5 ms·
Part of the problem here is exacerbated by all the flood insurance that effectively subsidizes building in flood plains. In addition to long term measures to mi
by ben509 8y ago
Part of the problem here is exacerbated by all the flood insurance that effectively subsidizes building in flood plains. In addition to long term measures to mitigate climate change, we should have a tax on areas that are threatened by flooding and water levels rising so that we can reduce the immediate issues by incentivizing people to move away from them.
- brightball 8y agoFWIW, I can’t speak for Miami but I do know that the costs for flood insurance are high enough in coastal areas that some people skip it entirely.
- XorNot 8y agoThe other side of this is to adopt coastal retreat policies as well though. Its not enough to drive insurance up, you need to prevent people moving in anyway because it's cheap land because of that.
- rhacker 8y agoInteresting - you had your fun at the ocean front. Now if you want money for the lost property, you have to buy three streets back? That's not a bad idea.
- codesforhugs 8y agoSciAm recently had a good article about these policies and the challenges they face: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/surrendering-to-rising-seas/ https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/surrendering-to-r...
- ryandrake 8y agoShould we also tax people living in earthquake-prone and tornado-prone areas? How about blizzard-prone areas? Keep going with this and we will run out of places (in the USA) where it’s ok to live. Also, as someone who lived in south Florida, flood insurance is a joke and unavailable near the coast anyway. Nobody expects it to pay out enough in a major catastrophe, including hurricanes and flooding.
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- closeparen 8y agoBlizzards don’t typically level buildings, and a tornado’s path of destruction is narrow enough that the lucky homeowners can sufficiently subsidize the unlucky ones through insurance. Neither of those risks are comparable to earthquakes and hurricanes/flooding, which can be relied upon to thoroughly destroy huge swaths of cities, regularly.
- WkndTriathlete 8y agoYou mean like blizzards like this: https://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Sports/2010/1212/Vikings-Metrodome-roof-collapses-for-the-fifth-time https://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Sports/2010/1212/Vikings-Metro... ?
- gamblor956 8y agoCalifornia regularly survives 6.0 earthquakes with minimal damage, because our building codes require earthquake-safe construction. For example, the 2008 Chino Hills quake, at 5.5 intensity, caused almost no damage other than the unsecured contents of store shelves falling onto the floor. In contrast, a slightly stronger quake in DC (5.8) caused hundreds of millions of dollars in damage to structures, including to the Washington Monument, because the local building codes did not contemplate earthquakes.
- lotsofpulp 8y agoSome risks are not insurable since they're guaranteed to happen. That's why no private insurance company will offer flood insurance, but since these owners of capital have enough political clout, they are able to secure a taxpayer funded bailout fund (nation flood insurance program).
- hanbura 8y ago
- notable_chuckle 8y agoI wonder if people living in coastal flood-prone areas are expecting a bail-out when it becomes impossible or impractical to live there.
- vorpalhex 8y agoAs much as it'd be great to just point a finger and say "You should of known better!", houses are the bulk of most folks assets and the last thing we need is to turn a few small cities worth of people into homeless refugees. So realistically they'll get a bail out so they can at least recover somewhat. It will still be a loss for them, it'll be a loss to everyone who pays taxes, but it's still better then the alternatives.
- graeme 8y agoWhy? With this attitude, we'll keep building more vulnerable cities at the coast, effectively subsidizing doomed construction.
- vorpalhex 8y agoWe shouldn't have unemployment, since people should just be saving enough money to make it through the hard times! People as ends, not means. It's not ok to leave people starving in the streets as an example to others. Fight for laws to restrict building in flood plains, but don't abandon the forlorn.
- Analemma_ 8y agoThey absolutely are. 99 Percent Invisible recently did an episode about the Outer Banks islands in North Carolina, which would be eroding naturally anyway even without sea level rise because they are barrier islands, which are always impermanent. Interviews with the residents there made it clear that they feel that a) there is no problem and b) if there is a problem, they are entitled to unlimited government funds for beach reconstruction to preserve the value of their property. Florida isn't going to be any different
- ajmurmann 8y agoI'm not sure how insurance is a subsidy. Doesn't the cost get spread between insurees and the insurance company takes the foam off the top for itself?
- bdavisx 8y agoNational Flood Insurance is run by the government, it's not the same as most property insurance.
- function_seven 8y agoNot for flood insurance. There's no profit in it. The National Flood Insurance Program is a federally-subsidized program that loses about a billion dollars a year. https://www.cbo.gov/publication/53028 https://www.cbo.gov/publication/53028
- vorpalhex 8y agoFlood insurance is a different program. No actual company is stupid enough to put money that a floodplain won't flood. Instead the federal government uses tax money to basically back insurance so that when, surprise, your floodplain floods, the insurance companies aren't actually losing money.
- rhacker 8y agosoooo... tax? The current tax system can't handle that, if anything once the water starts creeping, the tax system would do the opposite. Property values drop, taxes drop. I think what you might have wanted to recommend was for insurance companies to have higher premiums / rates whatever. Not everything needs to be solved at the government level.
- wongarsu 8y agoA proper flood insurance would be a tax for flood-prone areas. Rates are calculated so that for any given house the expected insurance payouts are slightly lower that the insurance premiums over the next few decades. The insurance has a high incentive to get those numbers right (or overestimate payouts) because that's their profit margin. Government subsizided flood insurance is a really weird subsidy that just shouldn't exist.
- hello_1234 8y agoThis planet money episode seems relevant : https://www.npr.org/sections/money/2017/09/29/554603161/episode-797-flood-money https://www.npr.org/sections/money/2017/09/29/554603161/epis... Yeah, no private insurance company will knowingly insure houses in those flood prone areas that are pretty much guaranteed to flood. With the subsidized government insurance, people keep on rebuilding and collecting that free money.