Americans Back Tough Limits on Building in Fire and Flood Zones

A majority support outright bans on construction in disaster-prone areas, 
as well as paying people to move, researchers say — policies that local 
governments have been reluctant to adopt.

WASHINGTON — Americans support far more aggressive government regulation 
to fight the effects of climate change than elected officials have been 
willing to pursue so far, new research shows, including outright bans on 
building in flood- or fire-prone areas — a level of restrictiveness almost 
unheard-of in the United States.

The findings suggest that the public’s appetite for government action to 
prepare for global warming is shifting as natural disasters worsen.

Eighty-four percent of respondents, including 73 percent of Republicans, 
supported mandatory building codes in risky areas, and 57 percent 
supported making it illegal to build in those areas. More than half of 
respondents favored paying people to move, including three-quarters of 
Democrats.

But while the findings show bipartisan support, more stringent 
restrictions have been generally opposed by local officials, who cite the 
cost they would impose on the economy. “There’s a disconnect between 
public preference and public policy,” said Jon A. Krosnick, a professor of 
communication, political science and psychology at Stanford University who 
led the project.

As global greenhouse gas emissions continue to rise, decisions about where 
and how to build have become increasingly important. If local governments 
continue to allow homes to go up in places most exposed to climate change, 
such as coastlines, floodplains or fire-prone wilderness, experts say, it 
will make generations of current and future residents more vulnerable to 
worsening hurricanes, floods, wildfires and other disasters.

Yet those long-term concerns have typically been outweighed by the demand 
for new homes, and the jobs and tax revenue that come with them. In many 
coastal states, the most flood-prone areas have seen the highest rates of 
home construction since 2010, a study last year found. And in California 
and elsewhere, officials continue to approve development in areas hit by 
fires.

“Some of the most vulnerable land also ends up being some of the highest-
priced land,” said Otis Rolley, senior vice president at the Rockefeller 
Foundation and former North America managing director for 100 Resilient 
Cities, an initiative that worked with cities to better withstand shocks 
from climate change and other challenges. “There’s a lot of pressure on 
elected officials.”

A wave of disasters has pushed some cities and counties to limit where 
they build. The new survey — a joint project of Stanford; Resources for 
the Future, a Washington research group; and ReconMR, a survey research 
company — asked whether governments should require that new buildings in 
risky areas “need to be made in a way that doesn’t get damaged easily by 
floods.”

The support among Republican respondents was notable considering that 
fewer than one-third of Republican voters say global warming is a major 
threat to the United States, according to a Pew Research Center survey 
from March, and despite the party’s general aversion to new regulations.

Editors’ Picks

A Nostalgic (if Isolating) Road Trip Along Route 66

They’re Stuck at Home, So They’re Making Home a Sanctuary

It’s Patrick Mahomes’s N.F.L., but Let’s Preview All 32 Teams Anyway
There was even greater support for construction requirements in fire-prone 
areas, with 87 percent of respondents favoring them, including 79 percent 
of Republicans. “It’s clear that people want this,” said Ray Kopp, who 
worked on the project as vice president for research and policy engagement 
at Resources for the Future.

That public support is at odds with actual policies in most of the 
country. Just one-third of local jurisdictions around the United States 
have adopted disaster-resistant provisions into their building codes for 
homes and businesses, according to research by the Federal Alliance for 
Safe Homes, an advocacy group based in Florida.

The lack of tougher codes reflects the influence of home builders and 
developers on local officials who oppose tougher restrictions, said Leslie 
Chapman-Henderson, president and chief executive officer of the 
organization. “They are really well organized, and that’s what they 
advocate for,” she said.

Chuck Fowke, chairman of the National Association of Home Builders, said 
the requirements already in effect around the country were enough. New 
rules could “not only curtail homeownership and significantly hinder 
housing affordability,” he said in a statement, but “also can severely 
impact state and local economies.”

A more aggressive measure than mandatory building codes is prohibiting 
development entirely in vulnerable places, which almost no jurisdictions 
have done, said Larry Larson, senior policy adviser for the Association of 
State Floodplain Managers. He said cities and counties allowed building in 
flood-prone areas in part because they know the federal government will 
pay most of the cost to rebuild after a disaster.

“Locals can allow development and get all the taxes from development, and 
when the flooding or other natural disaster happens, the cost is too often 
picked up by the federal taxpayer,” Mr. Larson said.

The National Association of Counties, which represents local governments, 
said its members must weigh environmental issues along with economic ones. 
“Both are important,” Paul Guequierre, a spokesman, said.

If local governments follow public opinion and impose new restrictions on 
development, it’s important that they consider the effects of those 
changes on poorer communities, including communities of color, said R. 
Jisung Park, an assistant professor of public policy at the University of 
California, Los Angeles, who focuses on climate adaptation.

While many vulnerable areas have wealthy residents drawn to the scenery, 
others are home to low-income families, including minorities, who can’t 
afford to live elsewhere, Dr. Park said. Development restrictions that 
increase costs could hurt those communities, he added, even if they reduce 
disasters in the future.

One approach would be for governments to make it more expensive to live in 
vulnerable neighborhoods, but subsidize low-income residents who want to 
move, Dr. Park. Doing both “is certainly possible,” he said.

The survey shows support for that approach. Asked whether governments 
should offer people money to move their homes away from risky areas, 59 
percent of respondents said yes, including 46 percent of Republicans.

Getting governments to do more to protect against climate change might be 
easier than it seems, Ms. Chapman-Henderson said. She recalled a home 
builder who said to her: “No one has ever stormed city hall demanding a 
stronger building code. But the day they do, they’ll get it.”

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/09/04/climate/flood-fire-building-
restrictions.html