In the interest of protecting taxpayers' dollars, we can argue a shell game of paying for disaster recovery directly or increased insurance premiums for residential. It is a bit of a shell game, but there is a sweet spot and an optimum track, and that's what we need to direct this at.
What I want to know is this: How do you suggest the government manage the municipal development, redevelopment or infrastructure construction in high-risk areas to ensure the programs don't just become a backstop for short-term planning realities? Do you get the gist of what I'm saying?