Thats why i pointed at building codes. Require building that will survive the threat. Then people will have to pay more for them which discourages people from building in those areas at least.
No it doesn’t. Those people need to be essentially bailed out if/when their house is destroyed. Most of them had no idea what they were getting into when they bought it. And we bail out companies, so why not people. But that buy out should be to buy the land for a reasonable price, or if they want to rebuild, they will have to sink extra money of thier own into meeting the requirements of new buildings for that area. In some areas they may want to incentivize rebuilding to the new standard, in some they wouldn’t.
Insurance as it is now, only pays to rebuild such that it can burn down again. So even raising the price on that doesn’t solve the problem. It will just end up with the cost of insurance being wrapped into the mortgage eventually.
The houses are worth a whole lot less money given the risks of extreme weather and fire.
This was entirely predictable. It’s been well publicised for decades.
Bailing out companies is obviously not the same as bailing out people.
I’m not really sure it’s as easy as “building to a new standard”. For suburbs prone to inundation it may be that there’s little that can be done on the residential property itself.
I think the core of this issue is money. It’s going to cost a lot of it for people to live in these risky areas.
In my view, living in those places should not be subsidised by everyone else. That means everyone else’s insurance premiums should bear the cost of those heightened risks. If someone wants to build a house to a higher building standard in order to have it insured then so be it.
So your answer is that the average person in socal should just be put in finacial ruin if a fire burns down their house. If insurance is super expensive they won’t be able to sell it, because no one could afford the insurance. They can’t afford it either, but can’t move without selling it. Once thier house does burn down, and they have no where to live, they won’t be able to work, and will eventually be poor enough for welfare and such. So we will be paying for them anyway. But at least your way they are destitue.
And it is easy to say it was predictable after it happened. I don’t think anyone predicted this level of devastation in LA. Fires in the surrounding hills sure. But not through dense residential areas like that.
And given the motivation, engineers can build a house that can withstand just about anything.
They are worth nil if no one will buy them. And if the insurance will be significantly more, who would buy it? The owners would probably still owe money on the mortgage if they managed to sell it, which many couldn’t afford. Banks would probably refuse to loan to people buying those houses further reducing who might buy it, which further reduces the value. So people won’t be able to sell them making them effectively worth nil.
And in your scenario, those lots of people losing money… why should they be average citizens. They didn’t cause climate change. That was the oil and manufacturing industry who knew decades ago what they were doing. And instead of try to come up with solutions, produced propaganda to hide the facts and discredit anyone who tried to point it out. Maybe they should be the ones to lose a lot of money. They sure made and continue to make more than enough to buy those houses outright.
The cost of insurance needs to equal the risk though.
If a house is going to get burned down every year, who pays to re-build it?
It isn’t practical to expect everyone to move out of florida, but climate change is impractical.
Thats why i pointed at building codes. Require building that will survive the threat. Then people will have to pay more for them which discourages people from building in those areas at least.
Maybe. That doesn’t really help all of the existing buildings though.
No it doesn’t. Those people need to be essentially bailed out if/when their house is destroyed. Most of them had no idea what they were getting into when they bought it. And we bail out companies, so why not people. But that buy out should be to buy the land for a reasonable price, or if they want to rebuild, they will have to sink extra money of thier own into meeting the requirements of new buildings for that area. In some areas they may want to incentivize rebuilding to the new standard, in some they wouldn’t. Insurance as it is now, only pays to rebuild such that it can burn down again. So even raising the price on that doesn’t solve the problem. It will just end up with the cost of insurance being wrapped into the mortgage eventually.
The houses are worth a whole lot less money given the risks of extreme weather and fire.
This was entirely predictable. It’s been well publicised for decades.
Bailing out companies is obviously not the same as bailing out people.
I’m not really sure it’s as easy as “building to a new standard”. For suburbs prone to inundation it may be that there’s little that can be done on the residential property itself.
I think the core of this issue is money. It’s going to cost a lot of it for people to live in these risky areas.
In my view, living in those places should not be subsidised by everyone else. That means everyone else’s insurance premiums should bear the cost of those heightened risks. If someone wants to build a house to a higher building standard in order to have it insured then so be it.
So your answer is that the average person in socal should just be put in finacial ruin if a fire burns down their house. If insurance is super expensive they won’t be able to sell it, because no one could afford the insurance. They can’t afford it either, but can’t move without selling it. Once thier house does burn down, and they have no where to live, they won’t be able to work, and will eventually be poor enough for welfare and such. So we will be paying for them anyway. But at least your way they are destitue.
And it is easy to say it was predictable after it happened. I don’t think anyone predicted this level of devastation in LA. Fires in the surrounding hills sure. But not through dense residential areas like that.
And given the motivation, engineers can build a house that can withstand just about anything.
That’s not my answer at all.
These houses will be more difficult to insure and less desirable and worth less as a result. Not worth nil, just worth significantly less.
Engineers can build amazing things, but most people probably don’t want to pay for a submersible house or a fire proof house.
Yes lots of people will lose a lot of money. Climate change is going to be a rough ride.
They are worth nil if no one will buy them. And if the insurance will be significantly more, who would buy it? The owners would probably still owe money on the mortgage if they managed to sell it, which many couldn’t afford. Banks would probably refuse to loan to people buying those houses further reducing who might buy it, which further reduces the value. So people won’t be able to sell them making them effectively worth nil.
And in your scenario, those lots of people losing money… why should they be average citizens. They didn’t cause climate change. That was the oil and manufacturing industry who knew decades ago what they were doing. And instead of try to come up with solutions, produced propaganda to hide the facts and discredit anyone who tried to point it out. Maybe they should be the ones to lose a lot of money. They sure made and continue to make more than enough to buy those houses outright.