Fightin’ words: Who should pay for destroyed homes in disaster-prone areas?

Daniel Malgren
Daniel Malgren

Daniel Malgren

Reporter

Home insurance is a vital aspect of our society and serves as a useful asset in the event of a disaster. This system is so vital in America that it is more often than not required for homeowners. Subsequently, there is an eternal wave of catastrophes happening every day.

Homeowners, however, should not have to pay into an insurance policy that goes to support the disregard of others. Because, of course, building a house right at the front door of a tropical beach, or near a tectonic plate is not going result in damage.

It would appear that it is in our best interest to contribute our money to a policy that we may never benefit from as most of us will never suffer the tragedy of property damage.

In the event that we are to never able to utilize such a system, it would only make sense to have our money go to aid the individuals who park their houses right in the way of an oncoming disaster. This, logically, would be the most tolerable means to apply such a policy.

The audacity home owners express when it comes to building their dream home communicates an overbearing sense of ignorance.

The thought that one could initially purchase their home on a tropical beach by no means is wrong, but considering the full facts that their home sits along a rather dangerous area should incite some to consideration to other prospects.

Then again, they have home insurance. Those living in hazardous locations can eat off those paying for home insurance and have their homes piled in ruins countless times as long as there are homeowners who continually bring forth the finances despite the fact that they may never have need of it themselves.

I am by no means proposing that those living within the wealthier folds of America are not compensating for insurance themselves. Florida has since paid double the rate on their house insurance since the 2005 hurricane.

But here is where the logic begins to fall out: is it more effective to reside in a location that bears a record for being generally safe, rather than choosing to dwell in a potentially hazardous location, and possibly risk suffering the effects of the disasters native to that particular region?

Purchasing houses in locations that have a likely probability of disaster not only impacts those who now are without a home but those individuals whose money is paying for a house insurance policy they may never require.

This, in turn, is a loss of money as they could potentially get through life in an isolated position and never suffer the effects of a natural catastrophe.

The concept that one individual must help rebuild the carelessness of another only gives greater power to the ignorant, while crippling those who chose to live away from particularly hazardous locations.

The Puyallup Post is the award-winning student news of Pierce College Puyallup in Puyallup, Washington. Copyright The Puyallup Post 2017. Twitter/Instagram @puyalluppost

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Fightin’ words: Who should pay for destroyed homes in disaster-prone areas?

by admin time to read: 2 min
0