> "While it would never work the way he suggested, it should more often. Instead, we privatize profits and socialize losses. I think a lot of people are or should be very sick of that trend by now. That was his point."
Perhaps the rebuttal was as strong as it was because flooding of land does not only affect landowners, it affects everyone who relies on that land (in one way or another).
To give some examples:
* People could live on the land and not own it.
* People could work on the land and not own it.
* People could rely on the land as part of a major transportation route and not own it.
* People could rely on the land as part of the infrastructure that provides their food (e.g. a local supermarket, a farmer's market, a shipping dock, etc...) and not own it.
Therefore, to restrict the concern to landowners only is shortsighted. The impacts are potentially far greater than just those felt by landowners.
All those people have decades to see it coming too. They too can start changing their dependence on it if they really think it'll affect them. Of course most people don't think ahead nearly that far and won't actually look for a new job until their employer literally goes underwater. But maybe we just need a bit of public education about the predicted future to help those people who aren't thinking about it themselves.
Still, my point was focused on landowners, which the article seems to be too. Of course there are public services and so on that don't follow the free market and they're a different issue. I just don't think we should be fearing for the poor troubles that the owners of NY city property might suffer in 50-100 year's time. Those people are smart enough to evaluate risks themselves and make their own decisions long before anything is forced on them.
I understand exactly what you're saying. As part of my evaluation for a home purchase, I've looked into potential natural disasters and probability of one occurring in my lifetime. While I think most people just wait until something bad happens then lobbies the gov't for a bailout, I personally view the inconvenience of losing my home in that process too much to bear. Even if the gov't will bail me out due to my own lack of research. That's just common sense, and should be a strain that should hopefully run through all ideologues. My situation is a pittance compared to NYC real estate, so those people have as much or more reason for concern than an average homeowner would.
My guess is that the idea faces virulent opposition from those who are absolutely refusing to leave NYC. Deep ties, heels dug in deep, and will wait for the rising tide: and are fully prepared to bribe the government for their reimbursement when problems land. The rest of us are a bit more sensible and prepare ahead of time.
There's always going to be those who, rich or poor, refuse to pack up and settle elsewhere. We shouldn't be rewarding outright obstinance, and there will be a day where the gov't won't be around to redistribute that wealth. So it's all quite the gamble just because someone really loves NYC, when they could relocate today to Chicago or Kansas City.
I'm all for personal responsibility. However, I don't see the problem in the government playing their part also. Whilst some people have enough privately owned resources to work around the issues without too much fuss, there are those who have more limited resources who are less able to do so.
Let's take the case of flooding in Manhattan. Let's imagine it hits the subway first. There's a large number of people in NYC who live outside Manhattan but work in Manhattan, travelling to work on the subway from the other NYC boroughs. Whilst people may choose to move away from NYC over time, what about those first few weeks after the flooding hits the subway? Other forms of transport are already heavily used, so it's not like NYC could continue to function smoothly by all former subway users using buses instead. In cases like this, I'd want the government to intervene to help speed up the implementation of flood defences and organise resources to help people continue to live their lives until they were at a point where they had the resources to move.
One of the reasons that governments have a hard time executing on large public works projects are the costs.
Advocating for regulatory changes that reduce the cost of public works projects (e.g. prevailing wage rules) would result in more of those projects actually being completed.
I'm suggesting that we should look for ways to complete projects with less $$. That doesn't mean 'cutting pay', because that presumes you've already hired someone at a high pay rate. How about don't hire them at that high rate to start with?
Perhaps the rebuttal was as strong as it was because flooding of land does not only affect landowners, it affects everyone who relies on that land (in one way or another).
To give some examples:
* People could live on the land and not own it.
* People could work on the land and not own it.
* People could rely on the land as part of a major transportation route and not own it.
* People could rely on the land as part of the infrastructure that provides their food (e.g. a local supermarket, a farmer's market, a shipping dock, etc...) and not own it.
Therefore, to restrict the concern to landowners only is shortsighted. The impacts are potentially far greater than just those felt by landowners.