3 ms·
True. If the requirement existed the areas were settled, then they wouldn’t be living there. BUT, that’s not the case. So enacting the requirement now, all at
by function_seven 9y ago
True. If the requirement existed the areas were settled, then they wouldn’t be living there.
BUT, that’s not the case. So enacting the requirement now, all at once, is probably not the right thing to do.
Maybe phase it in? All new construction would require it. Existing residents would get it subsidized for a decade, etc?
- brewdad 9y agoI read that many residents were given subsidized or free flood coverage following Rita. That lasted 3 years and expired almost a decade ago. Few, if any of those policies are still being paid. Still leaves the question of whether we pay for this damage or leave people with nothing. Likely something in between the extremes.
- lostapathy 9y agoThis is pretty simple to solve, actually. Once a property is destroyed, pay out the claim as normal, but stop subsidizing insurance on that property. The people who couldn't afford market rate insurance still get paid for the house they lost, but they have to find a safer place to rebuild.