The end of the second of those articles is where the answers lie. The primary policy mechanism in this area is the national flood insurance program. Poor people tend not to own homes and while federal law requires flood insurance to get a loan from a federally chartered lender, there are loopholes through alternative financing. The overall goal is that the primary source of flood relief should be through flood insurance premiums.
The other goal is to use the program to incentivize flood mitigation and control measures like levies and drainage system, local building code requirements, demolishing, moving or elevating homes, and other FEMA requirements. Some of these efforts reduce risk and lower premiums. The horror!
Most of those articles are about supplemental flooding relief programs that are relatively small, managed mostly at the state level, and probably are hit and miss. One point the author probably finds cruel though is that FEMA is probably pretty ambivalent about whether every building gets rebuilt.
“Beachfront homes†intimates voluntary risk incurred by those most able to afford that.
This outdated notion is now largely negated by current unforeseen catastrophic events.
Quote:
“HUD disaster aid has become more vital as climate change intensifies storms, floods and wildfires “
Because that is the way government works. Name me a program where 100% of the funds go to the intended purpose? Welfare? Nope.
Infrastructure? Nope. etc
The snarky complaint shows naivete. I am on an extended stay in Naples, FL, where Ian did great damage. You can start a drive in Ft Myers Beach, and travel down through Bonita, Naples and around to Marco Island. Right in front of your eyes you will see that 90%+ of the damage is not to “beachfront properties of the 1%,” (Port Royal being the only real exception) but to rather plain looking structures clearly not owed by rich people. In fact, a great number of Hispanic areas with rather shabby houses. And apparently the benefit is capped, so the dollars will follow the headcount.
The articles are a naive cheap shot, failing to acknowledge the way the very organization they adore – government – works in many venues everyday. People need to look in the mirror, and consider their voting philosophy.
Its the way government works because wealthy people have the most influence on government. Its not just a coincidence that the insurance plans were designed so that they would benefit the wealthy and exclude those whoo are not. Yes, sometimes the benefit is capped, so the $10 million house right on the beach gets the same (or more) money as the one blocks away.
As the saying goes, it’s what’s legal that’s shocking.
I was noodling around about posting on that very subject. IMO that’s the real lesson from last year.
The end of the second of those articles is where the answers lie. The primary policy mechanism in this area is the national flood insurance program. Poor people tend not to own homes and while federal law requires flood insurance to get a loan from a federally chartered lender, there are loopholes through alternative financing. The overall goal is that the primary source of flood relief should be through flood insurance premiums.
The other goal is to use the program to incentivize flood mitigation and control measures like levies and drainage system, local building code requirements, demolishing, moving or elevating homes, and other FEMA requirements. Some of these efforts reduce risk and lower premiums. The horror!
Most of those articles are about supplemental flooding relief programs that are relatively small, managed mostly at the state level, and probably are hit and miss. One point the author probably finds cruel though is that FEMA is probably pretty ambivalent about whether every building gets rebuilt.
Daddy Warbucks is always very appreciative, while those others tend to be less so, even resentful.
“Beachfront homes†intimates voluntary risk incurred by those most able to afford that.
This outdated notion is now largely negated by current unforeseen catastrophic events.
Quote:
“HUD disaster aid has become more vital as climate change intensifies storms, floods and wildfires “
Because that is the way government works. Name me a program where 100% of the funds go to the intended purpose? Welfare? Nope.
Infrastructure? Nope. etc
The snarky complaint shows naivete. I am on an extended stay in Naples, FL, where Ian did great damage. You can start a drive in Ft Myers Beach, and travel down through Bonita, Naples and around to Marco Island. Right in front of your eyes you will see that 90%+ of the damage is not to “beachfront properties of the 1%,” (Port Royal being the only real exception) but to rather plain looking structures clearly not owed by rich people. In fact, a great number of Hispanic areas with rather shabby houses. And apparently the benefit is capped, so the dollars will follow the headcount.
The articles are a naive cheap shot, failing to acknowledge the way the very organization they adore – government – works in many venues everyday. People need to look in the mirror, and consider their voting philosophy.
“HUD disaster aid has become more vital as climate change intensifies storms, floods and wildfires “
Actually, this has not happened. Hurricanes, in particular, are down in frequency and intensity.
A warmer planet would be better for everyone, especially wildlife.
Its the way government works because wealthy people have the most influence on government. Its not just a coincidence that the insurance plans were designed so that they would benefit the wealthy and exclude those whoo are not. Yes, sometimes the benefit is capped, so the $10 million house right on the beach gets the same (or more) money as the one blocks away.
Steve