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.
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"
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.
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.
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
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.
by HuntersWhitt5 years ago
With all of the uproar over gun laws lately, I'm curious to see what HubPages thinks. So here's the question:A) What guns, if any, should be allowed?B) Do "gun laws" actually accomplish anything?
by And Drewson22 months ago
If someone is of sound mind, meaning they understand the consequences, should they be allowed to kill themselves?
by Tony Lawrence7 years ago
I think not.The Help Forum, and Official HubPages Announcements should be open to them until they create at least one hub, at which time Extreme Makeover, Report a Problem or Suggest a New Feature and Suggest...
by Bill Holland14 months ago
What is the worst weather-related natural disaster you have lived through?
by India Arnold6 years ago
Should people be allowed to view pornogrphy on local city library computers?We went to our local city library this past weekend. The place was bustling with old people, young people, and children. As we walked over to...
by Nefarious_Misery6 years ago
Should people on unemployment be allowed to sue the government?It is my personal opinion that there is no need for unemployement. I've been laid off, I went and got a different job. The only reason unemployment has...
Copyright © 2018 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.
HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.