[E. Pluribus Unum]

Had there never been government-subsidized flood insurance, very little construction would have occurred in flood-plains.

Subsidize something, and you get more of it.

[Publius Valerius]

That’s true, but we generally like development. Development in places like New Orleans or Charleston, S.C. or, as mentioned in the article, the metro New York area, is generally a good thing. We do that through subsidies. What’s worse, though, is the people who bought in reliance on the subsidies only to have the rules changed halfway through, which has left them with a house that they can’t afford to own—because they can’t pay the flood insurance rates required by their bank—and they can’t sell because no one will buy it with the cost of flood insurance so high.

It’s a mess.

[publius911]

Had there never been government-subsidized flood insurance, very little construction would have occurred in flood-plains.

Not true.
There was extensive construction (entire towns) in flood plains along the coasts and major rivers, since the 19th century.

Long before government subsidized flood insurance.
The interesting question is, who pressured, campaigned and lobbied for that government handout? Rich people along the Eastern Seaboard

How has that worked out?