Who is really responsible for risky building practices?
It was interesting to see the emphasis on climate change in President Obama's inaugural address. A few years ago those of us who expressed concern over the predictions were viewed with considerable scepticism. Now we may be seeing the beginning of a national debate that will focus not on the reality of climate change but rather on what we're going to do about it.
One issue is already surfacing and it is the same issue we face after any major disaster: do we rebuild or cut our losses? In an excellent article (Fiercer storms are coming – is it wise to build in their path?) in last Sunday's San Francisco Chronicle, Carolyn Lochhead considers how government has contributed to community vulnerability by subsidizing risky behavior and encouraging building in disaster-prone areas. The rush to restore infrastructure immediately after disaster ensures that debates over whether or not to rebuild are largely put on hold until it is too late. In many cases, construction and continued rebuilding in at-risk areas not only creates a drain on taxpayer dollars but actually strips away the natural defenses that would reduce potential damage to other parts of the communities.
But the other side of the coin is the impact on communities if we do not rebuild after a disaster. Objectively, one can argue that homes on barrier islands should not be rebuilt but who pays for the cost of relocation? How do you tell a homeowner who has built according to local building codes and bought insurance subsidized by the government that they are now responsible for paying for damages? What is lost when a community such as the Ninth Ward in New Orleans is scattered across the country and not allowed to rebuild? These are the questions that makes mitigation such a complex issue.
I believe it high time we had this debate about personal responsibility for risky behavior. It will not be popular but in the light of the increasing risk to coastal and riverine communities, we need to rethink how we build and how we rebuild after disaster.
Governmental land use decisions with hundreds of years of history are not easily undone. Are we going to undo the purchase of Manhattan? Are people being obstinate risk takers or relying on certifications their governments makes? A development in former rice fields was certified as sufficiently protected from flooding, then expensive homes built, then same certifying agency said oops we were wrong. Billion plus in levee work required. Homeowners bought because local, state & federal government agencies and officials said safe & low risk. Buyers relied on those determinations. Who owns the mistake? Who buys out the mistake.
Exactly. Some decisions were based on ignorance of the threat and would be hard to undo. Changes such as relocation or increasing insurance premiums will face severe political opposition. There is also a complex dynamic where the developers who build in a risk-prone area take their profits and hand off the problems to the homeowners and the government. This results in just the case you cite with the result that there is little choice but to raise levees which in turn creates more risk. It’s definitely not going to be an easy sell but the concerns about climate change may help put things into perspective.