Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

To: BlueStateRightist

I say let them have it both ways. Only, the won’t be allowed to have any insurance policy that is provided by the US Government. If they want to live in an area that is prone to disaster or such, then they should have to pay the capitalist price based on risk, not government subsidy.


2 posted on 05/20/2013 9:16:13 AM PDT by Gaffer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


To: Gaffer
Is it a red line?
3 posted on 05/20/2013 9:19:53 AM PDT by mbarker12474
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies ]

To: Gaffer

I think they already are paying the price. Their insurance reflects the cost for their property and they aren’t responsible for the town, just their own property.

I can see the homeowner’s viewpoint. Their home is worth a lot more with an ocean front view, instead of a backside of a dune view.

So if you are going to take from the homeowner in order to protect the town property, then you should compensate the homeowner.

The town has to pay the price too. They built where there was known risk and now they want to mitigate that risk by taking the beach front homeowner’s property and decimating it with dunes.

(I live in TN and own no water front property of any kind.)


4 posted on 05/20/2013 9:21:50 AM PDT by DannyTN
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies ]

To: Gaffer

Absolutely. Let them buy insurance at market rates. One day we get to rebuild California at a trillion or so. By that point it won’t even be wholly American any longer in all likelihood.


5 posted on 05/20/2013 9:25:01 AM PDT by wiggen (The teacher card. When the racism card just won't work.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson