elevate, Relocate and Retreat"
ReplyDeleteI like that
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteHomeowners and businesses should be responsible for purchasing their own flood insurance on the private market, if they can find it. If they can’t, then the market is telling them that where they live is too dangerous. If they choose to live in harm’s way, they should bear the cost of that risk — not the taxpayers. Government’s primary role is ensuring the safety of its citizens, so the government’s subsidizing of risky behavior is completely backward.
ReplyDeleteCouldn't agree more!
Me too!
ReplyDeleteGood radio piece about storm flooding in your city.
ReplyDelete