Federal Flood Insurance and Rich Coastal Communities

Here it is, halfway through October, and the National Hurricane Center has only one name left: Wilma. After that, the Greek numbers will have to suffice: Alpha, Beta...

Scientists say it's not global warming causing the increase in the number of storms. It seems that we have an oscillation in the number of storms, and we have just transitioned from a period of fewer storms to a period of more storms. We have also, in this last period, seen an unprecidented number of people moving to the coastlines of the US, and a corresponding burgeoning costal property boom. There are a couple of controversies surrounding these new buildings on the coasts, and I see them both stemming from the misuse of the commons: those assets held in common for the citizens of the US.

The first argument comes from private property owners not allowing the public access to the beaches. Sure, these people who can afford to build right on the beachline want to be able to control who is in their "back yard". They don't want people camping out near their expensive houses, and they want the view that they paid so much for to be pristine. But the truth is, these beaches are not their back yard, they are held in trust by the government for the use of all the citizens, and often public taxes are used to repair and groom these same beaches. Why should citizens have to go to the expense of bringing the property holders to court in order to have access to the commons? The beaches in the US are the back yard of everyone, and noone. Certainly not the private preserves of the rich.

The second issue that I see is the national flood insurance. These houses have been built in places that are prone to flooding when a big storm (or even just natural costal erosion) brings the water in to eat away at their foundations. I have seen cottages on the pacific coast that are sticking out over the water, with beams holding their foundations from falling into the surf.

Now, mind you, there is a good function for flood insurance. In the once-in-a-hundred year storm, where there are homes that are usually well away from danger, flood insurance makes sense. But these houses built on sand dunes, and coastal islands that are only feet above sea level, and any strong storm sweeps them away - they can only be built- and rebuilt time and again, with federal government assurance that the loan will be paid.

I say that the government pays once, and if the site is deemed too dangerous, it reverts to the commons. Take the money, and go find somewhere else to site your house. Further, you should only be able to get fed flood insurance on your primary dwelling! I shouldn't be called on to contribute my taxes to rebuild some rich person's luxury vacation beach house!

With another month and a half of Hurricane season before us, it's put me in mind of Bush's infamous quote regarding Trent Lott's house -

The good news is -- and it's hard for some to see it now -- that out of this chaos is going to come a fantastic Gulf Coast, like it was before. Out of the rubbles of Trent Lott's house -- he's lost his entire house -- there's going to be a fantastic house. And I'm looking forward to sitting on the porch.


And to those who say, "Don't pull the rug out from under me - I wouldn't have built there if there had not been insurance to cover loss from storms." I say this: Exactly, and just why should MY hard earned money go to build you a new house in a place that you Knew before you built there was so dangerous that you would not risk your own money on it. Why do you feel free to risk mine?

I can think of many projects that are more worthy of government funds than building you a new seaview home so that you can deny the beach from the sun loving public.