4 ms·

So, why does it still cover these areas? Does the government really want to incentivize building there again and again?

by Tepix 4y ago

thatguy0900 4y ago
Do you want your party in the news for shutting multiple whole cities down and forcing all of the poor people there to move from their ancestral homes? Regardless of the reality of it that's the kind of personal stories the news salivates over
- NickC25 4y ago
  Yeah, I would. An actual conservative would probably also like this, because the flip side to your point is "government stops spending massive (and wasteful) amounts of money supporting the rebuilding of an area constantly hit by massive hurricanes that's also due to be completely underwater within the next 50 years"
  - thatguy0900 4y ago
    Republicans won't even agree that the climate change is happening much less agree that Florida will be underwater. They would probably be fine with getting rid of loss leading govt insurance programs in general though. I don't think any Democrat is going to go for the optics of pushing poor minorities out of their neighborhoods no matter what nature's plans are.
lotsofpulp 4y ago
Because Florida has a lot of electoral college votes, and used to be a swing state in the recent past.
- gfhgfdhgdfhgdf 4y ago
  What about California's wildfires and their federal relief subsidies?
  - ethanbond 4y ago
    Federal disaster relief has completely different economic dynamics from backstop, risk-agnostic insurance. I don’t think anyone in this thread is suggesting we don’t give federal aid to Florida. But to your point, yes we should also stop subsidizing water in the US southwest including California.
  - lotsofpulp 4y ago
    What about them? They do not seem comparable in scope to an explicit subsidy approved and funded by Congress before the loss even occurs. No California homeowner is paying less for homeowner’s insurance because it is sold at below cost by the federal government. They may or may not get bailed out when a loss occurs, which is different from knowing that you will.
jedberg 4y ago
They don't, and I think they've changed the program recently to stop making repeated payouts on the same property. I'm not sure what they do instead, maybe pay you to move?
- plasticchris 4y ago
  That’s what we’ve been doing in Missouri since the big flood in 93: https://www.fema.gov/case-study/missouri-flood-buyout-saves-lives-heartache-and-money https://www.fema.gov/case-study/missouri-flood-buyout-saves-...

So, why does it still cover these areas? Does the government really want to incentivize building there again and again?

by Tepix 4y ago

So, why does it still cover these areas? Does the government really want to incentivize building there again and again?

Do you want your party in the news for shutting multiple whole cities down and forcing all of the poor people there to move from their ancestral homes? Regardless of the reality of it that's the kind of personal stories the news salivates over

NickC25 4y ago
Yeah, I would. An actual conservative would probably also like this, because the flip side to your point is "government stops spending massive (and wasteful) amounts of money supporting the rebuilding of an area constantly hit by massive hurricanes that's also due to be completely underwater within the next 50 years"
- thatguy0900 4y ago
  Republicans won't even agree that the climate change is happening much less agree that Florida will be underwater. They would probably be fine with getting rid of loss leading govt insurance programs in general though. I don't think any Democrat is going to go for the optics of pushing poor minorities out of their neighborhoods no matter what nature's plans are.

lotsofpulp 4y ago

Because Florida has a lot of electoral college votes, and used to be a swing state in the recent past.

gfhgfdhgdfhgdf 4y ago
What about California's wildfires and their federal relief subsidies?
- ethanbond 4y ago
  Federal disaster relief has completely different economic dynamics from backstop, risk-agnostic insurance. I don’t think anyone in this thread is suggesting we don’t give federal aid to Florida. But to your point, yes we should also stop subsidizing water in the US southwest including California.
- lotsofpulp 4y ago
  What about them? They do not seem comparable in scope to an explicit subsidy approved and funded by Congress before the loss even occurs. No California homeowner is paying less for homeowner’s insurance because it is sold at below cost by the federal government. They may or may not get bailed out when a loss occurs, which is different from knowing that you will.

jedberg 4y ago

They don't, and I think they've changed the program recently to stop making repeated payouts on the same property. I'm not sure what they do instead, maybe pay you to move?

plasticchris 4y ago
That’s what we’ve been doing in Missouri since the big flood in 93: https://www.fema.gov/case-study/missouri-flood-buyout-saves-lives-heartache-and-money https://www.fema.gov/case-study/missouri-flood-buyout-saves-...