Should people be allowed to rebuild their homes where risk of natural disaster i

1. 85

   Hawaiian Scribeposted 11 years ago

   Should people be allowed to rebuild their homes where risk of natural disaster is high?
   
   Homes built in high risk areas are often "accidents waiting to happen". Seaside homes in hurricane zones, homes on riverbanks that flood every few years, houses at the foot of mountains where heavy rains cause mudslides. Because of the risk, many of these homes are not insured against the natural disaster they are at risk for. So the federal government (FEMA.etc.) often steps in to mitigate the damage and loss at taxpayer expense.

   replyreport
2. 67

   Glenn Stokposted 11 years ago

   I feel that it is just asking for more trouble when people rebuild in areas that are prone to natural disasters, such as flood zones. In many of these locations, people can't even get sufficient insurance. But they stay anyway and rebuild.
   
   I think the government should step in and take over land that is repeatedly wiped out by disasters. The land should be converted to natural preserves.
   
   And as for the people, I wrote a hub about a solution... "Relocating People from Flood Zones with the Homestead Act"

   replyreport
   1. 85

      Hawaiian Scribeposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      Although relocation would be painful for the people involved, many probably end up relocating anyway. I read your hub and left a comment. It is a commonsense solution, but not much legislation coming out of DC are commonsense ideas anymore.

      replyreport
3. 60

   Brandon Marhalposted 11 years ago

   It should be the people's choice whether or not they want to rebuild their home, give up their land, or relocate. I can see why you choose those arguments, what your saying makes sense ,but that will just make government more powerful, more than it needs to be.

   replyreport
   1. 85

      Hawaiian Scribeposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      I completely agree that government is far more powerful now than it should be. Would you be open to people not receiving government aid if they rebuild in a high risk area and get wiped out again? Seems unfair  government should keep paying for loss

      replyreport
   2. 60

      Brandon Marhalposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      I'd honestly rather not answer that, but I will, I think the government should come in and help them out, maybe to get shelter somewhere else, sort of like rescuing. It really isn't a good idea to keep rebuilding in an area of disaster.

      replyreport