re: #58 ralphieboy

He is big on the “moral risk” issue: if we reward peole for reckless behavior or shield them from the consequences, then we are encouraging it.

It does apply to a limited extent to people building in floodplains or low-lying coastal areas, but there is no spot in the entire USA that is completely safe from some sort of natural and/or man-made disaster.

There are, however, places that are completely unsafe. Chaparral canyons are firetraps, for instance. If we’re going to try to save everybody who puts himself in harm’s way despite being advised of the extraordinary stupidity of his homesite, we’re going to have to outlaw such sitings.

If we can’t do that, at least we can refuse to insure the structures. Federal flood insurance has provisions something along the lines of…if you get flooded out on a floodplain, we’ll pay, but if you rebuild, you’re on your own.

Financially, that is.

Of all the subsidies and expenditures that government can make, one of the least defensible is picking up the tab for rich people’s vacation homes or dream homes when they’re hard to defend, very expensive, and very likely to be destroyed by natural hazards.