Second, the plan coordinates community agendas. For example, hazard mitigation can be integrated with economic development, environmental quality, community development, housing, and infrastructure programming. This avoids uncoordinated and possibly conflicting policies and actions, strengthens the likelihood of effective mitigation, and overcomes the persistent problem of lack of political saliency for natural hazards.
Third, the plan establishes the rational nexus between public interest and implementation activities, necessary for both political and legal defensibility. For example, the plan can document the likelihood of property damage if development is permitted in high-hazard zones, thus defending against constitutional challenges based on claims of a ‘taking.’
Finally, the plan articulates land-use policy, guiding public officials in deciding on development ordinances, capital improvement allocations, and permit review. It encourages private developers to follow the adopted hazard mitigation policy to expedite their permit applications. It is a guide toward coordinating the community’s actions along consistent lines.
"There is no single model for a hazard-mitigation plan. Instead, the planner and the community must choose the stakeholder participation approach, plan type, and mitigation strategy that best serve their needs.”
It is not a thing to be waited for, it is a thing to be achieved.”