9 thoughts on “Anti-development: Cuomo proposes to return NY coastline to nature”

  1. I can see his point, and if it were well executed, I would agree.

    It is stupidity to build in floodplains, and if homes are repeatedly flooded, then it makes sense to not rebuild them. I would prefer this by refusal to underwrite the home by insurance companies, but a buyout works.

    Where this would be more beneficial would be along the Mississippi. I recall one news report when I was a child. The man said that this was his 11th flood in 10 years. My response: “why don’t you move?”

    Dikes and other water-barriers merely move floodwaters to different areas. They don’t solve problems. Having a deliberate floodplain would actually help preserve life and property.

  2. “The man said that this was his 11th flood in 10 years. My response: “why don’t you move?””

    If you had asked, he would have had an answer. His answer would have been correct, by definition, for him.

  3. Ben: I did think building on flood plains was foolish. Some places seem to handle the problem (the Netherlands) but in the US we just keep building and rebuilding. Had Mr. Cuomo said they are dropping flood insurance and you are on your own living next to the ocean, I would have had said “yes”. But this is environmental propaganda, pure and simple, hoping people will go along because it kind of makes sense. Once we establish coastlines need to be “rewilded”, we can move on to other massive land clearing and returning to nature. I don’t see what he is doing as good in spite of his effort to steer me in his direction.

  4. Are the insurance companies forced by law to maintain coverage at non-ludicrous rates in these situations? If so, then this could be accomplished by removing these requirements and allowing market forces to work.

    And GC, that would answer your question as well. If the insurance company is the one footing the bill and they cannot charge 120% of his trailer’s value each year, then he has no incentive to move because he is isolated from the consequences of irresponsible actions.

  5. Flood insurance is government. Your homeowner’s insurance doesn’t cover floods in most cases. You would have to get the government out of the business and my understanding is the reason the government is involved is because insurance companies are too smart to insure in flood plains.

  6. New Orleans should have been left to rot. It’s below sea level. That ain’t a flood plane, that’s a moron-plane.

  7. You don’t know if his action is irresponsible. As I said, he has reasons to live in a flood plain, AND deal with frequent flooding.

    As Check says below, flood insurance is government. Government by jerks. The bully their way into the business, then gripe about the problems.

  8. I have flood insurance as an add-on to my homeowner’s policy. Since I’m not in a hundred-year floodplain, it’s dirty-cheap. To get a mortage while living in a hundred-year floodplain, most banks require you to hold this insurance (since I’m not terribly far from the Brazos, there was some question initially, which is how I know), and it is most assuredly not cheap.

    As far as New Orleans, only the poor sections went underwater, and most of that is still vacant. They then exported all of the people living in the poor sections of New Orleans to Houston

Comments are closed.