Monday, October 8, 2007

Calling “retreat” on the Gulf Coast?

   Retreat!” is the cry of many environmentalists and some economists in regard to government support of human development on risky coastal areas.  Historically, federal and state programs have given developers and owners insurance and security to build in attractive but storm-prone coastal regions, such as those along the Gulf of Mexico. 

Baystlouis   But in some places, such as Bay St. Louis, Miss., which felt the full brunt of hurricane Katrina in 2005, a debate is raging over a change in policy.  Among other things, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers is offering a buyout of homes, in the hope of rebuilding wetlands (which act as a buffer to storms) and discouraging the rebuilding of houses along the coast.  Among local concerns about the plan is the worry that reconstruction will be done in a patchwork manner –- with a rebuilt house next to a bought-out lot.      

   Our land use policies have typically bent over backwards to help homeowners (who are often affluent) who have built in risky areas –- insurance and buyouts have helped residents who otherwise wouldn’t have had protection from the private insurance market.  To the extent that predictions suggest that it’s too risky to live in certain locations, and that the long-term public good would be served by more wetlands, government should discourage people from rebuilding –- or at least not give them insurance.

http://lawprofessors.typepad.com/land_use/2007/10/calling-retreat.html

| Permalink

TrackBack URL for this entry:

http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8341bfae553ef00e54ef3dd0a8833

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Calling “retreat” on the Gulf Coast?:

Comments

Excellent commentary.

I've been proposing a similar argument since I participated in the Mississippi Renewal Forum roughly two months post-Katrina.

Of course, this is not to say that individuals should be barred from living in such places. Only that the government should not subsidize/insure this illogical decision (illogical in the sense that--no matter how much we harden buildings or raise them on stilts--mother nature will always have a stronger trump card to ultimately play).

Indeed, I would extend this same argument to building structures near rivers that flood, near active fault lines, and near areas prone to forest fires.

In all instances, the decision-maker should be the risk-bearer.

Posted by: Chad Emerson | Oct 9, 2007 12:19:50 PM

Post a comment