“But it boils down to this: A voluntary program that was designed to insure against flooding and to discourage development in flood-prone areas is on the verge of becoming a federal instrument for tight control over local land-use decisions. “

So in other words, if FEMA were to actually do one of it's functions (discourage development in flood-prone areas ) then that's a bad thing. But reckless development ( which taxpayers and all flood insurance rate-payers are on the hook for ) being allowed to continue and that is a good thing. Makes sense to me.