4 ms·

Because the government is interested in minimizing future economic losses from repeated flooding. It's not charity, it's rational planning.

• chiefalchemist 7y ago
  It's not even that. It's votes and party donations. I'm in NJ. A few years back we had hurricane / super-storm Sandy. Not only did the GOP gov at the time ( Chris Christie) find the money to rebuild. The state actually ran adverts with the tag line "Stronger than the storm." It made no sense to me. The people living at the shore (as we call it in NJ) aren't in denial. They don't even see it.
  • hunter2_ 7y ago
    While we're on the tangent of local vernacular: at the beach down the shore
  • dexterdog 7y ago
    If you think people were just bailed out you're crazy. I have a neighbor whose multi million dollar beach house was completely destroyed. He got little to no help for his property. Sure, the infra was probably all govt money, but aside from some minimal insurance he was his own insurer.
    • chiefalchemist 7y ago
      Um. I said nothing about that. My point was, the gov pushed to rebuild - because it's good for votes / donations. And they even put a spin on it. There was zero discussion about perhaps not rebuilding. There should have been. It was obvious there should have been.