Not sure if I'm going to come off as insensitive for suggesting this, but after watching some footage of the SoCal wildfires, I actually found myself a little annoyed. 

 

Here you have people who are building houses in areas where wildfires have reclaimed land every few years for millenia.  Every news story looks the same.  The camera shows some amazing pictures of wildfires consuming houses (on land where fires have surely burned many thousands of times before), and then the news anchor comes on and says, "The president has declared the a Federal Emergency in the area which allows federal funds to be used for recovery."

 

Obviously hurricanes, earthquakes, and floods are random, but only to an extent.  Ohio will never be subjected to damage from hurricanes or earthquakes, and the small floods we have here every couple of years pale in comparison from a financial loss perspective.  So why do we pay the same amount of money into the federal disaster recovery pot as Californians and Floridians do?

 

I'm proposing that high risk areas pay a Natural Disaster Tax.  Every spot in the country has a natural disaster risk assocated with it.  If you decide to build your house on the side of a cliff that is mudslide prone, you pay a tax.  If you decide to build your house in an earthquake zone, you pay a tax.  If you build your house in a floodplain, you pay a tax.  The collected Natural Disaster Tax revenues would go into a pot that helps victims recover, communities to rebuild roads and infrastructure, and pay for tax breaks that are currently given to disaster victims.

 

We already do this to an extent with insurance rates (Floridians are whining about expensive insurance after the last couple of hurricanes), but this would cover the federal aid portion of things.  Thoughts?

Ohio does suffer from the effects of hurricanes: the large bands of rains that creep northward when the system moves inland, causing extensive flooding, as was the case earlier this summer and in years past. Flooding along the Ohio causes hundreds of millions in damage, and given that Ohio lies along the Ohio for its entire southern and part of its eastern border, that greatly exaggerates damages. That's no small flood, although it's flooded less in the past 20 years than in the previous 40 years -- which could all very well change in a given year.

 

High risk area tax. I like this. Given that people are moving further out into naturalized areas or far out in the country, far from any firehouse or support service, and then surround their house with plants, mulch, and trees with no buffer line, they are only setting themselves up for potential disaster.

 

But it's also our fault. Naturally occurring fires are no longer permitted, and the firefighters now realize that our fire prevention efforts of the prior 50 years may have led up to superfires that we see today. Naturally occurring fires burn off the dead wood and 'garbage' from nature and are easily controlled and kept to a relative minimum. When we suppress this for dozens of years, the 'garbage' accumulates and only contributes to a superfire, where temperatures burn far hotter and faster.

Northeast Ohio (Ashtabula and Lake Counties) are also subject to earthquakes frequently though only minor 2-3.0 quakes, who's to say those quakes won't be larger once or twice? Also, Cincinnati would be significantly affected if the mega fault along the Missisippi ever unleashed another 8.0 quake. So we are vulnerable, just MUCH less so than Cali.

After four hurricanes ripped through Florida in 2004, Preznit Bush declared those counties a "disaster area".  Federal money was allocated, contractors went to work, there was a lot of money flowing, people had jobs, modest homes and extravagant coastal homes were rebuilt at taxpayer expense.

 

Bush and his brother the governor made sure that people in Florida were happy and prosperous so that they would vote for the dumber bush in the election in November.  All financed with your payroll tax deduction.  Isn't democracy great? /sarcasm

 

Just to add insult to injury, southern politicians are proposing that a surcharge be placed on the fire insurance policies of us who don't live in a high risk state.  That surcharge would enable insurance companies to be able to insure coastal properties in the South that, in all fairness, should not be insured.

Speaking of the fires --

http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/10/23/fire.map/index.html (map with details)

 

Ouch.

I seem to remember a tornado doing some pretty nasty damage to Xenia, in 1974. Any government help then, or during the great floods that devastated Dayton? Any federal help in assisting with nasty urban riots in Cleveland in 1968, and more recently in Cincinnati?

 

Let people who live in risky areas pay through higher insurance rates!

Was there any federal help after the riots?  Now that is a good question. 

 

I'm all for this tax by the way.  It should be applied to hurricane zones, earthquake zones, floodplains, tornado alleys, etc.  Allowing them to pay through insurance rates assumes that the gov't isn't bailing them out every few years, which is definitely the case in much of Florida.

Just to add insult to injury, southern politicians are proposing that a surcharge be placed on the fire insurance policies of us who don't live in a high risk state.  That surcharge would enable insurance companies to be able to insure coastal properties in the South that, in all fairness, should not be insured.

 

I'd really be interested in any articles you might have about this.

I think you're totally right except for disaster associated with flood planes. Many of them are old, already established neighborhoods with poor residents. I don't think taxes should be imposed on them.

southern politicians are proposing that a surcharge be placed on the fire insurance policies of us who don't live in a high risk state.  That surcharge would enable insurance companies to be able to insure coastal properties in the South that, in all fairness, should not be insured.

I'd really be interested in any articles you might have about this.

I saw that on public television.  I think it was PBS' NOW.  I tried googling something up but the closest I came was this: http://www.itsyourtimes.com/?q=node/1150&page=3

 

I thought this letter about the Florida taxpayers covering the loss through Citizens insurance was good:

http://www.itsyourtimes.com/?q=node/1150#comment-2674

Insurance Rights?

We are now all having to pay the price of the poor planning and greed of the developers and politicians of the last few decades...

The price for not saying "No" to run-away growth, not requiring more rational land development, and allowing the insanity of building in places that are KNOWN to be beaches or wetlands. Why have we allowed so much construction right at the waters edge? And of course killing back the mangrove islands and overdeveloping the barrier islands that would protect us has made the problem even worse. Why not have the roads near the water with beaches front between the roads and water? That would at least put the hugely expensive buildings a little further from the eroding tides, would allow the sand dune systems to act as nature intended and help protect land behind them; while it won't stop the devastation a Cat 4 or 5 hurricane will cause it would limit the amount of damage in smaller storms at least. It doesn't take a million dollar 'study' to know that beaches erode and build, that river floodplanes will eventually flood again, and that swamps will always try to return to what they once were... it only takes plain old common sense....

so WHY do we allow building in those places to begin with?

 

I recently visited the Panhandle area of Florida with its (once) beautiful beaches.... almost every piece of unoccupied sand up there is for sale... while they are continuing to build huge, multistoried homes and condos within a few hundred feet from the shore line!

In an area that very often gets hit with hurricanes!

Even those on stilts will be washed away when the sand around them goes with the first big hurricane. How much will that cost? And WHO will pay?

Of course it's not much different from what we have done here in Pinellas...

 

How do they afford insurance? Even if they paid a thousand dollars a month in insurance for the next ten years it still would not be anywhere near the value of the home or what the insurer will have to expend... The insurance companies could not stay in business with those odds against them, so of course they do not want that type of liability... Which leaves Citizens insurance... aptly named as the citizens (the taxpayers) pay for it. So, in other words those of us who can't afford to live on the water or beaches are paying for those that do.... by helping pay the higher rates.

Why should the rest of Florida's citizens who have do not have property at such high risk have to pay for those who insist on 'building their homes on sand'?

Perhaps the developers should have to provide home owners insurance on any properties they develop? It only seems fair to make them responsible for what they build. And pass the costs on to those who insist in living in high risk areas. May-be that would stop some of the greed of overdevelopment of areas that should not have buildings on them to begin with!

 

Pretty soon only the very wealthy will be able to afford to live here... taxes and insurance alone are more than my mortgage already.... I was fortunate enough to live and buy here many years ago.... how will young families or those with only moderate incomes be able to afford to buy homes? or afford rent for that matter?

 

It won't be a very nice place to live when the 'workers'of society

(Store clerks, police, firemen, nurses, teachers etc.) aren't here... because they can't afford to live here anymore....

 

Alexa Wilcox

I seem to remember a tornado doing some pretty nasty damage to Xenia, in 1974. Any government help then, or during the great floods that devastated Dayton? Any federal help in assisting with nasty urban riots in Cleveland in 1968, and more recently in Cincinnati?

 

I don't the "federal relief" associated with think a tornado in Xenia, a 3.0 earthquake in Geauga County, or even a flood on the Ohio River comes close the BILLIONS spent in the recovery from hurricaines, earthquakes, or wildfires.  I'm fine with paying our share (if there even is a share), just as long as some risk probability is built into the tax.  I'm thinking of a tiered system where High, Medium, Low, and No risk areas are categorized based on our experience in the last 50 years.

 

Let people who live in risky areas pay through higher insurance rates!

 

Why even have FEMA if the insurance companies have everything covered?  Insurance companies don't give tax breaks, food, shelter, and temporary assistance to the people displaced by natural disasters.  They just cut a check for personal property and sometimes a hotel, but this process takes weeks or months.

After the Mississippi River floods some years ago, didn't the feds finally tell people they were no longer going to insure or help those who choose to live in those flood plains?

 

Anyone who chooses to live in these high risk areas (Hurricane, Fire, Flood, Earthquake, Volcano, Mass Wasting, Tsunami, etc) likely already pay higher insurance premiums then those of us who don't. I feel there should be an additional tax on these same people if they expect any governmental agency to assist them after these disasters happen.

PBS' NOW: Still in Harm's Way   7.7.06

The nation is spending billions of dollars rebuilding and reconstructing infrastructure, homes, and businesses on the Gulf Coast after Hurricane Katrina.

 

But is some of that money actually encouraging people to rebuild in dangerous places? NOW returns this week to Dauphin Island, Alabama, a tiny barrier island that U.S. taxpayers have already rebuilt several times before.

 

In the wake of Katrina, taxpayers are once more spending tens of millions of dollars putting the tiny island back together again. At what point does the spiraling cost of helping people rebuild outweigh their determination to stay put?

 

"It's important to keep in mind that more often than not, hurricanes like Katrina are not natural disasters. They're human disasters. Most of the damage comes because we've built in a place where we shouldn't be building," says Rob Young, a scientist who studies coastal development.

 

...snip...

Critics contend that every time the government rebuilds fragile coastal communities, or offers discounted Federal flood insurance, or fortifies another beachfront, it's shielding people from the real risks of living in precarious spots. While no one argues that Americans should be abandoned after a natural disaster, does it make sense for taxpayers to keep rebuilding in harm's way? Next time on NOW.

 

http://www.pbs.org/now/shows/227/

"It's important to keep in mind that more often than not, hurricanes like Katrina are not natural disasters. They're human disasters. Most of the damage comes because we've built in a place where we shouldn't be building," says Rob Young, a scientist who studies coastal development.

 

That's a great quote Boreal.  Exactly what we're talking about here.

 

To take things to the illogical extreme.  Let's say a village pops up on the top of Mount McKinley because residents want to be able to take in the gorgeous Alaskan views.  Then let's say that they're shocked by the annual avalanches and cold snaps.  These natural disasters require FEMA assistance, gov't tax breaks, and handouts to care for the displaced while they rebuild thier homes.  Why should I, Joe Taxpayer, continually foot the bill for this?

Sorry if I sounded cranky yesterday, but where I lived in Southern California was in one of the millions of houses in the basinlands, whose residents should not have to pay for the risky behavior of people who choose to live in areas where fire is part of the natural cycle. 

 

My major point was no place is totally safe, but some areas are naturally riskier. Have that million dollar view of the Pacific, if you can afford it. But don't require governmental action to collect funds to bail out your stupidity!

 

Great thread, btw

Then there's the case of a co-worker of mine who had owned a home along a small stream in Annandale, Va for years with no flood problems, but with all the develpment up stream, we could be assured that he'd miss work any time there was a big storm.  His expense?  Up stream neighbors expense?  Up stream jurisdiction's expense? Developer .....

^^^^Thanks, Boreal.

Thanks for the acknowledgement, Confiteordeo & Brewmaster.  You can play the video or audio or read the transcript at the site.  That was one of NOW's best shows and it really got my dander up.  http://www.pbs.org/now/shows/227/

 

As an added "treat", the second segment is about Cleveland's Imam Fawaz Damra.  Well, formerly of Cleveland.