Isn't this a basic conservative principle of government?
If you live on a coast, you should assume the full responsibility of the things that come with living on the coast, including hurricanes. If you live in Texas or Louisiana, it's practically a given that there's going to be flooding from some kind of natural weather event, so why should taxpayers be forced to pay for all that damage when it always happens?
If you live in California, there's going to be an earthquake.
Taxpayers in other parts of the country should not be responsible for the decisions others make about where they live.
Agree or Disagree?
But there is a government permitting process to build anything. Therefore, if a local government (usually with some form of federal housing $$ or DOT $$) allows a subdivision or apartment building to be built near a body of water, they are essentially accepting part of the responsibility for the structural integrity/safety of the complex. If government had no role in the building process, then yes, I would say liability would fall entirely on the owners.
I don't know if any of this has been adjudicated in the courts recently, so maybe if there's somebody on HP that knows legal history they could fill us in.
Because federal funds are involved in almost anything built anywhere, we have a shared responsibility to help.
Hi Lions44, I can follow your logic right up to the Federal monies part. I can see municipal permitting as a string attaching some responsibility, but I can't see the municipal use of Federal funds in their decisions as extending that responsibility to the Federal government.
It's government insurance. I pay taxes to clean up Texas but then maybe one day Texas residents will pay taxes to clean up a disaster in my state.
I would disagree. The smaller the number of people landed with the bill, the larger the share each will have to pay.
If everyone contributes to the costs, then each will pay considerably less.
A considerate, caring, unselfish society will be concerned for the welfare of each and every member.
What can any individual do to prevent the ravages of flood, or earthquake, or hurricane? Virtually nothing of significance. So why should the State/Nation not lend support when the worst happens?
"What can any individual do to prevent the ravages of flood, or earthquake, or hurricane?"
But the individual can do much to prevent the monetary loss from the ravages of nature - it's called "insurance". And, of course, there is the small problem of choosing to live and build in an area we know will be ravaged because it has happened every few years for centuries.
Then how about putting the onus back onto the developers who put their money into dodgy and risky areas. If those developers are members of public bodies, like a town council, for example, then they would be the ones held responsible. Put the responsibility and blame, if any, where it belongs. Especially if corrupt developers are masquerading as honest, upright members of community.
Make them personally answerable to the insurance companies, thus protecting public monies.
What's wrong with putting the onus where it belongs - on the people insisting on building/buying/owning homes in an area we KNOW will suffer natural disasters? Can there be a person in the country that doesn't KNOW the gulf coast will have a hurricane in the next few years? That doesn't KNOW Kansas will have tornadoes? That doesn't KNOW California will have earthquakes?
We all know this, yet keep living there. How about those that choose to do that cover their own costs?
I admire your consistency, Wilderness, and that you're the only conservative so far to stand up for his values despite the devastation being wrought on Texas right now.
It's one thing to suffer a catastrophic, random disaster. But what about those people who live on the coast, knowing that they will be hit by a hurricane. Or those that live on an active earthquake fault? Or those that live in a place labelled "tornado alley"?
I'm not saying I know the answer, but it's a question that tends to divide people and is one that's interesting from the conservative and liberal point-of-view.
I don't know the answer either. I just know that when New Orleans was virtually destroyed, for at least the second time in my memory, I got tired of seeing people demand that someone else take care of them. They were there by choice, they knew what would happen, and chose to gamble. And when the gamble failed (it's hard to win a gamble against certainty) the rest of us had to bail them out...again. And now we're doing it for Galveston, Houston and the rest of SE Texas as they are drowned out again.
We've made it so the choice to live in areas that WILL have natural disasters carries no penalty...except to the people that don't choose to live there. Something's wrong with that picture.
You might be surprised to know that, despite my overwhelming liberal leanings, I agree with you. Whenever the Mississippi floods, we're always bailing out the people who live right near the river. Well, since you know the river is going to flood, that maybe doesn't make the most sense.
In New Orleans, I'm sure that most people who live in the flood-ravaged areas don't have the economic means to move. And also, when homes are in an area like that, the prices tend to be such that it's an incentive to move there, despite the risk. So if you're poor, you're more likely to buy a home in an area that's prone to this sort of thing.
And every newscast I've listened to regarding Houston says that Houston is flood prone. Well, I know it rains in Houston. So it's probably 100% certain there will be flooding. And there's near 100% certainty that some kind of catastrophic event is going to happen. Not sure that's the taxpayers problem.
The Mississippi floods mostly because the levee's built to control flooding are either insufficient or are not being maintained. I didn't watch it all, but I have seen where the flooding in Houston is much the same; wetlands and such are being paved over with the inevitable result that hard rains will have nowhere to go and the city is thus flooded.
It IS a little hard to argue that our 4th largest city is on their own when a hurricane of this magnitude comes, but that doesn't mean (IMO) that every homeowner or business failing to protect themselves must be re-built by taxpayers.
As far as home prices, I'm not familiar with them in either Houston or New Orleans but I have a really hard time believing that housing prices in large metropolitan areas are cheaper than that in small rural communities 100 miles away.
Except people need to go where the jobs are.
Well, the obvious answer there is that not all the jobs are in high risk, high cost big metropolitan areas. And even if they were it simply means that wages are higher or people couldn't afford to live there. And part of that high cost of living Includes the high cost of home insurance. Or renters insurance as the case may be.
If the job doesn't pay enough to live on, and provide necessary protection from disasters that WILL happen, then move somewhere else. It's not like we're talking about a freak storm or earthquake that could not be predicted, it's about disasters that absolutely WILL happen every few years.
I see these "answers" as totally illogical.
Apparently millions are being threatened by flooding in Houston. Are millions able to find new homes? It can be a costly business moving, even without the real-estate costs. And where are the alternative homes for them to buy or rent?
Seems it's ok for the more wealthy to sit in judgement over those less well off. But here's an idea: all those re-possessed homes that are in the hands of the receiving banks, sell them on, at really low prices, to people needing new homes. Let the insurance companies fund this.
If you think this is farcical, then return to a humanitarian solution of the nation helping its suffering people who are in need. Stop greedy individuals syphoning off taxpayer funds for selfish gain. Use the funds wisely and honourably. That is what taxation should be all about.
"Let the insurance companies fund this".
But you don't mean that - you mean the owners of insurance companies. Like me, for instance, as I own some mutual funds and they likely include insurance companies.
So explain again why I should foot the bill for a very poor decision (not to purchase home insurance)? I didn't make that choice!
Helping suffering people is one thing. Helping suffering people that are suffering from their own decisions, that they knew were wrong when they made them, is quite another.
Who do you think is "siphoning off taxpayer funds for selfish gain"? Are you assuming that any and all wealth actually belongs to the government? Are you speaking of construction companies building roads and dams? The people getting food stamps or section 8 housing? Illegal aliens using our schools for their children or themselves? All are greedily taking tax monies for personal gain - which ones do you refer to, that we should stop?
Wilderness, do you think your perspective of "choice" holds in an example like Houston? I noted, (in another comment), certain examples like building on beach dunes and barrier islands, or immediate river floodplains or levee basins, that seem to fit your principle of personal responsibility, but my thoughts on an example like Houston are that that principled position can't stand the reality of scale.
Your principle would demand that coastlands and semi-coastal flatlands, (leaving earthquake and tornado examples aside, as being unnecessary to the point), be declared uninhabitable by any but the wealthy that can afford to rebuild. Can you see that as a viable position in reality?
No. I can't. We need our coastlines too much for that, although we do have lots that don't get regular hurricanes.
But I also can't see anyone else being forced to rebuild time after time, just so that folks can enjoy the southern beaches that the one footing the bill can't. As it is, when we keep re-building from the tax base there is no cost to voluntarily living in, and enjoying, those coastal flatlands. A conundrum, then, and one that might be solved by your proposal. If nothing else, when the second loan is needed before the first is re-paid, it will mean a much smaller residence/store/whatever, and a much lower bill for the public to put up.
You see... we can be Conservative-ish, and humanitarian too. Let's go tell Credence2.
No! Don't do that! The poor man will expire of either embarrassment or shock, right on the spot.
But seriously - the more I see on the tube about Houston and surrounding areas, Harvey is not a run of the mill disaster that can be expected every few years or so. This one is something different - that "500 year storm" that simply cannot be prepared for with any reasonable effort. Whether they've paved over and destroyed their wetlands, whether they made reasonable efforts to control flood waters - nothing we might have done would have made any real difference this time. If I were closer I'd be loading a U-Haul with water, food, blankets, etc. and heading to Houston.
You have posed a good question Crankalicious. The answers, I imagine, will define competing perspectives. But, I choose both - to agree and disagree.
The Conservative, (as I see it has been labeled), principle that individual choice and responsibility should bear the costs is one I agree with, until that agreement runs into the reality of a Houston example. If one builds on a beach dune, or barrier island, or on a river floodplain, (like the Mississippi), or a levee-protected basin like New Orleans - then I can hold to that principle, none could be unaware of the reality of the danger.
But, when considering an example like Houston, then my principled stance has to bend to the pragmatism of reality. Imagine the national impact of an economic hub of 2 million people left to recover on its own. Imagine that devastated city as an open sore - unhealing, with the infected rings of economic impact radiating outward through the nation. First the smaller surrounding cities and industries supported by Houston's economic needs and productions failing from those losses. An on further like the over-used ripples in a pond analogy.
I don't think I could hold onto that Conservative principle in the face of a real example like Houston, (yet, is it hypocritical that I don't hold New Orleans in the Houston category?). If I insisted on it, then I would also have to justify huge territories that would have to be deemed uninhabitable for permanent structures. And that is where the pragmatist says there must be a bending.
I even have an answer. Federal emergency assistance, (a la FEMA), in the form of assets and manpower to get through the immediate catastrophe, and then Federal loan assistance for the rest. No free money from taxpayers beyond the obvious costs of the FEMA efforts. But my vision of that FEMA-type assistance does not include efforts like the temporary housing debacle we saw with Katrina.
"(yet, is it hypocritical that I don't hold New Orleans in the Houston category?)"
Yes. Imagine the national impact of an economic hub of half a million people left to recover on its own. Imagine that devastated city as an open sore - unhealing, with the infected rings of economic impact radiating outward through the nation. First the smaller surrounding cities and industries supported by New Orleans's economic needs and productions failing from those losses. Don't forget as well - New Orleans has the sixth largest port in the country. While smaller than that of the Houston complex it is certainly significant.
But I like your idea of taking care of emergency life and health needs and then providing interest free loans.
I'd add, though, that my vision of the Katrina housing debacle was that of hundreds of people complaining that their free housing wasn't as nice as their free section 8 housing, all while continuing to live in it long past any reasonable time period.
Wilderness, you are right, my "New Orleans" thought is a bit hypocritical. And I did expect to get called on it. But... there is something about the obviousness of the New Orleans' dangers that - in my mind, just won't let it sit easy with the Houston example.
I am still working on defining my thoughts about it, but as a comparison I might see choosing to live in New Orleans as similar to stepping up to a Craps table.
promisem makes a good point but - I can't get or afford insurance if I skydive or scuba dive or participate in other inherently dangerous activities. How is living in a dangerous place different?
No matter where you live nature can screw you over. Its not an insurable risk, that why you either just let people die or have their lives ruined, or you have a tax supported fund. I support having a tax supported fund. Not just because its the civiilised thing to do, but because the next person being screwed over by nature might be me.
Same as why should tax dollars pay for fire and police protection if you live in a high crime city? It's called socialism. Don't like it, buy your own road and private police force.
by Demas W Jasper 6 years ago
Federal Reserve's monthly purchases exceed the cost of Sandy! Federal hiring just surged. Guess why?Last estimates for damage caused by Super Storm Hurricane Sandy place all damages somewhere between $10 Billion and $20 Billion. Every month since Bernanke announced the Federal Reserve's...
by janesix 5 years ago
Due to Obamacare, I am now on Medicaid, along with thousands of other newly eligible adults in my state. For the last three or four years, the large pharmaceutical company that makes my medication had a program where they provide my meds for free (for people with very low income like I have). My...
by Pat 6 years ago
Does anyone out there have a better idea to replace Obama care? I think the states need to take care of their own and Governors collectively need to come up with ideas to replace it instead on sitting on their behinds letting the federal government take over to make a mess of things. I heard...
by ptosis 8 years ago
Why did taxpayers fund the bank bailout instead of the insurance companies?Since that insurance company had to be "bailed out" to the tune of $85 billion?
by Scott Belford 2 years ago
One of the first things conservatives want to do is repeal the ACA individual mandate designed to get healthy people into the insurance exchanges. Without them, premium costs WILL skyrocket ... meaning "if you think the 2017 rate hike was bad, you have seen nothing yet". As...
by qwark 8 years ago
what a waste of time!It will never be "repealed."Read it damnit! All 2000+ pages and make, in bi-partisan manner, the necessary changes that will improve it!Qwark
Copyright © 2019 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.
HubPages Inc, a part of Maven Inc.
|HubPages Device ID||This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel||This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.|
|Remarketing Pixels||We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels||We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.|