Well I was referring to insurance. My sense that the insurance burden in
these situations is borne by many unknowingly and unwillingly. But it's not
an entirely negative situation.

In the case you described, insurance doesn't seem to play. There are tax
implications - depreciation, loss claims - that may not be viewed as 'fair'
by some. When the storm takes them out, local emergency forces will be on
the hook to limit losses but that's what the taxes they collect are for.

Seems to me that insurance coverage for beach building and drunken flying
are good things as long as we understand what we are doing.

"Morgans" wrote in message
...

"Maule Driver" wrote in

Just like we all pay for people to build homes on moving spits of sand
(NC
outer banks) where we all KNOW that the homes will eventually be
destroyed
by storm.


That is one slant, but here is another.

I know a guy that recently built a house on the end of one island that is
gradually, but regularly being consumed. He calculated the rate of loss
of
land, the location, and the number of years it will take before the house
is
consumed. He can get no insurance on it, so when it is gone, it is gone.
He will have paid for it by then by rentals, and make nearly a 100% return
on his investment. He gets a place to stay when he wants, and makes a
good
chunk of change. No one else pays for it. Do you see a down side here?
--
Jim in NC


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.762 / Virus Database: 510 - Release Date: 9/13/2004