6 ms·

I'm fine with them living there as long as the rest of us don't have to pay anything to bail them out when the inevitable hurricane or tornado comes through. Th

I'm fine with them living there as long as the rest of us don't have to pay anything to bail them out when the inevitable hurricane or tornado comes through. These aren't like earthquakes and volcanoes that are relatively rare. They literally have a hurricane season. Imagine if we had a volcano season.

bbqfog 2y ago
For second homes, mansions on the beach... totally. There are a lot of impoverished people in the area that won't be able to move though. I have no idea what will happen, but short of some sort of assisted mass-relocation, it doesn't look good.
- threatofrain 2y ago
  IMO it is wrong to sell this land to people. It is debt-laden land that will crush most people. It's like I sold you cheap land and you later find out you're going to get cancer there and insurance won't cover you. How is this any different from selling people exploitive loans to desperate people?
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- JumpCrisscross 2y ago
  > a lot of impoverished people in the area that won't be able to move Instead of providing assistance to rebuild, if the property is in a fucked place, provide money to move.
willidiots 2y ago
How about the rest of the eastern US? Billion dollar climate disasters are hitting everything, not just coastal cities in Florida and WUI towns in California. There was just massive flooding in Tennessee due to Hurricane Helene - are they at fault for living in "hurricane country"? Climate related disasters are intensifying everywhere. What's now "inevitable" may have been unthinkable when some of these folks moved there.
- yababa_y 2y ago
  Tennessee? The one with the famous river valley that used to catastrophically flood pretty regularly?
  - thunky 2y ago
    How about Asheville NC then
- Der_Einzige 2y ago
  Californias only serious risk is the big one earthquake, but that could hit anywhere on the west coast. West coast best coast.
  - ghaff 2y ago
    And wildfires in many areas.
    - ineedaj0b 2y ago
      the wildfires could be mitigated by controlled burns but knowing the gov in California, it'll never happen. eventually seismic activity will pick up too.
      - deepfriedchokes 2y ago
        The other problem is the government can’t force controlled burns on private property. And there’s a lot of private property. I almost lost my fire insurance last year because my neighbor doesn’t keep his property up, for decades. The agent initially rejected my renewal due to pictures taken from an inspection they did that showed a ton of downed trees but they were across my property line.
Ekaros 2y ago
And well for both earthquakes and volcanoes the effected areas are now well known. It could be set that simply any new building moving forwards is not covered. There is plenty enough space in areas with lower risks, so people should be directed towards there. Eventually this will naturally empty the risk prone areas.
paradox460 2y ago
Should we extend this logic to charging California climate tax every summer, when their inevitable wildfire pollutes the air for two states over?
- biftek 2y ago
  Unironically yes
  - Dr_Birdbrain 2y ago
    But even if everybody moved out of California, there would still be wildfires that blow smoke two states over.
    - freedomben 2y ago
      For the fully natural wildfires, yes of course. It definitely happens. But there are plenty of things that can be done to reduce the number of wildfires. Remember the fires caused by old and poorly maintained PG&E lines?
      - scruple 2y ago
        We don't even have to go that far back. The Airport Fire that just burned in Orange and Riverside counties was started by some county public works employees pushing boulders around with a bulldozer (to build a barricade preventing motorcyclists from going into the canyons and starting a wildfire) on a red flag day, literally at the peak of the heat hottest day of the entire year. This sort of shit should see whoever sent them out there fired for gross misconduct and potentially charged. I certainly wouldn't keep my job if I fucked up that badly.
  - freedomben 2y ago
    As a resident of Idaho and former resident of Utah who has spent years having to suffer from the smoke, I have a similar tendency to take this suggestion seriously. Not as a punishment, but as an incentive to improve things. California has neglected things like electrical grid repairs (PG&E anyone?) and controlled burns for many, many years, and now others who had nothing to do with it are paying for it with our health. I know people who are sensitive to the smoke and are essentially trapped in their houses during those times, and have to spend hundreds of dollars on air cleaners. So, it's an interesting idea to change the choice from: either "don't spend the money" or "spend the money on prevention and fixing our shit" To: from "the money is spent either way, might as well fix our shit." If there's also one state that has demonstrated a willingness to use economics to encourage "correct" choices/behavior in consumers, it's California, so they should be real sympathetic to this idea :-) I don't know if I'd support such a proposal or not. That would require some serious analysis and consideration of the details, but I don't think we should just dismiss the whole idea.
Dr_Birdbrain 2y ago
In California, we have a fire season.
Molitor5901 2y ago
What if we just federalize assistance and help everyone, regardless of where they live and what disasters they must contend with?
- standardUser 2y ago
  If anything, we should spend that money to help people willingly relocate, not encourage more people to move to increasingly dangerous areas. Hurricanes are getting worse and will continue to get worse for the foreseeable future. What you are suggesting is subsidizing people to live in economically impractical regions, specifically regions we know will get worse and more costly. I don't see the logic there at all.
- JumpCrisscross 2y ago
  > What if we just federalize assistance and help everyone, regardless of where they live and what disasters they must contend with? We get this mess. Local governments selling building permits in flood and wildfire zones because they get cash in the short term while others pay in the long. We’re seeing in Florida, for example, a recapitulation of the financial crisis, down to bogus ratings of undercapitalised insurers allowing risky mortgages to be passed along to banks, Fannie and Freddie [1]. [1] https://www.hbs.edu/ris/Publication%20Files/24-051_f1329bc3-d296-4ffa-aff3-a9e4b8e98e9d.pdf https://www.hbs.edu/ris/Publication%20Files/24-051_f1329bc3-...
- randcraw 2y ago
  The right question is, what should the role of federal vs state vs local government be in natural disasters, especially those that occur often in an high-risk area? Personal insurance must cover 100% of personal property loss, not governments (at any level) which are obliged to serve the population fairly and uniformly. Local government alone is responsible for rebuilding lost local infrastructure -- roads, power, sewer, and schools. Presumably state government would marshal emergency response from outlying communities, and perhaps coordinate financial resources to rebuild. Federalizing recovery will pass along the cost of disaster recovery to everyone, not just those who build homes in the paths of hurricanes or in low lying areas which flood frequently. That is the role of personal property insurance. The companies who insure against flood, fire, and wind damage are a far better source of indemnifying the risk incurred by each home and neighborhood than is any government. Then the homeowner can choose to insure or not. But no government should pass along the costs of higher risk by some to others who chose a lower risk. That would clearly be unjust.
EasyMark 2y ago
This is why I say let the free market decide what insurance will pay. There is no reason someone should have to subsidize someone’s choice to live on the coast just because the state government demands it. I can understand socializing costs within reason; when a house is gonna get razed every 5-10 years by a hurricane or other natural disaster I’d say that ridiculous and shouldn’t get subsidized or regulated and market conditions will fix it in a decade or two.

bbqfog 2y ago

For second homes, mansions on the beach... totally. There are a lot of impoverished people in the area that won't be able to move though. I have no idea what will happen, but short of some sort of assisted mass-relocation, it doesn't look good.

threatofrain 2y ago
IMO it is wrong to sell this land to people. It is debt-laden land that will crush most people. It's like I sold you cheap land and you later find out you're going to get cancer there and insurance won't cover you. How is this any different from selling people exploitive loans to desperate people?
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
JumpCrisscross 2y ago
> a lot of impoverished people in the area that won't be able to move Instead of providing assistance to rebuild, if the property is in a fucked place, provide money to move.

willidiots 2y ago

How about the rest of the eastern US? Billion dollar climate disasters are hitting everything, not just coastal cities in Florida and WUI towns in California. There was just massive flooding in Tennessee due to Hurricane Helene - are they at fault for living in "hurricane country"? Climate related disasters are intensifying everywhere. What's now "inevitable" may have been unthinkable when some of these folks moved there.

yababa_y 2y ago
Tennessee? The one with the famous river valley that used to catastrophically flood pretty regularly?
- thunky 2y ago
  How about Asheville NC then
Der_Einzige 2y ago
Californias only serious risk is the big one earthquake, but that could hit anywhere on the west coast. West coast best coast.
- ghaff 2y ago
  And wildfires in many areas.
  - ineedaj0b 2y ago
    the wildfires could be mitigated by controlled burns but knowing the gov in California, it'll never happen. eventually seismic activity will pick up too.
    - deepfriedchokes 2y ago
      The other problem is the government can’t force controlled burns on private property. And there’s a lot of private property. I almost lost my fire insurance last year because my neighbor doesn’t keep his property up, for decades. The agent initially rejected my renewal due to pictures taken from an inspection they did that showed a ton of downed trees but they were across my property line.

Ekaros 2y ago

And well for both earthquakes and volcanoes the effected areas are now well known. It could be set that simply any new building moving forwards is not covered. There is plenty enough space in areas with lower risks, so people should be directed towards there. Eventually this will naturally empty the risk prone areas.

paradox460 2y ago

Should we extend this logic to charging California climate tax every summer, when their inevitable wildfire pollutes the air for two states over?

biftek 2y ago
Unironically yes
- Dr_Birdbrain 2y ago
  But even if everybody moved out of California, there would still be wildfires that blow smoke two states over.
  - freedomben 2y ago
    For the fully natural wildfires, yes of course. It definitely happens. But there are plenty of things that can be done to reduce the number of wildfires. Remember the fires caused by old and poorly maintained PG&E lines?
    - scruple 2y ago
      We don't even have to go that far back. The Airport Fire that just burned in Orange and Riverside counties was started by some county public works employees pushing boulders around with a bulldozer (to build a barricade preventing motorcyclists from going into the canyons and starting a wildfire) on a red flag day, literally at the peak of the heat hottest day of the entire year. This sort of shit should see whoever sent them out there fired for gross misconduct and potentially charged. I certainly wouldn't keep my job if I fucked up that badly.
- freedomben 2y ago
  As a resident of Idaho and former resident of Utah who has spent years having to suffer from the smoke, I have a similar tendency to take this suggestion seriously. Not as a punishment, but as an incentive to improve things. California has neglected things like electrical grid repairs (PG&E anyone?) and controlled burns for many, many years, and now others who had nothing to do with it are paying for it with our health. I know people who are sensitive to the smoke and are essentially trapped in their houses during those times, and have to spend hundreds of dollars on air cleaners. So, it's an interesting idea to change the choice from: either "don't spend the money" or "spend the money on prevention and fixing our shit" To: from "the money is spent either way, might as well fix our shit." If there's also one state that has demonstrated a willingness to use economics to encourage "correct" choices/behavior in consumers, it's California, so they should be real sympathetic to this idea :-) I don't know if I'd support such a proposal or not. That would require some serious analysis and consideration of the details, but I don't think we should just dismiss the whole idea.

Dr_Birdbrain 2y ago

In California, we have a fire season.

Molitor5901 2y ago

What if we just federalize assistance and help everyone, regardless of where they live and what disasters they must contend with?

standardUser 2y ago
If anything, we should spend that money to help people willingly relocate, not encourage more people to move to increasingly dangerous areas. Hurricanes are getting worse and will continue to get worse for the foreseeable future. What you are suggesting is subsidizing people to live in economically impractical regions, specifically regions we know will get worse and more costly. I don't see the logic there at all.
JumpCrisscross 2y ago
> What if we just federalize assistance and help everyone, regardless of where they live and what disasters they must contend with? We get this mess. Local governments selling building permits in flood and wildfire zones because they get cash in the short term while others pay in the long. We’re seeing in Florida, for example, a recapitulation of the financial crisis, down to bogus ratings of undercapitalised insurers allowing risky mortgages to be passed along to banks, Fannie and Freddie [1]. [1] https://www.hbs.edu/ris/Publication%20Files/24-051_f1329bc3-d296-4ffa-aff3-a9e4b8e98e9d.pdf https://www.hbs.edu/ris/Publication%20Files/24-051_f1329bc3-...
randcraw 2y ago
The right question is, what should the role of federal vs state vs local government be in natural disasters, especially those that occur often in an high-risk area? Personal insurance must cover 100% of personal property loss, not governments (at any level) which are obliged to serve the population fairly and uniformly. Local government alone is responsible for rebuilding lost local infrastructure -- roads, power, sewer, and schools. Presumably state government would marshal emergency response from outlying communities, and perhaps coordinate financial resources to rebuild. Federalizing recovery will pass along the cost of disaster recovery to everyone, not just those who build homes in the paths of hurricanes or in low lying areas which flood frequently. That is the role of personal property insurance. The companies who insure against flood, fire, and wind damage are a far better source of indemnifying the risk incurred by each home and neighborhood than is any government. Then the homeowner can choose to insure or not. But no government should pass along the costs of higher risk by some to others who chose a lower risk. That would clearly be unjust.

EasyMark 2y ago

This is why I say let the free market decide what insurance will pay. There is no reason someone should have to subsidize someone’s choice to live on the coast just because the state government demands it. I can understand socializing costs within reason; when a house is gonna get razed every 5-10 years by a hurricane or other natural disaster I’d say that ridiculous and shouldn’t get subsidized or regulated and market conditions will fix it in a decade or two.