Posted on 11/19/2012 9:25:04 AM PST by Theoria
DAUPHIN ISLAND, Ala. — Even in the off season, the pastel beach houses lining a skinny strip of sand here are a testament to the good life.
They are also a monument to the generosity of the federal government.
The western end of this Gulf Coast island has proved to be one of the most hazardous places in the country for waterfront property. Since 1979, nearly a dozen hurricanes and large storms have rolled in and knocked down houses, chewed up sewers and water pipes and hurled sand onto the roads.
Yet time and again, checks from Washington have allowed the town to put itself back together.
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.
“We’re Americans, damn it,” said Robert S. Young, a North Carolina geologist who has studied the way communities like Dauphin Island respond to storms. “Retreat is a dirty word.”
This island community of roughly 1,300 year-round residents has become a symbol of that reflexive policy.
Like many other beachfront towns, Dauphin Island has benefited from the Stafford Act, a federal law that taps the United States Treasury for 75 percent or more of the cost of fixing storm-damaged infrastructure, like roads and utilities.
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
Interesting point, but not debatable w/o info. What is clear is that there are big winners in the transfer of payments from wealthy states to others.
I can see rebuilding/maintaining barrier islands and clearing navigable waterways, etc.
I can see national flood insurance covering a working farm flooded by a break in a river levy.
But I cannot see my tax dollars being used to repeatedly rebuild someone’s beach home or rental property on a sand bar in Hurricane Alley.
If I were to observe the country according to my own economic philosophy I would expect to see red states growing and blue states crashing and while there is some evidence of that there is also a lot of negative economic data from red states.
I might remind you the people getting social security and medicare paid into it. There’s many millions of others getting “entitlements” they’re damn well not entitled to. Illegals, anyone ?
Before we shaft the elderly, let’s shaft the parasites FIRST !
Even in inflation-adjusted dollars, they are being paid more than they put into it - even if they are among the subset of Social Security recipients who actually did pay in.
And that, of course, is by design.
The answer lies in demographics.
Compare MA and MS. Compare RI and AL. Compare VT and LA.
Most southeastern "red states" are a few percentage points away from becoming Maryland.
Blue states aren’t out performing the reds but their economies may just be larger. California is in debt, but it has an economy larger than France. Same with NY.
My data appears to be out of date. Wrong figures, but my point still stands.
Maybe. There’s a big difference between rebuilding an oil refinery and summer beach homes.
This isn’t about refineries or beach homes - those are covered by private insurance. This is about roads, bridges, power lines and phone lines.
(1) Coasts are not just areas for recreation, but they are essential for commerce.
Commerce, or free trade creates its own revenue--and areas of successful commerce has never had to rely on GOVERNMENT TAX MONEY to subsidize and build them up....New York, Chicago, Miami, etc. & even San Francisco (after its giant earthquake 100 years ago) were not built or rebuilt by government largess--rather BY their successful commerce.
(2) Coastal areas generate enormous tax revenues, in the form of property taxes, seaborne commerce and tourism.
GOOD! With all this locally generated revenue, there should be no need at all for the federal government to step in--and pay for things with taxes from people nowhere near those coastal areas. Infrastructure in such areas destroyed by natural disasters--if it needs to get rebuilt--should be rebuilt from LOCAL tax revenues and STATE (only if necessary) tax revenue...the bill, morally, should not be sent to Uncle Sam.
(3) Only a moron would argue that US coasts should be devoid of infrastructure and that such infrastructure should never be rebuilt - from a national security standpoint alone, this is foolish.
Who's arguing to make the coasts DEVOID of infrastructure? What about common sense though? If a bridge or levee or some other structure gets wiped out or damaged repeatedly, and it doesn't serve some compelling national interest (like a Navy base or an important road or something)---ONLY A MORON would argue that it SHOULD be rebuilt. Of course when Uncle Sam is there passing out money--lots of follies look like they need rebuilding, don't they?
(4) Areas of the US that are far from the coast experience tornados, wildfires, earthquakes, avalanches, blizzards, storms and flooding - yet one rarely hears complaints about internal regions receiving federal aid to rebuild their infrastructure.
Typically disasters in the same place inland don't occur that often...besides that, many of the victims of tornadoes, wildfires, earthquakes, avalanches, blizzards, storms and flooding DO NOT receive federal aid. It all depends.
I for one would like to rescind federal aid for most, if not all disasters, certainly of private property...as this is what the free market of insurance is for. If my house burns down tonight the Feds won't help me rebuild it--so why should I be forced to hand over money in federal taxes to help rebuild wealthy neighborhoods built in tinderbox-dry canyons of Southern California, just because it was a lot bigger fire that consumed hundreds of homes?
The same way on the coasts...if you're stupid enough to build a house on a sand bar, that wasn't even in the same place say 50 years ago, then if it gets washed away in a storm...well, that's just how the cookie crumbles. Morally, it is simply theft to expect other peoples money to pay for you to rebuild.
"Aid" like that--from money coerced by government from others (tax money)-- is anti-personal responsibility, anti-free-market, anti-conservative, and really fundamentally, anti-American.
The first great advocate of federal spending on commerce -cultivating internal improvements was President George Washington. He recognized their value. As should anyone who spends a few moments reflecting on human nature and logistics.
The Dutch have been spending centuries on their land reclamation systems for most of their country. Half of their area is less than 3 feet above sea level. They have about 13,000 square miles to work with, both above and below.
Louisiana has over 51,000 square miles to work with and most of it is not below sea level.
There is no shortage of elevated land in the US.
There is no shortage of elevated land in the EU - for example, France is only 25% as densely populated as the Netherlands.
Dutch citizens can move almost anywhere in Europe they want to, and never have to deal with land below sea level again.
Why don't they just abandon Zeeland before there is a repeat of the great flood of '53?
Thanks for the sarcasm. I wasn’t making a judgement, just a statement.
Challenge.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.