Posted on 09/11/2005 10:52:27 AM PDT by WestTexasWend
Some television viewers may have shed a tear with Sen. Trent Lott as the Mississippi Republican surveyed the heap of timber where his Pascagoula shoreline house once stood. But they should have cried for other reasons when President Bush promised Senator Lott "a fantastic new house" in the same place.
In the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, taxpayers are about to be milked again by one of the most foolish federal programs ever created. Federal flood insurance puts taxpayers on the hook for much of the flood damage to houses that have no business being built on flood plains.
American taxpayers subsidize federally backed private insurance for coastal houses vulnerable to flooding. Why? Because no sane private company would insure them without the government being involved to bail out the owners -- and because developers and the well-off, and sometimes politically powerful, people who own shoreline houses are in a position to push for and get such insurance. This is truly welfare for the rich.
The unfortunate consequences of the federal flood-insurance program are many. For one, the program supports the build-up of coastal areas -- and all the environmental degradation that that can involve. Visit any pleasant seaside town and observe that its older houses are generally away from the water, on higher land; the new McMansions are right on the beach. Many wouldn't be there were it not for federal flood insurance.
In transferring money from ordinary taxpayers to the beach-resort rich, this program lets the property owners continue to live close to the water -- storm after storm. A tempest destroys a house where no house should have been built? Not to worry! Taxpayers will help rebuild it!
Consider New Orleans. It is called the Crescent City because it once occupied only a crescent-shaped ridge of comparatively high land. The historic French Quarter and Garden District were spared the full wrath of Katrina's floods because the city's 18th Century founders had had no option but to build in this dry area.
But systems of levees allowed development on more and more low land. And such development was further encouraged by the availability of federal flood insurance.
It's a sad irony that many of the poor people living in the worst-flooded areas do not have federal flood insurance. Although priced well below what the market would charge, federal flood coverage does cost something. So, again, it's mainly the affluent who benefit from the program.
Private insurers do take risks in hurricane-prone regions, but only regarding wind damage. A game thus goes on wherever hurricanes strike: Property owners try to convince insurers that it was the wind, not the water, that demolished their buildings. Of course, if they have federal flood insurance, their worries are fewer.
It should sicken taxpayers to know that they are helping pay for expensive shoreline houses -- houses that degrade the environment and that only the rich can enjoy.
I agree with the basic premise of the article but not the crap about environmental degradation and bashing the wealthy.
Bush would be damned no matter what he said-- rebuild in the same spot, or not. In fact, he doesn't have the authority to decide whether Lott [or anyone else] can rebuild in the same location. What's he supposed to say? It's elected representatives who make the laws, and they don't want to upset their constituencies.
The most sensible thing to do is to treat living in flood plains the way we treat auto-insurance. You can't drive without insurance, and you shouldn't be allowed to live in a flood plain without insurance.
Of course, the government subsidizing it is a mistake.
So we're not supposed to rebuild the houses in NO either?
I agree with much of what this guy says about flood insurance, but there are many poor people that have collected over the years.
Those in river floods are usually poor, the majority of NO in heavily flooded districts don't belong to the rich and NO has to be the #! flood plane in the country.
It seems like we are getting a lot of that out of government lately. Farm subsidies, energy subsidies, flood insurance, etc.
I barely agree with a safety net welfare program for the poor. I would prefer that it be provided through churches and charities and if the government is going to fund anything it should be short-term and unpleasant.
I damn sure don't agree with transferring tax dollars from the middleclass to the wealthy.
This editorial makes far more sense than you'd expect coming from the land of Lincoln Chaffee...
Of course, the government subsidizing it is a mistake.
------
As always, but that is what BUYS VOTES! Politics is much more important than principle or what really is right for the country. For example, farm subsidies -- this is vote-buying socialism at its peak. Socialism sucks and it only weakens this country.
I read somewhere else where the Fed subsidy was on $250K, so McMansions = not allowed
I came up empty on a quick Google search. Can you find evidence of that?
This link is an official site for the National Flood Insurance Program. Liability is limited to actual cash value up to $250,000.
Fancy waterfront mansions are only covered up to that amount.
http://www.floodsmart.gov/floodsmart/pages/index.jsp
Yer fast !
Correct me if this statement is wrong: You can live outside a flood plain and still be susceptible to storm surge.
turns out we generally don't have an earthquake, flood, volcanic eruption, hurricane, tornado, etc in the same year so Ins Cos would be spreading risk.
Guess they didn't like the idea of private funding/admin. (experience/professionalism - NAH)
Just doesn't bring in the votes/feel good on election day nor provuide the pork of a new Dept.
Lest we forget:
http://www.reason.com/0403/fe.js.confessions.shtml
Neither do I. The thought bears repeating.
You are correct. The coverage max for Residential property is $250K. For commercial property, it's $500K.
However, in June of 2004, the NFIP came close to expiring. It was extended at the last minute, and now includes clauses that make those property owners who insist on rebuilding in high-risk areas such as the coast, cover a much heavier burden of the costs.
It is not a boon to the owners of "McMansions" (a term coined by the envious dems). Those who want more coverage than the $250K max, must find an insurer who will give them a private policy...and it will cost them a pretty bundle even if they are able to find one.
I despise media personnel who don't research before they post BS.
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.