4 ms·

What if we just federalize assistance and help everyone, regardless of where they live and what disasters they must contend with?

standardUser 2y ago
If anything, we should spend that money to help people willingly relocate, not encourage more people to move to increasingly dangerous areas. Hurricanes are getting worse and will continue to get worse for the foreseeable future. What you are suggesting is subsidizing people to live in economically impractical regions, specifically regions we know will get worse and more costly. I don't see the logic there at all.
JumpCrisscross 2y ago
> What if we just federalize assistance and help everyone, regardless of where they live and what disasters they must contend with? We get this mess. Local governments selling building permits in flood and wildfire zones because they get cash in the short term while others pay in the long. We’re seeing in Florida, for example, a recapitulation of the financial crisis, down to bogus ratings of undercapitalised insurers allowing risky mortgages to be passed along to banks, Fannie and Freddie [1]. [1] https://www.hbs.edu/ris/Publication%20Files/24-051_f1329bc3-d296-4ffa-aff3-a9e4b8e98e9d.pdf https://www.hbs.edu/ris/Publication%20Files/24-051_f1329bc3-...
randcraw 2y ago
The right question is, what should the role of federal vs state vs local government be in natural disasters, especially those that occur often in an high-risk area? Personal insurance must cover 100% of personal property loss, not governments (at any level) which are obliged to serve the population fairly and uniformly. Local government alone is responsible for rebuilding lost local infrastructure -- roads, power, sewer, and schools. Presumably state government would marshal emergency response from outlying communities, and perhaps coordinate financial resources to rebuild. Federalizing recovery will pass along the cost of disaster recovery to everyone, not just those who build homes in the paths of hurricanes or in low lying areas which flood frequently. That is the role of personal property insurance. The companies who insure against flood, fire, and wind damage are a far better source of indemnifying the risk incurred by each home and neighborhood than is any government. Then the homeowner can choose to insure or not. But no government should pass along the costs of higher risk by some to others who chose a lower risk. That would clearly be unjust.
EasyMark 2y ago
That’s a really bad use of resources. It may sound cruel, but don’t build somewhere that constant, every 5-10 years, a natural disaster is going to come through and wipe out your house.

standardUser 2y ago

If anything, we should spend that money to help people willingly relocate, not encourage more people to move to increasingly dangerous areas. Hurricanes are getting worse and will continue to get worse for the foreseeable future. What you are suggesting is subsidizing people to live in economically impractical regions, specifically regions we know will get worse and more costly. I don't see the logic there at all.

JumpCrisscross 2y ago

> What if we just federalize assistance and help everyone, regardless of where they live and what disasters they must contend with? We get this mess. Local governments selling building permits in flood and wildfire zones because they get cash in the short term while others pay in the long. We’re seeing in Florida, for example, a recapitulation of the financial crisis, down to bogus ratings of undercapitalised insurers allowing risky mortgages to be passed along to banks, Fannie and Freddie [1]. [1] https://www.hbs.edu/ris/Publication%20Files/24-051_f1329bc3-d296-4ffa-aff3-a9e4b8e98e9d.pdf https://www.hbs.edu/ris/Publication%20Files/24-051_f1329bc3-...

randcraw 2y ago

The right question is, what should the role of federal vs state vs local government be in natural disasters, especially those that occur often in an high-risk area? Personal insurance must cover 100% of personal property loss, not governments (at any level) which are obliged to serve the population fairly and uniformly. Local government alone is responsible for rebuilding lost local infrastructure -- roads, power, sewer, and schools. Presumably state government would marshal emergency response from outlying communities, and perhaps coordinate financial resources to rebuild. Federalizing recovery will pass along the cost of disaster recovery to everyone, not just those who build homes in the paths of hurricanes or in low lying areas which flood frequently. That is the role of personal property insurance. The companies who insure against flood, fire, and wind damage are a far better source of indemnifying the risk incurred by each home and neighborhood than is any government. Then the homeowner can choose to insure or not. But no government should pass along the costs of higher risk by some to others who chose a lower risk. That would clearly be unjust.

EasyMark 2y ago

That’s a really bad use of resources. It may sound cruel, but don’t build somewhere that constant, every 5-10 years, a natural disaster is going to come through and wipe out your house.