Thanks for the reply! I hope my questioning didn't come across as spiteful (if thats the right word in this case?)
I think that this is a hard situation from a public policy perspective though. There are "obvious" cases where people had homes completely destroyed and have nowhere to live as a result, or at least for many months. A lot of people think they have to be helped. Then you have cases where the flooding was unforeseen, or at least a truly rare event. Again, I think a lot of people would want those people covered for damages.
Of course the other side of the coin is that there were some people flooded who ought to have seen this coming....maybe not at that exact point in time, but its not entirely a shock. I would say that a lot of people don't think that they should get coverage, or at least not as much.
I think that a lot of the problem here is due to "hindsight bias". Of course its easy two weeks later to say, "yeah, that's the floodplain and people there should know better". Maybe true, maybe not. Its dangerous to use this most recent flood as the basis for a future policy though, IMO, because we can't really assess the severity with anything meaningful. Is this the new normal? Is it a 1% chance of recurrence or a 35% chance in the next say twenty years? Its impossible to quantify in any meaningful way.
I also agree that the "warning sign" slapped on these properties is hard. Its unclear, and of course people are not going to be happy. Even if this is the proper route though, and the right areas are identified in which to have this limitation, the owners of that property are going to be upset! Its a no-win situation in that respect.
|