According to a friend of mine who has been doing volunteer search and rescue in Yosemite for over a decade, rescues used to be quite rare and usually involved genuine life-and-death emergencies involving experienced mountain climbers and hikers. In recent years, more and more rescues involve people who are just plain irresponsible neophytes, a large number being simply tired and not wanting to climb back down or walk back out, many who don't know how to climb down or walk back out, and others who don't bring the proper supplies. What they do remember to bring is their cell phones, and, on occasion, a gps instrument. If people have to risk their lives saving fools from themselves, I think it is only right to make them pay the costs. (I'd add a substantial nuisance fine, too, but I am heartless I guess.)
As for flood insurance, it seems to me that the real problem is that it's politically unthinkable which is why I think that the argument for mandatory flood insurance collected at the same time as property taxes is a good one. It reduces the potential for lapses in coverage. Pricing should be based on potential liability and no longer subsidized (or strictly means-tested if subsidized). States and local authorities should have to pay for their properties, too (thereby avoiding phony "self-insurance" schemes that always end up under-funded). If the politicians want a piece of the action, they could then vote to allow the federal government to grant or back loans (secured by the property and that must be repaid) for amounts in excess of the coverage - that way they can look like they are doing something. |
