4 ms·

Yeah, people shouldn’t live in tinder boxes, swamps, or on the top of mud piles that slide when it rains. I absolutely hate society picking up the tab for peop

Yeah, people shouldn’t live in tinder boxes, swamps, or on the top of mud piles that slide when it rains. I absolutely hate society picking up the tab for people doing such reckless things with their own homes.

toomuchtodo 3y ago
If there are places with lower risk, certainly, extend insurance there (when reasonable) using data driven risk models. But places where the risk is high? Prohibit building by refusing to issue a building permit, and perhaps cover existing owners in some fashion. If their house burns down, they must turn over the land to be locked up and never built on again to receive their claim payout. Similar to what FEMA does for flooding. You want to strongly discourage moral hazard (repeatedly funding rebuilds with taxpayer dollars in high risk areas) while not making housing insecurity drastically worse than it already is. I admit this is a tall order with the perpetual housing shortage. https://www.fema.gov/press-release/20230502/fact-sheet-acquisition-property-after-flood-event https://www.fema.gov/press-release/20230502/fact-sheet-acqui... > Acquisition of Property After a Flood Event > If the homeowner still owes a mortgage on the home, the balance due will be deducted and paid to the lienholder. After required payment(s) have been made, the structure is then demolished and the land is deeded to the local government with its use restricted to open space. The land must remain open in perpetuity.
- kortilla 3y ago
  Prohibiting building is a ham-fisted approach and it’s completely unnecessary if we just stop the government from being required to insure things. I don’t care if people want to build in Florida, it’s a great climate… most of the time. They should just burden the real cost by having to pay an insurance rate that actually covers a new house every 5 years. It will force it to be the luxury it really and it will spur construction shifts to hurricane proof pillboxes.

toomuchtodo 3y ago

If there are places with lower risk, certainly, extend insurance there (when reasonable) using data driven risk models. But places where the risk is high? Prohibit building by refusing to issue a building permit, and perhaps cover existing owners in some fashion. If their house burns down, they must turn over the land to be locked up and never built on again to receive their claim payout. Similar to what FEMA does for flooding. You want to strongly discourage moral hazard (repeatedly funding rebuilds with taxpayer dollars in high risk areas) while not making housing insecurity drastically worse than it already is. I admit this is a tall order with the perpetual housing shortage. https://www.fema.gov/press-release/20230502/fact-sheet-acquisition-property-after-flood-event https://www.fema.gov/press-release/20230502/fact-sheet-acqui... > Acquisition of Property After a Flood Event > If the homeowner still owes a mortgage on the home, the balance due will be deducted and paid to the lienholder. After required payment(s) have been made, the structure is then demolished and the land is deeded to the local government with its use restricted to open space. The land must remain open in perpetuity.

kortilla 3y ago
Prohibiting building is a ham-fisted approach and it’s completely unnecessary if we just stop the government from being required to insure things. I don’t care if people want to build in Florida, it’s a great climate… most of the time. They should just burden the real cost by having to pay an insurance rate that actually covers a new house every 5 years. It will force it to be the luxury it really and it will spur construction shifts to hurricane proof pillboxes.