Floridians Demand "Disaster Welfare"
---
I have blogged previously about the unjustifiability of national taxpayer bailouts to disaster areas that are known, a priori, to be prone to disasters. If you choose to live in a hurricane zone, or a flood zone, or a blizzard zone, or an earthquake zone, then why shouldn't you be expected to assume the risks of your decision?
Such reasoning is, unfortunately, lost on some people:
Which is no different than saying that they want to enjoy, privately, all the benefits of living in Florida while shucking the catastrophe-related costs of living there to the public.
Um, why?
Owning real property entails costs: utilities, property taxes, maintenance and upkeep. Oh, and insurance. If you can't afford insurance, then you can't afford the property. To which the proper response is not, "Have the federal government pay for it," but rather, "Too bad so sad -- move somewhere else."
If Nevadans were to demand a "national air conditioning fund," or Minnesotans a "national parka fund," that Florida taxpayers would be expected to underwrite, then people would laugh hysterically (or indignantly). But for some reason, when the word "disaster" enters the conversation, common sense gets swept out to sea.
And remember that these are foreseeable disasters. Not predictable, perhaps, but foreseeable. A hurricane in Florida is simply not unheard of. (Not that foreseeability is a critical distinction -- but the fact that people know that hurricanes strike Florida makes the lamentations of these homeowners all the more preposterous.)
The best proof of maturity is a willingness to take the bitter with the sweet. You would think that a state so well known for its citrus would understand that.
(Via Fark.)
Such reasoning is, unfortunately, lost on some people:
Florida homeowners are no longer silent victims of the state's insurance crisis. From the Keys to the Panhandle, they've mobilized.Well, if the Red Cross or Salvation Army want to create a "national catastrophe fund," then that's their business and more power to them. But of course what these whiny Floridians want is a national taxpayer-financed catastrophe fund.
In Miami-Dade County, they have launched a major petition drive to tell lawmakers in Tallahassee that soaring rates are choking their personal finances and the quality of their lives.
...
Some of what the petition seeks: rate relief, tougher statewide building codes and a strong lobbying effort for a national catastrophe fund.
Which is no different than saying that they want to enjoy, privately, all the benefits of living in Florida while shucking the catastrophe-related costs of living there to the public.
Um, why?
Owning real property entails costs: utilities, property taxes, maintenance and upkeep. Oh, and insurance. If you can't afford insurance, then you can't afford the property. To which the proper response is not, "Have the federal government pay for it," but rather, "Too bad so sad -- move somewhere else."
If Nevadans were to demand a "national air conditioning fund," or Minnesotans a "national parka fund," that Florida taxpayers would be expected to underwrite, then people would laugh hysterically (or indignantly). But for some reason, when the word "disaster" enters the conversation, common sense gets swept out to sea.
And remember that these are foreseeable disasters. Not predictable, perhaps, but foreseeable. A hurricane in Florida is simply not unheard of. (Not that foreseeability is a critical distinction -- but the fact that people know that hurricanes strike Florida makes the lamentations of these homeowners all the more preposterous.)
The best proof of maturity is a willingness to take the bitter with the sweet. You would think that a state so well known for its citrus would understand that.
(Via Fark.)
Related Posts (on one page):
Posted by Kip on
11 December 2006
To comment on this post, please visit the new blogsite.