Hacker News Reader

Comment by sokoloff | Hacker News Reader

Is the conclusion that housing should not be built where Sandy’s damages occurred? That seems...unreasonable.

A significant portion of Texas and Florida need to realize that these damaging events aren't going to stop happening, and they need to either build stronger, or leave if that's not possible.

If I built a house that could not manage a foot of snow on it's roof in Maine without collapsing, and every year it collapsed got a big check from the feds to rebuild the exact same structure in the exact same place, surely someone would be willing to tell me I'm being stupid?

It's literally Einstein's definition of "insanity"

> It's literally Einstein's definition of "insanity"

That definition of insanity was not invented by Einstein, nor did he ever say it.

NB: Sandy did not affect Texas and had very minimal effects on Florida.

Texas and Florida might need changes, but losses from Sandy aren’t the reason.

Like anything non-hurricane related, either find a private insurer you can afford, or risk being uninsured and losing everything you own

This. I'm not sure why it works any other way. If the location is somehow critical to the local/regional/national interest than those entities can subsidize the insurance cost. But the free market should handle the situation. If people want to live somewhere that's fine. If it's too risky to insure, than they are on their own.

Sandy was an anomalous storm but could happen again. By the time storms reach the Northeast they’re weak, usually not even hurricanes at landfall. The Jersey Shore was very unprepared but new development is far more robust. Lots more dunes being built and protected too.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com