View Single Post
Old 11-19-2009, 07:27 AM   #220
glatt
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 27,717
Quote:
Originally Posted by Redux View Post
I think your solution is a bit heavy handed.
I'm amazed to be saying it, but I agree with classicman. There's no point relocating people who are living in perfectly good houses, but once the place goes underwater, it's is the height of foolishness to pay them to rebuild houses below sea level again. The place is a bowl surrounded by water on three sides. It relies on pumps to keep floodwater out, and when there is a storm, the electricity to those pumps is lost. It's just about the dumbest thing I've ever seen.

If people want to live in the flood zone, that's fine. It's a free country. But the government shouldn't be giving them one nickle to do it, and the insurance companies should set their rates at an appropriate level to take into account the extreme risks they are taking on.

But then I also think that people shouldn't be able to get insurance for houses on barrier islands. Or at a minimum, they should have rates that reflect the increased risk there.

California is not a good example, because construction standards can make a house able to withstand earthquake damage.
glatt is offline   Reply With Quote