[RANT]: Gov't-Subsidized Development on the Gulf Coast

[Evan!]

I was on my way into work and there was a piece on Morning Edition about the Army CoE buying out landowners & homeowners on the Gulf Coast, essentially paying them our tax dollars to move elsewhere. While not the best solution, it pales in comparison to the current situation. In effect, you and I are subsidizing redevelopment on the Louisiana and Mississippi coastal areas in the wake of Katrina. At the same time, we are also subsidizing their flood insurance, because without gov't assistance, they'd be unable to afford it and *gasp* have to move somewhere safer.

This is the same feeling that I got when I watched Spike Lee's "When the Levees Broke". Outrage, outrage that we are not only complacent about redevelopment, but we're actually encouraging it...and when the next Katrina or Camille comes along, we'll still be subsidizing their insurance. I listen to the interviews, and these folks are lamenting the fact that these small coastal towns don't have enough residents anymore, and thus not enough tax and utility revenue to sustain themselves...and they talk about how difficult it is to convince people to come back. Yeah, cry me a river. People don't want to be in the path of another Katrina, so now you don't have the tax revenue you need. Boo f*cking hoo.

And now, with the CoE buyouts, people who DO want to stay are concerned that if they refuse a buyout offer from the government, then their government-subsidized flood insurance might go up and they wouldn't be able to afford to live there any more. Do these people even hear themselves talk? I mean, look, I know that Katrina was a relative rarity, but there is no telling when the next one will come along. A few degrees of rise in the gulf water temp is really what led to Katrina being so bad when it finally hit land, and by most accounts, that temp isn't going down any time soon.

So, honestly, by all means, build and develop wherever you want to develop. It's a free country. But the American taxpayer should not have to subsidize your bad decisions through paying for redev and helping make your flood insurance affordable and then having to send FEMA to bail you out when the sh*t hits the fan again and you sit on your roof crying, wondering how in the world could this have happened.

This needs to stop. If we keep encouraging redev and keep bailing everyone out, then nobody learns anything. The market is distorted (otherwise nobody could live there because the private insurance firms wouldn't touch them), and nothing really gets corrected. See this article from before Katrina about this same issue. I don't think most people realize how much we subsidize bad decisions and risks in this country. I feel terrible for all the people on the Gulf Coast who lost their homes and their families in Katrina and Camille, but when you say, in the same breath, that you're moving back to rebuild, well, I bid you good day. Sign a FEMA waiver, get off the government teet, and go live wherever you want.

/rant

 

[Mutilated1]

That makes too much sense for a mindless mumbling

 

[craiger_ny]

Yep, the writing is on the wall we will be subsidizing to some extent the VRM that borrowers and the banks they are abandoning their homes on can't afford as well.

Personal responsibility is out. The nanny-state and legislated morality is in.

I'm planning right now for a nice, cozy little place to stockpile ammunition and hash out my manifesto.................

 

[Evan!]

Yeah, the subprime lender bailout is next. God forbid the gubmint let the market correct the mistakes of the greedy players.

 

[Special Ed]

I heard an insurance agent say (when asked how natural disasters impact them) "They're great for business... we don't have to pay the damages because the government does... and we can raise rates, people increase their coverage... it's great!"

I'm in the wrong business.

 

[Evan!]

I heard an insurance agent say (when asked how natural disasters impact them) "They're great for business... we don't have to pay the damages because the government does... and we can raise rates, people increase their coverage... it's great!"

I'm in the wrong business.

Not if you have any ethics or morals and enjoy sleeping at night.

 

[Special Ed]

Not if you have any ethics or morals and enjoy sleeping at night.

Amen to that!

 

[Warped04]

I could go crazy...But I won't.

All I have to say is. I was taught Self-Reliance...Not Reliance on Government. Evan I agree with you.

 

[Reverend JC]

*but i am poor and have no were else to go. This is home.*



sorry, just playing devils advocate.

 

[Evan!]

*but i am poor and have no were else to go. This is home.*



sorry, just playing devils advocate.

Okay, Mr. Advocate...

That's fine. That's your home. Stay there. But don't ask me to pay for your insurance and to rebuild your house.

 

[Reverend JC]

*again, im poor. you subsidize my food, healthcare, houseing, so why stop there. you are the big wealthy American gov't you can surely afford to subsidize my insurance. I pay taxes damn it, albeit at a lower rate around 10% again cuz im poor, but there is no way i can live with out the help. I have A/C and Cable TV but those are standard in America.*

 

[Evan!]

I subsidize your food because without food you starve. I subsidize your health care because without it, you may die. But subsidizing your insurance so that you may live in an at-risk area is not the same. You HAVE other options.

Personally, I'm not so keen on the welfare state as a whole, but I'm much more tolerant of food stamps than I am of paying for flood insurance just because you don't want to move. It's essentially encouraging people to live in at-risk areas. As for the "I pay taxes" argument, just because you pay taxes doesn't mean that everything you want should be handed to you on a silver platter. If the government is offering to buy your home so that you can move somewhere safer, and you refuse, then you should get nothing. It's very simple.

 

[Reverend JC]

*but do you know how much it would cost you to relocate me mr gov't? Surely i can not pay for that, i am poor! then even if it was in the same town just out of the flood plain there would be the added cost of transporting me to my job all the way across the city as well, so i guess you can subsidize my gas now as well. It just seems easier to continue to subsidize my insurance.*

 

[Evan!]

Seems easier, until the next hurricane comes along and ruins your city again and the american taxpayer has to foot the reconstruction bill yet again.

 

[Reverend JC]

Seems easier

*thats the spirit*





Evan, next time while i am playing devils advocate i expect a better argument.

I agree with you 110% btw!

 

[Evan!]

where is it lacking?

 

[Reverend JC]

humor missed.

I cut out of your sentance exactly what i wanted to hear had i been a katrina victim that wants subsidized..........................well, life.

just wanted to end it before i had to resort to certain issues that cross boundries here in the forums.

 

[finchlake]

I just seen this, and I agree totaly with EVAN. They should stop subsidizing the homeless here in Louisiana and sent them all to your state.

 

[Dr Vorlauf]

I subsidize your food because without food you starve. I subsidize your health care because without it, you may die. But subsidizing your insurance so that you may live in an at-risk area is not the same. You HAVE other options.

Personally, I'm not so keen on the welfare state as a whole, but I'm much more tolerant of food stamps than I am of paying for flood insurance just because you don't want to move. It's essentially encouraging people to live in at-risk areas. As for the "I pay taxes" argument, just because you pay taxes doesn't mean that everything you want should be handed to you on a silver platter. If the government is offering to buy your home so that you can move somewhere safer, and you refuse, then you should get nothing. It's very simple.

Actually I reject the whole premise of subsidizing food or health care. If you dont subsidize these people wont die, they will be forced to become self aware and take control of their own destiny.

In the USA we fought the bloodiest war in our history in the 1860's to ensure that no man should be forced to serve the "needs" of others.

 

[Evan!]

Actually I reject the whole premise of subsidizing food or health care. If you dont subsidize these people wont die, they will be forced to become self aware and take control of their own destiny.

In the USA we fought the bloodiest war in our history in the 1860's to ensure that no man should be forced to serve the "needs" of others.

I reject the idea as well; I'm just being realistic. In a country as wealthy as ours and that taxes its citizens as heavily as we do, the compassion of the american people is surely to be projected onto its leaders. Unfortunately, the many dangerous downsides to socialism are lost on most people...

 

[shafferpilot]

I'd have no problem, IF the poor people in that area actually did pay taxes..... THEY DON'T!!!! They pay into the tax system IF they work, but at the end of the year, most of them take enough deductions and earned income credit etc. that they not only get all of their money back, but in most cases they get three or four times more money out than they ever payed in. They may file their taxes, but they certainly are not paying any.

 

[Evan!]

I'd have no problem, IF the poor people in that area actually did pay taxes..... THEY DON'T!!!! They pay into the tax system IF they work, but at the end of the year, most of them take enough deductions and earned income credit etc. that they not only get all of their money back, but in most cases they get three or four times more money out than they ever payed in. They may file their taxes, but they certainly are not paying any.

It's called redistribution of wealth at the point of a gun. AKA Socialism. I'm not saying that this is just or right or acceptable or moral (it's no more moral than pointing a gun in the face of some rich guy, stealing his money, then giving it to the bum in the alley). I'm just saying, these are the reasons it's happening. The american people, not the poor folks that are getting bailed out, but normal americans are taxed so heavily and their money is filtered through so many channels like a money laundering scheme that we're just grown accustomed to having a large percentage of our income stolen from us at gunpoint and given to someone else.

 

[niquejim]

Not that I don't agree with you( although I live 2 miles from the Gulf and pay BIG $'s for insurance ) to extend your logic their should have been no rebuilding after the Northridge, San Francisco and other earthquakes. We should force everyone who lives along the Mississippi to move cause it will flood again.

I'm not big on the government getting involved,,,,,,BUT,,,,,,we as a whole have elected these idiots into office over the last 50 years and unfortunately( just watch one of the debates) no one can get elected without promising every special group their support(MONEY)

 

[shafferpilot]

Not that I don't agree with you( although I live 2 miles from the Gulf and pay BIG $'s for insurance ) to extend your logic their should have been no rebuilding after the Northridge, San Francisco and other earthquakes. We should force everyone who lives along the Mississippi to move cause it will flood again.

I'm not big on the government getting involved,,,,,,BUT,,,,,,we as a whole have elected these idiots into office over the last 50 years and unfortunately( just watch one of the debates) no one can get elected without promising every special group their support(MONEY)

rebuild? sure, go right ahead.... BUT I shouldn't have to pay for it. I choose to live on higher ground in a region where these types of problems don't happen. They choose to live in places where these types of problems happen over and over and over and over and over and over and over............ It's not my problem. Stop giving my money to complete morons.

 

[Evan!]

Not that I don't agree with you( although I live 2 miles from the Gulf and pay BIG $'s for insurance ) to extend your logic their should have been no rebuilding after the Northridge, San Francisco and other earthquakes. We should force everyone who lives along the Mississippi to move cause it will flood again.

People in Northridge, SF, New Orleans, Mississippi and anywhere else can choose to rebuild and repopulate in high-risk areas all they want. But I shouldn't have to foot the bill for the rebuilding or the subsequent skyrocketing disaster insurance costs. In a true free market, it'd be a bit like evolution. The places that are riskier to populate cost more to build/live in because the risk is higher and thus the insurance costs are higher. As such, you'd have a natural disincentive to live in high-risk areas. Instead, when the government subsidizes insurance and rebuilding costs after a disaster, it distorts the natural market forces---at great expense to the American taxpayer. I'm no singling out the Gulf Coast by any means---it's the general idea of subsidizing risky decisions.

 

[finchlake]

I suppose on the same note, we should get rid of the "Super Fund" also. I shouldn't have to pay taxes because some corporation got rich polluting the environment

 

[Evan!]

I suppose on the same note, we should get rid of the "Super Fund" also. I shouldn't have to pay taxes because some corporation got rich polluting the environment

I fail to see the correlation here. Not quite an apt analogy. On one hand, you have the government subsidizing people's choices to live in risky environments. On the other hand, you have negligent companies bringing harm against person and property---and since said corporation is now defunct and the $$ is not available to clean up said environmental disaster, the government steps in. But this doesn't mean that the company that did the polluting in the first place gets off scot-free. No, indeed---if they still exist, they are fined and sued out the ass. So it's not like superfund sites are exactly encouraging companies to pollute. Subsidizing flood insurance and disaster rebuilding after a hurricane is indeed encouraging people to live in risky areas---or at the very least, removing natural disincentives that should exist.

Like I said, your analogy is inapt.

 

[Bourdon]

The government took down the levy in New Orleans on purpose to flood out the poor. When I went down there to volunteer after Katrina, I saw the break in the levy that flooded the Ninth Ward. It was obviously planned so that the poor area was flooded by breaking the levy at the correct height above sea level. When I stood on top of a building (Martin Luther King Jr. Elementary School) I could see where the waterline stopped; just before the French Quarter Chateaues.

 

[MikeFlynn74]

bbourdon

Thats some crazy right there.

Louisana spent 22billion the gov had givent them for upkeep on the levys over the last 20 years and spent it elsewhere. The levys were supposed to fail in the event of a hurricane of that magnitude.

 

[Dr Vorlauf]

The government took down the levy in New Orleans on purpose to flood out the poor. When I went down there to volunteer after Katrina, I saw the break in the levy that flooded the Ninth Ward. It was obviously planned so that the poor area was flooded by breaking the levy at the correct height above sea level. When I stood on top of a building (Martin Luther King Jr. Elementary School) I could see where the waterline stopped; just before the French Quarter Chateaues.

I assume that you are joking. Too funny I bet Elvis was dropped off in a black helicopter and planted the charges. The damn Illumanatii strike again!