Read on Twitter
Texas failed to insure against the consequences of a 100 year weather event but insurance costs $. And Texans hate any increase in taxes, fees, or service costs, even when the $ is used to prevent property damage and deaths. The story of drainage in Houston is a good example. 1/6
After major flooding in '98, '01, '06, '08, and '09 with significant property damage including 3 events with fatalities, Houston voters were asked to approve an impervious surface fee in 2010 to fund new drainage (average cost of $5/month per property). 2/6
Flooding was highly salient. This wasn't to fix a problem that happened every 20 or 50 or 100 years. It was to address an issue that happens every 2 or 3 years. Still, the vote was highly contentious, only passing 53-47%, & dominated mayoral politics for the following decade. 3/6
If the question of higher electricity bills to fund better energy infrastructure were put to Texas voters next year, I don't know if it would pass. There are different expectations on govt here than, say, California. 4/6
Texans put up with potholes, flooding, poor funding for police & schools, etc, in exchange for low taxes & cost of living. Texans like this tradeoff; GOP has won every statewide election for 27 years. Enough Americans like it, too, that biz & people are moving here in droves. 5/6
I'm not saying Texas is at optimal level on the taxes/services spectrum. I'd gladly pay more in state/local taxes for better services. But the point is there is a tradeoff and Texans have consciously decided to be at one end of it. The events of this week are the consequence. 6/6
