Agreed. It’s the subsidized insurance that encourages overbuilding in those areas beyond what is necessary. Living in flood areas is ok. Insurance is a good way to make it reasonable. Subsidy feels good, but gradually makes things worse by masking the long term effect of bad decisions.
My only point is that insurance rates should reflect the risk. People won’t look at flood maps or make good decisions based on “100 year flood probabilities.” But saying “It’s going to cost you an average of $X more to live there” gives people a better way to make an informed decision.
