People are naturally risk adverse. Government subsidized flood insurance incentivises people into living in locations they wouldn't otherwise live. The free market is telling people not to live there because it's prohibitively costly. Government puts people's life in danger by manipulating the cost of living in dangerous places. It forces society to fit the bill for the endless cycle of destruction then reconstruction.
Besides the fact government interference in the insurance market does more harm than good to those it intends to protect, the wealthy are the ones that most benefit from government flood insurance. The vast majority of people that live in places where insurance is unavailable or too expensive are those wealthy enough to build a house on a hurricane prone beach. (Think too of the fire/earthquake prone hills of glorious sunny California)
What you're really asking for is those of average means to subsidies second beach houses for the rich. Not only is your argument faulty it's immoral.
We're all better off taking care of ourselves than being taken care of by morons. The government solution to a problem is inevitably worse that the problem itself.
And of the people that live there, not everyone lives there because they CHOSE it. Not everyone has the ability to up and move to a newer, safer city simply because they're worried about floods.
It's just not that easy.
So, given that cities ARE built on flood plains, and that flood insurance IS refused for those people that live there, what are we going to do? Abandon them entirely when a flood happens?
Good luck with that. What do you think will happen to the government that says "too damn bad, you should've moved?"
By the way, if you think Winnipeg is 'beach houses for the rich,' dude.. yeah..
Why do you (and raganwald) portray the choice as assistance-or-total-abandonment?
Sure, provide infrequent rescues, emergency aid, and damage-mitigation. Just avoid complete 'make-whole' reimbursements, and make the costs come marginally more from those areas subject to frequent, foreseeable disasters... so that there's an incentive gradient for future moves/development to get-out-of-the-danger-zones. Not a "too bad" all-or-nothing ultimatum, but also not blank-checks for folly.
Otherwise, you're subsidizing more destruction and misery. That has been a real legacy of much unconditionally-'compassionate' weather aid, at least in USA flood and hurricane zones.
I've never lost a house because of a flood or hurricane or whatever, but I'm pretty sure that governments don't do make-whole reimbursements. Could be wrong..
That said, at least in Canada, I believe that federal, provincial and municipal governments share the burden of paying for restoration after a disaster. That is more or less what you suggest - there's a slight incentive to move away from Manitoba (for example), because they instituted a tax-hike to pay for their last flood. http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/manitoba/story/2012/04/17/mb-b...
Besides the fact government interference in the insurance market does more harm than good to those it intends to protect, the wealthy are the ones that most benefit from government flood insurance. The vast majority of people that live in places where insurance is unavailable or too expensive are those wealthy enough to build a house on a hurricane prone beach. (Think too of the fire/earthquake prone hills of glorious sunny California)
What you're really asking for is those of average means to subsidies second beach houses for the rich. Not only is your argument faulty it's immoral.
We're all better off taking care of ourselves than being taken care of by morons. The government solution to a problem is inevitably worse that the problem itself.