Hey folks, this has been in the news lately, and it's something that's always bothered me.

Federal aid goes to rebuild luxury vacation homes along our nation's coasts, hurricane after hurricane. Why? Shouldn't those who choose to live along the coasts have to bear the financial burden of their risk? Why does this foolishness continue?

From NBC nightly news
Another Link

FEMA is a rip off of tax dollars and there is no other way to look at it as it is currently administered. It is like a reward for irresponsibility as I have personally witnessed here in Puerto Rico. I have sympathy for poor people but the help offered is administered by just throwing out money to any empty hands reaching out regardless of means. Many of the people here just go line up for the check and the furniture stores cash the checks and new furniture, TV’s and building materials go out to folks driving new SUV’s working at Hewlett Packard. Many claims are just pure fraud as homeowners have home insurance on an undamaged concrete home and report the wood storage building as a destroyed home.

I wrote the FEMA a letter a while back after we has one of our recurring tropical storms because I was upset to see the flyers all over the place like advertisements for a class action law suit on asbestos but instead of a lawyer a FEMA to contact for a check. I asked specific questions like why do you give people money to rebuild homes that will be destroyed the next storm? Are there any requirements to build to a hurricane standard? They sent me a thumb in cheek answer back with checklists and “recommendations” and just plain double talk that they would continue as status quo.

I made the point that most people had insurance and didn’t need the FEMA assistance since their insurance would cover the damage. I also pointed out that those too poor could be sorted out and for the money they wasted they could build a modest home for each with the money they wasted on the insured. If you don’t believe how generous FEMA is write them a letter and tell them you are moving to PR and ask what reimbursement you might expect if you build a wood frame home and it, along with your furnishing are destroyed by a hurricane. They will give you guides and tips but they will give you no reason to buy insurance because you are welcome to come see them for a blue tarp for the hole in your roof along with several thousand dollars for new furniture and clothing.

Here the basic materials to build a modest Category V hurricane home could be paid for with the checks they give out for damage. FEMA should come in before the storm and just pre build prefab habitats and hand them out one time and save billions if the storm is the signal the screaming eagle is about to crap dollars. Let the people in the jails do the prefabs and when the storm hits hand out concrete boxes and stretch cots.

This goes for those who live in any spot where the possibilities of natural disaster in the way of storms, floods etc are actually just a matter of time.

If you live in a flood plain and it rains, why should anyone bail you out?

If if floods in your area on a regular basis--midwest-- raise some money out of your own pocket to get some engineering done to fix it.

Coastlines know hurricanes are gonna happen.

Why help rebuild places I would never stay or even afford a room in even if i went?

If tornados occur in your area regularly--Move.

Here in AZ we have forest fires regularly--and the dimbulbs who build their homes IN the woods should have the insurance necessary to rebuild.

There shouldn't be any monetary aid for rebuilding outside of some emergency releif in the way of food and medecine. Buy some insurance and take care of your own business. If thats too rich for you--move!

I find myself in the odd position of disagreeing with a position I previously held (again ). In many ways I agree with this sentiment. However, I have some major issues with this.

For example, on the issue of Tornados. They can happen anywhere, so in reality nowhere is really safe. However, they do happen more frequently in the Mid-West. The reason for this is primarily the climate and the geography. It is that same geography and climate that allows for such plentiful growth of food crops. If everyone moved somewhere "safe", who would grow the food?

Who would fish for food on the coasts? Who would handle the cargo coming in in the shipyards? Not to mention that most coastal areas get a good portion of their economy from tourism. Who would run thoses places? Where would the tourists stay?

Then of course there is the issue of ...well... where exactly is it really "safe"? There are few places in this country that are truly "safe" from ALL natural disasters. Now, if we all moved there, wouldn't the sudden over-population of these areas also be a safety issue? Wouldn't the cost of living it those "safe" areas spiral out of control? Wouldn't that end up forcing the poorest Americans into "Unsafe" areas?

I do agree that if you build your house on the side of a hill that is known for mud slides, or in a forest know for frequent fires, or in a flood plain, then yes, you should either have taken these things into account when it was built, adapt it to handle such potential problems in the future, or sufficient insurance to replace it all. Also, mobile homes should be banned in places like Florida's "hurricane alley" and many areas in the midwest period.

But, part of the reason we pay this aid is because our economy NEEDS people in these areas for it to work. You can't have a seaport without the possibility of a hurricane for example.

Without people living in many of these "unsafe" areas, we would not have the workers we need to run many of the critical sectors of our economy. Also, what about the critical sectors? Do we decide to no longer "bail out" Seaports, Farms, Shipping companies, etc? Which would really be more costly to us overall? Which would you prefer? Paying for it with tax dollars one time, or paying for it long term through increased costs on goods and services?

It is truly irritating to read that someone lost their home to a flood or hurricane for the 3rd or 4th time. However, we do need people in these places for America to work.

Now, the question becomes: Do we continue to just rebuild these places? Or do we spend the extra money now to rebuild them to withstand future disasters, or relocate them when possible, not to mention improve infrastructure like building higher sea walls, better flood controls, etc, to avoid future "bail-out" costs?

I have no issue with folks buying private (unsubsidized) insurance to live in 'dangerous' areas. What I disagree with is the use of federal tax revenue to support building in these dangerous areas.

As far as 'needing' people to live in the midwest, or along the coasts, I ask 'how much do we need them?' I think the answer is best given by the market. How much will we pay for wheat, or fish, or cargo? And that in turn answers how much money those people should have available for housing (and insurance).

Mechanization has drastically minimized the number of farm workers per acre required in the midwest, and I doubt even 1% of the population of 'coastal' areas are fishermen or stevodores.

However, in the case of coastal areas, the majority of people there work in the tourism industry or in industries that support it. So, we abandon the coasts and the dollars from tourism. Where will the jobs come to replace those lost? Where will the tax Revenues come from to replace those lost?

As for the Midwest, yes, fewer people work on farms. But MANY people work in all sorts of industries that support farms. Trucking, Feed stores, pasteurization plants, etc. What about all those industries and the people who work there?

I live in a small valley in my area of St. Louis. My little valley has NEVER been damaged by a tornado. So, I could stay. However, if all the other people left, along with all the industries, what would I do to support myself?

Also, Where is it that is truly safe from all natural disasters?

When you buy a home, the federal goverment and local zoning etc has certified that place "safe" to build. They have recertified old flood plains that were the corp of engineer did allow developement on "X" years ago, and suddenly, "X" years later, it is legal. Perhaps the first or second owner knows this, but sometimes on down the line, or rather, usually, on down the line, the homeowner does not know he is on a flood plain. On top of that, the will re-build the house, but not usually pay for you to move.

It is not usually the fault of the home owner. Now, Ol' Sarge apparently has uncovered a scam in his area, but I don't think the victims of hurricane andrew were all con-artists either!

I testified about 2 years ago against allowing developement in an area we call "the bluff". Owners of the land want the corp of engineers to re-open the area to development. This area was where most of the devestation from the 64 Earthquake occured. This are was, and still is, quite beautiful, but turns to quicksand in big earthquakes. Without the testimony of "old timer" engineers and other developers, the corp of engineers was prepared to allow developement here. Perhaps the first owner of these high end home may know the problems of building here, but certainly not 2 owners down the line- once the corp has certified it, there is no obligation to inform!

Also, Overland Sailor makes a very valid point- not developing entire areas of the nation due to enormous insurance costs would stop developement FAR better than any "greenie"!

In Hawaii, the state goverment has to subsidize insurance rates on the big island in order to allow developement- without it, the land would be completely undevelopable.

It is compeletely unrealistic to just stop developing , say, the entire state of minesota, which is basically built on old, flat glacial pan and will always be subject to periodic flooding, simply due to geology.

I think Ol' Sarge made a very good point about fraud, and that is really a seperate issue. Fraud should be prosecuted, regardless of the federal program being utilized.

But usually, it is the federal goverment that allows developers to develope "marginal" areas to unsuspecting buyers, and then does not really allow them to move when it is destroyed. They have the option of re-selling AFTER the disaster, but the property values have usually plunged to the part that they would lose thier life savings to do so.

Those dollars spent at in the coastal tourist areas would not 'disappear', they'd be saved or spent elsewhere. Likewise, all those people who up and moved from those areas would not disappear, they'd move elsewhere.

Same with the midwest. What may doom one town may be a boon to another.

In most cases I don't forsee a massive abandonment of areas (though perhaps a few flood plains), but rather a change in construction habits and density patterns.

For example, river flood control methods generally make things worse downstream. Coastal florida might be able to better handle heavy rains and storm surge if the whole place wasn't paved and built up: perhaps fewer, stronger, taller buildings interspersed with wetlands rather than mile after mile of south florida sprawl.

Either way, if the insurance if financially sustainable, it will be provided by private industry. If it's necessary for the economy, the residents and businesses will be able to afford what the insurance companies charge. Meanwhile, the rest of the country saves billions in taxes, to be recirculated through the economy.

My whole point before was there is ramped fraud in the program of doling out compensation like it was the government’s fault they were placed in misfortune. My second contention was the government could do more as a preventative measures to avoid multiple payments for loss. For example here they could give away the $200.00 or so worth of brackets to secure rafters to the walls and anchor bolts to hold the walls to the concrete slab. Building permits could require these simple devices as minimum and would protect most structures through category IV storms. Here the cost of a concrete house isn’t that much more than a wood frame because the problem we have with a special variety of termites since the wood frame and all materials must be chemically pressure treated to survive more than six months. Presently there just isn’t any incentive for the people to take any precaution or responsibility for building in high-risk areas.

For the price of a mobile home similar to those destroyed in FL along with poorly built wood frame homes the zoning could require concrete construction. A great alternative in FL would be concrete dome homes. These homes can withstand Category V hurricane winds or even tornados. They are very inexpensive to build, perhaps at a price of a modern mobile home and can actually be earth covered to help insulate for heating and cooling. There just isn’t an excuse for the government bailing out the same folks year after year for the same “expected” natural disaster. The government should be there for the recovery of power, roadways and the support of medical centers and the people should be herded into public buildings that can’t afford hotels for a number of days and then apply for whatever program the government offers for support.

Yes the money would be spent elsewhere. So, how will the state of Florida pay it's bills if there are no longer any coastal tourism dollars? Yes the people will go elsewhere, but where will they work? Most of those tourism jobs are filled by unskilled labor. These is not exactly a shortage of unskilled labor anywhere. So, when these folks move to the various "safe" places, it seems likely there will be an increase in unemployment. Wouldn't it be probable that we would end up paying long term through welfare programs, or short term through disaster relief.



Define boom. Sudden over-population? Growth beyond current infra-structure? Soaring unemployment and cost of living? I think it is just as likely to have this be a negative to those places people move to, even more likely in some instances.



Change in construction habits is a good thing. However, as CruisingRam points out, not everyone that lives in these areas are made aware of the danger. For example, not one word was mentioned to my wife and I about potential Tornado or earthquake damage when we purchased our home. If not for the insurance agent I would not have even known there was a fault line in the area. Also, better construction cost more. So the have-nots, end up being the ones buying the places in the higher risk areas. People who are most likely to be able to recover from disasters are safe, while people least likely to make a come back are devastated. This devastation can easily lead to other forms of public assistance. So where is the real savings?

There are some personal responsibility issues here, as I mentioned in my first post. But there are also economic issues that are just as likely to negatively effect Average Americans if we stop these "bail-outs"



What about the increased costs to the country as a whole when increased insurance rates, and the like are placed of the various industries in these areas? a Major portion of the hard goods sold in this country come through Seaports. Having read many of your posted and agreed with several of your positions, I know you realize that any cost increase on business is passed onto the consumer. How much more will this type of policy cost the average American in the store? Will this really save us any money at all?

The interesting part of the debate folks are not commenting about too much is that the federal goverment, mostly conservative real estate elements, are the ones pushing development in these very areas! Many of the very areas we are talking about have delicate eco-systems as well, and the "greens" have told everyone that would listen that these are not only harmful to the enviroment, but also not safe to build on as well. I am talking about wet lands (really unstable in a earthquake, regardles of building type, concrete or otherwise, similar wetlands are also typically in flood plains) - so dangit, the siera clubbers were right LOL

Let us remember, it is the real estate developers and the federal goverment that drive developing these areas. In the trailer type situations ( I was a slum lord for these things once as well LOL)- these are entry level homes for the most poor part of our society. This is thier first home in most cases. The american dream and all.

Now remember THE TRAILER OWNER DOES NOT OWN THE LAND- so this means, they have to put this trailer where the park exists. They have very little choice as to where those trailers go. The owner of the land usually has little or no damage, just has to haul alot of garbage!

I agree that fraud needs to be looked at better- but this IS criminal behavior, and the program itself can't be blamed for lack of criminal enforcment!

Federal aid goes to rebuild luxury vacation homes along our nation's coasts, hurricane after hurricane. Why? Shouldn't those who choose to live along the coasts have to bear the financial burden of their risk? Why does this foolishness continue?

I don't know what constitutes a luxury house these days. Something over $500,000? Which market? The coasts seem to have the most bloated housing costs in the nation.

My opinion about taking on the financial risks of where one lives goes along the lines of doing enough insurance to cover loss, but when insurance companies get burdened with massive payouts, then something has to be done, right? Else the insurance companies don't make their profits and default, go out of business.

This situation points to why the federal government bails out insurance companies when big natural disasters hit. The hurricane situation on the east coast, the wildfire and mudslides on the west coast, the tornadoes/floods in the midwest, and wildfires in the west -- yep, everywhere is unsafe. It's unrealistic to expect people to move anywhere to avoid natural disasters. There is nowhere safe. That's life.

Another pressure to keep FEMA has to come from local governments. If everyone moves out, there goes the tax base.

Why does this foolishness continue? Because more people and more corporations like it this way than not. Write your Congresspeople with your alternatives.

Personally, I'd not want FEMA to cover second vacation homes. I don't think it does, but not sure. Those who rebuilt after wildfire close to here had to rebuild on the same sites, which works to continue the foolishness. However, what replaced the homes can't be considered luxury by any stretch. Modest is a better word.

The issue of development in dangerous areas came up. Yep, developers run things around here too. Write city council, and good luck. Nobody's listening because too much money is involved.

Same goes for FEMA -- it's not going away because it'd mean ruin for insurance companies.

Meanwhile, caveat emptor. Insurance companies will not cover certain situations, like houses built on flood plains or houses built on unstable soil. House sellers are not required to reveal these situations before the sale in this state, and probably most. One would want to check pre-approval of insurance before signing.

Another reason FEMA stays around probably has to do with offering hope to those who have just lost everything. Preemptive riot control.

So, how will the state of Florida pay it's bills if there are no longer any coastal tourism dollars? For ol sarge: www.monolithic.org

For overlandsailer:

Seems like a problem for Florida, not the other 49. But realistically, they'll still be plenty of tourism dollars.

For authormusician

Insurance companies need to adjust their rates to be financially solvent without assistance from the Federal Governement (i.e. the rest of the country's taxpayers). Perhaps insurance companies could take a closer look at their customers, and offer different rates for different risk (which they do) and encourage folks to build smartly.

Cedar roofs on wood frame buildings on teh side of a brush covered mountain just aint cutting it out west. Rebuild with concrete and tile, or rammed earth and recycled steel if you want to be green. Not all construction processes are more expensive than standard, and anyone building a NEW house can afford them, though they may have to build a 2500 sf house instead of a 3000.



Well, right now, we're paying for those risks regardless of who's port our goods come from. If the shipper had to pay the costs, and pass them on to consumers, cargo traffic would shift away from the risky (and currently subsidized) ports to less risky ports, increasing the overall efficiency, and lowering prices overall.

I do not know the rules for the East Coast, but on the West Coast if you are flooded out you get federal aid once and only once. After that you had better have flood insurance or get out of the flood plain. Meaning either you move or raise your house above the flood plain.

As for earthquakes, well you are really up the creek, because you have to have special earthquake insurance, and nobody is writing policies in California after Northridge. FEMA does not help out the people, only government agencies.

Federal aid goes to rebuild luxury vacation homes along our nation's coasts, hurricane after hurricane. Why? Shouldn't those who choose to live along the coasts have to bear the financial burden of their risk? Why does this foolishness continue?

Many government programs reward people for taking risks they normally would not take if they had to bear the responsibility of their own poor decisions.

Why are settlements continually rebuilt near volcanoes? Why are homes rebuilt in flood areas or hurricane areas? What did people do before there was government bail-outs?

They examined the risk/benefits of building there and made a determination: is it worth it to build here?

Private insurance should cover these types of losses. Don't have insurance: tough. If you reap the benefits of living on the coast, or near a nice flood plain with rich soil, or other area, you should also bear the costs associated with living there, namely rebuilding after a (predictable) "disaster".

As I stated, many government programs operate under this same premise: that people need to be protected from the consequences of their bad decisions. This encompasses unemployment insurance (federally mandated), Social Security (federally mandated). Since the government basically assumes a portion of the risk for bad behavior, it encourages such behavior.

Abuse of such risk subsidies is a separate issue.