4 ms·

I would go slightly further and say that a lot of this is subsidized by things like FEMA and NFIP and as such, there should be a three strikes rule. If a proper

I would go slightly further and say that a lot of this is subsidized by things like FEMA and NFIP and as such, there should be a three strikes rule. If a property makes a claim based on a disaster like this, they shouldn't be able to just rebuild there indefinitely, regardless of the cost. After the third claim, that property should be rezoned and made unavailable for development. Make it a park or at worst an open parking lot with no infrastructure.

infecto 1y ago
I would argue it should happen after the first disaster. The government has subsidized houses being built in known flood paths for too long imo. If you are in a known zone and had a major loss. You don’t get money to rebuild but instead money to build elsewhere.
adolph 1y ago
What is a "three strikes" for if the cost of periodic rebuilding is financed by unsubsidized insurance? "Rezoning" is a needless control that then prevents future development that might be impervious to whatever disasters caused the periodic rebuilding before.
- cameldrv 1y ago
  The problem is that due to the nature of democracy, people expect to be bailed out if there is a huge disaster. If you don’t want to pay another claim, you need to make demolishing the house and rezoning the land a condition of paying the final claim.
ortusdux 1y ago
They have been doing a version of this for a while in some areas. The homeowner gets a bailout, but the money comes with rebuild requirements (often lifting/lofting the building above a 100 year flood level). If they are met, your property remains insurable and eligible for future help. Conversely, the owner can take the money and keep or sell the land. The problem with this method is that it tends to gentrify the region. Wealthier people can afford to live elsewhere during the repairs, but people living paycheck to paycheck are often forced to take the money and sell the land.
- dsr_ 1y ago
  The other problem is that people will rebuild without insurance. The correct, but very unpopular decision is to forbid rebuilding in those areas.

infecto 1y ago

I would argue it should happen after the first disaster. The government has subsidized houses being built in known flood paths for too long imo. If you are in a known zone and had a major loss. You don’t get money to rebuild but instead money to build elsewhere.

adolph 1y ago

What is a "three strikes" for if the cost of periodic rebuilding is financed by unsubsidized insurance? "Rezoning" is a needless control that then prevents future development that might be impervious to whatever disasters caused the periodic rebuilding before.

cameldrv 1y ago
The problem is that due to the nature of democracy, people expect to be bailed out if there is a huge disaster. If you don’t want to pay another claim, you need to make demolishing the house and rezoning the land a condition of paying the final claim.

ortusdux 1y ago

They have been doing a version of this for a while in some areas. The homeowner gets a bailout, but the money comes with rebuild requirements (often lifting/lofting the building above a 100 year flood level). If they are met, your property remains insurable and eligible for future help. Conversely, the owner can take the money and keep or sell the land. The problem with this method is that it tends to gentrify the region. Wealthier people can afford to live elsewhere during the repairs, but people living paycheck to paycheck are often forced to take the money and sell the land.

dsr_ 1y ago
The other problem is that people will rebuild without insurance. The correct, but very unpopular decision is to forbid rebuilding in those areas.