3 ms·
That's only really the case for cash buyers though, right? If you have a mortgage, the bank will demand you have sufficient insurance. There's a case to be mad
by noirbot 2y ago
That's only really the case for cash buyers though, right? If you have a mortgage, the bank will demand you have sufficient insurance.
There's a case to be made that places like SoCal and Florida having State/Federal discounted fire or flood insurance is an obvious problem. I can understand the "we don't have a way to kick everyone out of this dangerous and potentially historic area" zone, but it ends up being a subsidy of taxes from people living in more sensible areas to pay for the predictable damages to more risky areas.
If you're rich enough to buy anything in LA in cash, you're likely rich enough to eat the loss if your house burns. If you needed a mortgage then you're constrained by the insurance companies that increasingly are pulling out of areas like this for exactly this reason.
- HarryHirsch 2y agoIt's scandalous, though, that the public will pay for firefighting efforts in areas that are unsafe to build in. It's insane to build on a slope or in a canyon that's plagued by katabatic winds.
- noirbot 2y agoThere's some of that, for sure, but isn't the issue that folks have been living in that area for ages? There's a lot of towns and areas that were founded 100 years ago when it either wasn't as bad of an idea, or we just didn't know how bad of an idea it was. It's not trivial to just go "yea, you all need to move to somewhere new".
- xnx 2y ago> It's not trivial to just go "yea, you all need to move to somewhere new". Definitely true. Insurance rates and property tax can incentivize this as they have in places like Florida. After this, California will probably catch up.