3 ms·
I wonder if people who have all this smoke for Floridians living in flood zones that they do for people living in wildfire zones, including Pacific Palisades an
by jmyeet 1y ago
I wonder if people who have all this smoke for Floridians living in flood zones that they do for people living in wildfire zones, including Pacific Palisades and Altadena.
In both cases, taxpayers are subsidizing their existence and their insurance is way below fair market value for the risks involved.
So let's say it (many years ago) cost $100,000 to build a house and there was a 1% chance in any given year that the house would be a total loss due to [fire,flood]. Insurance for that event should cost a baseline of $1000. It should actually be more due to variance and how these events aren't isolated (ie years of no losses followed by thousands of homes in a single year). But you get the idea.
Now because of inflation it now costs $800,000 to build that same house. Well the risks haven't changed so now insurance should have a baseline cost of $8000. In California they don't because of Prop 108. In Florida, flood insurance is acting as a subsidy. Without it, many homes wouldn't be built and existing houses would have a much lower value because of the insurance issue.
But let's take it further. Now because of climate change let's say the annual risk was 4% of [fire,flood]. Well, insurance should cost $32,000 per year but doesn't.
But do you see what the issue driving all of this is? You might say it's government policy. Wrong. You might say it's capping insurance costs. Wrong. It's housing cost. Housing is too expensive.
What nobody wants to face is the system we've built of treating housing as an investment is broken. It is nothing more than stealing from the next generation and a wealth transfer from the government to already wealthy.
But nobody wants to have that conversation.
- draw_down 1y ago[dead]
- orwin 1y agoWell, i don't have any smoke because well, it's not my country, but i assume people have the same smoke for developers building in wildfire zone than for developers building in flood zones. Especially when those developers are in fact the city mayor, and 13 people died because of him. And he still got re-elected. Your country is not the only one where powerful people face no consequences. People who blame homeowners though are all wrong. calculating risk/reward individually is extremely difficult to impossible, and if some people did not and trusted authorities, you shouldn't blame them.
- FireBeyond 1y ago> People who blame homeowners though are all wrong. calculating risk/reward individually is extremely difficult to impossible Disagree here. It is absolutely a part of the homebuying process - flood zones, etc., are required disclosures, and your lender will be involved, and mandate insurance. It's not something you can stand up later and say "Oh, but I didn't know". > and if some people did not and trusted authorities, you shouldn't blame them This is backwards. The authorities are the ones saying "this is in a flood zone", "you need flood insurance", the home insurers and mortgage lenders, too. It's that the homeowners don't care. "But my views are priceless", "I want to be by the water", "I'll be dead before sea levels rise", "If my house floods, I'll get the money to rebuild it and be put up in a hotel while that happens".
- orwin 1y agoIf a home is recently built in a danger zone without adequate protections/failsafes, The fault rest way, way more on the developer who built it and the mayor who approved the permit. Do you expect random people to know more about flood danger than a developer and local officials?
- FireBeyond 1y agoI will agree with that - if it was in an existing flood zone, then yes, absolutely. But if that zone was designated after home construction, but you as a homeowner choose to buy the home having been informed of that flood zone, then...
- orwin 1y agoIn my country, you just can't build or sell houses in flood zone. What happened nearby (20km away from my house) is a mayor, who was also a developer, decided that an area 4-5m above sea level (with high tide at +3.5m with coefficient 70 I think, so +6m at 120) was "protected" by the new 3m tall dike/embankment (not sure about which word to use in english). Scientists and experts told it wasn't enough, he built houses anyway, i think the oldest house lasted ten year and the most recent five until a tempest came, with a high tide. 3m of water in the area (that couldn't go out because of the dike), houses were fully automated so people couldn't pass through the electric roller shutters to leave there home and go on the roof, and i think half the people died. The mayor was still reelected.
- IAmBroom 1y agoPeople don't move to the coast of Florida (where they are most at risk from flooding and hurricanes) because housing is cheaper there, as you imply.
- jmyeet 1y agoThat’s exactly why people move to Florida. Pick any coastal area in South Florida (Miami up to Melbourne), southwest Florida or the panhandle and even now property is extraordinarily cheap by national standards. Pre-pandemic you could find something minutes to the beach for $250k or less in many areas.