WELFARE WITH AN OCEAN VIEW.

The Charles Peters-era Washington Monthly preached a sort of pragmatic technocracy that he tried to position as "neoliberalism" before that term took on the scary connotations it currently does.  As the magazine's title suggests, the intended audience was policy wonks who might have a hand in Implementing That General Will.  Implementation, however, includes looking at those policies that are not working, with a view toward changing some and ending others.  The title of my post refers to a more recent article that prays for an end to public funding of coastal restoration.  "The federal government spends billions replenishing beaches for the affluent. The bill will soon skyrocket thanks to climate change."  It's not limited to the beaches.  Presumably the Obamas built a retirement cottage on Martha's Vineyard because the taxpayers will be on the hook for rebuilding the house as well.  Your tax dollars maintain the beaches where they are, in order that the houses of the nomenklatura can remain where they are.

Why do governments keep subsidizing houses in hurricane zones?

Sure, some people would live in risky areas no matter what. Some live in these areas already and can't afford to move. But government intervention in the insurance market has helped many more people move to these areas since the 1970s.

There's moral hazard at work.  There might also be regressive transfers.

Whenever there's a major flood (doesn't matter if it follows a hurricane or a rain storm or it's just the spring thaw somewhere in the north) you'll get people talking about "hundred-year" or "thousand-year" or what have you flood events.

And yes, there are people who lose that lottery multiple times, and perhaps there will be a moment when our political masters will sit down and rethink the current system of publicly subsidized flood insurance, under which the taxpayers replace the same damaged property, repeatedly.  Not surprisingly, the flood insurance program replaces more than a little beach-front property for rent-seekers, and once the emergency passes, I intend to turn to that dimension of the situation.

Where a policy of making good flood damage looks like an inefficient use of resources, particularly if rising sea levels or stronger hurricanes are in our future, as the doomsday environmentalists would have it, as well as a regressive transfer, with the likes of the Obamas and Newt Gingrich and who knows how many other people you might have heard of qualifying for a rebuild of their beachfront property, perhaps there might be a consensus for no further subsidies to beachfront housing, no matter how appealing the view from the balcony might be.