6 ms·

Definitely agree, and I also firmly believe that each property should get exactly one FEMA bailout ever. If you live in Florida and your house gets destroyed by

Definitely agree, and I also firmly believe that each property should get exactly one FEMA bailout ever. If you live in Florida and your house gets destroyed by a hurricane, FEMA should pay you for it. If you choose to rebuild on that exact same spot, and your house gets destroyed by a hurricane, you should get exactly bupkis. This should carry with the property address - the next person who buys it should have to sign a form acknowledging that they aren't going to get a FEMA bailout if it gets destroyed. Lots of Florida Republicans out there who complain about welfare but rely on some of the biggest welfare checks that get written to repair their homes because of the absolutely foreseeable results of their choices.

bdowling 3y ago
> the next person who buys it If they can’t build on it, who would buy it? Urban farmers? In any case, your plan would destroy the land value, and the corresponding property tax revenue.
- burnerthrow008 3y ago
  > In any case, your plan would destroy the land value, and the corresponding property tax revenue Sounds like the market effectively discovered the true value of the property with all externalities priced in. I don’t see a problem here?
  - bdowling 3y ago
    The problem is that the city relies on property tax revenues to function.
- arccy 3y ago
  perhaps disaster prone areas shouldn't be worth a lot?
- lokar 3y ago
  The value of the land has already been destroyed. What’s going on now is corrupt public subsidy.
- toast0 3y ago
  Well, it would likely be affordable at least. On the downside, when the next disaster hit and FEMA didn't cover it, it would look like FEMA doesn't want to cover low income housing, which isn't a good look. But there does need to be some mechanism to convince people to abandon homes and towns that are not appropriate given environmental conditions. And it needs to be done carefully so it's not like kick all the poor people out, do some civil engineering that never happened while it was a poor community, then sell the land to developers who make a huge profit.
  - bdowling 3y ago
    That is basically what governments are for, collective actions that make land more valuable: roads, schools, police, fire departments, and civil engineering projects.
ouEight12 3y ago
I could be mistaken on this, as I don't live in an area where such things are common, but my understanding is the issue is that if your house is destroyed by say, a hurricane, no insurance provider (or fema) gives you a bag of cash and says "move", reimbursement is predicated on rebuilding the structure where it stood.
- slavboj 3y ago
  Insurance makes you whole, not the property. You are perfectly welcome to pocket the cash. Although if you have a mortgage, you do have an additional obligation to maintain the value of their collateral or pay off the loan.
  - phonon 3y ago
    If you have replacement cost coverage (as opposed to actual cash value (=depreciated value) you typically have to use it to reconstruct the home if you want the full amount. This is typical. "We will pay no more than the actual cash value of the damage until actual repair or replacement is complete." [0] [0] https://www.iii.org/sites/default/files/docs/pdf/HO3_sample.pdf https://www.iii.org/sites/default/files/docs/pdf/HO3_sample....
    - whimsicalism 3y ago
      Terrible idea, so glad the government structured NFIP this way.
- lokar 3y ago
  And a rational insurance program would not keep insuring the same property over and over as it gets destroyed.
bluGill 3y ago
If built to modern codes houses can survive a hurricane, or so I'm told.
- mcast 3y ago
  Not all coastal areas have the same strict building code. Homes not built with concrete exteriors and hurricane tie down anchors have a strong risk of being demolished in strong hurricanes. South Florida revamped their building codes after Hurricane Andrew wiped many of the homes and infrastructure in the 90s. However, not all coastal houses in northern Florida or on the gulf are built with concrete or on stilt foundations. A secondary threat is prolonged flooding which can submerge entire homes with salt water for weeks at a time. That's very costly and not preventable with existing homes in flood zones.
  - chmod775 3y ago
    This I never understood. Other countries didn't need building codes mandating such things - people always built houses that were intended to stand for many decades and that are suited to their local environment[1]. It defies comprehension that despite being somewhat poorer and enjoying milder weather, Europeans built their houses from brick and mortar while the US insists on erecting cheap cardboard boxes that even if they're not blown away or flooded, will probably rot away within the lifetime of their owner. [1] https://i.imgur.com/Y678tV7.png https://i.imgur.com/Y678tV7.png
    - bluGill 3y ago
      this isn't the three little pigs. Brick is not automatictally stronger. Wood houses have advantages as well, and can be just as strong.
      - chmod775 3y ago
        I did not use the word "wood" once. I don't think houses with walls you can kick holes in qualify as wood houses. They're closer to cardboard than wood. Anyways, the point isn't the materials - the point is that the houses are fundamentally unsuited to the environment they are in.
anonymouskimmer 3y ago
This is what building to code should address. If a house is built to a specific hurricane code, and is destroyed due to other reasons (a hypercane, for instance), then let insurance cover this and mandate rebuilding to an even higher standard. https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/hurricane-idalias-destruction-skipped-homes-floridas-coast-rcna102887 https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/hurricane-idalias-destr... : Dozens of modest homes along the Big Bend coast were heavily damaged in the floodwaters, but interspersed among the debris were residences left relatively unscathed, all because they were built elevated on stilts.
LorenPechtel 3y ago
I'd do it a little differently. If a house is destroyed by any form of reasonably common widespread disaster it becomes illegal to build anything on that lot that would likewise be destroyed. You can rebuild after the hurricane, you must build a house that will stand up to a hurricane. (Yes, it can be done.) I wouldn't apply this to flukes--your town does a Tunguska there's no reason to require asteroid-safe houses. I would also make an exception for things which by their nature must be in the line of fire--such things must never be permanent habitation and can't have community-rate insurance against whatever happened to them. A business can rebuild it's beach cabanas but would have to go to Lloyd's if they wanted insurance.

bdowling 3y ago

> the next person who buys it If they can’t build on it, who would buy it? Urban farmers? In any case, your plan would destroy the land value, and the corresponding property tax revenue.

burnerthrow008 3y ago
> In any case, your plan would destroy the land value, and the corresponding property tax revenue Sounds like the market effectively discovered the true value of the property with all externalities priced in. I don’t see a problem here?
- bdowling 3y ago
  The problem is that the city relies on property tax revenues to function.
arccy 3y ago
perhaps disaster prone areas shouldn't be worth a lot?
lokar 3y ago
The value of the land has already been destroyed. What’s going on now is corrupt public subsidy.
toast0 3y ago
Well, it would likely be affordable at least. On the downside, when the next disaster hit and FEMA didn't cover it, it would look like FEMA doesn't want to cover low income housing, which isn't a good look. But there does need to be some mechanism to convince people to abandon homes and towns that are not appropriate given environmental conditions. And it needs to be done carefully so it's not like kick all the poor people out, do some civil engineering that never happened while it was a poor community, then sell the land to developers who make a huge profit.
- bdowling 3y ago
  That is basically what governments are for, collective actions that make land more valuable: roads, schools, police, fire departments, and civil engineering projects.

ouEight12 3y ago

I could be mistaken on this, as I don't live in an area where such things are common, but my understanding is the issue is that if your house is destroyed by say, a hurricane, no insurance provider (or fema) gives you a bag of cash and says "move", reimbursement is predicated on rebuilding the structure where it stood.

slavboj 3y ago
Insurance makes you whole, not the property. You are perfectly welcome to pocket the cash. Although if you have a mortgage, you do have an additional obligation to maintain the value of their collateral or pay off the loan.
- phonon 3y ago
  If you have replacement cost coverage (as opposed to actual cash value (=depreciated value) you typically have to use it to reconstruct the home if you want the full amount. This is typical. "We will pay no more than the actual cash value of the damage until actual repair or replacement is complete." [0] [0] https://www.iii.org/sites/default/files/docs/pdf/HO3_sample.pdf https://www.iii.org/sites/default/files/docs/pdf/HO3_sample....
  - whimsicalism 3y ago
    Terrible idea, so glad the government structured NFIP this way.
lokar 3y ago
And a rational insurance program would not keep insuring the same property over and over as it gets destroyed.

bluGill 3y ago

If built to modern codes houses can survive a hurricane, or so I'm told.

mcast 3y ago
Not all coastal areas have the same strict building code. Homes not built with concrete exteriors and hurricane tie down anchors have a strong risk of being demolished in strong hurricanes. South Florida revamped their building codes after Hurricane Andrew wiped many of the homes and infrastructure in the 90s. However, not all coastal houses in northern Florida or on the gulf are built with concrete or on stilt foundations. A secondary threat is prolonged flooding which can submerge entire homes with salt water for weeks at a time. That's very costly and not preventable with existing homes in flood zones.
- chmod775 3y ago
  This I never understood. Other countries didn't need building codes mandating such things - people always built houses that were intended to stand for many decades and that are suited to their local environment[1]. It defies comprehension that despite being somewhat poorer and enjoying milder weather, Europeans built their houses from brick and mortar while the US insists on erecting cheap cardboard boxes that even if they're not blown away or flooded, will probably rot away within the lifetime of their owner. [1] https://i.imgur.com/Y678tV7.png https://i.imgur.com/Y678tV7.png
  - bluGill 3y ago
    this isn't the three little pigs. Brick is not automatictally stronger. Wood houses have advantages as well, and can be just as strong.
    - chmod775 3y ago
      I did not use the word "wood" once. I don't think houses with walls you can kick holes in qualify as wood houses. They're closer to cardboard than wood. Anyways, the point isn't the materials - the point is that the houses are fundamentally unsuited to the environment they are in.

anonymouskimmer 3y ago

This is what building to code should address. If a house is built to a specific hurricane code, and is destroyed due to other reasons (a hypercane, for instance), then let insurance cover this and mandate rebuilding to an even higher standard. https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/hurricane-idalias-destruction-skipped-homes-floridas-coast-rcna102887 https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/hurricane-idalias-destr... : Dozens of modest homes along the Big Bend coast were heavily damaged in the floodwaters, but interspersed among the debris were residences left relatively unscathed, all because they were built elevated on stilts.

LorenPechtel 3y ago

I'd do it a little differently. If a house is destroyed by any form of reasonably common widespread disaster it becomes illegal to build anything on that lot that would likewise be destroyed. You can rebuild after the hurricane, you must build a house that will stand up to a hurricane. (Yes, it can be done.) I wouldn't apply this to flukes--your town does a Tunguska there's no reason to require asteroid-safe houses. I would also make an exception for things which by their nature must be in the line of fire--such things must never be permanent habitation and can't have community-rate insurance against whatever happened to them. A business can rebuild it's beach cabanas but would have to go to Lloyd's if they wanted insurance.