After a natural disaster: Designating non-buildable land

IMG_8160-2
Photo by Lauren Zurcher

Natural disasters have caused massive amounts of damages everywhere in the world throughout the past year. Costs for damages can temporarily bring local and regional businesses to a standstill. Economists say that recent disasters in Texas, Florida, California, and Puerto Rico will cost billions of dollars in recovery, medical, and re-building efforts in both the public and the private sectors.

The idea has been floated that the right solution to this growing and increasingly frequent problem is for city planners to implement new zoning laws in disaster-prone regions. New laws would essentially re-zone these areas to non-buildable and practically forbid citizens from erecting structures in which they would reside. On campus last week, University of Denver students had very clear views on this controversial topic.

Jorge Nunez, a freshman, thinks that the government should not have the authority to forbid people from re-building destroyed homes in high-risk zones, even if the buildings are very likely going to be damaged again.

“No-one knows that there are going to be more hurricanes coming, and there are buildings that need to be rebuilt, whether they are for companies, universities, or anything,” says Nunez.

Nunez is not the only one who thinks that government should give people the freedom to re-build destroyed property in high-risk areas. According to University of Denver student Addison Puffer, citizens have the choice to live where they want, at their own risk, which is why they have insurance to pay for damages.

“Citizens have the right to own private property, and therefore, the government should not impose on their rights to re-build homes in that area,” Puffer says, “and if there is a natural disaster, you typically will have insurance to pay for that.”

However, insurances do not cover all damages caused by natural disasters. Companies cannot provide insurance for floods, because of the large number of properties that typically incur damages in a flood, which puts too much financial strain on the insurance company. Therefore, flood insurance is provided through a different program, namely the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP), which operates under the national governmental rules of the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA).

In the past several years, in view of rising costs, Congress has examined how to best reform flood insurance programs. One option considered is to offer lower insurance rates for those who opt to relocate after or even before disaster strikes, and increase the premiums for those who choose to build or re-build in high-risk areas.

Zunera Khan likes to think more boldly. “People live there,” she says, “so unless they are going to relocate the people, they should not do that.” According to Khan, forced relocation costs should be incurred by the government.

The U.S. is far from a solution that will satisfy its entire population. A home represents more that a financial asset and provides a space attached to the owners’ or renters’ emotions. In response to New York governor Andrew Cuomo’s suggestion to pay off people to not re-build after the 2013 Superstorm Sandy, Nick Dimitrov had this to say:

“A home is not a paper plate you can throw away when you are done eating.”


Question: In light of the recent natural disasters throughout the nation, do you think the government should have the authority to forbid people from rebuilding destroyed homes in high risk areas?

IMG_8080
IMG_8082
IMG_8083

Jorge Nunez (left), 18
Business major at University of Denver
(Centennial Halls Sep. 29)
“No, governments should allow rebuilding, because they are natural disasters.”
“There’s buildings that need to be rebuilt, whether they are for companies, universities, or anything”
“No-one knows that there’s going to be more hurricanes coming”
“If they don’t rebuild them, the city is going to look bad, because everything is going to be gone”

Zunera Khan (middle), 18
Molecular biology major at University of Denver
(Centennial Halls Sep. 29)
“No. The government should help people.”
“People live there, so unless they are going to relocate the people they should not do that. They should rebuild the houses”

Addison Puffer (right), 18
International business major at University of Denver
(Campus Green Sep. 29)
“Absolutely not.”
“In the united states, citizens have the right to own private property and therefore the government should not impose on their rights to rebuild homes in that area”
“You do have the choice to live there, therefore you know that it is high risk”
“If there is a natural disaster, you typically will have insurance to pay for that”

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *