[user1007]

I don't have a strong opinion I guess. I've sort of had a dream of home on the Coast with the Pacific Ocean coming up near the patio door. Would building such a thing be at my own risk and possible perile or should I get FEMA funds if all went horribly wrong?

As happens with any major disaster, the controversial topic of whether public funds should be used to rebuild in harms way has come up again. It always does. Certainly the odds of a storm like Sandy slamming the same region again are not so great one hopes, but what about those areas like the Outer Banks or even in the Gulf that get hit multiple times in the course of 20-25 years? Or homes on earthquake faults or nestled in California grass and brush fire risk zones? Should federal funds, like FEMA, be used to rebuild them in exactly the same place? When sea level rises should we all pitch in to help move the Kenebunkport Bush estate or the Kennedy complex? Or provide funds for a breakwater to protect them? I don't know for sure but suspect we did kick in to help rebuild Trent Lott's place. What of the less fortunate in flood plains of New Orleans?

I realize it is a complex issue. I don't mean to stir a hornets nest but how do people feel about it?

 

[chrisn]

One word

NO

 

[bbo]

thats what insurance is for.

if you get your ins $$ the first time and realize you can't afford it the next time, move.

breakwater is fine. benefitting the collective god of a community is a good thing, but providing "extra" for individual homeowners sets a bad precedent. I'm a believer in a multi pronged approach, avoid development in "buffer" areas like outer banks, breakwater islands, costal marshes. areas that provide protection for inland areas. Also install breakwaters and rebuild costal marshes prudently.

rebuilding in areas prone to devestation within a short time is foolish. I havent thought much about what constitutes a "short time" maybe 10 - 25 years?