Message Strategy Session

[prole]

Stating that much construction has to occur in the way of natural hazard doesn't constitute an argument for the public assuming the financial risks associated with such construction, much less for encouraging more such construction than would occur otherwise.

 

Incentives that concentrate more people, poor or otherwise, in flood plains is dumb. Ditto for mechanisms that transfer the costs of home ownership onto people who can't afford their own home.

 

The most important "incentive", of course, being that they've already been priced out of other areas.

[j_b]

First, you appear to have reading comprehension issues for my post clearly says: "natural hazard insurance without appropriate regulations on where and how to build promotes building where it shouldn't happen" and then I went on about how topography and transport were the considerations of interest (and not the pleasure of the ubber rich to own mansions by the sea). But, of course, your sleight of hand allowed you to not acknowledge that much construction has to occur in the way of natural hazard.

 

Second, the poor often owns/rent in the worst part of flood plains so describing the problem as underwriting millions of dollar pads in Martha's vineyard is specious at best.

 

Stating that much construction has to occur in the way of natural hazard doesn't constitute an argument for the public assuming the financial risks associated with such construction, much less for encouraging more such construction than would occur otherwise.

 

Incentives that concentrate more people, poor or otherwise, in flood plains is dumb. Ditto for mechanisms that transfer the costs of home ownership onto people who can't afford their own home.

 

Nobody here argued for national hazard insurance without enforcement of hazard mitigation (assessment, zoning, codes, etc ..) so comparing a public natural hazard insurance program without mitigation to no insurance for the vast majority (as is shown for regions where no national insurance programs exists) doesn't follow.

 

Pricing hazard insurance out of the reach of most people (end result of private only hazard insurance) probably doesn't reduce development of hazardous regions but has the effect of concentrating the poor in hazardous areas, whereas national insurance programs enables hazard mitigation. Hazard to property and people isn't fixed in time but also depends on development elsewhere (paving surfaces contributes to floods, building jetties affects longshore currents in front of other properties, etc ...).