Recent flooding throughout Louisiana has raised a massive issue for local and central governments as well as residents effected by the natural disaster. Billions of dollars worth of home cleanup and repairs will be necessary to fully recover from the onslaught of water, but "more than 80% of damaged homes didn't carry flood coverage because they were outside the 100-year flood plain." The governor of Louisiana, John Bel Edwards, has approached the federal government and asked for $2 billion to fund recovery efforts. Because this flood exceeded the 100-year flood plain by massive proportions, local government spending and aid is simply not enough, and people are forced to make the decision to stay in their rotting houses and wait for aid, or leave in search of a new start away from their damaged communities.
According to Gov. Edwards, "the longer it takes to get federal money, more people will decide to leave their homes and communities." The coming weeks will reveal many people's preferences in a typical fashion described by Tiebout. Although many people moved to the areas outside of the flood plain in order to avoid dealing with frequent natural disasters ('voting with their feet' to be out of harm's way), they are now faced with another situation in which they must reveal their preferences over time and either stay and repair their damaged homes and communities, or leave and settle elsewhere for a new start. Additionally, they must consider the revenue-expenditure patterns of the areas in which they live in. If they are settled in one of the areas where FEMA has begun responding as well as where local government has already delegated funds for disaster responses, they are more likely to stay put and allow the government to help them. Whereas if they live in the massive area effected which has no infrastructure to deal with such a natural disaster, they may think twice about whether it is worth staying or leaving for a safer area to settle.
No comments:
Post a Comment