2 ms·
>> 1) Someone needs to assess pre-accident prices of every house. That isn't as easy as it sounds, it is a massive logistic challenge (and open to corruption fr
by yongjik 9y ago
>> 1) Someone needs to assess pre-accident prices of every house. That isn't as easy as it sounds, it is a massive logistic challenge (and open to corruption from all angles).
> This is a tiny problem compared to the damage caused by the accident.
For many people, the land and house they own is pretty much the total sum of their wealth. (Or even more, if they took mortgage.) If you think this is a "tiny problem", you underestimate the lengths people will go to protect the values of their properties.
I've seen news of people committing suicide over a high-power voltage line going over their town. You visit a town struck by a nuclear disaster and claim you will assess the "fair market value" of every house, you'd better bring in riot gears.
- mikeash 9y agoAnd making everyone evacuate, or telling everyone to stay put and accept some compensation for the chance of dying from some horrible radiation-induced disease, would go better?
- yongjik 9y agoYes, because when people are hit by a nuclear disaster, the last thing they need is to get drawn into a bitter, decade-long feud between two halves of the town, the "sellers" and the "remainers". And that's what your policy will bring about. If you don't see why, imagine you own a home and the assessor says "Really? But your house is not any better than your neighbor's, and they have agreed to the price of $1M. Don't be so unreasonable."
- mikeash 9y agoImagine being told “We have calculated that this accident will subtract 9 months of life from everyone in this house, which according to our guidelines is worth $300,000. Here’s your check, enjoy your cancer.”