Quote:
Originally Posted by Swift
So, I choose to live here before it was designated a flood zone and have done the due diligence that is expected of me (flood insurance). Should I be required to abandon my home? That is not a rhetoric question, I seriously want to know how these kinds of cases fit in with your "ban development" idea.
|
As with most new laws - there should be a grandfather clause. I am referring to new development. There may not be many fans of John Stossel in this forum, but he had a chapter in his book about a multi-million dollar home he was able to build with only 100 feet of sand separating said home from the ocean. No private insurance carrier would cover it - but the government will. Why should our tax dollars be supporting such things? Should the government be in the insurance business at all?
I don't disagree with FEMA as a concept. But I think we know enough these days about the probabilities of events in certain areas to say to an individual that if you choose to do this - you are on your own. The government does not have the discretionary funds to cover the potential losses.
Perhaps local governments, based on a cost benefit analysis of potential property tax revenue vs. potential losses in a given time frame could choose to support such projects. I just don't think it's the place of the federal government.
Either way - I'm sure I'm way overstepping politics by now - but the question was posed.