While not all of those who own beachfront property can be considered rich, the fact is, there are few more valuable parcels of land in the country than some of the ocean view houses and cottages that are continually battered by storms.
The same holds true for communities along rivers that are flood prone. A river town that experiences a flood every one hundred years is one thing. But some communities get flooded out a couple of times a decade. The question is the same; should the government - and our tax dollars - continuously subsidize those who live in disaster prone areas?
Because the rich are able to afford the most desirable properties which many happen to be close to nature. Mother nature has been known to be a bitch on occasion though.
In the Midwest, the Corp of Engineers mandates you have to leave after the flood wipes you out.
Unless you are a large town, or rich. Then the money keeps flowing.
The madness that is our disaster management policy is a sore point for me.
They move back in as the water goes down.
You never hear them complain ~ and as far as I know they don't have insurance, or sewers, or high quality public streets, or electric power ~ this area also has the highest rate of violent crime in Marion county, and that's saying something!
The only federal initiative there is to fight crime. Locally there's an initiative to tear down totally destroyed buildings ~ some of them have been flooding out for over a century and really could fall over at any time.
Old timers will tell you this was a great place to live ~ provided you had a boat, and no basement!