There are ridiculous lawsuits all the time, but this one is particularly egregious.
According to the New York Times, property owners in part of New Orleans are suing the government, claiming that
the Army Corps of Engineers amplified the destructive effects of Hurricane Katrina by building a poorly designed navigation channel adjacent to the city.
That's right, people who chose to live in an area extremely prone to flooding blame the Army for their property losses during Hurricane Katrina, and think taxpayers should pay massive compensation. Just how much money are we talking about?
An Army financial projection has concluded there is a reasonable possibility that potential government losses could ultimately range from $10 billion to $100 billion.
What's another 10-100 billion? One of the plantiffs mentioned in the
Times lost her home during the storm. She has already received $80,000. But of course that's nowhere near good enough for her. She didn't have flood insurance and her house is total loss. She has to live in an apartment now -- the horror! The government owes her a new house. Nevermind that owning a home in the New Orleans area with no flood insurance is pretty stupid. But then again, why bother? You can just sue the government and try to get everyone else to pay for your losses.
We have a flood zone in the city I live in. (Actually, I live about 1/4 mile from the edge of it.) About every 2 or 3 years, every house in the flood zone gets at least some water in it. Now, I understand why people who already own homes there (in my neighborhood, buying a house is unusual. Usually, they're passed down from one generation to the next) wouldn't leave- for one thing, the houses are hard to sell.
ReplyDeleteHowever, I saw an interview with a young couple who lived in the city their entire lives, and deliberately moved into the flood zone. (They didn't inherit, they bought a house there.) The reporter asked them why they would move into the known flood zone and the man says, "Well, we liked the house."
Yeah, well, you f'ing pay, not the insurance, you, to fix it every 2 or 3 years then.
I can't understand why that city is in that place, perhaps it's too expensive to pick up and move. I'd also be surprised if insurance companies actually provide insurance against flooding. The premiums would be pretty high, no?
ReplyDeleteNone the less, it's a bit hard to accept that the rest of the people must pay for her house, unless the state really did screw her over.