
Originally Posted by
yankee
Your opinion is perfectly valid.
But I never ever stated, as you claim, that barrier islands are "inhabited solely because of lobbyists & developers..." I did cite the actual history of the massive coastal development in the USA that is a direct result of developers pressuring Congress to pass taxpayer-subsidized insurance plans for property owners located in coastal regions that are subject to total destruction of property.
You're wrong in the sense that your terming "myopic" and "willfully ignorant" the huge impact that federally-guaranteed homeowner insurance brought about by special interests, i.e, the very history that you attempt to cite in the development of barrier islands as places for human habitation.
Sure, there are always going to be people that choose to live on the barrier islands. That's their choice, it's a free country & their choice to do so should be respected. No problema.
The 'however' comes in when those same folks can't afford the 15 - 20k per year in property insurance (that's an actual number, by the way: that would be the price of flood & storm insurance if it weren't subsidized by taxpayer dollars from places like Iowa & South Dakota & every other state in the union) & they get wiped out in a storm. Do you really believe they will re-build at their own expense? Once, perhaps. Twice? Three times? Or more? At their own expense. Highly unlikely.
Secondly, the insurance companies won't insure anyone in those regions without the feds backing it up. And how do the feds back it up? With taxpayer dollars. So, sure, individuals have lived on the islands for years before 1968, but you're not gonna see hotels, condos & luxe homes, let alone very many Joe Citizen abodes without insurance.
Pretty simple but the costs to all of us Americans are insane.