No

by Michael Sanibel

Created on: September 24, 2008

Should the federal government support communities built in areas prone to natural disasters?

The devastation and loss caused by the recent Midwest flooding and Hurricanes Gustav and Ike rekindle memories of the terrible losses suffered as a result of Hurricane Katrina. It is heartbreaking to see the lives of so many victims torn apart by such a natural disaster. The question is what should happen from here, and what the government's role should be.

Americans are certainly free to live wherever they want, but some areas carry far more risk than others. It should be obvious to all that living on top of an earthquake fault, on a barrier island, next to a large river, on the edge of a cliff, or below sea level places you directly in the path of certain danger at some point. It's not a question of "if," but simply a matter of "when." Yet people still choose to live in these areas for a variety of reasons such as climate, scenic beauty, or proximity to the ocean.

My view is that anyone who decides to live in such areas must assume responsibility for their own well-being. You can transfer or eliminate most of that risk by purchasing insurance wherever possible. If you can't or won't purchase insurance, it should not be up to the rest of the taxpayers to bail you out in the event of a disaster. It was your choice to live in a risky area, not theirs.

There was a time in this country when people took responsibility for their own actions. If they made a mistake or a bad decision, they didn't look immediately to someone else or the government to compensate them for their errors. While our sympathy and compassion goes out to these people, why should those who chose not to live in such risky areas bear the burden of rebuilding their homes and lives? "Assumption of the risk" is a well-established legal principle that could and should be applied to just such situations. While no one affected by the floods wants to hear this, it was their decisions that put them in harm's way to begin with.

The attitude of many of the people that were rescued is that the government now "owes" them something for all the misery and hardship they have suffered. They no doubt feel this way because of the pattern of government reactions to previous disasters, which included financial giveaways of epic proportions. So people have come to expect a government bailout regardless of what happens to them, even if the government shares no fault or responsibility. This flies in the face of personal responsibility for life's decisions that should be borne by the person making those decisions.

While the government should provide rescue services and temporary aid for the victims, this should not evolve into a permanent dependency such as we have witnessed in the Katrina aftermath. Actions like these should be reviewed in a detached manner that examines the logic of such monumental undertakings. The central question is obvious: should areas vulnerable to severe flooding be rebuilt regardless of the ultimate cost? Further, it's not just a matter of the exorbitant cost; it's also a matter of risking further life and money without sufficient justification.

Some support the concept that every single taxpayer in this country is ultimately liable for the destruction of private property regardless of where it is located. The long-term effect of such a policy is that it sets a precedent that will not be easily undone in the future. The message it sends is that no matter where you live, or whether or not you have insurance, that the government is responsible for your entire well-being if your life is disrupted in any way, shape, or form. Tack onto that the notion that everyone else gets to pay for it, whether they like it or not.

After Katrina, when some in Congress suggested that we not rebuild New Orleans at all, or in the alternative, offset the cost with spending cuts, they were ridiculed by others and portrayed as "uncaring" and "arbitrary." The future of such high risk areas including those in the Midwest should be based on what really makes sense given the likelihood that another devastating force of nature will strike again in the future. The argument has been made that levees can be expanded and enlarged to withstand higher winds and more water. Why should this even be attempted when there are vast areas of undeveloped land throughout this country that are not subject to massive flooding?

We should learn to accept the fact that there are certain areas that are too dangerous and too expensive for a significant population to live in. It is a harsh reality, but one that becomes more and more obvious every time we are hit with another disaster, and the huge bill that goes with it.

Learn more about this author, Michael Sanibel.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.