BigBallinStalin wrote:I don't really sympathize with this whole situation.
I flip on the news and from word of mouth, people indirectly tell me to feel bad about it. But I won't. I can empathize with them (of course, my emotional understanding is limited. I mean, the worst I felt was from Hurricane Katrina which killed a few acquaintances, financially ruined the lives of a couple good friends, and damage my family's house which was fully covered by the insurance).
But really, if one chooses to live near an earthquake and tsunami prone area, then they should be expected to deal with the potential consequences of their own decisions. Sure, there's the "limitations" of choice, but really it's what people value. Obviously, those who continue to live in areas that are prone to natural disasters (like New Orleans) do so because they value living in such an environment more so than living somewhere else. So, it's still their choice to live there.
Natty covered part of it, but you have to realize that NO ONE is out of an earthquake zone. Some areas are more prone, but no area is immune. In Japan, the entire country is an earthquake zone. Are you truly suggesting that they simply give up the entire country?
Second, every area has some disaster potential. i have the least sympathy for flood victims because unlike Earthquakes, which are very difficult to engineer against or predict, floods are almost 100% predictable. Not exactly when, but where. AND, it is relatively easy (compared to earthquakes) to plan against it. Katrina, ironically enough was one of the exceptions because so many people were flat out encouraged to move into previous flood zones by the Corps of Engineers with the promise of levi protection. That, and many folks of color (black, creole, etc.) were plain refused the ability to live anywhere else but the places whites rejected.. this even into the 60's.
I DO think that we need to modify the US disaster insurance program. I see no reason why I should have to bear a large portion of insurance burden for New Orleans or CA. That said, as I noted above, and as natty noted, its a lot more complicated than that.
Among other issues, you have been an eager proponent of "if there are no jobs.. move to where they are". The truth is jobs often are in these disaster areas. New Orleans is a busy area because it is a port. Ironically enough, note that the old New Orleans portions survived. Why? Because people there knew about floods and did not rely on, could not rely on things like levis. (setting aside the people of color issue, which has to be counted as a different issue entirely). In many cases, there are things other than simply building levis that would make areas far more flood resistant AND cause less environmental damage. But, even now, people lean toward levis because they are cheaper and quicker and people somehow feel they understand them better.
What would I like to see?
Flood insurance in particular would only cover the initial loss. As natty indicated, many people did not have a choice, still really do not. So, to penalize them now, when they have essentially been given a "promise" (moral hazard, but it was there) of restoration, is not right. HOWEVER, they will not be allowed to rebuild. Or, if they do the new structure will not be rebuilt. This should be combined with a property "buy back" program. These areas might be eventually open for agriculture, parks or other "soft" uses that do not harm and perhaps benefit the public good (note, I mean not just parks, but breeding areas for fish, wildlife and such along with agricultural uses). It WILL cost money up front and that might seem a bad bargain. However, if you look back to Yosemite and Yellowstone, you see that they, too were considered to not be the best of bargains initially. Thank Heavans Teddy Roosevelt, etc had the foresight to save them for us. AND, note, I am talking about areas that truly should not ever have been built upon (not without some serious modification to the structures). Areas protected by levis and dams would be fully insured and protected, but in the case of levis more serious consideration will go into whether these should be restored. In New Orleans, for example, the decision was made to allow some areas to remain flood zones. I am not up to speed no the nitty gritty details, but I support the general idea that too much was done in the 1950's. The lake should not have bee cut off as it was. I leave the details up to those who live there and have expertise now, but the general idea is good.
Dams, of course are a tad different. We do very much depend on dams for our water, electricity, etc. AND, they actually create a risk that did not, historically exist. Any damage from a dam failure should be fully covered because it was caused by people. This also includes some areas that never flooded historically, but now do because of levis (parts of the upper Mississippi, for example, fall intot this category).
Anyway, that type of a plan makes more sense than a simple "tought luck, your own fault".
