I agree that the fertilizer company should have been carrying more insurance due to the threat that the situation represented.
I also think that there may have been some fault on the insurance company for incorrectly calculating the maximum possible loss--that of course was dependent upon whether the fertilizer company was honest with their insurance company during the underwriting process (U. S. Fire Ins. Co. - part of the Crum & Forster insurance group - part of Fairfax Financial Holdings (FFH) based out of Toronto -- I know the corporate chain since I used to work for a different insurance affiliate of FFH).
Also to state that the taxpayers never received the fruits of having the fertilizer company in West is incorrect. The fertilizer company paid property taxes to the school district, city and county for nearly 50 years. They employed about ten people from what I understand. They also provided a necessary product for the farmers in the area. While those farmers did not provide "fruit", the primary product from that region is cotton. I will also state that I have driven directly by that fertilizer company on the county road about a half dozen times and never really thought of the significance of having that plant located at the edge of town because I have seen far worse situations that expose the public to danger.
We can't regulate the world to guarantee 100% safety for everyone everywhere. If we try to impose too many regulations on business, then the costs become so prohibitive that the business cannot operate. The price of land is also adversely affected and the price of commodities would become so expensive that they become unavailable to consumers. For instance, if the fertilizer company had been located in the wheat belt or the corn belt and was restricted as to where it could be locate, then you might end up paying $10 for a loaf of bread or $5 for a can of soda. FWIW, the clothing that you are wearing may have been woven from cotton that came from the farms in that area.
I have also posted that we shouldn't "privatize the profits and socialize the losses", but as time passes from this tragedy I have also given more thought to what I've previously written. The fertilizer company began when it was considered to be on the edge of town and the area around it was developed afterwards. Hopefully, government at all levels should learn from the experience to isolate businesses with this type of inherent risk with zoning ordinances for new construction and increase the minimum liability insurance coverage required. Insurance companies should also be more responsible for underwriting the risks and conducting surprise inspections to verify that adequate coverage is in force. Local fire officials should be informed of the risks that exist in the community and receive adequate fire response training. However, all of these steps also mean that cost of the initial commodity and the resulting products down the chain will increase. While we can argue for increased regulation, there are costs related to those decisions that should be considered.
In the case of this tragedy the best solution that I see is for the governor to approve releasing funds from the Rainy Day fund so that the community can rebuild, particularly in relation to providing the infrastructure (roads, water, sewer) so that the schools can rebuild. Otherwise, West will become a ghost town if tax rates become so exorbitant that the "death spiral" drives business development and the people away. It's an imperfect solution for an imperfect world, but we are all in it together as a town, county, state and nation.
= new reply since forum marked as read
