Washington Post columnist Euguene Robinson had one of those oh-why-do-people-even-bother-living-in-L.A. op-eds yesterday that you see every time the hills burn, or the mountains slide, or the jellos jiggle. Excerpt:
Los Angeles seemed like a good idea at the time. […]
Does this mean we never should have built Los Angeles, or that we never should have listened to Smokey Bear? Of course not. But it does remind us of how much time and effort we spend dealing with the consequences of decisions that seemed like good ideas at the time. […]
In the end, the least—and, probably, the most—we can do is try our best to envision which of our good ideas seems least likely to burden future generations. Should we be seriously limiting coastal development? Will capturing carbon emissions and storing the stuff underground create new problems for our grandchildren to solve? Is there anything in the works, in other words, that's the equivalent of building one great city that regularly burns[?]
Why yes, Eugene, there is! And not just the "equivalent of building one great city that regularly burns," but the actuality of having taxpayers subsidize the insurance of people who recklessly build hillside manses–not in the great city of L.A., but rather in the dangerous foothills above the bedroom-community towns of the San Gabriel Valley, and up in the firetrap canyons of Malibu. And, in one of the best examples of unintended consequences I can think of, the rich are able to get subsidized insurance for their million-dollar kindling projects because…well-meaning legislators wanted to help minority communities rebuild after the 1968 riots.
