That's the problem. I can't totally disagree with anything because despite all the hurricane costs there have been to the insurance industry, a major metropolitan area has not been completely devastated in a very long time. There have been some major impacts, but we have not seen a loss in the hundreds of billions yet. It's going to happen, but the how often is what is very uncertain and they want to get as much money out of people that they can before it does to try to make sure they can cover the loss. A powerful storm like that would devastate an area and there would be no question about how long it will take to recover because the region should not recover from it, but instead adapt to it in a way that reduces the risk for the next time it happens. Of course the storms we have had have been devastating for some, but aside from some areas after Katrina, I don't think a lot of areas were impacted enough to not have people rebuild.

The problem like ssherripat says is that it is not just residents along the immediate coast. Sticking with just areas more prone to flooding along the coast, there are a lot of people that live in low areas that are prone to flooding in hurricanes. (more and more so) You are talking about a lot of square miles where many millions of people live. So what is the solution? I would prefer they wait for the first storm to hit and then don't let people rebuild near that coastline. The coast I guess should be more public recreation areas, with some resorts built that are very high and well built and charge enough and have enough insurance coverage so that they can cover rebuilding from time to time without relying on tax payers. There could be some exceptions, like lets say New Jersey's boardwalk for example. That has a significant impact on their economy and others benefit enough from that where local tax payers could help support that for awhile.

But there is a lot of land not directly at the coast that is low too. I don't know what you do one mile inland. If a major hurricane hit here, there would be areas miles inland that could flood. Is it worth living a mile or two inland yet paying the high insurance costs that may be something like what coastal people pay presently and not have the benefit of actually seeing the coast? Whether you live one mile from the coast, or fifty miles, you are not at the coast, so it could certainly make a lot people reconsider where they want to live. Of course for those who live anywhere near the coast, we're stuck with trying to find people who still want, and can afford, to live here.

If a major storm hit and there were private homeowners that really wanted to be near the coast still, they would then know what they are getting into. They would be made well aware that insurance each year might be in the tens of thousands so there is no confusion when they determine if they can afford to live near the coast and take on the risk with the understanding that if something happens they are definitely on their own. They should be responsible for the infrastructure in the neighborhoods they live in, like roads, the land itself, utilities, etc. If they get hit again, they pay for everything. If they can't, they don't rebuild and leave. That is something that is going to be in everyone's future along the coast. And again, to some extent even further inland.

I live in one of those areas that didn't used to be here. Or maybe it was swamp. But then they dumped rock in the bay and created the land, a peninsula, but more like an island, that my house now sits on. What a brilliant idea that was! I live in one of those areas where the land might not exist after a hurricane. It's really hard to imagine that anyone would want to buy property like this still. But from the homes that keep selling, I guess they do.