I have to agree

 

Aesop points out that building homes in fire-prone areas, or places exposed to weather hazards such as hurricanes, is fundamentally stupid, particularly because:

• it costs local and state authorities huge amounts to maintain access to such areas to protect them, fire and rescue departments to aid those living there during disasters, etc.;
• Insurance companies typically won't insure against hazards that are so easily foreseen, meaning that either they have to be compelled to do so through legislation, and/or subsidized to do so from taxpayers' coffers, and/or have state-aided insurance plans such as flood insurance to cover the risks they will not.

He blames government for pandering to those who insist on building homes in such areas, and then expecting the authorities to protect them and "bail them out" when crises occur.  You can read his points in full at the link, and I highly recommend that you do so.

I'd just like to add that the true cost of pandering to those who want to build their homes and/or businesses in such high-risk areas is staggering.  Think about it:

• There's all the infrastructure (roads, power, water, sewage processing and disposal, maintenance, etc.).  That's not just capital cost to provide them all, but ongoing running costs year in, year out.
• There's the expense of subsidizing and/or providing insurance coverage.
• There's the burden of restoring services to such areas when natural disasters disrupt them (which also means the resources devoted to doing that can't be used in other areas where they may be needed, imposing additional delays and costs).
• There's the additional bureaucracy and complexity of legislation and/or regulation accompanying all of the above.

If we got rid of that burden, think of how much we'd all save through having to fund that much less government!  I therefore agree with Aesop on the following:

It was jackassical government greed that let some mid-century idiot build there in the first place, to maximize the county's taxable property value. Which then requires more brush crews to save it, and more roads to maintain to get to it.And then more disaster funds when it repeatedly gets burned up.

Government created this problem.

Smaller government would start by ripping out the paved road that gets there, closing the nearest fire stations, condemning the land, and turning it into permanent natural habitat. But that breaks five or ten government rice bowls, and gets entitled idiots all riled up. 

I've only seen this about 5M times in my lifetime in this state [Aesop lives in California].

If some idiot wants to build his own private road, or make do by getting supplies in and out by pack mule, and carries the liability for such an idiotic house out of his own pocket, that should be the only way that place gets built.

Dollars to donuts the owner also gets all bent up when coyotes eat his pets, and mountain lions start eyeing his kids, and screams to Uncle Government to "do something". Then pisses and moans when the local fire department tells him that with trees and brush 20' from the house, they've already written it off when a fire breaks out. And he's likely the first in line at the trough when they declare a "disaster" (as opposed to "natural causes x human stupidity", which is also the plot recipe for every episode of Rescue 9-1-1, USCG: Cape Disappointment, and 57 other reality-based shows) once his house is a charred chimney surrounded by ashes.

It was big government that started such nonsense, A to Z, in the first place. Like people along the Mississippi found out a few years back, some places shouldn't have houses on them, ever, unless there's an annual stupidity tax on the property equal to 100% of its assessed value.

If government withdraws all services to such parcels save tax assessments, and cancels utility easements, which currently start a goodly number of brushfires up there in competition with lightning (you could look it up) the problem self-corrects within years, if not months, with no further effort nor public expenditure.

That's minimal government.

Amen!

Next step:  calculate how much government is going to be asked to pay (in repairs, compensation, welfare, and other assistance) in the aftermath of Hurricane Helene, currently tearing up Florida and Georgia.  It's sure to be in the billions of dollars - which we haven't got to spare.  How many of the homes that are currently being swamped have government-subsidized flood insurance, the ultimate cost of which comes out of our taxpayer pockets?

There may be those who ask, in so many words, "But what about tornadoes or other natural hazards?  Surely people deserve some help in such disasters?"  To that I can only say, "I agree - but who says that help should come from the government?"  In the not too recent past, churches and other community organizations organized such help, raised the necessary funds from their own efforts, and directed it to where it would do the most good.  (Incidentally, they also made sure it did not go to those who would waste or abuse it, because they knew their own people and whether or not they were trustworthy.)  It's only with the rise of "Big Government" that the state tried (not very effectively) to take it over . . . and that's one of the main reasons why we have "Big Government" today.  As wiser men have said before:

The best government is that which governs least.

A government big enough to give you everything you want is a government big enough to take from you everything you have.

Words of wisdom.  Why have we forgotten them?

Peter