My response was to this comment at the top, where it was, explicitly and objectively, supporting a policy that dictates where people should live.
Folks have had their houses rebuilt with other people's money really often - and build it in the exact same spot, because the feds will come build it again. Even though it's going to get destroyed, again.
Entire communities, and their economic output, will vanish. A good example are communities whose entire existence is owed to revenue generated by commercial fishing. What do you do with all the fishermen who don't know any other line of work?
Teach them to code?
Long Island, NY is prone to flooding and wind-damage from hurricanes and nor'easters. Areas are routinely destroyed or heavily damaged. Notable years are 1950, 1954, 1960, 1986, and 1999.
Asheville, NC is prone to flooding, land & rock slides, and the occasional earthquake. It is probably one of the state's most natural wonders, and the country-side a lovely place to live.
During periods of heavy rain and tropical events, downtown NYC floods the subways and streets and doing expensive salt water damage.
I know of no place on earth that is without some susceptibility to natural disaster. So where do we draw the line?
Effectively, such a rule would define these and other places as uninhabitable and render them ineligible for both commercial insurance and federal disaster aid. That seems so foolish and counter to our tradition as a nation. Such a rule would see the splintering and end to many long-standing communities.
If the concern is cost, you may want to turn your attention to discretionary federal expenditures.
Surely we can find places to cut bloat, pork, and wasteful spending, particularly in areas that range from nothing to very-little to do with the United States, her citizens, or their needs and emergencies that are a part of living on planet earth.
It is almost like that 75 billion we printed for Zelenskyy could have been used to help Americans.
Lastly, where does it end? How do we define the formula for making these rules, and who gets the define and apply that formula? Best case scenario, if this rule was a thing, you'd be looking at consolidating large parts of American society into more 'manageable' locations and mega cities, which were decreed as somehow having the least amount of risk, and lowest possible expense...
...in a vain attempt at avoiding the risk and expenditures of natural disasters?
...that happen everywhere?
...routinely.
It just seems foolish when you work through it to a practical end.
Stop paying for them to keep rebuilding the house, give them the money to move.
>I know of no place on earth that is without some susceptibility to natural disaster. So where do we draw the line?
OP proposed twice, you objected. I think twice with no time horizon isn't useful. Twice in 50 years seems reasonable for someone who lives in a 100 year flood plain.
But these flood plains are growing with climate change. Storms are getting worse and more frequent. Just continuing to pay to rebuild is not the answer.
It's clearly not explicit or objective. "If you choose to live here you will not receive aid when your house is knocked down in a hurricane" is so clearly not the same as "You can not legally live here".