Tuesday, October 11, 2005

You want it? You pay for it.

I'm tired and I'm crabby this morning, however...in reading this article from the Washington Post I say ENOUGH!!!

I have no problem with the concept of Federal Flood insurance or helping those in New Orleans. It's the situations like this:

Dauphin Island is one of the most vulnerable barrier islands in the nation. Since 1979, it has been struck by six hurricanes and has lost nearly 500 expensive vacation homes and rental properties. Yet owners keep building back, trying to elevate their homes out of harm's way. And the island has received more than $21 million in federal flood payments to help spur redevelopment.

Its existence was briefly threatened in 1979, after Frederic toppled the only bridge to the mainland. Federal officials considered whether tax dollars should be used to help rebuild. Facing intense political pressure, they eventually relented and constructed a $32 million span.

After each subsequent hurricane, FEMA or another federal agency contributed to the recovery: hundreds of thousands for road and utility repairs, $750,000 for a temporary wall of sand, $143,000 for hurricane shutters, even a few thousand dollars for a new town sign.

Then I got to this part.....

Recently, Congress passed a bill that would gradually raise premiums for those who refuse federal help to elevate or relocate their houses.

Rep. Earl Blumenauer (D-Ore.), one of the sponsors of the legislation, said "it was a step in the right direction" but "really very modest considering the size of the problem and the need to put the program on sound financial footing."

Larry Larson, executive director of the Association of State Floodplain Managers, said the problem is "our basic national approach" that it is acceptable to develop anywhere on the coast. "It may be time," he said, "for Congress and states to say maybe there are areas of coastal land where we simply shouldn't build."

Gee, Larry I think it's more than time. Or at least time for Congress to say "HEY if you build it there? We aren't going to pay for it to be rebuilt".

4 comments:

Scott G said...

I say that they let them build there, but do so at their own risk. Congress doesn't seem to have a problem cutting programs for people who actually need help. Why is it that they feel perfectly fine with giving welfare to people who can afford to go somewhere else but want the luxury house on the coast?

Unknown said...

I'd agree to that, especially since alot of them are vacation rental homes.

I have a hard time with cutting foodstamp and WIC programs yet continuing to pay that much for homes that have been rebuilt several times..not to mention bridges, and beaches.

Hooda Thunkit (Dave Zawodny) said...

There they go again,

playing with OUR tax money...


Maybe people building in known flood/hurricane areas should pay for the extra coverage, instead of taking our insurance money to rebuild with.

Why should we subsidize their insurance losses? We didn't buil OUR houses there...

Scott G said...

Apparently helping drug addicts recover is bad, but helping people addicted to money and affluence is good.