In 2009, social scientists Andrew Healy and Neil Malhotra pointed out that the federal government can invest disaster money either before a crisis — in disaster preparedness such as equipment to protect against flooding — or afterward — in disaster relief such as direct payments to victims. Because the federal executive branch has a lot of discretion over how this money is spent, the researchers argued that U.S. presidential election is a good proxy for analyzing whether voters reward disaster spending and, if they do, which kind they favor. The results, based on data from from 1988 to 2004, are dramatic: The researchers found that within one presidential election cycle, voters reward presidents for spending on relief, but not for spending on preparedness.1 This result holds for any event in the three years leading up to an election.

To put it bluntly, the Florida economy is a kind of real estate version of a perpetual motion machine: To keep government funded, they have to keep building and building. And if a hurricane comes along and blows everything over every 30 years, the thinking goes, so what? The feds will help us out and we will rebuild Florida bigger and better than before.