Some folks are having a hard time grasping what I am saying.
I realize that some areas along the coast are more at risk than others. Some of the lower elevation areas that are easily flooded even during heavy rains, should be off limits.
Do you like spending 5-25% more for your home insurance based on the idea people have made poor choices along the coast?
Should whole neighborhoods we know are going to be destroyed, be populated?
I’m not advocating no homes be along the coast at all.
I am advocating for using better judgement and also stronger building codes in areas that are not just “at risk”, but “certain to fail”.
I might be in favor of the federal government drastically raising flood insurance rates on the idiot luxury class folks who populate Fire Island, NY, or Nantucket, or Provincetown. But my point, to which you were responding, was that the problem in Houston isn’t that people built in river valleys, but fifty inches of rain. If you then write about “idiots” who don’t live “inland,” pardon anyone for thinking you’re talking about the sort of places that are as vulnerable as Houston, which make up the entire Eastern and Gulf seaboards.
Yep.
Thousands of arguments exactly like this after Katrina.
We simply must use better judgment in where we build. Not sustainable to rebuild some areas time and time again.