Global Breaking News - Monday, December 23, 2024

Washed Away by Storms, Rebuilt by Taxpayers

The New York Times recently noted that “tens of billions of tax dollars have been spent on subsidizing coastal reconstruction in the aftermath of storms.” Critics of this spending say that it props up a a costly and deadly habit: rebuilding in places that are becoming uninhabitable. Should the federal government stop helping to rebuild properties in areas vulnerable to natural disasters? Would it make sense for the federal and local governments to buy such land, to prevent future loss of homes and lives?
* subsidize = 보조금을 주다/ reconstruction = 재건, 복원/ in the aftermath of ~ = ~의 여파(로)/ prop up = 지원하다; 받쳐주다/ uninhabitable = (건물 등이) 사람이 살 수 없는, 주거하기에 부적합한

 자연 재해에 취약한 지역에 있는 건물들의 재건하는것을 연방 정부는 그만 두어야 하나요?

1. When to Stay and When to Go
Sometimes the best investment for governments and property owners is to move, not to rebuild.
 
2. Look to the Causes of These Disasters
Some developed areas should return to nature, and others should be rebuilt. Ultimately, what matters is limiting global warming.
 
3. Rebuilding to Be More Resilient
Stricter building standards would reduce damage the next time disaster strikes. And there will be a next time.
 
4. In Alaska, Seeing the Future of U.S. Coasts
Wealthier areas get aid to rebuild, but rural places like Kivalina, an Alaskan community eroded by storms since 2004, are often on their own.
 
5. The Data Is In. Now We Need Action.
We can avoid damage like that of Hurricane Sandy if we encourage people to move and discourage further development.

Sample Essay

When to Stay and When to Go

Blanket federal spending after disasters can lead to rebuilding that isn’t in the best interest of the community, the state or the nation. But the government can help residents and property owners to become less vulnerable. To do that we have to spend and invest wisely, and most of all, not subsidize living in harm’s way.

Politicians miss the point when they grab a megaphone and cry out that we will rebuild. We need to rebuild smarter and better. Not just homes and businesses, but policies, programs and projects, ensuring we aren’t encouraging development in harm’s way.

Federal aid should make communities less exposed to disasters. When waters rose again in the Midwest just a few years after the flooding of 1993, the communities of Valmeyer, Ill., and Arnold, Mo. were not reflooded. Taxpayer assistance had moved them to higher ground.

No one is suggesting we move the entire New Jersey seacoast. But we can buy out and encourage mitigation of the most vulnerable properties. Every dollar in mitigation saves four in recovery.

Furthermore, we have to re-examine our subsidy systems that encourage high-risk development:

• The subsidized federal flood insurance program is more than $17 billion in debt, and its rates do not reflect the true risk.
• Federal storm protection efforts spend hundreds of millions of dollars pumping sand onto beaches, from which it erodes away every few years.
• Waivers of state and local cost-sharing of disaster funds remove “skin in the game” incentives to reduce future costs, spend wisely and quickly, according to the Homeland Security inspector general.

With sea level rise and predictions of more and more intense storms, we cannot afford to rely on temporary fixes like sand pumping and federal flood insurance. The long-term solution is moving out of harm’s way, and the taxpayer’s job is to help that move, not inhibit it.