5 ms·

By your logic every single house in Florida (and those along the Gulf and Atlantic coasts that are in the path of possible hurricanes) that was built prior to 2

By your logic every single house in Florida (and those along the Gulf and Atlantic coasts that are in the path of possible hurricanes) that was built prior to 2002 (the year the building codes were changed in direct response to Hurricane Andrew in 1992) needs to be razed. I'm not sure that's really politically feasible...

notch656c 4y ago
My logic is the entitled fucks that vote for this policy should be made to eat their own medicine. Either it's OK to have a house without the safety criteria in the code, or it isn't. Forcing them to eat their own medicine would allow the youth to also have the chance to build a house, even if it's not perfectly safe, closer to the cost their parents had to spend. Rather than changing the game and screwing over new entrants while old entrants enjoy immunity to the same rules.
- rsj_hn 4y ago
  By the same logic, all the houses built in the earthquake zones of San Francisco and LA should also be raised. I've noticed that there has been mass hysteria in some California-centric websites that flood insurance must be provided by the Federal government in Florida, but not that earthquake insurance must be provided by the Federal government in California. Botton line, the private sector doesn't handle this type of correlated risk well, and somehow picking on Florida when California does the same thing is pretty weird. We know there will be a big earthquake that will level a lot of property in California just we know there will be a big flood in Florida. Yet "entitled fucks" keep choosing to live in these states. Life goes on.
  - notch656c 4y ago
    My point was that if voters had to eat their own medicine they wouldn't encumber new entrants to rules they themselves are immune to. I didn't seriously think they would vote to raze their own (previously immune) houses.
  - toast0 4y ago
    > I've noticed that there has been mass hysteria in some California-centric websites that flood insurance must be provided by the Federal government in Florida, but not that earthquake insurance must be provided by the Federal government in California. Earthquake insurance availability is mandated within the state. Why would we need a Federal mandate when we have an effective state mandate. It's not attractively priced, but Federal flood insurance often isn't attractively priced when they've updated maps recently either.
    - rsj_hn 4y ago
      Last time I was in the housing market in San Francisco, earthquake insurance was not mandated. Can you point me to the law mandating it now? Perhaps you mean it's mandated by your bank when taking out a mortgage? That's a private sector decision that depends on your bank and your loan. Anyways, you are confusing the issue of whether insurance is mandated with the fact that no private insurer will cover it, and so the risk is socialized and the only providers are government. That's what people are complaining about -- that private insurers walked away from covering flood/earthquakes in regions prone to the same, and so the government has to step in to insure the correlated risk. This causes no end of outrage for Florida but is somehow just fine in California. And my only point was to point out this hypocrisy and argue that there are good reasons for government to cover correlated risks and that there is nothing wrong with either state or those who choose to build in either state. They can accept risk or they can purchase government insurance.
      - toast0 4y ago
        https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?sectionNum=10081.&lawCode=INS https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySectio... AFAIK, your residential insurance carrier is mandated to offer you Earthquake insurance. If there's some exception I'm not aware of, let me know.
  - hindsightbias 4y ago
    Generational vs 5-10X Generation events should not be treated the same. Soft-story retrofits are a thing and should be expanded with long-term State loans
    - rsj_hn 4y ago
      1989 was, what, 34 years ago? This is a 5-10X generation event to you, I guess. I can't even begin to unwind all the innumerate assumptions, but motivated reasoning is powerful I guess. There are fewer places where it is more reckless to build housing than coastal California.
- phlipski 4y ago
  So are we as a society not supposed to take advantage of learning from past mistakes? 100 years ago we flushed raw sewage into rivers and streams. Then we learned that sewage wrecks our water supply and also our health so we started to treat the sewage. I'm struggling to understand your angry and bitter tone. I guess if we lived in a true libertarian society then we should/could let anyone build whatever they want along the coastline because society wouldn't be tasked with shouldering the cost of poor individual planning. But that's not the reality we live in.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
toomuchtodo 4y ago
State Farm won’t insure any Florida residential property built earlier than 2002, and directs you to the state’s high risk pool (Citizen’s). So while bulldozers aren’t running around yet, the insurance market clearly has priced in older code structure costs. What happens when insurers won’t insure older properties? Those without insurance will make due until a catastrophic event or sell to someone for cash, and those with a mortgage will suffer exceedingly high premiums until the mortgage is paid off and they can go without insurance (or they’re of sufficient means they can afford the premiums, currently running roughly $4k-$12k/annually).

notch656c 4y ago

My logic is the entitled fucks that vote for this policy should be made to eat their own medicine. Either it's OK to have a house without the safety criteria in the code, or it isn't. Forcing them to eat their own medicine would allow the youth to also have the chance to build a house, even if it's not perfectly safe, closer to the cost their parents had to spend. Rather than changing the game and screwing over new entrants while old entrants enjoy immunity to the same rules.

rsj_hn 4y ago
By the same logic, all the houses built in the earthquake zones of San Francisco and LA should also be raised. I've noticed that there has been mass hysteria in some California-centric websites that flood insurance must be provided by the Federal government in Florida, but not that earthquake insurance must be provided by the Federal government in California. Botton line, the private sector doesn't handle this type of correlated risk well, and somehow picking on Florida when California does the same thing is pretty weird. We know there will be a big earthquake that will level a lot of property in California just we know there will be a big flood in Florida. Yet "entitled fucks" keep choosing to live in these states. Life goes on.
- notch656c 4y ago
  My point was that if voters had to eat their own medicine they wouldn't encumber new entrants to rules they themselves are immune to. I didn't seriously think they would vote to raze their own (previously immune) houses.
- toast0 4y ago
  > I've noticed that there has been mass hysteria in some California-centric websites that flood insurance must be provided by the Federal government in Florida, but not that earthquake insurance must be provided by the Federal government in California. Earthquake insurance availability is mandated within the state. Why would we need a Federal mandate when we have an effective state mandate. It's not attractively priced, but Federal flood insurance often isn't attractively priced when they've updated maps recently either.
  - rsj_hn 4y ago
    Last time I was in the housing market in San Francisco, earthquake insurance was not mandated. Can you point me to the law mandating it now? Perhaps you mean it's mandated by your bank when taking out a mortgage? That's a private sector decision that depends on your bank and your loan. Anyways, you are confusing the issue of whether insurance is mandated with the fact that no private insurer will cover it, and so the risk is socialized and the only providers are government. That's what people are complaining about -- that private insurers walked away from covering flood/earthquakes in regions prone to the same, and so the government has to step in to insure the correlated risk. This causes no end of outrage for Florida but is somehow just fine in California. And my only point was to point out this hypocrisy and argue that there are good reasons for government to cover correlated risks and that there is nothing wrong with either state or those who choose to build in either state. They can accept risk or they can purchase government insurance.
    - toast0 4y ago
      https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?sectionNum=10081.&lawCode=INS https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySectio... AFAIK, your residential insurance carrier is mandated to offer you Earthquake insurance. If there's some exception I'm not aware of, let me know.
- hindsightbias 4y ago
  Generational vs 5-10X Generation events should not be treated the same. Soft-story retrofits are a thing and should be expanded with long-term State loans
  - rsj_hn 4y ago
    1989 was, what, 34 years ago? This is a 5-10X generation event to you, I guess. I can't even begin to unwind all the innumerate assumptions, but motivated reasoning is powerful I guess. There are fewer places where it is more reckless to build housing than coastal California.
phlipski 4y ago
So are we as a society not supposed to take advantage of learning from past mistakes? 100 years ago we flushed raw sewage into rivers and streams. Then we learned that sewage wrecks our water supply and also our health so we started to treat the sewage. I'm struggling to understand your angry and bitter tone. I guess if we lived in a true libertarian society then we should/could let anyone build whatever they want along the coastline because society wouldn't be tasked with shouldering the cost of poor individual planning. But that's not the reality we live in.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

toomuchtodo 4y ago

State Farm won’t insure any Florida residential property built earlier than 2002, and directs you to the state’s high risk pool (Citizen’s). So while bulldozers aren’t running around yet, the insurance market clearly has priced in older code structure costs. What happens when insurers won’t insure older properties? Those without insurance will make due until a catastrophic event or sell to someone for cash, and those with a mortgage will suffer exceedingly high premiums until the mortgage is paid off and they can go without insurance (or they’re of sufficient means they can afford the premiums, currently running roughly $4k-$12k/annually).