Regarding “Who will pay for flood risk?”:
The answer to the front-page question in Monday’s Tribune is taxpayers if the government subsidy continues or is partially phased out, unless costs are shifted to the property owners. The real question is: Is it more politically acceptable to subsidize homeowners located in flood-prone areas than to subsidize food and health care for low-income families?
I sympathize with these homeowners at risk, as I am already paying more in property insurance than property taxes, which does not sound right. This is even after they increased my deductible dramatically and I excluded sinkhole coverage.
The Florida Legislature added to my costs an annual subsidy to a hurricane fund not just on my homeowners policy but my automobile policy.
Enough with this property insurance fiasco — let’s correct the whole thing while we’re at it with an Affordable Property Insurance Act.
The tea partiers are pushing to defund the Affordable Care Act, food stamps, etc. Will they back defunding FEMA flood insurance subsidies, or will they show their true colors?
The Florida Legislature has shown no interest in ending subsidies to Duke Energy and Citizens Property Insurance. Our governor turned down the federal subsidy for Medicaid. Why are they calling for continuing FEMA flood insurance subsidies, which contributes to the deficit as much as food stamps and Medicaid?
The answer is where they think the votes are and what is more acceptable to their base and not their conscience.