5 ms·

Is there a map of where these places are? I am willing to defer to State Farm and believe that they are very data driven. The nature of insurance is making smar

Is there a map of where these places are? I am willing to defer to State Farm and believe that they are very data driven. The nature of insurance is making smart bets. Are these all clustered in a few hot spots that are likely to go under the next time there is a fire/landslide/earthquake? Why these units and not others? What does State Farm consider the most insurable places to live?

jgalt212 3y ago
I think this is more regulatory-driven than mother nature driven.
ethbr1 3y ago
>> It also plans not to offer commercial apartment policies and won’t renew the 42,000 now in place. That's almost 60% of the total. I'm guessing because commercial apartments present a more geographically-concentrated fire risk (either you lose all the units or none).
- jandrese 3y ago
  It seems a bit strange since you would expect the apartments to be located further away from the fire risk, closer to downtown than the outskirts of the city near the forests. If this was State Farm deciding to drop insurance on homes that are in grossly overgrown forests with no buffer then it would make a lot more sense given the likely increase in fire activity in the coming years.
  - jeffbee 3y ago
    Eh, not really. Look at this b.s. https://www.google.com/maps/@37.8270689,-122.2087796,3a,60y,91.67h,101.73t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1seb4F3LLU5m2x04oY3Dc-xA!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?entry=ttu https://www.google.com/maps/@37.8270689,-122.2087796,3a,60y,...
    - akira2501 3y ago
      Yea, all that shade and wind cover, also holding down the soil and providing stability. I'll bet it's also "nice" to live there. Total B.S. that we ever allowed this to happen.
      - SR2Z 3y ago
        It's also a great idea to build homes on beautiful, yellow-sand beaches that are kept nice and clean by hurricane season! People should be allowed to live where they want - but it's well past time this country stopped subsidizing the risk of building in places where natural disasters commonly wreck buildings.
        akira2501 3y ago
        > this country stopped subsidizing the risk of building In the given picture how much risk is being subsidized by the government? What form does that take? What about East Palestine, OH? Can we live near train tracks? What about Paradise, CA? Can we live near power lines? Blizzards can become natural disasters, is the entire area above the snow line now facing new rules for building? > commonly wreck buildings. I can't say much about those buildings right there in the picture, but some of them have clearly been there for decades.
        jeffbee 3y ago
        Yes, but only decades. The main form of subsidy that these particular buildings enjoy is the construction and repair of roads on sliding hillsides. A further subsidy is their overrepresentation in the budget of the fire department, since this area is served by relatively more fire stations per capita than the central city. Finally, the topic of this article: in cases of fire, the owners of these buildings will expect the rest of us to bail them out. FYI, these buildings are also directly atop the Hayward Fault. > What about Paradise, CA? It should be obvious that as a matter of public policy nobody should be allowed to build a dwelling inside a forest the way Paradise was built.
- jimmygrapes 3y ago
  Insuring the building itself is far more risky when there's many tenants with relatively unknown risk profiles who could cause damage (leave the bathtub on all night, pour oil and unflushables down the drains and sewer pipes, put pizza boxes on the stove top and leave them on, smoke next to curtains, etc.). Not sure if that's the reason here.
  - standardUser 3y ago
    Sure, but there's no such 'crisis' in NYC where the housing stock is considerably older and denser. Maybe it's an issue of comparably poor maintenance over the decades?
revlolz 3y ago
Mercury insurance is doing the same albeit more scummy in my experience. The criteria for flagging seems to be houses built before 1985, in areas that have had any sort of wildfire in a x mile radius over the past 20-30 years, and perhaps some other features. The insurance companies will use every possible excuse regardless of the insured's willingness to respond to their bullshit. Most Californians are finding notice of non renewals and forcing homeowners into a CA state sponsored high cost/low coverage plan. It seems intentional by the state to pickup more money, but that's my tinfoil hat.
poulsbohemian 3y ago
> I am willing to defer to State Farm and believe that they are very data driven Big corporations are such that the left hand and right hand seldom know what they are each doing. A team and I consulted there about ten years ago. In the silo we were working in was the single most risk-averse place I've ever seen. On one hand, that would appear to be a good cultural element given their business, but on the other it was so extreme that I found it to be a major turnoff - it felt so extreme as to be wasteful. Not that hard to imagine then taking an extreme position on who they will insure as the world shifts.

jgalt212 3y ago

I think this is more regulatory-driven than mother nature driven.

ethbr1 3y ago

>> It also plans not to offer commercial apartment policies and won’t renew the 42,000 now in place. That's almost 60% of the total. I'm guessing because commercial apartments present a more geographically-concentrated fire risk (either you lose all the units or none).

jandrese 3y ago
It seems a bit strange since you would expect the apartments to be located further away from the fire risk, closer to downtown than the outskirts of the city near the forests. If this was State Farm deciding to drop insurance on homes that are in grossly overgrown forests with no buffer then it would make a lot more sense given the likely increase in fire activity in the coming years.
- jeffbee 3y ago
  Eh, not really. Look at this b.s. https://www.google.com/maps/@37.8270689,-122.2087796,3a,60y,91.67h,101.73t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1seb4F3LLU5m2x04oY3Dc-xA!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?entry=ttu https://www.google.com/maps/@37.8270689,-122.2087796,3a,60y,...
  - akira2501 3y ago
    Yea, all that shade and wind cover, also holding down the soil and providing stability. I'll bet it's also "nice" to live there. Total B.S. that we ever allowed this to happen.
    - SR2Z 3y ago
      It's also a great idea to build homes on beautiful, yellow-sand beaches that are kept nice and clean by hurricane season! People should be allowed to live where they want - but it's well past time this country stopped subsidizing the risk of building in places where natural disasters commonly wreck buildings.
      - akira2501 3y ago
        > this country stopped subsidizing the risk of building In the given picture how much risk is being subsidized by the government? What form does that take? What about East Palestine, OH? Can we live near train tracks? What about Paradise, CA? Can we live near power lines? Blizzards can become natural disasters, is the entire area above the snow line now facing new rules for building? > commonly wreck buildings. I can't say much about those buildings right there in the picture, but some of them have clearly been there for decades.
        jeffbee 3y ago
        Yes, but only decades. The main form of subsidy that these particular buildings enjoy is the construction and repair of roads on sliding hillsides. A further subsidy is their overrepresentation in the budget of the fire department, since this area is served by relatively more fire stations per capita than the central city. Finally, the topic of this article: in cases of fire, the owners of these buildings will expect the rest of us to bail them out. FYI, these buildings are also directly atop the Hayward Fault. > What about Paradise, CA? It should be obvious that as a matter of public policy nobody should be allowed to build a dwelling inside a forest the way Paradise was built.
jimmygrapes 3y ago
Insuring the building itself is far more risky when there's many tenants with relatively unknown risk profiles who could cause damage (leave the bathtub on all night, pour oil and unflushables down the drains and sewer pipes, put pizza boxes on the stove top and leave them on, smoke next to curtains, etc.). Not sure if that's the reason here.
- standardUser 3y ago
  Sure, but there's no such 'crisis' in NYC where the housing stock is considerably older and denser. Maybe it's an issue of comparably poor maintenance over the decades?

revlolz 3y ago

Mercury insurance is doing the same albeit more scummy in my experience. The criteria for flagging seems to be houses built before 1985, in areas that have had any sort of wildfire in a x mile radius over the past 20-30 years, and perhaps some other features. The insurance companies will use every possible excuse regardless of the insured's willingness to respond to their bullshit. Most Californians are finding notice of non renewals and forcing homeowners into a CA state sponsored high cost/low coverage plan. It seems intentional by the state to pickup more money, but that's my tinfoil hat.

poulsbohemian 3y ago

> I am willing to defer to State Farm and believe that they are very data driven Big corporations are such that the left hand and right hand seldom know what they are each doing. A team and I consulted there about ten years ago. In the silo we were working in was the single most risk-averse place I've ever seen. On one hand, that would appear to be a good cultural element given their business, but on the other it was so extreme that I found it to be a major turnoff - it felt so extreme as to be wasteful. Not that hard to imagine then taking an extreme position on who they will insure as the world shifts.