A rational voice. The sooner the Feds get out of flood insurance, the better. Those who choose to build in flood prone areas need to bear the burden of the risks of doing so. The best way to monetize those risks are for the free market to determine insurance rates, not the Feds with tax supported subsidies. Then when those people who are considering building in flood prone areas, they will be better informed to understand the true costs. Economics 101. A course our last President never took.
Two centuries ago, travel was done largely by waterway or wagon. So, all population centers were mostly near waterways or lakes. Advances in means of transportation allow us to live farther away from water. So, housing in flood prone zones should be gradually abandoned to return to open space used for parks, non-essential roadways, or for flood resistant commercial warehouses. This phaseout of flood risk to minimal levels should take decades, and could be aided by local government buyouts of private property to return the land to open space for recreation that does not require water damageable property.
Every state, democratic or republican-leaning, holds their hands out the exact moment they experience a disaster in their state. Tell me, what will states do when their budgets are already stretched thin to provide care for their citizens in need?
The FEMA budget is a miniscule amount of the total federal budget. Something like .03% to help people pick up the pieces after floods, fires, hurricanes, tornados, and so on. Slashing this budget has nothing to do with fixing the deficit and everything to do with politics.
Holy cow, take a picture, do we actually agree on something!?
I already do pay for their budget. Every tax-payer does. Their budget is nothing. Out of the 5 or 6 thousand I will pay in federal income taxes this year, 16 bucks would go to FEMA. In the wake of one of the worst hurricanes this country has seen in a decade, where need will be the greatest, how can you argue against a few bucks to help out your fellow man?
Well sheriff, I’ll pardon you this time, but as populations grow and paved & roofed surfaces expand, I suspect many of these events will fall in the category of “unusual, expensive cat events”.
With growth of the population in a CONTROLLED manner that reduces and mitigates exposure to Nat Haz’s, the increased exposure volume will reduce the risk / variance of the loss exposure, allowing private insurance, reinsurance, and cat bonds / ILSs to cover the property remaining in flood zones. NFIP could be reduced to a very severe excess cover administered by local governments and reinsured by the Fed Govt. and/ or Cat Bond / ILS pools.
You have no idea. What is population growth in “a CONTROLLED manner?” Population controls, making people live places they don’t want? Having the government buy all the land in coastal areas and relocating people? That’s about 40% of the population by the way. I’m guessing the answer is a bunch of nonsense all dependent on denying climate change and almost 100% of all climate scientists and published work.
Houston had a once in 500 years flood in 2015,and then again in 2016, and now this. The only 2 answers are mitigating climate change before it’s too late, or more destruction.
August 28, 2017 at 12:19 pm
Rebecca says:
Like or Dislike:
3
0
So we can no longer afford to help our citizens after a disaster but we can afford to send millions to other countries for their disasters, food relief, war relief etc. Take care of all but our own??? Something is wrong with that picture.
Your statement/ question is a mis-characterization of the facts.
The proposal is to force local communities to bear more of the costs so they are FORCED to reduce the risk of natural disasters via mitigation or elimination of the risk of FLOODS over time. OTHERWISE, repeated flooding of specific areas will drain resources from citizens in other areas that behave responsibly rather than rely on bailouts from other parts of the state or the Fed.
RE-READ the first THREE PARAGRAPHS, instead of reacting to the mis-leading title!
A good start would be to enforce the repayment of FEMA grants.
A rational voice. The sooner the Feds get out of flood insurance, the better. Those who choose to build in flood prone areas need to bear the burden of the risks of doing so. The best way to monetize those risks are for the free market to determine insurance rates, not the Feds with tax supported subsidies. Then when those people who are considering building in flood prone areas, they will be better informed to understand the true costs. Economics 101. A course our last President never took.
Two centuries ago, travel was done largely by waterway or wagon. So, all population centers were mostly near waterways or lakes. Advances in means of transportation allow us to live farther away from water. So, housing in flood prone zones should be gradually abandoned to return to open space used for parks, non-essential roadways, or for flood resistant commercial warehouses. This phaseout of flood risk to minimal levels should take decades, and could be aided by local government buyouts of private property to return the land to open space for recreation that does not require water damageable property.
This would be very good. However, the developers and contractors who pay off the cities and states to build in these areas will never go away.
I’ll just have to growl at them and show my teeth. ;)
And so the slow decline of the Roman empire continues…..when the empire can no longer afford to protect it’s citizens from external threats.
More dangerous still are the Fake News cry baby sore losers who are trying to undermine this country and instill anarchy.
Every state, democratic or republican-leaning, holds their hands out the exact moment they experience a disaster in their state. Tell me, what will states do when their budgets are already stretched thin to provide care for their citizens in need?
The FEMA budget is a miniscule amount of the total federal budget. Something like .03% to help people pick up the pieces after floods, fires, hurricanes, tornados, and so on. Slashing this budget has nothing to do with fixing the deficit and everything to do with politics.
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Holy cow, take a picture, do we actually agree on something!?
I already do pay for their budget. Every tax-payer does. Their budget is nothing. Out of the 5 or 6 thousand I will pay in federal income taxes this year, 16 bucks would go to FEMA. In the wake of one of the worst hurricanes this country has seen in a decade, where need will be the greatest, how can you argue against a few bucks to help out your fellow man?
Seriously, 16 dollars is 4 cents a day…
Pushing the costs back to the communities exposed to nat hazs creates incentives to mitigate risks, rather than subsidize and perpetuate them.
I only favor LOANS or a Fed bailout for very unusual, expensive cat events.
Sherriff, Harvey is it! This is too big for anyone to handle.
Well sheriff, I’ll pardon you this time, but as populations grow and paved & roofed surfaces expand, I suspect many of these events will fall in the category of “unusual, expensive cat events”.
With growth of the population in a CONTROLLED manner that reduces and mitigates exposure to Nat Haz’s, the increased exposure volume will reduce the risk / variance of the loss exposure, allowing private insurance, reinsurance, and cat bonds / ILSs to cover the property remaining in flood zones. NFIP could be reduced to a very severe excess cover administered by local governments and reinsured by the Fed Govt. and/ or Cat Bond / ILS pools.
You have no idea. What is population growth in “a CONTROLLED manner?” Population controls, making people live places they don’t want? Having the government buy all the land in coastal areas and relocating people? That’s about 40% of the population by the way. I’m guessing the answer is a bunch of nonsense all dependent on denying climate change and almost 100% of all climate scientists and published work.
Houston had a once in 500 years flood in 2015,and then again in 2016, and now this. The only 2 answers are mitigating climate change before it’s too late, or more destruction.
So we can no longer afford to help our citizens after a disaster but we can afford to send millions to other countries for their disasters, food relief, war relief etc. Take care of all but our own??? Something is wrong with that picture.
Where did you read that we aren’t helping our citizens? This story discusses a redux in Federal funding.
Your statement/ question is a mis-characterization of the facts.
The proposal is to force local communities to bear more of the costs so they are FORCED to reduce the risk of natural disasters via mitigation or elimination of the risk of FLOODS over time. OTHERWISE, repeated flooding of specific areas will drain resources from citizens in other areas that behave responsibly rather than rely on bailouts from other parts of the state or the Fed.
RE-READ the first THREE PARAGRAPHS, instead of reacting to the mis-leading title!
“RE-READ the first THREE PARAGRAPHS, instead of reacting to the mis-leading title!”
That’s rich coming from a guy who posts links based off the URL and without reading the content to see if it backs up his claims or not.
“all but our own” = severe, catastrophic hyperbole.