New at Reason

Julian Sanchez | September 19, 2005

Jonathan Rauch calculates the costs and benefits of letting a city drown.

Comments

|9.19.05 @ 9:49AM|#

This is actually the first time I know of someone referencing the song when talking about NO. I myself was singing the day after it happened.

Timothy|9.19.05 @ 9:56AM|#

I find it sort of sad that he had to explain what Mount Rainier is. That thing goes and you can kiss Seattle goodbye.

|9.19.05 @ 10:24AM|#

Nah, no need to worry about Rainier. Yellowstone will blow up any day now and life will cease to exist on earth.

I should really stop watching the Discovery Channel.

|9.19.05 @ 10:46AM|#

Good piece! I hadn't seen that perspective voiced yet, but I'm convinced by the argument.

|9.19.05 @ 10:50AM|#

A couple of points:

1. The problem with the reasoning in the article is that it assumes that the American taxpayer should be forced to pay for the folly of builiding a large city in a location that it really shouldn't have been in the first place. It like those people that build their multi-million dollar homes on barrier beaches. They get wiped out by hurricanes and the owners expect the federal govt. (i.e us) to pay for the rebuilding. What happened in NO is a perfect example of mankind's hubris biting him hard in the butt.

2. The "200 year" calculations are nice on paper but mother nature doesn't pay attention to them. The next "200 year" storm could happen next week, next month , next year or 300 years from now. Statistically, they're all within the "200 year" scenario. A more useful way to look at it is to put it in terms of likelihood - what are the odds of a storm of that magnitude hitting NO in any given year? What are the odds that if such a storm does happen, the city will be destroyed? The "200 year storm" thing lulls people into believing that the event can't happen in their lifetimes (the next one won't happen for another 200 years, right? WRONG), so they don't feel the need to prepare and plan appropriately.

3. Because of these two things, the only reasonable thing to do is to restrict building in areas that are high risk (and NO is certainly in the riskiest of risky locations), take reasonable precaution to protect what you do build (reasonble meaning suitable for the average emergency rather than the exceptional), develop a good plan to evacuate if necessary and then accept that the place is going to get wiped out every now and again.

When that happens, don't come crying to the fed government to help you rebuild. You made the choice so live with it.

Re: the Led Zep song - I'm glad I'm not the only one who thought of it. I held off for a week after the hurricane hit before blasting the tune in my car on my way to work. I felt a bit guilty, but man, that's a great tune....

|9.19.05 @ 10:50AM|#

If there is another New Orleans out there, the public should know about it and should have to think about it. Katrina should change American habits of mind forever.

(emphasis added)

You might as well wish for the vast majority of people to rationally and unemotionally evaluate risks and benefits of any action. It isn't going to happen.

JMoore,

Heck, the people on the east coast also have to worry from the Greenland ice sheet coming off in one BIG avalanche and creating a 200-foot tsunami.

fyodor|9.19.05 @ 10:50AM|#

life will cease to exist on earth

Eh? Not quite I think, but if that volcano that's 30,000 years overdue does blow, a good chunk of the western US will sure be gone goombye. Katrina has renewed my thoughts of what route I would try to take from here in Denver as soon as I heard about it. Most likely in futility, I know. Oh well, maybe it'll wait another 10,000 years....

|9.19.05 @ 10:57AM|#

the only reasonable thing to do is to restrict building in areas that are high risk (and NO is certainly in the riskiest of risky locations)

Isn't this contradictory? If people can't ask for help when their houses get knocked down, then they SHOULD be able to build wherever they please, right?

Also, as for your first point, I'm in partial agreement. Except in the case of a certain number of the population who did not necessarily choose to live in NOLA, but were simply born there in poverty.

R C Dean|9.19.05 @ 11:02AM|#

Yellowstone will blow up any day now and life will cease to exist on earth.

Another catastrophic side effect of global warming, no doubt.

|9.19.05 @ 11:03AM|#

Ah yes, Seattle. America's future Pompeii. Imagine what the "Repent America" crowd will claim when that city is buried under a pyroclastic flow.

"Obviously, this 'ere diaster isa message from tha laurd. A punishment fur all tha Say-tanic grunge rock, dope smoking, gay-lovin' liberalism that has infected tha Left Coast. Now, some of them thar godless, commie, atheists out thar will say that this is just a bunch o' random mol-ee-cules a happin', but the most likely explanation has to be an angry God..."

Yeah, I'm still ticked off at Don Feder for his comments last week.

|9.19.05 @ 11:03AM|#

A fine article, until the suggestion that "Congress create" a committee, etc. Like that committee wouldn't become yet another opportunity to dole out federal pork. What congress needs to do is tell high risk communities, "After the big one hits, plan on rebuilding out of your own pocket." Maybe one (or two or three) of the bazillion policy think tanks out there can develop an annual list of which localities are at highest risk; it seems like they'd be fractionally more impartial than the vote whores in Congress.

|9.19.05 @ 11:06AM|#

Mr. Average makes some really good points about "risk management" without really tying them together (at least the way I see it).

Just because something is statistically improbable does not mean it won't happen - i.e., we could have a storm worse than Katrina hit NOLA in October.

Just like all other value, the values used in risk management are highly, if not entirely subjective. Is it worth the risk of catastrophe to live in SoCal? For some people the answer is clearly yes. You can't really make "objective" measures like what Rauch describes a federal agency using. It's the same problem we have with the FDA - the risks of a new AIDS or cancer treatment may be worth it to some patients, or even arthritis treatments. All you can do is give people access to the facts necessary to allow them to make informed decisions. And then, allow them to make decisions for which they are responsible.

Is it just me or is the specter of Rauch's federal agency of "relocation for your own good" a truly scary thing?

keith|9.19.05 @ 11:17AM|#

Yellowstone will blow up any day now and life will cease to exist on earth.

Another catastrophic side effect of global warming, no doubt.

Global warming? Global warming would have nothing to do with the Yellowstone volcano, the eruption of which and subsequent destruction of the world and the American way of life, is going to be caused by one thing and one thing only: violent video games like Grand Theft Auto.

|9.19.05 @ 11:21AM|#

I thought Janet Jackson's nipple will be the cause of the end of civilization.

That and gay marriage.

Shannon Love|9.19.05 @ 11:35AM|#

We already have an institution that provides a systematic evaluation of risk and calculates the economic tradeoffs.

It's called the insurance industry.

If the freemarket won't insure your property and life in a particular area at a cost that you feel you care bear, then that is an excellent indication that it is to dangerous to live there.

It was government funding, and especially federal funding, of the levee system that created the conditions for this disaster in the first place. The subsidized levees caused the city to grow larger than it would have otherwise. It caused the city to fill disproportionately with poor. The levees disrupted the environment of the delta making the storm effects worse.

Building in New Orleans is like building a house on top of a railroad track because you haven't seen a train come by in quite a while. No matter how many billions we spend on levees the city will always be in extreme danger. There is always the chance that freak event, like a barge or ship striking the levee, will breach it and flood the city.

I think the best solution would be to require every property owner in NO and similar areas to carry private insurance. The insurance companies could then fund mitigation efforts. Price singles would then communicate how many people could live in relative safety in the area.

|9.19.05 @ 11:39AM|#

Well, there I go agreeing with that twit Shannon love again. :)

|9.19.05 @ 11:49AM|#

I wonder how many people the government killed as a result of the storm? No, not due to a failure of emergency response, but by providing economic incentives to build, invest and live in an area at high risk for this kind of disaster. Subsidized flood insurance, billions of federal dollars for infrastructure like levees, cheap rebuilding funds, relocation aid, etc., etc. The assurance that the government will bail you out for your bad decision only causes a larger number of people to make that bad decision. Force people to face the true economic costs of their decision and you will save lives.

M1EK|9.19.05 @ 11:51AM|#

"builiding a large city in a location that it really shouldn't have been in the first place."

"Building in New Orleans is like building a house on top of a railroad track because you haven't seen a train come by in quite a while."

You people keep regurgitating these Republican talking points, but they're not true. Friedman at stratfor has pointed out in no uncertain terms that there HAS to be a city there, or we might as well give up on exporting farm products.

|9.19.05 @ 11:53AM|#

Considering the large number of poor New Orleanians who had no insurance at all, I don't think subsidized flood insurance is the reason they were there.

|9.19.05 @ 11:54AM|#

Shannon,

Right on. Although I wouldn't go so far as to require insurance. If you want to bear the full risk yourself, be my guest!

|9.19.05 @ 11:54AM|#

Let it be known that at least one of us was publicly touting the glories of "When the Levee Breaks" the first week of the flood.

|9.19.05 @ 11:57AM|#

Imagine what the "Repent America" crowd will claim when that city is buried under a pyroclastic flow.

The funny thing is, if someone was crazy/demented enough to believe that Katrina was an act of divinely-inspired retribution, I would think that the nature of the havoc would lead Iraq to emerge as said person's most likely explanation for God's displeasure. Between the chaos, the looting, the breakdowns in civil society, the staggering administrative ineptitude, and the subsequent checkpoint and curfew-laden military occupation, you'd think that he/she/it was making a point of giving Americans a Gulf-coast slice of Baghdad.

But unsurprisingly, I haven't seen too many fundies come up with that rationale.

|9.19.05 @ 11:59AM|#

Erm, I'm going to have to put in a word for NOLA.

Two actually: network effects.

History, which is out of our individual control, does have an impact on our choices. We are often bound by the choices of our foreparents, even though we may know better.

|9.19.05 @ 12:07PM|#

M1EK-

You raise a good point. But the question is just how large the city needs to be. I don't claim any expertise on the Port of New Orleans, but I would assume that at least some of the companies shipping through there will take a look at other options, resulting in a somewhat leaner port (not so good for NO) and a more diversified shipping portfolio (good for the country overall to not put more eggs than necessary in a single risky basket). Also, in addition to its two main industries (tourism and the port), plus the services needed to support those industries (e.g. port workers need grocery stores, barbers, cars, etc.) I assume that New Orleans has some other businesses that will take a serious look at relocating. Such is life.

So the rebuilt city will almost certainly be smaller regardless of what we or the politicians or anybody else might think.


As to insurance: Jennifer raises an excellent point. If you are poor and rent in an old building for which the mortgage was already paid (so there's no bank insisting on insurance) and the landlord isn't terribly forward-thinking, then you aren't affected by insurance premiums. (Not all inner-city landlords are thinking carefully about long-term investments.) In the absence of mandatory insurance, a free market will tend to put the poorest in the riskiest areas. And government interventions run the risk of creating perverse incentives that lure people into taking imprudent risks as well.

The lesson? The problem of people living in risky areas is more complicated than the standard market vs. government terms that we like to think in. Either way there's a good chance that some people will end up in risky areas. Let me emphasize that I'm not calling for any coercive remedies (note that I just expressed skepticism there), but I am suggesting that life doesn't always have easy answers. Anybody who suggests that the remedies are all very simple is probably full of it.

|9.19.05 @ 12:08PM|#

Jennifer,
Maybe flood insurance isn't an issue for poor people, but that doesn't mean they aren't influenced into a sense of false security when they are assured of the safety of levees, the "plan" to evacuate and care for them, funds to help them recover whatever (small though it may be) they have.

We all know that poor people have fewer choices, but they still have to make the best choices with the resources and limits they have and skewing their decision with federally subsidized safety nets only risks more lives.

|9.19.05 @ 12:11PM|#

thoreau

good point

I may rethink--slightly--my position on mandatory ins.

Larry A|9.19.05 @ 12:12PM|#

Katrina illustrated:

• In a disaster Americans have an overwhelming urge to roll up their sleeves and pitch in. And by and large they do so productively.
• The government emergency response uberplanning community treats such unscripted and uncontrolled responders the way Van Helsing does vampires.

The really fun project that could come out of this is to get some folks together and come up with The Libertarian Response in Times of Disaster.

|9.19.05 @ 12:14PM|#

Todd--

Having spent a good chunk of time as an official Poor Person myself, I can say that thinking about the distant future is more a middle- and upper-class phenomenon. People worried about how they'll scrape together enough money for this month's rent don't have the time to worry about what would happen IF a natural disaster were to occur sometime in the distant future. As Thoreau said, poor people will likely always wind up in riskier areas, because they can't afford anything better.

When I first heard Katrina was going to hit New Orleans, I had a fit of morbid curiosity which led me to check NO housing prices on Realtor.com. I'm saving money to buy a house in Connecticut, but my savings account is not yet enough to make the standard twenty-percent-down payment on anything up here. Yet that same paltry Connecticut savings account would have enabled me to buy TWO houses down there, for cash.

THAT is why so many poor people lived down there--because they couldn't afford much else.

|9.19.05 @ 12:19PM|#

Or to put it another way, you don't have time to worry about the future until you get some control over the present.

|9.19.05 @ 12:19PM|#

JMoore-

I should emphasize that I'm not calling for mandatory insurance either. Not really for the usual ideological reasons, more because I haven't thought through the consequences yet. But I do know that if the public sector provides some sort of guarantee then the result may be that middle and upper income brackets are subsidized to take risks (e.g. John Stossel's article on cheap federal insurance for cliff-side houses). And if the public sector stays completely out of it, the poorest and most vulnerable may end up in uninsured homes in hazardous areas. Either way, a bunch of people will live in hazardous areas.

Maybe there's a third way, a modest and intelligent regulation that will fix it all. But I know better than to take such claims at face value. Maybe some people are right and mandatory insurance will fix it all. But I want to think really carefully before I agree with such a claim.

The lesson? Be wary of anybody who claims to have simple and obvious answers to complex problems. Natural disasters will always pose a threat to society, regardless of whether it's organized in a libertarian manner, or by inefficient bureaucrats, by (allegedly) clever technocrats, or whatever else. This isn't an endorsement of statism, just a caution against knee-jerk responses and overly optimistic claims. ("Look, the market will create overnight paradise with zero risk of storms!")

|9.19.05 @ 12:22PM|#

But unsurprisingly, I haven't seen too many fundies come up with that rationale.

Of course not! The Iraq war is a great crusade to fight the muslims... I mean, the terrorists... I mean, global extremism. They're weren't any insurgents in New Orleans, just homos, and liberals, and voodoo priests, and abortionists, and pornographers...

What? Why are you rolling your eyes like that? Don't you remeber 9/11? Are you FOR the terrorists??? Just like a filthy liberal to blame America for those freedom-hating moose-lims. Why do you hate American, Eric II? ;)

M1EK|9.19.05 @ 12:25PM|#

"but I would assume that at least some of the companies shipping through there will take a look at other options, resulting in a somewhat leaner port (not so good for NO) and a more diversified shipping portfolio"

There's nowhere else you can put a port on the Mississippi, so the farm traffic ain't going anywhere. And the oil/gas terminals aren't going to move either - too expensive to move to Texas; just as risky to move anywhere else on the Gulf.

|9.19.05 @ 12:27PM|#

Jennifer,
Don't make any assumptions about me. I'm betting that I could more than match you on the experience with poverty. I've done better for myself as an adult, but was extremely poor as a child. My folks managed to make a couple of cross-state moves looking for better work.

I'm always uneasy when we start thinking/talking about the poor as somehow less than fully thinking human beings who just accept whatever life has handed them. No doubt there are some who fit that description, but not most. Because the poor are going to tend to be less educated, less informed, less able to make dramatic changes, it is even more important that we don't give them misleading incentives.

|9.19.05 @ 12:30PM|#

I don't know about New Orleans, but new building in areas subject to storm surge has to be up on tall pilings. The threat is that if a local community doesn't impose such a building code, then FEMA won't provide emergency relief come the next flood.

Existing buildings are exempt. And, even buildings on high enough ground such that the regulations don't apply could be subject to storm surge if a strong enough storm hits the right place.

|9.19.05 @ 12:30PM|#

Todd--

I'm not planning to start a who-was-more-deprived pissing contest with you. But your earlier post made it sound like the poor people of New Orleans moved into their homes with the thought "Aw, hell, the levee's gonna break and wash us all away, but that's all right because the government will take care of us when that happens!" But I highly doubt any of them thought that way--most likely they thought, "Hey! This rent is cheap enough that I can afford to pay it each month and still have money left for food!"

|9.19.05 @ 12:33PM|#

On a semi-related note, a few weeks before Katrina there was a story about New Orleans--some guys did an experiment, firing over 700 rounds of blank ammunition to see who how many people would call 911 to report gunshots. Not one person did. Doesn't sound to me like the poor folks of New Orleans expected a hell of a lot from their government.

|9.19.05 @ 12:51PM|#

M1EK - Yes there has to be a port. The benfits and necessity of building and operating a port and its associated support infrastructure in the area outweigh the inherent risk. There does not have to be a large city full of people and businesses totally unrelated to the operation of the port. The governemnt should not be in the business of making it possible for non-essential activity/building to happen in this or any other high risk area.

BTW - I was unaware that this was a uniquely Republican POV. I am not a Republican. This whole idea has been around for a long time. Read John McPhee's "The Control of Nature" for starters.

drf|9.19.05 @ 12:58PM|#

1993 floods...

"the chances of that happening are zero"

probably the assessment of the probability is incorrect.

can we get convergence between the enviro chicken littles and the national security chicken littles? this could get amusing. in the meantime, yes, we the citizens of illinois should pay for our own damn levies on the mississippi and ohio. Even though the Ohio is, um, downstate.

have there been more intense storms in recent years? should that count in assessment?

ah, yes. the politics and business of risk...

check.
uncheck.

knight jumps queen.
pawns jump queen.

and then we deteriorate into a Mel Brooks scene.

|9.19.05 @ 1:01PM|#

we the citizens of illinois should pay for our own damn levies on the mississippi and ohio. Even though the Ohio is, um, downstate.

But that opens a whole new can of worms--building a levee upstream can increase the chance of a flood downstream. Or is it vice-versa? At any rate, when you're talking about a river going through many states, and when one state's activity will have an effect on other states, I'm not sure if something like that CAN be left to individual states.

drf|9.19.05 @ 1:06PM|#

Jennifer,

there's a whole series of levies down the mississippi, yes it did cause troubles during the flooding, too.

at any rate, i don't think the citizens of maryland should have to pay for illinois part of the TVA/ Army corps of engineers.

so the levees exist already, but i don't think they should be maintained by others. this is just thinking that was mentioned post 1993 flooding.

how was the NYC reason event?

|9.19.05 @ 1:08PM|#

Drf-

It went very well. The discussion thread is still on the main page.

drf|9.19.05 @ 1:13PM|#

yeaaaaaa!

thx!

|9.19.05 @ 1:17PM|#

M1EK-

I honestly don't know the answer to this, but couldn't ships on the Mississipi go past NO to the Gulf and dock at a port on the Gulf? Sure, the Gulf is also prone to hurricanes, but to the best of my knowledge most Gulf cities aren't below sea level.

Or is the Mississippi delta not navigable past NO? I simply don't know.

Again, I'm not predicting that the Port of NO will vanish. I'm predicting that:

1) At least some businesses will find other options, slightly reducing the traffic through the port.
2) Many businesses not directly related to the Port, the tourists (French Quarter is on comparatively high ground, IIRC), or support services for those industries will find somewhere else to go.

I'm not predicting or calling for the abandonment of NO, but I don't see what's so controversial about the prediction that the city will be appreciably smaller.

|9.19.05 @ 1:34PM|#

The Missisippi does not want to flow in its current banks. It wants to flow down the Achafalaya River. The folks demanded, in & around NO, got assurances from Washington that the Mississippi would continue to flow past NO.It was actually even legislated by the Congrss that so much flow would always flow past NO. The Corps of Engineers must contend with this. There is a great book about the flood of '27, about the Mississippi River, & its relationship with NO, & people living in the area. It's title is "Rising Tide". Sorry, cannot remember the author's name. I can highly recommend it for learning information of the current state of affairs in the lower Mississippi delta region. The Port of NO, should(by nature) be an economic backwater. We should let it become one. The Mississippi will beat the Corps, every time, with the mentality of our federal government at this time. There will come a time when we cannot rebuild some metropolitan area. I think the very thought of "giving up" on a city by not rebuilding it is unthinkable from the government perspective, but would our government leaders bankrupt the country because San Francicso,New York, & New Orleans, & Washington, are all in need of rebuilding at the same time? Unfortunately, I think they would. I would rather be one city shy of a full country. We would STILL have a country, anyway. Private, non subsidized insurance would go a long way in solving this problem.

|9.19.05 @ 1:34PM|#

After that should come a revision of America's disaster strategy no less sweeping than the post-9/11 revision of America's security strategy.

No thanks. I'd like something that actually makes us safer. And doesn't waste so much money.

And if we're tossing around scenarios like Seattle and SoCal, let's not forget the New Madrid fault. I believe they are due for a biggie soon, which will likely be a disaster for Memphis.

|9.19.05 @ 1:42PM|#

Hey, this is a fun link I turned up while looking for New Madrid info:

Top 10 ways to destroy Earth

|9.19.05 @ 1:45PM|#

After that should come a revision of America's disaster strategy no less sweeping than the post-9/11 revision of America's security strategy.

Give the executive branch unprecedented authority to detain without trial any suspicious-looking clouds?

|9.19.05 @ 1:48PM|#

"On a semi-related note, a few weeks before Katrina there was a story about New Orleans--some guys did an experiment, firing over 700 rounds of blank ammunition to see who how many people would call 911 to report gunshots."

Actually, they only fired 100 rounds of blanks. The other 600 rounds were locals returning fire.

|9.19.05 @ 1:54PM|#

SEATTLE is not at great risk from Mt. Rainier blowing up.

It's TACOMA that is at risk. Which is kinda like the poor, redheaded stepchild of Seattle...

Larry A|9.19.05 @ 1:58PM|#

And if the public sector stays completely out of it, the poorest and most vulnerable may end up in uninsured homes in hazardous areas.

That might be the case, except that insurance is an essential part of a mortgage or home equity loan.

|9.19.05 @ 2:09PM|#

The Port of NO, should(by nature) be an economic backwater.

The reason they keep the Mississippi flowing the way it does is because we have something like a couple hundred miles worth of port along its banks - i.e. far more than just to please New Orleans.

|9.19.05 @ 3:46PM|#

Jennifer,
Not trying to make a comparison or start a pissing match. You made a point of mentioning that you were poor and therefor knew something about how poor folk live...I was just letting you know that I also have a little perspective on that.

My argument is that some people would have made the decision to take the risk regardless, but that the more we artificially lower the cost, the larger the number who will take the risk.

|9.19.05 @ 4:03PM|#

some people would have made the decision to take the risk regardless, but that the more we artificially lower the cost, the larger the number who will take the risk.

So you're saying that things like the levees artificially lowered the cost of living in the crappy parts of New Orleans? I disagree--if anything, a complete lack of protection would probably have made the flood-prone areas even LESS desirable places to live, and correspondingly cheaper.

|9.19.05 @ 4:04PM|#

And I forgot to add, of course, that the cheaper a place is, the more poor people you're likely to find there.

|9.19.05 @ 4:18PM|#

Mortgaged buildings obviously carry insurance.

My understanding is that there are slums in NO with dirt roads and houses that are basically shacks. I've got a hunch that some of those shacks have been in families for some time or have changed owners through informal transactions.

Periodic changes in ownership with bank involvement would no doubt bring about insurance involvement and market pricing that reflects risk. But informal transactions, inheritance, and short-sighted landlords may not have insurance. And so, as Jennifer and I have both argued, the poorest will end up in those places.

I'm not trying to argue against the market. But let's not wave our hands and pretend that markets will never ever result in poor people living in dangerous places. The free market may be better than the alternatives, but stop pretending that it is perfect. In real life nothing is perfect, and natural disasters have a way of screwing up even the best laid plans of mice and capitalists.

|9.19.05 @ 6:05PM|#

I'm saying that if local landowners had to pay the full price for building and maintaining levees, pumps, evacuation plans, flood insurance, potential rebuilding due to disaster, etc., then rents would not be as cheap and poor people would be less able to live there. I'm not naive enough to think that the market will solve everyone's problems and eliminate poverty, disparity, etc., but in this case it is the subsidization of these costs by the government (e.g. the multi hundred billion dollar recovery that is about to take place) that give poor folks an even greater opportunity to be trapped in a bad place.

|9.19.05 @ 6:40PM|#

Yet that same paltry Connecticut savings account would have enabled me to buy TWO houses down there, for cash.

Yeah, I made the mistake of MetaFilter once and the guy gave a number for a minimum downpayment in California and it was enough to easily by a very decent house in most areas of Michigan. And no hurricanes here! So I think risk only really accounts for a very small percentage of that difference.

|9.19.05 @ 9:32PM|#

toddb-

If property owners had to pay the full cost of protecting the city from flood then you're right, the cost of living in the low-lying areas would be higher. In fact, if costs were allocated according to benefits then payments would increase as one went further below the water level.

The problem with implementing this idea purely via the free market is coordination: If the entire low-lying area was owned by a single person or company then that person or company would have a very strong incentive to take the initiative to build the necessary levees and whatnot. But if there are a variety of property owners, once enough of them sign on to pay for the levees, the remainder have no incentive to pay anything for it. It's a classic public goods problem.

|9.19.05 @ 10:50PM|#

thoreau,
Yes, I agree. That's why I argue that government action in this case serves to endanger lives. There would probably be no way to coordinate this locally and even if you could there would be too few resources to cover the costs. Thus, the city could not exist (or at least not continue after a disaster) in its current configuration below sea level.