I think that flood insurance where it is supposedly required to mitigate costs in the instance of major flooding, just as a precaution, should simply be optional. Erroneously and artificially making property values go down, while the cost to purchase them goes up, and the risk involved for property owners as well as driving away developers and businesses, is ridiculous. Insurance is a gambling game in which corporations bet on the ill of others, and coercion being the driving force to compel high priced buy-ins at the betting table. There should never be any type of product, whether it be flood, healthcare, or even auto insurance that the federal, state or local government can impose on anyone; plain and simply, if a government can do this to its people, then they supersede the people's authority constitutionally and in succession, makes rights into privileges. And no, I'm not talking about businesses where commercial licensing and insurance must be required, especially if the business is dangerous, per se a mining operation or a massive apartment complex; where there is existential risk to more than just the property owner or its immediate employs. I'm talking about individuals. Insurance is not about making safer roads or homes or bodies; it's about making money off of other people's risk. And risk, as we all should know, is something we take more easily when we have a safety net below us than if we actually had to think about the personal and monetary consequences of our own actions. Not that insurance is necessarily bad. Some things can be necessary evils if we wish to take that gamble. If you want insurance, get it. Otherwise, isn't it about being responsible for our actions and having real knowledge? Yet why do we need government to penalize us on top of the cost of our actions anyway; isn't that coercion at its best?
In the case of flood insurance specifically, no one ought to be compelled to buy coverage simply due to factors that exist everywhere on planet Earth; it could be strongly suggested that property owners acquire the insurance as a preventative measure, but otherwise, it would be more economically and constitutionally sound to compel property owners within a city limits to sign a waiver of liability. Then file it with the city so that it is understood between the city and property owner that damage incurred by flooding cannot be blamed on either party. It doesn't necessarily mean you shouldn't have flood insurance, just that you shouldn't get penalized for wanting to live in your own home or build a business in a flood plain. Then we can all go on our merry way. If you can get insurance and afford it, more power to you. But never try and turn the blame onto the individual that cannot afford it or deems the price a risk they just can't take. What's wrong with a system where the people and the people's government co-exist, peacefully, without coercion and a gambling-addicted corporation waiting to make their next bet?
Stop and Think.