Newsfeed
Printer-Friendly ModeSouthern hurricane victims should be more aware of risks
October 31, 2005 —
With the Michigan economy stuck sputtering in neutral, it's a fair bet many, if not most, of SVSU graduates in the upcoming years will be looking elsewhere in the nation for employment. Michigan colleges and universities continue to spit out college graduates in a manufacturing-geared state, which means that while unemployment after graduation was once consigned only to philosophy majors, the sorry shape of Michigan's economy will leave many more graduates out in the cold looking for work.
Many of these new teachers (and other graduates) may decide to relocate "down south," especially Florida, where the weather is warmer, job prospects are higher, and new construction is booming. It's ironic that for the first 200 years of the United States' history, everyone wanted to live in the northern states, but for the past 25 years, the predominant population shift has moved to the south (and west).
Excuse me if I sound unconvinced. Moving to a different area for job opportunities is perhaps the best reason to relocate, but to the south? A region that gets slapped by several destructive hurricanes every year? Despite the inevitability of these hurricanes, why do people persist in moving to these areas? Why has logic given way to sensible planning?
Why are we being forced to pay for people living in parts of the nation that should not be inhabitable? Why should tax dollars of Michigan residents be spent on propping up someone living in a hurricane-prone zone? I'm sorry, but if you are living on the Gulf of Mexico or the southern Atlantic, do so with an understanding that losing your house to a hurricane comes with the real estate. Don't like it? Move where there's a semblance of stable weather.
Some people argue that citizens have the right to live wherever they choose. But recently, the Supreme Court ruled that the government has the authority to demolish a residential neighborhood for business interests - as is occurring in New London, CT today. If the government can evict people for business interests, doesn't it have the authority to do so for the greater interest of the nation?
However, simply because people have the right to live where they want doesn't mean the federal government should subsidize their residence there by declaring a state of emergency - which frees up billions in relief dollars - before a storm even hits. The reason so many people are choosing to move south is because there's an implied guarantee that once bad weather hits - and it will - the federal government will pick up the tab of building new homes, new communities, or whatever else it requires to get the region back on its feet.
You would think the federal government might do something about this. Not surprisingly, pulling the plug on hurricane relief turns out to be an unwise political calculation. The Republican majority in Congress is not going to stem this funding any time soon. Why? The Republican Party's main base of support is down south, where unions are a four-letter word, where mega-churches abut up against new McMansions, and where environmental protection clashes with the desires of big developers.
At what point do people living in hurricane-prone areas cease to become tragic victims, and instead become freeloaders on the rest of society? Displaced residents of Hurricane Wilma were angered by the "slow" response from the federal government in delivering needed supplies. Never mind the logistical nightmare of transporting ice in a tropical area, never mind that for each hurricane that hits, the government has to restock its emergency supplies - these people want their ice, and fast.
The media feeds the demands of the leeches that cry for more federal relief. The most laughable part of hurricane coverage is the obligatory post-hurricane interviews. These interviews always follow a similar pattern, where an "awestruck" homeowner bemoans that their house couldn't stand up to the hurricane-force winds. What often follows is a critique of the federal government for failing to act quickly enough to bail these people out. Bail these people out? If you're living so close to a tropical ocean, then you don't deserve any federal aid when the ocean rises up and claims your house.
Do I think the federal government should help out in emergencies? Yes. Hurricane Katrina was an emergency of unmatched proportion in our history. But if Florida is declared a state of emergency several times a year, and is thus eligible for benefits, this isn't an emergency - it's citizen looting of government coffers. Shouldn't southern residents be forced to pay something toward rebuilding Michigan, since we aren't receiving any of their "emergency" money, even though our cities are decaying from the inside out?
Living down south is a choice. And with every choice comes consequences. For people who decide to reside in a hurricane-prone area, a consequence should be that they are forced to accept that the federal government won't bail them out of trouble every time a hurricane strikes. If you don't like it, stay in the Midwest. The winters might be cold, and an occasional tornado might strike, but the south's severe weather is nothing but a pipe dream.