My understanding is that the feds made large areas out that way "no build
zones" they bought people and barred them from rebuilding in those areas as
a condition of receiving the settlements. In their defense, a lot of those
folks were affected as a result of the Army Corps flood abatement programs,
they were supposed to be protected from flooding. There is no realistic way
of protecting coastal areas from storm damage, but the federal government
does subsidize building in those areas through the NFIP.



My Life as a Welfare Queen

In 1980 I built a wonderful beach house. Four bedrooms -- every room with a
view of the Atlantic Ocean.

It was an absurd place to build, right on the edge of the ocean. All that
stood between my house and ruin was a hundred feet of sand. My father told
me: "Don't do it; it's too risky. No one should build so close to an ocean."

But I built anyway.

Why? As my eager-for-the-business architect said, "Why not? If the ocean
destroys your house, the government will pay for a new one."

What? Why would the government do that? Why would it encourage people to
build in such risky places? That would be insane.

But the architect was right. If the ocean took my house, Uncle Sam would pay
to replace it under the National Flood Insurance Program. Since private
insurers weren't dumb enough to sell cheap insurance to people who built on
the edges of oceans or rivers, Congress decided the government should step
in and do it. So if the ocean ate what I built, I could rebuild and rebuild
again and again -- there was no limit to the number of claims on the same
property in the same location -- up to a maximum of $250,000 per house per
flood. And you taxpayers would pay for it.

Thanks.

I did have to pay insurance premiums, but they were dirt cheap -- mine never
exceeded a few hundred dollars a year.

Why does Uncle Sam offer me cheap insurance? "It saves federal dollars,"
replied James Lee Witt, head of the Federal Emergency Management Agency
(FEMA), when I did a 20/20 report on this boondoggle. "If this insurance
wasn't here," he said, "then people would be building in those areas anyway.
Then it would cost the American taxpayers more [in relief funds] if a
disaster hit."

That's government logic: Since we always mindlessly use taxpayer money to
bail out every idiot who takes an expensive risk, let's get some money up
front by selling them insurance first.

The insurance, of course, has encouraged more people to build on the edges
of rivers and oceans. The National Flood Insurance Program is currently the
biggest property insurance writer in the United States, putting taxpayers on
the hook for more than $640 billion in property. Subsidized insurance goes
to movie stars in Malibu, to rich people in Kennebunkport (where the Bush
family has its vacation compound), to rich people in Hyannis (where the
Kennedy family has its), and to all sorts of people like me who ought to be
paying our own way.

When my crew was working on the 20/20 story on this indefensible insurance
subsidy, producer David Sloan was shooting on the elegant Outer Banks of
North Carolina. A man who saw our camera invited Sloan to videotape inside a
luxurious beach mansion he was renting. Sloan accepted and was surprised to
see, taped to the refrigerator, a picture of presidential hopeful (then
House majority whip) Richard Gephardt.

"Why is his picture here?" Sloan asked.

"He's an owner of the house," answered the renter.

Aha, a surprise twist to our story: A Missouri congressman owns expensive
beachfront property insured by taxpayers. We called Rep. Gephardt's office
and asked to interview him about flood insurance. I was excited. He and I
had something in common: We were both welfare queens. I thought he might say
something like: "Yes, it's disgraceful -- we shouldn't get special
protection because we are rich enough to build on beaches. I'm trying to end
this boondoggle." But when I interviewed him, he just smiled blandly and
kept saying Congress would "look into the program."

Why subsidize affluent people like Gephardt and me? Why not let us sink or
swim on our own? If my house erodes away, it should be my tough luck. FEMA
chief Witt at least attempted an answer: "The American people are pretty
compassionate toward their neighbors."

Government flood insurance is so "compassionate" that the program didn't
even raise my premiums when, just four years after I built my house, a
two-day northeaster swept away my first floor. I could still use the place,
since the kitchen and bedrooms were on upper floors, though some guests were
unnerved when a wave sloshed through the bottom of the house. After the
water receded, the government bought me a new first floor.

Federal flood insurance payments are like buying drunken drivers new cars
after they wreck theirs. I never invited you taxpayers to my home. You
shouldn't have to pay for my ocean view.

Actually, I don't have such a great view anymore. On New Year's Day, 1995, I
got a call from a friend. "Happy New Year," he said. "Your house is gone."
He'd seen it on the local news. (Or rather, he saw the houses that had been
next to mine, and nothing but sand next to them.) The ocean had knocked down
my government-approved flood-resistant pilings and eaten my house.

It was an upsetting loss for me, but financially I made out just fine. You
paid for the house -- and its contents. I'm not proud that I took your
money, but if the government is foolish enough to offer me a special deal, I
'd be foolish not to take it.

I could have rebuilt the beach house and possibly ripped you taxpayers off
again, but I'd had enough. I sold the land. Now someone's built an even
bigger house on my old property. Bet we'll soon have to pay for that one,
too.

I interviewed beachfront homeowners in New Jersey, asking why they should be
entitled to this brand of welfare. They got angry:

First Homeowner: We create a lot of employment here -- look at the
dishwashers and the chefs and the waitresses and the waiters.

Stossel: This is welfare for you rich people.

First Homeowner: I am not rich.

Stossel: People who are making $25,000 have to pay taxes...to protect you.

Second Homeowner: They've bailed out the S&Ls, and they help the farming
people.

Stossel: So since there's welfare for all these other rich people, you
should get some too?

Third Homeowner: Sound management is what it is. It's got nothing to do with
welfare.

Sound management? It's never welfare if it goes to you.

John Cairns

"Scott Vernon" wrote in message
...
You mean like those idiots who keep rebuilding next to the Mississippi
River?

Scotty

"John Cairns" wrote in message
m...
That's weird. I remember looking at real estate prices in the are
the area
the first time we went to Sanibel and I was amazed at how much they
want for
property down there, especially on Sanibel and Captiva considering
the fact
that they are maybe 1 or 2 feet above sea level max (guessing) and
anyone
with half a brain could figure out, indeed, it's happened in the
past, that
if a big enough storm comes through it's just going to wash
everything,
island and all, away. The idea of a storm causing real estate prices
to go
up is ludicrous. So know you can start a new thread, should the
federal
government, through FEMA, subsidize the building of houses in
high-risk
areas?
John Cairns

"katysails" wrote in message
...
No...in fact, I went to the Fort Myers paper the other night and
they had
storm pictures of Estero Island (where we stayed...) What a mess.
And
now
they're saying real estate is going to go up another 5% because of
the
unavailability of building supplies. At present, we're sticking
here and
making do. Can't sail our boat down there, anyway, so what's the
point?