Who Should Pay for Hurricane Damages?

So if mount Helena explodes again, the people in that area should pay extra volcano tax?

You pay tax so that the government can help in time of need, there shouldn't be a discriminatory rule to pay more taxes than in other, insurance companies already have different amount of payments for risk area's

one could the government accountable for not preparing for hurricanes (like with Katrina) Hurricane area's are know, so building regulations should be accordingly.

above ground electric wires in a hurricane zone???

I gave you a good rating as I agree. Here in Indiana, we have insurance that covers flood zones and tornado damage. The insurance companies are paid by the individual for this coverage. The utilities should have insurance to cover these damages as well. If people can not afford insurance, they are not given a loan by the bank or the insurance premiums are included in the loan amount.

Wow, I didn't realize that the Gulf Coast was the only area in the US affected by natural disaster.

Also, to my knowledge, when the government helps with rebuilding of coastal areas like with Katrina the state has to pay the money back to the government over time.

I have so much more I can say on this short-sighted ignorance but I am afraid I will upset too many people so I will end with that.

Pure and simple: It's not who should pay, but who can pay?

So you are saying,

"From each according to his ability, to each according to his need" Right?

Do you know what that policy if founded on and espoused by?

Karl Marx!!!!!!!

That is one of the foundational statements of Communism / Marxism

"'From each according to his ability, to each according to his need'

--foundational statements of Communism / Marxism"

Are you sure? Are you quite sure...it wasn't Lenin?

From each according to his ability, to each according to his need (or needs) is a slogan popularized by Karl Marx in his 1875 Critique of the Gotha Program.^[1] The phrase summarizes the principles that, under a communist system, every person should contribute to society to the best of their ability and consume from society in proportion to their needs, regardless of how much they have contributed. In the Marxist view, such an arrangement will be made possible by the abundance of goods and services that a developed communist society will produce; the idea is that there will be enough to satisfy everyone's needs.^[2][3]

^WikipediaQ

I think it's OK for the government to bail out an area once. There's no excuse for those living on, for example, a flood plain to rebuild in the same place year after year.

WARNING - Major pet peeve ahead

Anyone who insists on buying property on or near shifting sand barrier islands MUST be forced to deal with the potential consequences as a personal responsibility. And any company that is willing to insure such property MUST have their feet held to the fire when it comes time to pay up.

As one who mostly grew up in Tidewater, Virginia and spent oodles of time on the Outer Banks of North Carolina, I am fully aware of the effects of wind and water on sand. Simply look at the bridges on the Outer Banks that span no longer existent channels and the new bridges that span new channels. There are at least a half-dozen examples of these that have occurred during my 60 year lifetime.

I am totally fed up with my tax dollars subsidizing those willing to pay un-Godly amounts of money for beach front property even as they work to limit my access to such beachfront.

Mark my words, one of the next Federal bailouts is likely to be the North Carolina and SE Virginia overbuilt (on sand) seacoasts with underconstructed structures. We are long overdue for a major storm there. Hurricane Isabelle (several years ago) was not a major storm and even that shut down the infrastructure for several weeks. Please don't come whining to ME about your losses when it happens!!

Of course, the Feds aren't going to listen to me, anyway, and will likely pay them to rebuild their follies.

Hooker

Real estate agents will off course hide the less desirable facts of a house.

Hooker,

I agree with your point about living on those barrier islands - it should be entirely at your own risk! But, I can't help making a "glass house" observation.

After the disastrous 1949 flood, Bridgewater was partially made "safe" by federal money used for flood control dams up on Briery Branch and North River. We who lived up high above the river didn't begrudge the money for those who lived in the bottoms, but that was a dumb place to put a town.

Hiya TVP,

It's nice to know someone knowledgeable about Bridgewater!

I somewhat agree with you but, to me, the level of "risk" between Bridgewater and barrier islands is way different. The Bridgewater flood was probably one of those "100 year" events. What goes on around barrier islands is usually continuous and insidious. Barrier islands are constantly moving, even under the best of conditions. I guess you could counter that by saying that rivers erode the surrounding land but it's just not the same to me.

And, while the Feds contributed to build the dams and dikes on the North River, did they actually provide the monies to rebuild the town after the '49 flood? I don't know. Unfortunately, towns tend to grow up around important river crossings. Also, unfortunately, the crossing there is no longer very important but the legacy town remains.

My company has spent a ton of its own money to build dikes to minimize water incursion here at the airpark in the event of flooding. I guess you could say that tax money has contributed to that because it is a public airport subsidized by the state, but on the books that's not where the state money went.

Hooker

No, I agree about the difference. And I don't believe federal money was used for structure damage in either Bridgewater or Stokesville. I was just poking a little fun.

As for the inherent instability of barrier islands, I believe you mentioned living in Tidewater. The Assateague Lighthouse is a great example of shifting shorelines.

I'm a (sort of) fan of Orrin Pilkey who has written extensively about coastal lands and who almost always angers landowners when he says that you just can't stabilize some coastal areas no matter how much you do.

In that vein, I suspect the whole Mississippi delta is a lost cause (and probably should be).

Heh, that's funny. Your mention of Assateague made me look it up.

I haven't been to Assateague or Chincoteague in many years, since I used to do flight testing at Wallops Island. But, anyway, reading that Assateague Light is getting further from the shoreline is a kicker.

I'm also reminded of Hatteras Light. In the 70's, when we used to camp at Buxton, the lighthouse was about 1/2 mile from the water's edge. Lo and behold, in the 90's I hear it's about to topple into the water and, in 1999, they move it. To me, that was a hell of a change in shoreline in 20 odd years and really told the tale of building on sand.

Hooker

Complicated question--

I noted that the angry yes, help us replies were from residents of island nations and fishermen, respectively.

IMO-If you reside in an area/country without inland options--say, Japan--the government of that country shares a common purpose and goal with all residents of the country, so obviously it should help rebuild. Additionally, coastal areas near major ports NEED people to live nearby, so that we inland folks (I live in Fairbanks, AK--about as inland as you can get without journeying to the center of the earth) can get our cheaper Chinese imports.

OK, yes, I feel a bit squiffy about the federal government--a representative of EVERY taxpayer--enabling private property owners to rebuild while still allowing same private property owners to restrict access to beaches.

But those people are not the ones receiving FEMA grants. The underinsured, the renters, the lower incomes, these are the people who won't have back-up generators, rental insurance, access to a pantry full of food, or enough money to go anywhere when a storm hits. These are also the people who do not have the resources to uproot their family and move inland. So the squiffy part bows to the fair part, and the fair part makes one parting remark--which of us has not wanted to retire to a tropical villa? I will consider bailing out coastal residents like paying taxes that go for education--it doesn't benefit me now, but it is good for all and may benefit me in the future when I abandon 60 below weather and frozen fingers for a bikini and a mai tai.

And (from a jurisprudence viewpoint) it comports with the Constitution, which states that law should be promulgated on the "general welfare"....

Another wanker comment ideal, the privattisation of the banks has already proven that the government let too much go, and the user pays systems failing as a result, time to go back to what a government should do .. ie run businesses as a near lose in order to provide services that people need, ie there is no need for banks to rack up huge profits just need to make a slight one to keep the assets(ie building and the like servicable, well it is the same with resuce packages the government is there to serve the people some where along the lines it changed and the user pays system comes in, trouble with that the people in need cant pay , ie if your house is washed away .. you need accomadtion you cant pay ... the best balance seem to be around the 1950- 1980 before captialism went to far ... the goevernment had control of the services and didnt try and make a profit ... ie water/electricity/medical/phones... that was here in Australia then they privatised it like the USA and things have been getting worse .. So my point is the govenments need to get back to providing services and not just new taxes and laws...