From a carrot or the stick perspective. The fact that the insurance companies are/have pulled out means we need to also consider how to provide a carrot to balance the damage from the stick.
The biggest issue with this strategy is that when people go and sell their asset (land / home) there property will be difficult to sell. Therefore they will not leave, and there is no benefit to reinvesting, so you basically have to drive it into the ground, and often, just not pay your mortgage or taxes. This is a huge problem, given that we all operated with the unwritten social contract that everyone should be able to retire. But all good things do end, you did build there, and we as a people need to help those people to remain as a cohesive group - no one gets left behind.
Problem is you only bought that house because someone built it, the someone that built it probably filled marsh to do it, that marsh is what protected you from flooding. So the ultimate liability really falls upon the financier and engineers that designed and built it, and the municipality that approved it. This is a legal nightmare and no one should even think about going there 99.9% of the time.
I personally think that too much of society's capital is focused into shelter (roads, houses, buildings, lawns) rather than land management for the benefit food and water - we are what we eat.
Community is what controls how those three money flows work. And the lack of a project or thing being insurable is a bar that can only be broken by the federal government (e.g. flood or crop insurance).
Nuclear powered ships and energy barges will proliferate around the world in the coming decade or so - why?, well because the risk profile is known and those "machines" can now be commercially ensured. Note that the risk profile for this technology/machine was developed when it was "self insured" by the military/feds. It is way way way safer than the public thinks.
Lots of large municipal governments go the self insurance route for things where risk is clear and hard to control - good examples include wastewater capacity to serve (sewer capacity) and winter road maintenance (plow damage). Both of these services have risk profiles that are highly biased to people's actions and weather, and can be fudged around in the wrong directions because of pure ignorance through workplace (union) policies and political whims - "can't say no".
The only cure for this problem is a bait/switch tactic, namely "run it to failure" and "create a problem to solve a problem" - it is extremely effective but also extremely in your face way of forcing the community to understand how "their skin is in the game".
From a carrot or the stick perspective. The fact that the insurance companies are/have pulled out means we need to also consider how to provide a carrot to balance the damage from the stick.
The biggest issue with this strategy is that when people go and sell their asset (land / home) there property will be difficult to sell. Therefore they will not leave, and there is no benefit to reinvesting, so you basically have to drive it into the ground, and often, just not pay your mortgage or taxes. This is a huge problem, given that we all operated with the unwritten social contract that everyone should be able to retire. But all good things do end, you did build there, and we as a people need to help those people to remain as a cohesive group - no one gets left behind.
Problem is you only bought that house because someone built it, the someone that built it probably filled marsh to do it, that marsh is what protected you from flooding. So the ultimate liability really falls upon the financier and engineers that designed and built it, and the municipality that approved it. This is a legal nightmare and no one should even think about going there 99.9% of the time.
I personally think that too much of society's capital is focused into shelter (roads, houses, buildings, lawns) rather than land management for the benefit food and water - we are what we eat.
Community is what controls how those three money flows work. And the lack of a project or thing being insurable is a bar that can only be broken by the federal government (e.g. flood or crop insurance).
Nuclear powered ships and energy barges will proliferate around the world in the coming decade or so - why?, well because the risk profile is known and those "machines" can now be commercially ensured. Note that the risk profile for this technology/machine was developed when it was "self insured" by the military/feds. It is way way way safer than the public thinks.
Lots of large municipal governments go the self insurance route for things where risk is clear and hard to control - good examples include wastewater capacity to serve (sewer capacity) and winter road maintenance (plow damage). Both of these services have risk profiles that are highly biased to people's actions and weather, and can be fudged around in the wrong directions because of pure ignorance through workplace (union) policies and political whims - "can't say no".
The only cure for this problem is a bait/switch tactic, namely "run it to failure" and "create a problem to solve a problem" - it is extremely effective but also extremely in your face way of forcing the community to understand how "their skin is in the game".