The Money Mustache Community
Learning, Sharing, and Teaching => Real Estate and Landlording => Topic started by: FINate on February 20, 2023, 08:38:37 PM
-
Interesting article today in The Atlantic: America's coastal cities are a hidden time bomb (https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2023/02/coastal-cities-housing-sea-level-flooding-climate-change/673106/)
This brings up something I've observed and wondered about for several years now. The most expensive housing is along the coast, or often large properties in densely wooded forest. These are the most at risk to climate change, and yet people are still attracted to these areas. I see it on this forum, but also in other places online and among friends and family.
The article focuses on flood risk in low-lying areas, which is valid. Though California recently got another glimpse of the future with storms that eroded ocean cliffs much faster than anyone anticipated, which is now threatening infrastructure and homes that were assumed to be safe for at least a few more decades.
The big one for me is wildfire risk. I've seen big wildfires up close and it's both awe inspiring and terrifying. I'm shocked that people still want to buy/build homes in the forest and/or WUI, especially in the arid west. High insurance premiums, the very high likelihood of losing everything followed by a stressful and lengthy rebuild, risk of injury or death... just a bad idea all around. And yet people still want that stick frame home in the path of a future inferno.
I'm left wondering how many climate related natural disasters we have to live through before things change.
-
I'm left wondering how many climate related natural disasters we have to live through before things change.
Most of them. Most people think on shorter timelines than even a year. It's also way too easy for folks to believe that we can engineer some solution to mitigate the risks, irrespective of the costs.
I think part of the issue is that we keep framing these events like a "100 year flood" or a "Once in a generation blizzard" or a "50 year wildfire". It then becomes associated with "ah, that's not going to happen in my lifetime, so I'm good".
The other part is that we, as individuals, want so desperately to return to homeostasis. We're hardwired (on a population level) to loathe rapid change, probably for the biological better. I think the bellwether for when the majority of people internalize the effects of climate change is going to be when we collectively lose something to climate change that we will never get back.
Will that happen? Could we be so utterly devastated that people from Florida to NYC to Alaska will all stop and say "oh shit, it's all real" beyond an earthquake (ironically the one not-climate related disaster) in SoCal that kills hundreds of thousands and wipes companies and services off the map. Either that or a solar flare that wipes out the power grid to half the world.
I personally don't think so. I think it's going to be a slow and painful realization, constant mega storms and "once in a generation" weather events coupled with the loss of skiable winter in the Rockies.
-
I think it's going to be a slow and painful realization, constant mega storms and "once in a generation" weather events coupled with the loss of skiable winter in the Rockies.
Nothing like loss of skiable winter in the Rockies to get the attention of rich folks.
I couldn't read further than the first two paragraphs of the article due to a paywall. I think the big driver will be the cost or lack of availability of home insurance. Its already starting in California and Florida, where many insurance companies have pulled out of the market. All that will be left are the super wealthy that self insure.
There's a podcast series I listened to that is focused entirely on climate change, called "How We Survive". https://www.marketplace.org/shows/how-we-survive/ Its produced by the people of MarketPlace on NPR. This season was mostly about Miami-- home insurance, low income people on the outskirts, the crazy real estate market, whether anyone actually cares about climate change among those buying. The last point I found quite interesting--- the wealthy buyers have enough money to not care whether their home would exist in 20-30 years. Some people in this forum have expressed the same sentiment while contemplating their potential beach homes.
-
I think the big driver will be the cost or lack of availability of home insurance. Its already starting in California and Florida, where many insurance companies have pulled out of the market. All that will be left are the super wealthy that self insure.
I think the lack of available/affordable insurance will weaken the public desire to have homes in places like this, but the think that's actually going to be the big driver/wakeup call is when lenders stop writing mortgages for homes in these areas. All it takes is a few bigger lenders to decide that having a lien on property that might not actually even be able to be reclaimed if it turns into swampland to get people to realize that it's not actually a good idea to live in those places.
But because the costs of such changes are borne by the most vulnerable in society, it's going to be a shitty, painful, and completely unjust transition.
-
I think the big driver will be the cost or lack of availability of home insurance. Its already starting in California and Florida, where many insurance companies have pulled out of the market. All that will be left are the super wealthy that self insure.
I think the lack of available/affordable insurance will weaken the public desire to have homes in places like this, but the think that's actually going to be the big driver/wakeup call is when lenders stop writing mortgages for homes in these areas. All it takes is a few bigger lenders to decide that having a lien on property that might not actually even be able to be reclaimed if it turns into swampland to get people to realize that it's not actually a good idea to live in those places.
But because the costs of such changes are borne by the most vulnerable in society, it's going to be a shitty, painful, and completely unjust transition.
I guess they're related-- insurance and mortgages. You can't get a mortgage on a house unless it has insurance. I suppose mortgage lenders might decide to drop clients independently too.
-
Was blocked at the paywall but found this article by the same author so assuming it's another extract from his book.
https://www.yahoo.com/news/floridas-climate-exodus-already-begun-110000919.html
The threat isn't just coastal it's also to anyone who lives along or near an inland body of water or river. Homes that were built 50+ years ago and have been passed down to the next generation are being flooded along riverfronts. Homes that never flooded are now being heavily damaged or destroyed. This happened recently where I live and some people can't afford flood insurance because it's $16k+ a year. When the home is destroyed, insurance will cover the rebuilding and this can lead to homeowners elevating the home 2 stories to avoid being trapped. When the home isn't considered destroyed, it is renovated and the residents cross their fingers till the next one.
The biggest issue happening here is that emergency rescue services can't reach people during one of these events and there was not indication that they needed to evacuate. Additionally, these storms often leave sewage remnants from flooded wastewater plants and sewage line backups into homes.
I believe the fallout from all of this is that we will see 500 yr storms being reclassified as 100yr events, 100 yr will become 50 or 25 year events and we will need another classification level to hurricanes like cat6.
-
Here's the article with the paywall removed.
https://archive.ph/ei92s
-
Is this really "hidden" though?
Hasn't this been talked about for literally decades? People just don't care and don't want to listen.
People generally make short term, lifestyle decisions. I mean, I personally bought two coastal properties last year with only a 10 year timeline for my planning.
-
Here's the article with the paywall removed.
https://archive.ph/ei92s
Thank you!
-
If anybody wants to experiment with potential impacts of rising sea levels in the US, here's the government's tool:
https://coast.noaa.gov/slr/#/layer/slr/2/-10514575.245145073/4166414.3050564444/5/satellite/none/0.8/2050/interHigh/midAccretion
-
Is this really "hidden" though?
Hasn't this been talked about for literally decades? People just don't care and don't want to listen.
People generally make short term, lifestyle decisions. I mean, I personally bought two coastal properties last year with only a 10 year timeline for my planning.
What's your plan for them after 10 years? Are you in an area that is at risk of sea level rise? I think one of your houses is in the Nova Scotia region, but I seem to think a lot of that area is significantly above sea level and there aren't many natural disasters to affect you.
-
weather's nice in the sf bay area, rather not live where it snows, really like the diversity here, figure i'll move if things go bad
-
Will that happen? Could we be so utterly devastated that people from Florida to NYC to Alaska will all stop and say "oh shit, it's all real" beyond an earthquake (ironically the one not-climate related disaster) in SoCal that kills hundreds of thousands and wipes companies and services off the map. Either that or a solar flare that wipes out the power grid to half the world.
RE earthquakes: I've spent most of my life in California and it still amazes me how unprepared most people are for the inevitable earthquake. No basic survival kit, no earthquake insurance. Yeah, I guess most people think it won't happen even though the Hayward and San Andreas faults are overdue for a big one.
I personally don't think so. I think it's going to be a slow and painful realization, constant mega storms and "once in a generation" weather events coupled with the loss of skiable winter in the Rockies.
Unfortunately I think you're right. After enough disasters the futility of it all may finally become apparent.
-
Is this really "hidden" though?
Hasn't this been talked about for literally decades? People just don't care and don't want to listen.
People generally make short term, lifestyle decisions. I mean, I personally bought two coastal properties last year with only a 10 year timeline for my planning.
What's your plan for them after 10 years? Are you in an area that is at risk of sea level rise? I think one of your houses is in the Nova Scotia region, but I seem to think a lot of that area is significantly above sea level and there aren't many natural disasters to affect you.
No sea level or erosion issues, but hurricanes are a major problem.
One is on the edge of NL, in an area where 100km winds are the norm in the winter. The weather will have to get pretty extreme to rip those houses apart, but if/when it does, people just won't live in coastal NL anymore.
But buying in rural NL, you just have to take the risk that the community will shutter anyway for totally non weather related reasons. I may never recoup my outlay to buy there, it's a lifestyle purchase and I only need it to work for 10 years to be worth it. Hopefully it will work out much longer, but I can amortize the cost over a decade and be happy with it just as a luxury spend.
The second property is in the fastest growing region of the country in New Brunswick. I intend to sell within 10 years and have already profited nicely in just one. It's on the ocean, but tucked in under the corner of Maine, so nowhere near as vulnerable.
Bad storms will be an issue and rising water could be a problem for the main peninsula long term, maybe. It's harder to predict in that area.
But I'm also not spending 7 figures on a "forever" home with delusions that everything will turn out just fine.
-
weather's nice in the sf bay area, rather not live where it snows, really like the diversity here, figure i'll move if things go bad
That's a fine plan if you're renting and can afford to move. The real problem is for owners, because once the risk is revealed the property is permanently devalued and difficult to sell.
-
Forest fires and climate are visible. The hidden time bomb is the 9.5 quake that will demolish the Pacific Northwest any time. The economy could take a generation to recover.
-
Forest fires and climate are visible. The hidden time bomb is the 9.5 quake that will demolish the Pacific Northwest any time. The economy could take a generation to recover.
One may make the other much worse. Imagine a scenario where the San Andreas ruptures from SoCal to NorCal, as has happened in the past. But now let's say it's at the peak of fire season. How will authorities respond to wildfires made much worse by climate change with widespread infrastructure failures.
-
When Hurricane Katrina flooded much of New Orleans in 2005, I watched the refugees pouring out of the city and wondered why any of them would rebuild there as opposed to the higher ground a couple hundred miles away in Baton Rouge, Shreveport, or various parts of Texas, Arkansas, or Mississippi that are not disaster-prone, and which are also cheaper to live in than N.O. The whole future of the city seemed questionable since it was (a) already largely destroyed, and (b) still below sea level, and (c) facing all sorts of new financial problems now that about 30% of its taxpayers had left.
As it turns out, the population of N.O. has been growing (https://www.macrotrends.net/cities/23082/new-orleans/population) since Katrina, and finally exceeded its pre-Katrina numbers in 2021. New stick-house construction has been going in below sea level, even as the land continues to subside and the ocean continues to rise.
The assumption is that new levees will keep New Orleans livable for the foreseeable future, much like Galveston's heroic efforts to build a massive seawall, lift buildings, and pump in up to 17 feet of sand after the 1900 hurricane (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1900_Galveston_hurricane) kept it safe for the following 123 years (so far). I don't believe that assumption, but enough people do.
When it comes to Miami, Charleston, Washington D.C., New York City, Houston, faultline cities in CA, etc. I think we'll see a similar pattern. Inevitable destruction will be followed by very expensive fortifications, which will be followed by even more people moving to the previously destroyed area. The destruction itself opens up the possibility for a city to become a mostly-new boomtown, full of development, and of course that attracts even more people. Apparently this growth prospect is sufficiently attractive to overcome high insurance costs, the high costs of fortifications against the risk, and the continued risk to life and limb from living there.
Expect more Katrina-like mass casualty events, followed by economic booms and the migration of people into the disaster zone.
-
I turned down the chance to buy a pretty little cottage 20 years ago when I saw that it was in a river flood zone on one of the earliest flood zone maps the UK produced - I worked on environmental law issues so was aware then. Those maps are updated and show thousands of homes subject to flood risk but I'm not seeing any reduction in house sales or prices in those areas. Some areas will be protected, others won't: the plans for which areas are which are also on line now and those don't seem to make any difference either. It's unfathomable to me, and a lot of people are going to get a rude awakening sooner rather than later in house-owning terms. The local council is already planning for sea level rises of 1 metre in the next 70 years, and that may still increase.
I'm coastal, but a few hundred yards back and 40 meters up, on rock. Unless a large meteor falls offshore I'm safe from a tsunami and the erosion rates are highly unlikely to outpace my remaining years on the planet.
-
Mostly PTF
I live in TN where none of these issues are a concern, but as friends and relatives get closer to retirement, many of them still dream of a "beach house" and some are still selling everything here and buying on the coast somewhere. Every time I see it happen, I hope they outlive the sea level rise that is all but assured to wipe out many coastal areas and this further cements us staying put. We're still a ways off from retirement anyway, but I'm thankful that my wife isn't one of those with big dreams of living on the beach when we're done working
-
When Hurricane Katrina flooded much of New Orleans in 2005, I watched the refugees pouring out of the city and wondered why any of them would rebuild there as opposed to the higher ground a couple hundred miles away in Baton Rouge, Shreveport, or various parts of Texas, Arkansas, or Mississippi that are not disaster-prone, and which are also cheaper to live in than N.O. The whole future of the city seemed questionable since it was (a) already largely destroyed, and (b) still below sea level, and (c) facing all sorts of new financial problems now that about 30% of its taxpayers had left.
As it turns out, the population of N.O. has been growing (https://www.macrotrends.net/cities/23082/new-orleans/population) since Katrina, and finally exceeded its pre-Katrina numbers in 2021. New stick-house construction has been going in below sea level, even as the land continues to subside and the ocean continues to rise.
The assumption is that new levees will keep New Orleans livable for the foreseeable future, much like Galveston's heroic efforts to build a massive seawall, lift buildings, and pump in up to 17 feet of sand after the 1900 hurricane (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1900_Galveston_hurricane) kept it safe for the following 123 years (so far). I don't believe that assumption, but enough people do.
When it comes to Miami, Charleston, Washington D.C., New York City, Houston, faultline cities in CA, etc. I think we'll see a similar pattern. Inevitable destruction will be followed by very expensive fortifications, which will be followed by even more people moving to the previously destroyed area. The destruction itself opens up the possibility for a city to become a mostly-new boomtown, full of development, and of course that attracts even more people. Apparently this growth prospect is sufficiently attractive to overcome high insurance costs, the high costs of fortifications against the risk, and the continued risk to life and limb from living there.
Expect more Katrina-like mass casualty events, followed by economic booms and the migration of people into the disaster zone.
These high costs are generally not borne by the people living there so it's much easier to take the risk. If the residents of New Orleans had to pay for their share of the new levee (as opposed to it being spread over the whole state or country via taxes) they might make some different decisions.
People will eventually respond to incentives and if insurance on a home costs as much (or more) than the mortgage payment, it's going to make a lot of people decide that home in that location isn't worth it. For those that can afford it and take the risk, so be it. But I don't much feel like subsidizing hurricane/flood insurance along the Gulf Coast since I don't choose to live there.
-
On the one hand flooding is not a new phenomena, we have dealt with floods for our entire history as a species I could even argue that flooding has gotten to be less of a problem due to large scale engineering projects, more warning/prediction, and better preparation. If you want to read about a flood, check out the Mississippi flood of 1927.
Now on the other hand I also completely understand that we have built a shitload of houses in some of the most flood prone areas in the past 100 years. In general the newer the house the more resistant it tends be to extreme events.
I do think the first step is going to have to be stop substituting homes in dangerous areas. Sure grandfather people in, don't leave them completely without insurance. But the government should not really be in the business of insuring things that the private sector has deemed so unprofitable that they are only player in the marketplace. Don't let Freddie Mac buy mortgages on the coast, don't have FEMA cut checks to people that have intentionally built in certain areas etc etc.
As a relatively rich person who is considering a beach house at some point, the dynamite metaphor is a good one. It 100% is a risk, but what investment is completely safe? Many a beach house I have been in do really seam to be built to only last 30 years. If a hurricane knocks it down that is already priced in. Much like the price of a stock is heavily effected by new information, the information about flooding is not new. Everyone knows the game. As the risks to these areas increase, prices will adjust. Its not like anyone who wants to buy a house in Florida is unaware that hurricanes tend to visit there and all.
Now what do you do about what happened in Houston? I have no idea!
-
I think a potential massive wake-up call will be when Colorado River cuts come across this year. The cuts needed are massive and can’t be papered over with government money. Although I don’t know if people on the east coast will really notice.
As a society we’ve become accustomed to government backstops on the big risks. We can count on an insurer to pay their claims, usually even in insolvency. We can count on rescue helicopters and flood insurance and charity to take the edge off the worst disasters. It’s part of our psyche. People will start paying a lot more attention when we start having disasters that the government can’t backstop.
-
I think a potential massive wake-up call will be when Colorado River cuts come across this year. The cuts needed are massive and can’t be papered over with government money. Although I don’t know if people on the east coast will really notice.
As a society we’ve become accustomed to government backstops on the big risks. We can count on an insurer to pay their claims, usually even in insolvency. We can count on rescue helicopters and flood insurance and charity to take the edge off the worst disasters. It’s part of our psyche. People will start paying a lot more attention when we start having disasters that the government can’t backstop.
Yea, if water was priced based on demand and scarcity instead of political considerations, there would be no golf courses, car washes, or green lawns in the desert Southwest. People would have backyard rain barrels because a barrel of water is worth $30-50 in that context. We might not find out what happens until the taps actually run dry.
In terms of rising sea levels, I do wonder whether the deeply indebted United States will have a strong enough economy to build New Orleans style levees around all the cities along the Gulf Coast / East Coast, New York City, and places like Anchorage. We're talking about a project on the scale of the interstate highway system, except that it doesn't benefit the minority of the population who live inland. In fact, it makes their land worth less than it would be if climate refugees had to move to higher ground.
Of course, cities in poorer places will simply be abandoned a little bit at a time over the years.
-
weather's nice in the sf bay area, rather not live where it snows, really like the diversity here, figure i'll move if things go bad
That's a fine plan if you're renting and can afford to move. The real problem is for owners, because once the risk is revealed the property is permanently devalued and difficult to sell.
I suppose when I bought my house in 2011, it was kinda devalued; the increase since then better than a poke in the eye
If I survive the Big One ( inreach satellite messenger I keep in my everyday carry backpack hopefully will be handy), and if it turns out coast is economically cratered, might just head back to my southeast asian birthplace (most recent are my former san diegan cousins enjoying their now tropical life splashed in their Facebook), and hands-on manage the family business; or go back and forth (before they passed away, post-retirement, my parents spent winters there).
-
I think a potential massive wake-up call will be when Colorado River cuts come across this year. The cuts needed are massive and can’t be papered over with government money. Although I don’t know if people on the east coast will really notice.
As a society we’ve become accustomed to government backstops on the big risks. We can count on an insurer to pay their claims, usually even in insolvency. We can count on rescue helicopters and flood insurance and charity to take the edge off the worst disasters. It’s part of our psyche. People will start paying a lot more attention when we start having disasters that the government can’t backstop.
Yea, if water was priced based on demand and scarcity instead of political considerations, there would be no golf courses, car washes, or green lawns in the desert Southwest. People would have backyard rain barrels because a barrel of water is worth $30-50 in that context. We might not find out what happens until the taps actually run dry.
In terms of rising sea levels, I do wonder whether the deeply indebted United States will have a strong enough economy to build New Orleans style levees around all the cities along the Gulf Coast / East Coast, New York City, and places like Anchorage. We're talking about a project on the scale of the interstate highway system, except that it doesn't benefit the minority of the population who live inland. In fact, it makes their land worth less than it would be if climate refugees had to move to higher ground.
Of course, cities in poorer places will simply be abandoned a little bit at a time over the years.
It’s not just water getting into cities. Although the answer to holding back the ocean is almost always a hard “no”.
Higher oceans impact the freshwater supply for a lot of communities. A higher ocean can be the difference between wells near the coast drawing freshwater vs saltwater.
Also, California may have some serious water supply problems with the ocean, although this is many decades out. Combining a higher ocean with lower river flows means more that saltwater will eventually intrude further up the Bay Area delta. If that hits the pump system for the state canal system, the Central Valley water supply will become mostly saltwater.
-
California will eventually have to go to massive solar powered RO systems.
-
weather's nice in the sf bay area, rather not live where it snows, really like the diversity here, figure i'll move if things go bad
That's a fine plan if you're renting and can afford to move. The real problem is for owners, because once the risk is revealed the property is permanently devalued and difficult to sell.
I suppose when I bought my house in 2011, it was kinda devalued; the increase since then better than a poke in the eye
If you bought in 2011 you're doing fine. We bought an investment property at around that time and did quite well by the time we sold it in 2020. But I think you may be assuming (like a lot of people) that you will see a devaluation coming and have time to react before it happens. I used to believe this but recent events have changed my thinking. What really happens is everything is fine until suddenly it isn't, and at that point you have to disclose the new reality when selling, which means sudden devaluation.
For example, it was long assumed that the redwood forests of the Santa Cruz mountains were relatively safe from wildfire. This wasn't the dry dangerous forests of Ponderosa Pines and Oak trees of the inland ranges, but rather safer lush green redwoods and ferns with high moisture content. People built accordingly, with most houses right up in the trees and no defensible space. But then what wasn't supposed to happen did when dry lightning ignited the CZU fire and changed everything. Around 900 homes were lost, along with naive notions that the forest was safe from fire. Fire risk maps were updated which has filtered into the insurance market. I'm hearing from folks there that fire insurance rates have roughly tripled along with increasing difficulty finding insurers willing to write policies. Those that lost structures are struggling to rebuild, yet they can't get much for their land due to the increased fire risk, so they're kinda stuck.
If I survive the Big One ( inreach satellite messenger I keep in my everyday carry backpack hopefully will be handy), and if it turns out coast is economically cratered, might just head back to my southeast asian birthplace (most recent are my former san diegan cousins enjoying their now tropical life splashed in their Facebook), and hands-on manage the family business; or go back and forth (before they passed away, post-retirement, my parents spent winters there).
I lived through the Loma Prieta earthquake of 1989, and I carry an InReach while backpacking/hunting in wilderness areas. The InReach essentially needs line-of-sight to a satellite, so it's unlikely to work if you're trapped under rubble. If you can get outside it may be fine for letting loved ones know you're ok, assuming of course that communication networks aren't overwhelmed (a very real possibility). What you really need is an earthquake kit (https://www.cdph.ca.gov/Programs/EPO/Pages/PrepareanEmergencySupplyKit.aspx#:~:text=Portable%20Emergency%20Supply%20Kit,First%20Aid%20Kit) that can get you through about a week w/o water, electricity, shelter, and food. This again is one of those things that seems simple enough, but people put it off until it's too late. You're not going to find emergency supplies after a big one hits.
-
Interesting article today in The Atlantic: America's coastal cities are a hidden time bomb (https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2023/02/coastal-cities-housing-sea-level-flooding-climate-change/673106/)
This brings up something I've observed and wondered about for several years now. The most expensive housing is along the coast, or often large properties in densely wooded forest. These are the most at risk to climate change, and yet people are still attracted to these areas. I see it on this forum, but also in other places online and among friends and family.
The article focuses on flood risk in low-lying areas, which is valid. Though California recently got another glimpse of the future with storms that eroded ocean cliffs much faster than anyone anticipated, which is now threatening infrastructure and homes that were assumed to be safe for at least a few more decades.
The big one for me is wildfire risk. I've seen big wildfires up close and it's both awe inspiring and terrifying. I'm shocked that people still want to buy/build homes in the forest and/or WUI, especially in the arid west. High insurance premiums, the very high likelihood of losing everything followed by a stressful and lengthy rebuild, risk of injury or death... just a bad idea all around. And yet people still want that stick frame home in the path of a future inferno.
I'm left wondering how many climate related natural disasters we have to live through before things change.
I bought a primary home in Fort Myers, FL in January 2012 for 95K. It's about 3 miles away from the Gulf. I converted it to a rental in August 2015. Current rent is $2150/month and it's worth 365K. Market rent is $2850/month. After hurricane Ian market rent went from $2450/month to $2850/month due to a housing shortage. I'm just guessing, but maybe 5-10% of the houses in the Fort Myers area became unlivable after the hurricane. Even though it's probably less than 10%, this put an additional squeeze on the already low housing inventory.
Hurricane Ian was pretty much a direct hit for my house and I didn't even lose one shingle. This is mostly because my house is 3 miles inland. While winds might have been 140 mph when it hit the barrier islands, wind speeds were around 80 mph when it hit my rental. We get 80 mph winds multiple times a year at my current primary house in Colorado.
-
Forest fires and climate are visible. The hidden time bomb is the 9.5 quake that will demolish the Pacific Northwest any time. The economy could take a generation to recover.
I've worked on the Oregon coast quite a bit. The folks that worry about the possibility of a big earthquake and tsunami generally don't buy on the coast. Real estate and building has been booming, although it has slowed a bit lately due to interest rates.
I'm inland a bit, like most of the other contractors I know, and safe from the tsunami threat (and better weather), but the reality is that a big quake will destroy much of the infrastructure of the coast, and if the valley (Willamette) is hit hard, it will be a long time before the coast gets much help. Besides air drops the other option will be using troop landing ships on the beach.
Since I build houses and deal with all the seismic tie downs and such in the framing process I am a little interested in the outcome, but I hope it doesn't happen as it will be devastating.
-
Interesting article today in The Atlantic: America's coastal cities are a hidden time bomb (https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2023/02/coastal-cities-housing-sea-level-flooding-climate-change/673106/)
This brings up something I've observed and wondered about for several years now. The most expensive housing is along the coast, or often large properties in densely wooded forest. These are the most at risk to climate change, and yet people are still attracted to these areas. I see it on this forum, but also in other places online and among friends and family.
The article focuses on flood risk in low-lying areas, which is valid. Though California recently got another glimpse of the future with storms that eroded ocean cliffs much faster than anyone anticipated, which is now threatening infrastructure and homes that were assumed to be safe for at least a few more decades.
The big one for me is wildfire risk. I've seen big wildfires up close and it's both awe inspiring and terrifying. I'm shocked that people still want to buy/build homes in the forest and/or WUI, especially in the arid west. High insurance premiums, the very high likelihood of losing everything followed by a stressful and lengthy rebuild, risk of injury or death... just a bad idea all around. And yet people still want that stick frame home in the path of a future inferno.
I'm left wondering how many climate related natural disasters we have to live through before things change.
I bought a primary home in Fort Myers, FL in January 2012 for 95K. It's about 3 miles away from the Gulf. I converted it to a rental in August 2015. Current rent is $2150/month and it's worth 365K. Market rent is $2850/month. After hurricane Ian market rent went from $2450/month to $2850/month due to a housing shortage. I'm just guessing, but maybe 5-10% of the houses in the Fort Myers area became unlivable after the hurricane. Even though it's probably less than 10%, this put an additional squeeze on the already low housing inventory.
Hurricane Ian was pretty much a direct hit for my house and I didn't even lose one shingle. This is mostly because my house is 3 miles inland. While winds might have been 140 mph when it hit the barrier islands, wind speeds were around 80 mph when it hit my rental. We get 80 mph winds multiple times a year at my current primary house in Colorado.
This is a great example of how scarcity due to natural disasters can drive up profitability for anyone whose infrastructure is still intact. Others will see those profits and invest in the area. Next thing you know, thousands of new stick houses have been built to replace the thousands destroyed by nature.
This example also suggests an optimal strategy for investing in disaster-prone areas. Don't be the sucker on the waterfront when the hurricane comes, be the person a few miles inland. Don't be the sucker with earthquake-vulnerable houses, be the one with houses that will survive a 7.0. The extreme profits, opportunities to ride up prices, and opportunities to buy out your neighbors only come if your infrastructure survives the event.
-
Interesting article today in The Atlantic: America's coastal cities are a hidden time bomb (https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2023/02/coastal-cities-housing-sea-level-flooding-climate-change/673106/)
This brings up something I've observed and wondered about for several years now. The most expensive housing is along the coast, or often large properties in densely wooded forest. These are the most at risk to climate change, and yet people are still attracted to these areas. I see it on this forum, but also in other places online and among friends and family.
The article focuses on flood risk in low-lying areas, which is valid. Though California recently got another glimpse of the future with storms that eroded ocean cliffs much faster than anyone anticipated, which is now threatening infrastructure and homes that were assumed to be safe for at least a few more decades.
The big one for me is wildfire risk. I've seen big wildfires up close and it's both awe inspiring and terrifying. I'm shocked that people still want to buy/build homes in the forest and/or WUI, especially in the arid west. High insurance premiums, the very high likelihood of losing everything followed by a stressful and lengthy rebuild, risk of injury or death... just a bad idea all around. And yet people still want that stick frame home in the path of a future inferno.
I'm left wondering how many climate related natural disasters we have to live through before things change.
I bought a primary home in Fort Myers, FL in January 2012 for 95K. It's about 3 miles away from the Gulf. I converted it to a rental in August 2015. Current rent is $2150/month and it's worth 365K. Market rent is $2850/month. After hurricane Ian market rent went from $2450/month to $2850/month due to a housing shortage. I'm just guessing, but maybe 5-10% of the houses in the Fort Myers area became unlivable after the hurricane. Even though it's probably less than 10%, this put an additional squeeze on the already low housing inventory.
Hurricane Ian was pretty much a direct hit for my house and I didn't even lose one shingle. This is mostly because my house is 3 miles inland. While winds might have been 140 mph when it hit the barrier islands, wind speeds were around 80 mph when it hit my rental. We get 80 mph winds multiple times a year at my current primary house in Colorado.
This is a great example of how scarcity due to natural disasters can drive up profitability for anyone whose infrastructure is still intact. Others will see those profits and invest in the area. Next thing you know, thousands of new stick houses have been built to replace the thousands destroyed by nature.
This example also suggests an optimal strategy for investing in disaster-prone areas. Don't be the sucker on the waterfront when the hurricane comes, be the person a few miles inland. Don't be the sucker with earthquake-vulnerable houses, be the one with houses that will survive a 7.0. The extreme profits, opportunities to ride up prices, and opportunities to buy out your neighbors only come if your infrastructure survives the event.
Buying inland and also a higher elevation lot were both a conscious strategy to mitigate risk. I first learned about the potential upside of surviving a natural disaster from the movie, "Forrest Gump"
-
I have come to the conclusion that it's going to be a death by a thousand cuts. Even mega-disasters like Katrina and Sandy failed to wake most people up. Only when they are personally affected does the attitude change. Having lived through over a dozen hurricanes (inland, not foolish enough to live near the shore), I saw it time and again. This is mostly due to the "activation energy" needed to do something (i.e. move from everything you know and settle somewhere new). Few people are willing (or financially able) to make that kind of sacrifice without a major prod.
So more of a slow burn/drown than a bomb, so the economic effects will be slower to manifest and thus easier to ignore as a society.
-
I have come to the conclusion that it's going to be a death by a thousand cuts. Even mega-disasters like Katrina and Sandy failed to wake most people up. Only when they are personally affected does the attitude change. Having lived through over a dozen hurricanes (inland, not foolish enough to live near the shore), I saw it time and again. This is mostly due to the "activation energy" needed to do something (i.e. move from everything you know and settle somewhere new). Few people are willing (or financially able) to make that kind of sacrifice without a major prod.
So more of a slow burn/drown than a bomb, so the economic effects will be slower to manifest and thus easier to ignore as a society.
There is a huge "everyone else is doing it so it must be alright" inertia on climate change.
The biggest climate effect at the moment is not one-off weather events but migration: that is not unnoticed but most people are not making the connection between climate change and migration. They are certainly not making the connection that the irreversible course towards climate change that we are now all on will make the pressure of migration bigger and bigger. The people protesting migration would do better to protest climate change. And the people in the developed world concerned about climate change seem not to notice that the biggest change to their standard of living is not going to be one-off events but the movement of a billion or two billion people away from lands around the equator that within this current century are going to become unable to sustain their present levels of human life.
-
I have come to the conclusion that it's going to be a death by a thousand cuts. Even mega-disasters like Katrina and Sandy failed to wake most people up. Only when they are personally affected does the attitude change. Having lived through over a dozen hurricanes (inland, not foolish enough to live near the shore), I saw it time and again. This is mostly due to the "activation energy" needed to do something (i.e. move from everything you know and settle somewhere new). Few people are willing (or financially able) to make that kind of sacrifice without a major prod.
So more of a slow burn/drown than a bomb, so the economic effects will be slower to manifest and thus easier to ignore as a society.
There is a huge "everyone else is doing it so it must be alright" inertia on climate change.
The biggest climate effect at the moment is not one-off weather events but migration: that is not unnoticed but most people are not making the connection between climate change and migration. They are certainly not making the connection that the irreversible course towards climate change that we are now all on will make the pressure of migration bigger and bigger. The people protesting migration would do better to protest climate change. And the people in the developed world concerned about climate change seem not to notice that the biggest change to their standard of living is not going to be one-off events but the movement of a billion or two billion people away from lands around the equator that within this current century are going to become unable to sustain their present levels of human life.
Good points. I have connections with a couple of coastal cities and (anecdotally) I have seen some mindset changes. A friend of mine is moving her business inland and several others buying homes with an eye on sea level rise. But overwhelmingly, the sentiment in this thread is spot on, and as @Abe mentioned it will probably be death by 1000 cuts for most
-
with disaster looming, maybe coastal california’s nimby intransigence is spot on: competition for housing discourages large lower-income population growth, the cachet keeps the wealthy coming, uber disaster capitalism, keep cashing out on that equity while the going's good, then walk away from disaster-induced permanently devalued property
-
ProPublica put out this article a few years ago. They reviewed data from something called the Rhodium Group and analyzed it not just for sea level rise and flooding, but also other type of climate related hazards: heat, something called "wet bulb temperature", farm crop yields, large fires, and economic damage.
https://projects.propublica.org/climate-migration
They predicted "compounding calamities" and ranked counties that were likely to see the most harmful effects in all areas.
Some of the worst affected counties are predicted to be in LA, North and South Carolina, and Florida.
On the better end of the scale, counties in Vermont, Maine, NY, Colorado Idaho and VA seem to have fewer overall calamaties to worry about.
-
ProPublica put out this article a few years ago. They reviewed data from something called the Rhodium Group and analyzed it not just for sea level rise and flooding, but also other type of climate related hazards: heat, something called "wet bulb temperature", farm crop yields, large fires, and economic damage.
https://projects.propublica.org/climate-migration
They predicted "compounding calamities" and ranked counties that were likely to see the most harmful effects in all areas.
Some of the worst affected counties are predicted to be in LA, North and South Carolina, and Florida.
On the better end of the scale, counties in Vermont, Maine, NY, Colorado Idaho and VA seem to have fewer overall calamaties to worry about.
I really enjoyed reading that article and the visual nature of all the effects across the map. Made me glad to live where I do.
-
with disaster looming, maybe coastal california’s nimby intransigence is spot on: competition for housing discourages large lower-income population growth, the cachet keeps the wealthy coming, uber disaster capitalism, keep cashing out on that equity while the going's good, then walk away from disaster-induced permanently devalued property
Hah, doubtful. Very few Californians live right on the coast, and low-income communities like East Palo Alto are more likely to be impacted by rising sea levels, No, NIMBYs are mostly older affluent white people fighting to maintain exclusionary zoning in low density suburbs. Places like Atherton, Woodside, Saratoga, and so on. One of the main things we need to do to slow climate change is build dense walkable cities with short commutes. NIMBYs are on the wrong side of history on this.
-
with disaster looming, ..
..NIMBYs are mostly older affluent white people fighting to maintain exclusionary zoning in low density suburbs. Places like Atherton, Woodside, Saratoga, and so on. One of the main things we need to do to slow climate change is build dense walkable cities with short commutes. ,,
San Francisco too:
parking lot that could have been housing remains a ‘poster child for the insanity’ in S.F.
San Francisco rejected a 495-unit tower on a South of Market parking lot, the vote is still reverberating across the city’s political landscape. The Board of Supervisors’ vote against the project, which included about 100 affordable units
https://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/article/nordstrom-parking-lot-housing-17531933.php
and Berkeley
Gov. Gavin Newsom said the California Environmental Quality Act “needs to change” after a court cited it while blocking UC Berkeley from building student housing at People’s Park.
https://edsource.org/updates/newsom-says-law-needs-to-change-after-uc-berkeley-housing-project-blocked
maybe not Dublin.
From 2010 to 2020, this East Bay bedroom community became a boomtown, growing its population from 46,000 to nearly 73,000 — a 58% increase. median price for a home in Dublin is $1.2 million
https://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/article/dublin-population-growing-17781799.php
reality is a lot of people just not a big fan of high density cities; with work from home and EV’s, low density suburbs may be a climate change fight compromise
-
Agree to a limited extent. I think that west coast is way overpriced even w/o the risk of climate change.
A few things to consider though.
1. Insurance, depending on the type of risk you're likely to incur you might be insured against the actual damage, so it'll be insurance cos (and therefore everyone not hit will subsidize) that actually face a lot of the cost.
2. Mortgages are non-recourse loans, for those that get stuck with high cost properties that then sink in value to the point they cannot sell, they always have the option to walk away (banks get hit).
3. Venice has been sinking for forever, any individual property likely has multiple safeguards that they could be put into place to offset damage.
IMO remote work is as big, if not bigger issue although they seem to be handling it pretty well. We'll see how long this lasts w/ the return to office mandates happening, and states like CA giving concessions to keep companies.
-
As a society we’ve become accustomed to government backstops on the big risks. We can count on an insurer to pay their claims, usually even in insolvency. We can count on rescue helicopters and flood insurance and charity to take the edge off the worst disasters. It’s part of our psyche. People will start paying a lot more attention when we start having disasters that the government can’t backstop.
The perverse element in this dynamic is that the more people who live in disaster-prone areas, the greater the chance that the government backstop will never be removed. The greater the national moral hazard, the more political will is created for a bailout, creating a reinforcing cycle of risk-taking.
-
As a society we’ve become accustomed to government backstops on the big risks. We can count on an insurer to pay their claims, usually even in insolvency. We can count on rescue helicopters and flood insurance and charity to take the edge off the worst disasters. It’s part of our psyche. People will start paying a lot more attention when we start having disasters that the government can’t backstop.
The perverse element in this dynamic is that the more people who live in disaster-prone areas, the greater the chance that the government backstop will never be removed. The greater the national moral hazard, the more political will is created for a bailout, creating a reinforcing cycle of risk-taking.
'Merica!
-
As a society we’ve become accustomed to government backstops on the big risks. We can count on an insurer to pay their claims, usually even in insolvency. We can count on rescue helicopters and flood insurance and charity to take the edge off the worst disasters. It’s part of our psyche. People will start paying a lot more attention when we start having disasters that the government can’t backstop.
The perverse element in this dynamic is that the more people who live in disaster-prone areas, the greater the chance that the government backstop will never be removed. The greater the national moral hazard, the more political will is created for a bailout, creating a reinforcing cycle of risk-taking.
I think this can be situation dependent as well. I’ve been reading a bit about the insurance market in Florida, and it seems pretty clear they’re in the early days of an insurance death spiral. Climate Change is one of several factors pushing the market that direction.
Most homeowner insurance providers are either leaving or have left the state. Many houses are only insurance through the state backstop plan. So the state of Florida is the insurance backstop, but it is structured in a way where a funding shortfall will trigger assessments on other policy holders. So the government backstop will clearly run out eventually, and policy holders will pay the price. And the ability of the state to further subsidize this is above zero, but well below what would actually be needed.
I’d be curious to hear additional thoughts from those who live in Florida, as I don’t fully trust the bias filters of the random internet articles out there.
-
As a society we’ve become accustomed to government backstops on the big risks. We can count on an insurer to pay their claims, usually even in insolvency. We can count on rescue helicopters and flood insurance and charity to take the edge off the worst disasters. It’s part of our psyche. People will start paying a lot more attention when we start having disasters that the government can’t backstop.
The perverse element in this dynamic is that the more people who live in disaster-prone areas, the greater the chance that the government backstop will never be removed. The greater the national moral hazard, the more political will is created for a bailout, creating a reinforcing cycle of risk-taking.
I think this can be situation dependent as well. I’ve been reading a bit about the insurance market in Florida, and it seems pretty clear they’re in the early days of an insurance death spiral. Climate Change is one of several factors pushing the market that direction.
Most homeowner insurance providers are either leaving or have left the state. Many houses are only insurance through the state backstop plan. So the state of Florida is the insurance backstop, but it is structured in a way where a funding shortfall will trigger assessments on other policy holders. So the government backstop will clearly run out eventually, and policy holders will pay the price. And the ability of the state to further subsidize this is above zero, but well below what would actually be needed.
I’d be curious to hear additional thoughts from those who live in Florida, as I don’t fully trust the bias filters of the random internet articles out there.
The question to me is whether the federal government will ultimately backstop state insurance programs. I think they will, if the only other choice is to watch a major part of the economy crash and burn.
It’s at least plausible that a president could do it with FEMA money by executive order in the aftermath of a disaster. So perhaps what’s most critical is getting a sympathetic president- say, your governor - in the Oval Office. The rules and math are basically an afterthought at that point.
-
From my old stomping grounds: ‘I’ve seen enough’: Santa Cruz mountain town grapples with disasters (https://www.sfgate.com/centralcoast/article/santa-cruz-mountain-town-grapples-with-disasters-17891165.php)
Living in the forest means you're going to deal with wildfires and falling trees, both will get worse with climate change.
There's a dissonance in these types of articles, a desire to put a positive spin on a difficult reality. It's a great community but we're living disaster to disaster. And people have had enough and are leaving, yet new people are moving in.
-
The part that has always confused me is even if you make a pretty bold assumption that climate change isn't happening, there are still major systemic issues which are not "climate" related such as fresh water availability which no one argues are not happening.
These issues are going to cause massive problems (even in the USA) and basically no one disagrees with them or their impacts.
I know personally I think a lot about this whole topic as we consider where to move since we're actively debating this topic now and have, essentially, no constraints. I also think about how much land to purchase too from the perspective of more easily being able to grow food and/or raise animals.
-
The part that has always confused me is even if you make a pretty bold assumption that climate change isn't happening, there are still major systemic issues which are not "climate" related such as fresh water availability which no one argues are not happening.
These issues are going to cause massive problems (even in the USA) and basically no one disagrees with them or their impacts.
I know personally I think a lot about this whole topic as we consider where to move since we're actively debating this topic now and have, essentially, no constraints. I also think about how much land to purchase too from the perspective of more easily being able to grow food and/or raise animals.
You need a lot less land than you think to grow food, unless you are going in for something like wheat, barley or oats. Food animals other than chickens takes you into smallholding/farm territory and is a whole different ball game.
-
As a society we’ve become accustomed to government backstops on the big risks. We can count on an insurer to pay their claims, usually even in insolvency. We can count on rescue helicopters and flood insurance and charity to take the edge off the worst disasters. It’s part of our psyche. People will start paying a lot more attention when we start having disasters that the government can’t backstop.
The perverse element in this dynamic is that the more people who live in disaster-prone areas, the greater the chance that the government backstop will never be removed. The greater the national moral hazard, the more political will is created for a bailout, creating a reinforcing cycle of risk-taking.
I think this can be situation dependent as well. I’ve been reading a bit about the insurance market in Florida, and it seems pretty clear they’re in the early days of an insurance death spiral. Climate Change is one of several factors pushing the market that direction.
Most homeowner insurance providers are either leaving or have left the state. Many houses are only insurance through the state backstop plan. So the state of Florida is the insurance backstop, but it is structured in a way where a funding shortfall will trigger assessments on other policy holders. So the government backstop will clearly run out eventually, and policy holders will pay the price. And the ability of the state to further subsidize this is above zero, but well below what would actually be needed.
I’d be curious to hear additional thoughts from those who live in Florida, as I don’t fully trust the bias filters of the random internet articles out there.
My wife's parents have a 2nd home in North Fort Myers, FL and they don't have a mortgage. Their insurance went up, so they cancelled the policy. I don't really believe property will become worthless because people can't afford the insurance. I think it's very possible that in 20-30 years the only people that can afford to live in Florida are people who don't have a mortgage. Prices might come down a little to accommodate that new trend, but I don't see a crash.
-
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/world-us-canada-65264165
-
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/world-us-canada-65264165
A "1-in-1000" flood that will probably start happening more regularly.
Scientists have documented an abnormal and dramatic surge in sea levels along the U.S. gulf and southeastern coastlines since about 2010, raising new questions about whether New Orleans, Miami, Houston and other coastal communities might be even more at risk from rising seas than once predicted.
-
I mean it's certainly not ideal, but it's almost an insult to label it a "disaster" in Santa Cruz when seeing the footage of what's going on in Florida.
-
I mean it's certainly not ideal, but it's almost an insult to label it a "disaster" in Santa Cruz when seeing the footage of what's going on in Florida.
https://www.santacruzsentinel.com/2023/04/04/biden-approves-disaster-declaration-for-monterey-santa-cruz-counties/
Floods, washed out roads, numerous trees falling on houses... not sure what else to call it.
-
My wife's parents have a 2nd home in North Fort Myers, FL and they don't have a mortgage. Their insurance went up, so they cancelled the policy. I don't really believe property will become worthless because people can't afford the insurance. I think it's very possible that in 20-30 years the only people that can afford to live in Florida are people who don't have a mortgage. Prices might come down a little to accommodate that new trend, but I don't see a crash.
They can afford to self-insure (e.g. rebuild at their own cost if the place is demolished by a hurricane)? Do they have personal liability (and umbrella) via another property?
-
I mean it's certainly not ideal, but it's almost an insult to label it a "disaster" in Santa Cruz when seeing the footage of what's going on in Florida.
https://www.santacruzsentinel.com/2023/04/04/biden-approves-disaster-declaration-for-monterey-santa-cruz-counties/
Floods, washed out roads, numerous trees falling on houses... not sure what else to call it.
lol come on now FInate you are pushing your agenda too hard now. We both know Pajaro is nowhere near Santa Cruz or remotely similar in it's demographics. We also both know that when it rains a little heavy or the wind is a bit stronger than usual, it's a "disaster." If it dare hails/snows (and by snow I mean for 20 seconds and less than .1 inches)/you name it, it's an emergency here and people freak out because we are used to the best weather and anything else is unacceptable.
Edit: for those unfamiliar...
Pajaro "It is located on the south bank of the Pajaro River 5 miles (8 km) northeast of its mouth,[6] at an elevation of 26 feet (7.9 m).[4] The population was 2,882 at the 2020 census, down from 3,070 in 2010...Hispanic or Latino of any race were 2,889 persons (94.1%)."
It's literally where the poorest/immigrants live. It is at sea level right next to a river. No one lives there nor wants to. Whereas Santa Cruz has some of the world's most expensive real estate and attracts millions of millions of people per year.
-
If you haven't already drawn the straight line between climate change and the evolution/spread of new diseases, please pick up your pens now. Don't limit this to human infection. All species risk infection as we fuck up the planet (see little brown bats).
On a human scale, there is noplace that safe from the effects of ebola outbreaks, novel virus strains, etc. and as disease vectors, we are pretty damned good at spreading sickness all over the place - by ship, plane, train, car, and through aerosol and contact.
On the more observable side of weather events, wind and ice storms are occurring inland with higher intensity and frequency, and outpacing our municipal, provincial, and federal budgets. A 100 year storm means our budgets are prepared to fix that damage once every 100 years. With the frequency of these storms increasing, our budgets cannot keep up. Note tax increases through COVID and in the next 20 years - our already crumbling infrastructure is now seeing weather event loading beyond its original design.
Invasive species are upsetting the "normal" ecosystem as warming occurs (see "Dog Strangling Vine"). The change in temperature is affecting us already and upsetting crops and aquifers worldwide. This is a fight that is at a tipping point already, and to be honest, has been for some time.
There is no hidden to the time bomb. It is already going off, we just aren't willing to admit it.
-
I mean it's certainly not ideal, but it's almost an insult to label it a "disaster" in Santa Cruz when seeing the footage of what's going on in Florida.
https://www.santacruzsentinel.com/2023/04/04/biden-approves-disaster-declaration-for-monterey-santa-cruz-counties/
Floods, washed out roads, numerous trees falling on houses... not sure what else to call it.
lol come on now FInate you are pushing your agenda too hard now. We both know Pajaro is nowhere near Santa Cruz or remotely similar in it's demographics. We also both know that when it rains a little heavy or the wind is a bit stronger than usual, it's a "disaster." If it dare hails/snows (and by snow I mean for 20 seconds and less than .1 inches)/you name it, it's an emergency here and people freak out because we are used to the best weather and anything else is unacceptable.
Please, what agenda?
I never mentioned Pajaro, though it was in the linked article, which was about the disaster declaration for Santa Cruz and Monterey Counties. Are you not aware of the flooding that occurred in Rio Del Mar (https://www.ksbw.com/article/major-flooding-hits-rio-del-mar-neighborhood-in-aptos/42351456) and Capitola (https://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/capitola-california-storm-floods-17697190.php), both of which are in Santa Cruz County? I have family in public safety in the area so I keep up to date on what's happening in the area. And I have friends who were unable to leave their homes for a number of days due to washouts and fallen trees. Everyone is saying this is the worst they've ever seen, worse even than the storms of 82/83.
The fact is, the feds, at the request of state and local officials, have officially declared it a disaster. Some folks who lost homes in the CZU fires (also an official disaster) have, after rebuilding, lost homes again to fallen trees.
Edit: for those unfamiliar...
Pajaro "It is located on the south bank of the Pajaro River 5 miles (8 km) northeast of its mouth,[6] at an elevation of 26 feet (7.9 m).[4] The population was 2,882 at the 2020 census, down from 3,070 in 2010...Hispanic or Latino of any race were 2,889 persons (94.1%)."
It's literally where the poorest/immigrants live. It is at sea level right next to a river. No one lives there nor wants to. Whereas Santa Cruz has some of the world's most expensive real estate and attracts millions of millions of people per year.
Yes, it's a great area. But what does this have to do with whether or not the winter storms are a disaster? As a result of the storms, the City of Santa Cruz is currently debating what to do about the extensive damage along Westcliff Dr, which is some of the most expensive real estate in the county. There's pretty broad agreement that the effects of climate change hit faster than anyone expected. Does the city "harden" the this stretch of coastline to protect multi-million dollar homes, which is a losing long-term battle with serious unintended consequences (such as negatively impacting the world-class surfing in that area). Or do they go with managed retreat that has serious financial implications for property owners. There are no good options. None of this is an attack on Santa Cruz, just the cold hard facts of climate change and sea level rise.
-
https://www.santacruzsentinel.com/2023/04/04/biden-approves-disaster-declaration-for-monterey-santa-cruz-counties/
FInate, not to get into a back and forth, but did you read the article you shared above? It's 100% about the flooding in Parajo, CA.
You then added two more links.
For the first link, the news anchor flat out stated that "Rio Del Mar floods nearly every year" and that no houses were damaged due to the flood.
The second link regarding Capitola Wharf: "Capitola City Manager Jamie Goldstein said last week that the initial estimate of public damages is more than $2.6 million, including the Capitola Wharf....The goal is to have these as the (Federal Emergency Management Agency) eligible reimbursement projects,” said Goldstein." We both know that the area is very wealthy and resourceful. Good for them to get 2.6 million from the federal government.
I don't know the region as well as you do, but I still feel confident saying it's a different ball game compared to the Fort Lauderdale flood that was caused by "more than 25 inches of rain in six to eight hours." That's insane! It closed the international airport, 900+ emergency calls, extensive damage, and more predicted as it is the start of their rainy season.
But yeah, I'm done comparing "natural disasters" as they all suck.
-
https://www.santacruzsentinel.com/2023/04/04/biden-approves-disaster-declaration-for-monterey-santa-cruz-counties/
FInate, not to get into a back and forth, but did you read the article you shared above? It's 100% about the flooding in Parajo, CA.
Yes, of course I read the article. It begins with (emphasis added):
On Monday night, President Joe Biden approved a Presidential Major Disaster Declaration for seven California counties, including Monterey and Santa Cruz, allowing for federal funding to provide relief for flooding and other extreme weather conditions that have taken place since mid-February.
I linked that article to cite my source for Santa Cruz being part of the federal disaster designation (whereas Pajaro is entirely in Monterey Country).
You then added two more links.
For the first link, the news anchor flat out stated that "Rio Del Mar floods nearly every year" and that no houses were damaged due to the flood.
The second link regarding Capitola Wharf: "Capitola City Manager Jamie Goldstein said last week that the initial estimate of public damages is more than $2.6 million, including the Capitola Wharf....The goal is to have these as the (Federal Emergency Management Agency) eligible reimbursement projects,” said Goldstein." We both know that the area is very wealthy and resourceful. Good for them to get 2.6 million from the federal government.
I don't know the region as well as you do, but I still feel confident saying it's a different ball game compared to the Fort Lauderdale flood that was caused by "more than 25 inches of rain in six to eight hours." That's insane! It closed the international airport, 900+ emergency calls, extensive damage, and more predicted as it is the start of their rainy season.
But yeah, I'm done comparing "natural disasters" as they all suck.
Flooding in the Rio Del Mar flats isn't super uncommon, but the level of flooding this year was different. Homes most certainly were damaged and businesses are still shut as they clean up and repair. Here's a good local source: https://archive.is/VbhbK You apparently don't really know what's going on there, so maybe don't comment on it.
It should also be noted that the entire population of Santa Cruz County is around 300k, whereas the Fort Lauderdale metro area it's over 6 million. In other words Ft Lauderdale is 20x larger, so of course the numbers there are going to be a lot larger. That doesn't make the smaller numbers in Santa Cruz less devastating.
And yes, there's no need to make this a pissing match... which is why I'm perplexed by your taking issue with this in the first place. We have loved ones impacted by the disaster there. They've lost property, businesses, and so on, there's no need or reason to minimize it or compare it to other places.
-
Getting this thread back on topic...
Most reasonable people have known for years that low lying coastal areas were in danger of sea level rise from a warming climate. So the damage in such areas in Santa Cruz Country (e.g. the Rio Del Mar flats) wasn't terribly surprising. The Tsunami Inundation Map for Santa Cruz County (https://www.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/tsunami/maps/Santa-Cruz) is a pretty good predictor for specific areas that will become increasingly problematic. The only thing surprising maybe is that the results of climate change hit sooner than expected as the result of king tides combined with a storm surge and high surf.
What was surprising was the CZU fire and how it burned through areas that were assumed to be low fire risk. Well, apparently a warmer and dryer climate means the redwood forests in this area aren't as safe as once believed. This new reality has already started to trickle down to homeowners, we know folks who are now paying 2-3x in insurance premiums, and many who have been forced onto the state run FAIR plan. Between fire, slides, and tree damage, life's been hard in the mountains for many folks.
Additionally, it's now apparent that elevation alone isn't sufficient protection from sea level rise, as the recent storms eroded coastal bluffs much faster than anyone anticipated. This means ocean front property, even if relatively high above sea level, is at higher risk than expected. This will soon be reflected in insurance rates. I don't think this means ocean front property will generally get super cheap, as there will always be those with the means and willingness to risk it for the views. But I do think this will eventually put downward pressure on prices as only those who can self insure and absorb a potential loss long term will be willing to purchase such properties. So maybe a $4M house becomes $3M.
In no way does this mean Santa Cruz as a whole is doomed, or any other such nonsense. But I would avoid buying a house in the woods, or in a flood zone, or right on the coast.
-
Getting this thread back on topic...
Additionally, it's now apparent that elevation alone isn't sufficient protection from sea level rise, as the recent storms eroded coastal bluffs much faster than anyone anticipated. This means ocean front property, even if relatively high above sea level, is at higher risk than expected. This will soon be reflected in insurance rates. I don't think this means ocean front property will generally get super cheap, as there will always be those with the means and willingness to risk it for the views. But I do think this will eventually put downward pressure on prices as only those who can self insure and absorb a potential loss long term will be willing to purchase such properties. So maybe a $4M house becomes $3M.
Here in the UK it's more or less impossible to get insurance against coastal erosion, and there is no obligation on local authorities to repair or replace roads lost to coastal erosion. If property is lost to the sea or becomes inaccessible due to coastal erosion then it's a total financial loss. I suspect much the same is true in the USA.
Coastal erosion here has speeded up considerably in the last two decades or so. Some people who bought houses expecting then to be safe or at least to have several decades of use out of them have lost them much sooner.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-norfolk-64455311
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-norfolk-64944384
This article (from 2019) gives a good indication of the likely human response to the problem everywhere: all shapes and sizes of denial plus some more or less informed risk-taking -
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/may/18/this-is-a-wake-up-call-the-villagers-who-could-be-britains-first-climate-refugees
There are houses on the market in that village and people are still buying them -
https://www.rightmove.co.uk/house-prices/fairbourne.html?soldIn=5&page=1
-
Getting this thread back on topic...
Additionally, it's now apparent that elevation alone isn't sufficient protection from sea level rise, as the recent storms eroded coastal bluffs much faster than anyone anticipated. This means ocean front property, even if relatively high above sea level, is at higher risk than expected. This will soon be reflected in insurance rates. I don't think this means ocean front property will generally get super cheap, as there will always be those with the means and willingness to risk it for the views. But I do think this will eventually put downward pressure on prices as only those who can self insure and absorb a potential loss long term will be willing to purchase such properties. So maybe a $4M house becomes $3M.
Here in the UK it's more or less impossible to get insurance against coastal erosion, and there is no obligation on local authorities to repair or replace roads lost to coastal erosion. If property is lost to the sea or becomes inaccessible due to coastal erosion then it's a total financial loss. I suspect much the same is true in the USA.
Coastal erosion here has speeded up considerably in the last two decades or so. Some people who bought houses expecting then to be safe or at least to have several decades of use out of them have lost them much sooner.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-norfolk-64455311 (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-norfolk-64455311)
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-norfolk-64944384 (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-norfolk-64944384)
This article (from 2019) gives a good indication of the likely human response to the problem everywhere: all shapes and sizes of denial plus some more or less informed risk-taking -
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/may/18/this-is-a-wake-up-call-the-villagers-who-could-be-britains-first-climate-refugees (https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/may/18/this-is-a-wake-up-call-the-villagers-who-could-be-britains-first-climate-refugees)
There are houses on the market in that village and people are still buying them -
https://www.rightmove.co.uk/house-prices/fairbourne.html?soldIn=5&page=1 (https://www.rightmove.co.uk/house-prices/fairbourne.html?soldIn=5&page=1)
Typical home insurance in the US does not include "earth movement" coverage. But I think you can find it from specialty insurers, perhaps even your Lloyd's of London - don't they insure almost anything, for a price?
-
I suppose the question then becomes: when do lenders stop issuing mortgages for properties at risk of eroding into the sea? If it can't be insured then no one will want to finance it either. Prices would take a big hit at this point.
-
I suppose the question then becomes: when do lenders stop issuing mortgages for properties at risk of eroding into the sea? If it can't be insured then no one will want to finance it either. Prices would take a big hit at this point.
Perhaps the nationwide mortgage subsidy system in the US prevents the sort of case-by-case discernment that could prevent loans from being taken out against properties that will be underwater or collapsed into the sea in a few years. No one individual is responsible if a mortgage is written against a property that is risky. They just get bundled into MBSs alongside less risky loans and sold to banks.
A good scam for someone stuck with such a property in a non-recourse state would be to take out a large mortgage, allow it to be foreclosed, and keep the money.
The willingness of insurers to cover skyscrapers built on sandbars and SFHs 3 meters above sea level is harder to explain. Presumably the insurance companies would have middle managers who would be held accountable for insuring a cottage on the brink of sliding down a cliff, or a resort that is one rouge wave away from being flooded. I suspect some of the internet-only companies - which have reduced headcount and accountability in an effort to improve margins - would fall prey to underwriting a lot of risky properties.
-
Folks are slowly starting to understand the hard reality along CA's coast: As California attempts a ‘managed retreat,’ coastal homeowners sue to stay (https://grist.org/housing/california-managed-retreat-half-moon-bay-coastal-commission/)
Expecting state and local governments to bail out wealthy homeowners, essentially subsidizing their choice to live on the coast, is ridiculous. Armoring the coast is very expensive, seawalls fail, and this has long term environmental costs with things like disappearing beaches and degraded marine habitat.
Managed retreat is a reasonable solution. Let rising sea levels take their natural course. No need to buy out super expensive homes. It should become increasingly expensive (or even impossible) to insure ocean front homes against erosion, which should make it very expensive (or impossible) to write mortgages for these properties. State and local governments should simply wait for prices to decline to a level where buying out property owners is essentially about removing structures before they become an environmental problem by falling into the sea.
-
More coverage on the managed retreat along the CA coastline, this time from WaPo: https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2023/05/26/california-coastline-changes-cliffs-climate-change/
Planners always knew choices would have to be made whether to keep building along the edge of the Pacific. They just didn't think it would happen so quickly.
-
State Farm will no longer issue new property policies in California. They're the state's largest property insurer.
“State Farm General Insurance Company made this decision due to historic increases in construction costs outpacing inflation, rapidly growing catastrophe exposure and a challenging reinsurance market.”
-
State Farm will no longer issue new property policies in California. They're the state's largest property insurer.
“State Farm General Insurance Company made this decision due to historic increases in construction costs outpacing inflation, rapidly growing catastrophe exposure and a challenging reinsurance market.”
Bad news because most of the people I knew who were cancelled by other insurers (or saw rates through the roof), were jumping to State Farm the last several years.
-
State Farm will no longer issue new property policies in California. They're the state's largest property insurer.
“State Farm General Insurance Company made this decision due to historic increases in construction costs outpacing inflation, rapidly growing catastrophe exposure and a challenging reinsurance market.”
The state needs to allow premiums to increase to reflect risk levels or more insurers will depart.
-
State Farm will no longer issue new property policies in California. They're the state's largest property insurer.
“State Farm General Insurance Company made this decision due to historic increases in construction costs outpacing inflation, rapidly growing catastrophe exposure and a challenging reinsurance market.”
The state needs to allow premiums to increase to reflect risk levels or more insurers will depart.
Our homeowners' policies on our four homes have about doubled in the last five years. We've had no claims and they're not coastal. What exactly is the state doing to limit premiums?
-
State Farm will no longer issue new property policies in California. They're the state's largest property insurer.
“State Farm General Insurance Company made this decision due to historic increases in construction costs outpacing inflation, rapidly growing catastrophe exposure and a challenging reinsurance market.”
The state needs to allow premiums to increase to reflect risk levels or more insurers will depart.
Our homeowners' policies on our four homes have about doubled in the last five years. We've had no claims and they're not coastal. What exactly is the state doing to limit premiums?
Shouldn't the question be: what is the State doing to limit risk? What is it doing to prevent development on eroding coasts and flood plains? What is it doing to mitigate the risk of wildfire?
Is there any evidence of insurance companies making excessive profits in a rigged market? If not, why should the State limit premiums?
I thought the USA was the home of the free market.
-
State Farm will no longer issue new property policies in California. They're the state's largest property insurer.
“State Farm General Insurance Company made this decision due to historic increases in construction costs outpacing inflation, rapidly growing catastrophe exposure and a challenging reinsurance market.”
The state needs to allow premiums to increase to reflect risk levels or more insurers will depart.
Our homeowners' policies on our four homes have about doubled in the last five years. We've had no claims and they're not coastal. What exactly is the state doing to limit premiums?
The state is already limiting premiums, and that's part of the problem. I have no love for for-profit insurance companies and think the state should expand their FAIR plan to be more comprehensive. But insurance is about pooling risk, and if the premiums coming in don't cover claims going out either rates increase or insurers leave. Non-coastal areas are seeing increases mostly due to increased wildfire risk.
Some things the state and local governments can do to reduce premiums:
- Make it less expensive to rebuild (mostly regulatory changes and CEQA related)
- Decrease fuel loads around/within population centers.
- More forest thinning and proscribed burns, which will result in reduced air quality at times.
- Stop building into the WUI. This makes everyone's premiums higher as it increases the difficulty of fighting fires and adds fuel where you don't want it.
- Allow much higher premiums for homes in the WUI where the risk is way higher vs. very low premiums for homes in urban areas.
-
State Farm will no longer issue new property policies in California. They're the state's largest property insurer.
“State Farm General Insurance Company made this decision due to historic increases in construction costs outpacing inflation, rapidly growing catastrophe exposure and a challenging reinsurance market.”
The state needs to allow premiums to increase to reflect risk levels or more insurers will depart.
Our homeowners' policies on our four homes have about doubled in the last five years. We've had no claims and they're not coastal. What exactly is the state doing to limit premiums?
Shouldn't the question be: what is the State doing to limit risk? What is it doing to prevent development on eroding coasts and flood plains? What is it doing to mitigate the risk of wildfire?
Is there any evidence of insurance companies making excessive profits in a rigged market? If not, why should the State limit premiums?
I thought the USA was the home of the free market.
Insurance is a highly regulated market and it's generally regulated at the state level. I don't know the specifics in California for property insurance, but I assume the state government is making it worse as they tend to do with most things. If State Farm could raise their premiums high enough to offset the risk presumably, they would do so and not give up the largest market in the country with 12% of the US population (and relatively high property values which translates to higher premiums).
-
State Farm will no longer issue new property policies in California. They're the state's largest property insurer.
“State Farm General Insurance Company made this decision due to historic increases in construction costs outpacing inflation, rapidly growing catastrophe exposure and a challenging reinsurance market.”
The state needs to allow premiums to increase to reflect risk levels or more insurers will depart.
Our homeowners' policies on our four homes have about doubled in the last five years. We've had no claims and they're not coastal. What exactly is the state doing to limit premiums?
Shouldn't the question be: what is the State doing to limit risk? What is it doing to prevent development on eroding coasts and flood plains? What is it doing to mitigate the risk of wildfire?
Is there any evidence of insurance companies making excessive profits in a rigged market? If not, why should the State limit premiums?
I thought the USA was the home of the free market.
Insurance is a highly regulated market and it's generally regulated at the state level. I don't know the specifics in California for property insurance, but I assume the state government is making it worse as they tend to do with most things. If State Farm could raise their premiums high enough to offset the risk presumably, they would do so and not give up the largest market in the country with 12% of the US population (and relatively high property values which translates to higher premiums).
(Bolded by me.) Regulatory capture has occurred in many states. Ineffective state leadership means insurance companies lobby advise and get bills passed in their favor. I'm talking about Flo-Ree-Duh.
-
State Farm will no longer issue new property policies in California. They're the state's largest property insurer.
“State Farm General Insurance Company made this decision due to historic increases in construction costs outpacing inflation, rapidly growing catastrophe exposure and a challenging reinsurance market.”
The state needs to allow premiums to increase to reflect risk levels or more insurers will depart.
Our homeowners' policies on our four homes have about doubled in the last five years. We've had no claims and they're not coastal. What exactly is the state doing to limit premiums?
Shouldn't the question be: what is the State doing to limit risk? What is it doing to prevent development on eroding coasts and flood plains? What is it doing to mitigate the risk of wildfire?
Is there any evidence of insurance companies making excessive profits in a rigged market? If not, why should the State limit premiums?
I thought the USA was the home of the free market.
Insurance is a highly regulated market and it's generally regulated at the state level. I don't know the specifics in California for property insurance, but I assume the state government is making it worse as they tend to do with most things. If State Farm could raise their premiums high enough to offset the risk presumably, they would do so and not give up the largest market in the country with 12% of the US population (and relatively high property values which translates to higher premiums).
(Bolded by me.) Regulatory capture has occurred in many states. Ineffective state leadership means insurance companies lobby advise and get bills passed in their favor. I'm talking about Flo-Ree-Duh.
That's interesting, thanks.
Here in the UK there's a scheme to subsidize insurance on flood-prone properties through a re-insurance company funded through a levy on all home insurance companies in the UK. There's no government funding and the scheme ends in 2039: it'll be interesting to see what happens then given that about 20% of UK houses will be potentially at risk from flooding by then (including quite a lot of London). There is usually no insurance for coastal erosion, if you are lose your house to coastal erosion the local council might find a rental home for you, that's all. Fire (in the wildfire sense) hasn't been much of a problem here: climate change has altered that and a dozen or so houses were lost to wildfire in last summer's drought but it's not yet at the level of needing special insurance provision.
-
This is a useful website with some tools to get a better understanding of climate risks - which are more than just flooding: https://riskfactor.com
They also offer analysis of heat, wind and fire which are also going to change.
-
This is a useful website with some tools to get a better understanding of climate risks - which are more than just flooding: https://riskfactor.com
They also offer analysis of heat, wind and fire which are also going to change.
Interesting tool. I wonder does it take into effect current building processes? For instance a beach island off of South Carolina rightly has extreme flood risk, as a single hurricane will bring 1-10 feet of water inland. That being said almost all of the houses are 10 feet off the ground.
So while 5 feet of water would be problematic to some buildings (and horrible for roads/infrastructure etc), I think a fair amount would be unaffected.
-
Great medium post on this topic, with a focus on Florida, but applicable to all disaster-prone areas: https://www.hamiltonnolan.com/p/insurance-politics-at-the-end-of
Do we accept basic capitalism principles and let insurance rates increase to the point at which the insurance companies can cover their losses and remain profitable?
Do we embrace socialism with a long-term plan for managed retreat that minimizes future losses?
Or (most likely) neither, with homeowners still living in denial of reality, lobbying their government do to whatever it takes to keep living in the same disaster-prone place AND keeping their insurance rates low?
-
This is a useful website with some tools to get a better understanding of climate risks - which are more than just flooding: https://riskfactor.com
They also offer analysis of heat, wind and fire which are also going to change.
Interesting tool. I wonder does it take into effect current building processes? For instance a beach island off of South Carolina rightly has extreme flood risk, as a single hurricane will bring 1-10 feet of water inland. That being said almost all of the houses are 10 feet off the ground.
So while 5 feet of water would be problematic to some buildings (and horrible for roads/infrastructure etc), I think a fair amount would be unaffected.
I have similar questions about the accuracy of these online tools. E.g. the site indicates very high fire risk for Boise where I live and indeed, areas of the city in the foothills are very high fire danger. But then it has elevated fire risk for other ares that are very urban. As far as I can tell, this is mostly due to the tree canopy in the city (aka The City of Trees) without considering the type of vegetation. These are almost exclusively irrigated deciduous trees (elm, maple, etc). While the map on riskfactor.com is small and essentially unreadable (seriously, why no ability to zoom in?), other similar sites such as wildfirerisk.org provide more detailed maps (https://wildfirerisk.org/explore/wildfire-likelihood/16/16001/1600008830/), and it's clear from these that they rate city parks as having elevated risk -- this isn't realistic for the parks like Ann Morrison Park which is mostly lawn and irrigated trees.
-
This is a useful website with some tools to get a better understanding of climate risks - which are more than just flooding: https://riskfactor.com
They also offer analysis of heat, wind and fire which are also going to change.
Interesting tool. I wonder does it take into effect current building processes? For instance a beach island off of South Carolina rightly has extreme flood risk, as a single hurricane will bring 1-10 feet of water inland. That being said almost all of the houses are 10 feet off the ground.
So while 5 feet of water would be problematic to some buildings (and horrible for roads/infrastructure etc), I think a fair amount would be unaffected.
I have similar questions about the accuracy of these online tools. E.g. the site indicates very high fire risk for Boise where I live and indeed, areas of the city in the foothills are very high fire danger. But then it has elevated fire risk for other ares that are very urban. As far as I can tell, this is mostly due to the tree canopy in the city (aka The City of Trees) without considering the type of vegetation. These are almost exclusively irrigated deciduous trees (elm, maple, etc). While the map on riskfactor.com is small and essentially unreadable (seriously, why no ability to zoom in?), other similar sites such as wildfirerisk.org provide more detailed maps (https://wildfirerisk.org/explore/wildfire-likelihood/16/16001/1600008830/), and it's clear from these that they rate city parks as having elevated risk -- this isn't realistic for the parks like Ann Morrison Park which is mostly lawn and irrigated trees.
There are undoubtedly a lot of exceptions for specific properties. What you see is the free information. I should note that they also seem to have a paid service that costs $100 per property analyzed which may have more specific information. That might be a useful source of information before, say, putting a bid on a house.
-
This is a useful website with some tools to get a better understanding of climate risks - which are more than just flooding: https://riskfactor.com
They also offer analysis of heat, wind and fire which are also going to change.
Interesting tool. I wonder does it take into effect current building processes? For instance a beach island off of South Carolina rightly has extreme flood risk, as a single hurricane will bring 1-10 feet of water inland. That being said almost all of the houses are 10 feet off the ground.
So while 5 feet of water would be problematic to some buildings (and horrible for roads/infrastructure etc), I think a fair amount would be unaffected.
I have similar questions about the accuracy of these online tools. E.g. the site indicates very high fire risk for Boise where I live and indeed, areas of the city in the foothills are very high fire danger. But then it has elevated fire risk for other ares that are very urban. As far as I can tell, this is mostly due to the tree canopy in the city (aka The City of Trees) without considering the type of vegetation. These are almost exclusively irrigated deciduous trees (elm, maple, etc). While the map on riskfactor.com is small and essentially unreadable (seriously, why no ability to zoom in?), other similar sites such as wildfirerisk.org provide more detailed maps (https://wildfirerisk.org/explore/wildfire-likelihood/16/16001/1600008830/), and it's clear from these that they rate city parks as having elevated risk -- this isn't realistic for the parks like Ann Morrison Park which is mostly lawn and irrigated trees.
There are undoubtedly a lot of exceptions for specific properties. What you see is the free information. I should note that they also seem to have a paid service that costs $100 per property analyzed which may have more specific information. That might be a useful source of information before, say, putting a bid on a house.
Yes, I think the property specific info is more actionable. Is Boise at high risk of wildfire? Yes, because the city limits extend up into the foothills and range land. Yet very few people live in these areas, so it's not like this is generally applicable for residents. At a macro level it's useful for city planners and first responders, and I suppose paying $100 (or whatever) for a property specific report before making a purchase may be worthwhile if there's reason to believe the risk may be elevated.
-
How the deadly Tubbs Fire blitzed Santa Rosa, overwhelming residents and firefighters
"Tubbs Fire would race through canyons and over hills, cross a county line, jump a freeway, devour 550 homes and 21 businesses, and kill at least 11 people..
authorities didn’t anticipate the fire would breach Highway 101 about 2 a.m., forcing a hurried evacuation of homes on the west side of the six-lane freeway."
" https://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/How-the-deadly-Tubbs-Fire-blitzed-Santa-Rosa-12268552.php
-
Yep. Ember storms are a problem, especially cities near high fuel loads like dense forest/brush. This is why Boise Fire requires property owners in the foothills to remove trees and brush that add to fire risk. Out here the problem is mostly juniper trees with their high oil content. In NorCal it's chaparral (which has evolved to burn) and blue gum eucalyptus (also high oil content).
-
As a wildfire professional who has specialized in home risk assessment, there are a couple of things that get overlooked by most homeowners in more urban settings.
One is what I'd call "non-wild" fuels around the home like ornamental grasses, evergreens, and non-plant items like cardboard and newspaper recycling. Basically don't store or grow anything flammable within 5 feet of the house. If your irrigation needs power to run, and they cut the power to protect firefighters, it doesn't take long for your landscape to dry out. Any plant will catch fire if it gets hot and dry enough.
The second is that once you get houses igniting in close proximity to each other, the radiant heat and possible flame contact is so intense that you get house-to-house ignitions that will overwhelm available firefighting resources. It's why it's so important to be fire resilient at a neighborhood scale, not just each house.
Embers are the main risk for homes and businesses. One of the most impactful images I use in presentations is a burned home surrounded by green landscaping. The plants closest to the house were scorched from the heat because the house was the fuel, not the plants.
Most fire or natural resource agencies will provide a free wildfire risk assessment site visit and give you a list of mitigation options. I used to do them pre-contruction also, which is really them best time to build for resilience.
Sent from my SM-G973U using Tapatalk
-
One is what I'd call "non-wild" fuels around the home like ornamental grasses, evergreens, and non-plant items like cardboard and newspaper recycling. Basically don't store or grow anything flammable within 5 feet of the house. If your irrigation needs power to run, and they cut the power to protect firefighters, it doesn't take long for your landscape to dry out. Any plant will catch fire if it gets hot and dry enough.
The second is that once you get houses igniting in close proximity to each other, the radiant heat and possible flame contact is so intense that you get house-to-house ignitions that will overwhelm available firefighting resources. It's why it's so important to be fire resilient at a neighborhood scale, not just each house.
Several months ago someone on Nextdoor was complaining about being cited for having too much wood debris on their property. People politely explained that it's not just unsightly but also a fire danger, especially if this becomes widespread throughout the neighborhood. Per their profile they had moved here from California and should already know this. But they weren't having it and were convinced it was a gross injustice and a violation of their "rights." Freedom doesn't mean free to do whatever you want, and I'm thankful Boise is enforcing city regulations... don't live in the city if you don't want to abide by the rules.
-
Great medium post on this topic, with a focus on Florida, but applicable to all disaster-prone areas: https://www.hamiltonnolan.com/p/insurance-politics-at-the-end-of
Do we accept basic capitalism principles and let insurance rates increase to the point at which the insurance companies can cover their losses and remain profitable?
Do we embrace socialism with a long-term plan for managed retreat that minimizes future losses?
Or (most likely) neither, with homeowners still living in denial of reality, lobbying their government do to whatever it takes to keep living in the same disaster-prone place AND keeping their insurance rates low?
Florida is following 3). The government backstop is increasing rates, but not near enough, and there's no strategy -- as far as I can tell -- to stop building in stupid places.
Citizens, the FL government insurer, asked for a 14% increase (they're limited to 12%/yr, not including fees).
Citizens Property Insurance Corporation’s board of governors this week voted to file for a 14.2% average increase for personal lines and a 12.3% spike for commercial policies.
[...]
But the rate hikes are far below what is actuarially indicated if Citizens had no rate caps: Officials noted that increases of almost 58% for personal lines and almost 69% for commercial policies are indicated, according to information provided to the board of governors.
Holy. Shit.
As the blog mentions, the burden when Citizens collapses will transfer to the federal government (flooding insurance is already handled by the feds). We'll all pay for rebuilding a house the same way in the same place.
[yielding] a political crisis that will occur when all of the people living in other states finally say, “Why the fuck is so much of our federal budget going to protect these idiots’ beach houses?”
-
[yielding] a political crisis that will occur when all of the people living in other states finally say, “Why the fuck is so much of our federal budget going to protect these idiots’ beach houses?”
Florida used to be able to get anything they wanted from the federal government when they were a swing state, but lately they've been deep red. If they were smarter, Democrats might be inclined to protect social security and Medicaid rather than subsidizing beach houses. But of course that sentence hinges on an if.
-
New information (to me) about California's insurance market. From https://www.sfchronicle.com/california/article/insurance-allstate-fires-18130622.php:
Insurers could also be reducing their market share to avoid the need to compensate for losses from the FAIR Plan, which requires companies as a cost of doing business in the state to cover losses proportional to their market share in the state.
I did not know that insurers were required to backstop losses in the FAIR plan.
The FAIR plain is the state run fire insurer of last resort that many homeowners in high-risk areas are getting forced into. As big insurers leave the market this puts more of the loss compensation on smaller players, which may trigger a feedback loop of insurers leaving/limiting exposure to CA.
-
[yielding] a political crisis that will occur when all of the people living in other states finally say, “Why the fuck is so much of our federal budget going to protect these idiots’ beach houses?”
Florida used to be able to get anything they wanted from the federal government when they were a swing state, but lately they've been deep red. If they were smarter, Democrats might be inclined to protect social security and Medicaid rather than subsidizing beach houses. But of course that sentence hinges on an if.
It's not just Florida, although they are the worst off. There are billions of dollars of properties all along the east coast that are going to be affected even by a small rise in sea levels, well within our lifetimes. An acquaintance was just bragging about a multi-million dollar property he bought on Kiawah Island in South Carolina. I looked up the risk factor and, needless to say, it's extreme for flooding. Further up north, they have just finished rebuilding hoses destroyed by hurricane Sandy in NJ. In fact, there are a lot of expensive homes built on barrier islands off the NJ/DE/MD coast
-
[yielding] a political crisis that will occur when all of the people living in other states finally say, “Why the fuck is so much of our federal budget going to protect these idiots’ beach houses?”
Florida used to be able to get anything they wanted from the federal government when they were a swing state, but lately they've been deep red. If they were smarter, Democrats might be inclined to protect social security and Medicaid rather than subsidizing beach houses. But of course that sentence hinges on an if.
It's not just Florida, although they are the worst off. There are billions of dollars of properties all along the east coast that are going to be affected even by a small rise in sea levels, well within our lifetimes. An acquaintance was just bragging about a multi-million dollar property he bought on Kiawah Island in South Carolina. I looked up the risk factor and, needless to say, it's extreme for flooding. Further up north, they have just finished rebuilding hoses destroyed by hurricane Sandy in NJ. In fact, there are a lot of expensive homes built on barrier islands off the NJ/DE/MD coast
Yep, climate change will impact everyone, doesn't matter if the state is red or blue or whatever. I keep bringing up California not to pick on it, but rather because it's where I was born and raised and so I know a little bit about what's going on there. It's deep blue, yet has it's own self inflicted climate problems due to poor urban planning that has resulted in extreme fire risk. In an attempt to stop growth, homeowners put very strict policies in place that prevented infill and urban density. The goal was to preserve a peculiar mid-twentieth century vision of low-density beach homes -- an antiquated aesthetic that confuses personal views of nature with environmentalism. So growth spilled over into non-urban areas and now around 25% of the state lives in the WUI, of which around 1.4 million homes are at the highest risk (https://www.kqed.org/science/1975443/millions-of-calif-homes-are-in-fire-prone-areas-researchers-say-its-time-to-reimagine-where-they-live). Even worse, the west has spent the past 100+ years in an ill fated attempt to suppress all wildfire, whereas pre white colonists much of the west burned annually.... it's a fire adapted landscape. Millions of people living in the WUI with high accumulation of fuel plus a drying and warming climate... it's no wonder insurers are pulling back in California.
-
"Indigenous people native to Yosemite and other parts of the world for millennia have used fire to promote healthy forests. Today, the wisdom of that approach is seen as one of the keys to unraveling the deadly cycle of California wildfires."
https://www.universityofcalifornia.edu/news/how-indigenous-practice-good-fire-can-help-our-forests-thrive
-
I live in inland California in what has become a serious fire zone. In the past decade I've evacuated three times - once in an "abundance of caution" situation should the winds change, and twice have loaded kids, pets, and valuables into the car and sped off into a smoky dawn. I have an uneasy history (for unrelated claims) with State Farm, yet they continue to insure my primary residence and business property. I've been made aware that there's no full replacement value that would be paid out should my house burn to the ground yet still uneasily continue as an insured because an unknown insurer would likely not be much better.
-
Relevant article about progressively increasing wildfire risk in Texas (https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2023-05-30/housing-need-and-wildfire-risk-collide-in-fast-growing-central-texas?re_source=boa_mustread&sref=HdNFLlbP) exacerbated by urban sprawl.
Any land that isn’t explicitly protected is “potentially fair game,” Travis County Commissioner Ann Howard told Austin Monthly last year. In Georgetown, for example, wildfire doesn’t factor into planning decisions, and the city doesn’t track how many buildings are at risk, according to the town’s fire marshal, Jason Fryer. “The wildfire risk is something that we can only help out with the individual homeowner, or their homeowner’s association,” he said.
As climate change alters weather patterns, and more homes are built in harm’s way by the region’s real estate boom, experts fear that Texas-style development is setting itself up for a wildfire disaster.
“We continue to believe, as a society, that if we just treat vegetation, or wildland forests and reduce all that fuel, we can continue to build homes where we want and how we want, regardless of the risk,” said Kimiko Barrett, Wildfire Research & Policy Lead at the nonprofit Headwaters Economics. “At some point, we’re going to have to start addressing the built environment, because we continue to put homes in harm's way.”
Bregenzer specifically worries about a fire near a high-density area in a community that hasn’t done fire mitigation work, where the majority of homeowners and renters aren’t familiar with the threat; that’s when a wildfire is going to “impact that community in a severe way.”
In 2016, Texas A&M did an analysis of Hays, Comal, Bexar, and Travis counties — the latter which contains Austin — which lie within the I-35 corridor, and found 1.1 million people in those counties, 39% of the total population, live in the wildland-urban interface, or WUI, a higher-risk region where development runs up against natural areas. Within that subset, 423,000 are living in high-density areas.
-
The Bloomberg article I posted above has links to a few more interesting articles as well:
Florida ranks third among states with properties at risk for fires (https://winknews.com/2022/05/16/florida-ranks-third-among-states-with-properties-at-risk-for-fires/)
In the hot seat: Development, climate leads to increased risk of wildfires near NC cities and suburbs (https://ncnewsline.com/briefs/in-the-hot-seat-development-climate-leads-to-increased-risk-of-wildfires-near-nc-cities-and-suburbs/)
Home Insurance Premiums Rise as Americans Flock to Weather-Worn States (https://www.nytimes.com/2023/05/05/realestate/home-insurance-climate-change.html)
-
More coverage on this topic. Insurers in California and Florida raising premiums and pulling out: Homeowners in states hobbled by extreme weather are running out of options to protect their homes (https://www.nbcnews.com/business/consumer/homeowners-go-without-insurance-in-states-where-its-too-expensive-rcna88578)
-
It is indeed getting pretty crazy in Florida. I saw a post from one neighbor who stated their premium had gone from $1450 to over $12,000 in eleven years. There was some discussion among the more mustachian types of just getting liability insurance but most folks can't do that since they have a mortgage.
-
curious, what city? also is this within floodzones/close to the coast?
-
As is the way in our society, companies, not governments, will dictate where one can reasonably live.
-
"Indigenous people native to Yosemite and other parts of the world for millennia have used fire to promote healthy forests. Today, the wisdom of that approach is seen as one of the keys to unraveling the deadly cycle of California wildfires."
https://www.universityofcalifornia.edu/news/how-indigenous-practice-good-fire-can-help-our-forests-thrive
We definitely could learn something valuable from this approach. We need to have a better approach as some summers it’s awful on the west coast.
-
[yielding] a political crisis that will occur when all of the people living in other states finally say, “Why the fuck is so much of our federal budget going to protect these idiots’ beach houses?”
Florida used to be able to get anything they wanted from the federal government when they were a swing state, but lately they've been deep red. If they were smarter, Democrats might be inclined to protect social security and Medicaid rather than subsidizing beach houses. But of course that sentence hinges on an if.
It's not just Florida, although they are the worst off. There are billions of dollars of properties all along the east coast that are going to be affected even by a small rise in sea levels, well within our lifetimes. An acquaintance was just bragging about a multi-million dollar property he bought on Kiawah Island in South Carolina. I looked up the risk factor and, needless to say, it's extreme for flooding. Further up north, they have just finished rebuilding hoses destroyed by hurricane Sandy in NJ. In fact, there are a lot of expensive homes built on barrier islands off the NJ/DE/MD coast
Seems very much like the real estate version of, "privatize benefits, socialize losses," or at least behave as if that will always be the case.
I wish every state and the federal government would draw a line in the sand/statute that they are never, ever going to backstop these properties. If people want to build on barrier islands or in floodplains, or buy existing houses there, they need to fully internalize the financial consequences. There can be no buyouts, or public insurance plans. If your property goes under, you owe the public for the pollution you've caused, not the other way around.
-
curious, what city? also is this within floodzones/close to the coast?
Jacksonville, in a historic area which is pretty far from the coast and most of the homes have withstood 100+ years of storms. Some of the neighborhood is in a flood zone, my portion is not. Maybe that person's house is on one of the streets that still floods; ironically it's due to poor infrastructure not nearby waterways.
-
curious, what city? also is this within floodzones/close to the coast?
Jacksonville, in a historic area which is pretty far from the coast and most of the homes have withstood 100+ years of storms. Some of the neighborhood is in a flood zone, my portion is not. Maybe that person's house is on one of the streets that still floods; ironically it's due to poor infrastructure not nearby waterways.
interesting. I'm familiar. I live in Ponte Vedra. My mother in law is in San Marco, one of those historic downtown areas. Flooding is terrible for her.
My community is about 10 years old, but they built us all up to about 16' above sea level, as well we are just outside the flood zone. My home owners insurance is cheaper here than it was in Columbus Ohio. Although my price went up this year after last years hurricane (even though it didn't impact my area). I'm sure that will be a common theme over the years, unfortunately.
-
Interesting essay on the history of selling the climate in Florida and California, and how the changing climate has become an issue for these states: https://theconversation.com/california-and-florida-grew-quickly-on-the-promise-of-perfect-climates-in-the-1900s-today-they-lead-the-country-in-climate-change-risks-207470
-
It's too early to say but about-to-be Hurricane Lee in the Atlantic might be a nasty one. As a Wilmington, NC resident, we're in the path of possibility. Seems almost every year now we're getting a hurricane.
-
It's too early to say but about-to-be Hurricane Lee in the Atlantic might be a nasty one. As a Wilmington, NC resident, we're in the path of possibility. Seems almost every year now we're getting a hurricane.
Hopefully, it will pass by you, and the forecast won't change.
(https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20230907/43a31d26ab85403ec793df06c157c794.jpg)
Sent from my SM-G991U1 using Tapatalk
-
From what I remember, the federal government went on record in 2014 and stated that they were going to start reducing the federal funding of flood insurance. It felt like it was 75% subsidized and the federal government had a 10-year plan to reduce the compensation to 25% subsidized. If someone had an insurance plan that cost $10,000/year to be in a flood plain, the federal government was paying $7500 and the home owner was paying $2500.
The plan was to flip it over the course of 10-years so the home owner was paying $7500/year and the federal government was paying $2500/year. During the same 10-years period the risk premium doubled to $20,000 total. The home owner is paying $15,000 and the government is paying $5,000. I think this is somewhat representative of how policies went from $2,500 to $15,000 over the course of 10-years.
My rental in Florida is about 3 miles from the Gulf and not in a flood plain. From 2012 to 2020, my house insurance policy increased from $750/year to $950/year. However, my policy increased in 2021 to $1,450, then 2022 to $2166/year and now in 2023 it's $3,250/year. I also got a new roof in 2023. The house has a market value of around 375K.
-
It could always be worse. Your annual home insurance premium could have tripled from $200k to $600k!
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2023-09-07/ultra-wealthy-miami-homeowners-see-insurance-costs-top-600-000-a-year
-
It could always be worse. Your annual home insurance premium could have tripled from $200k to $600k!
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2023-09-07/ultra-wealthy-miami-homeowners-see-insurance-costs-top-600-000-a-year
Good article. I have been thinking about this paragraph from this article:
...only the affluent will be able to afford to insure themselves against the extreme weather, floods and wildfires on our warming planet. People of more modest means will simply be priced out, industry experts say.
I just read recently that 42% of home owners do not have a mortgage. If you don't have a mortgage and you are sufficiently wealthy, I suppose it's possible to self-insure. But anyone who has a mortgage typically must have home insurance. Wonder what this is going to lead to.
-
It could always be worse. Your annual home insurance premium could have tripled from $200k to $600k!
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2023-09-07/ultra-wealthy-miami-homeowners-see-insurance-costs-top-600-000-a-year
Good article. I have been thinking about this paragraph from this article:
...only the affluent will be able to afford to insure themselves against the extreme weather, floods and wildfires on our warming planet. People of more modest means will simply be priced out, industry experts say.
I just read recently that 42% of home owners do not have a mortgage. If you don't have a mortgage and you are sufficiently wealthy, I suppose it's possible to self-insure. But anyone who has a mortgage typically must have home insurance. Wonder what this is going to lead to.
There are only a few ways for this to go.
One is an emptying out of Florida as more houses get demolished by storms and as insurance goes up. Not only have insurance rates gone up dramatically but Citizen's, the state insurer of last resort, is still subsidizing rates. That, of course, is bait-and-switch since taxpayers end up covering the shortfall.
Another way is for Florida to pass much stricter housing standards. There will necessarily be fewer houses on the coast and houses will be built to withstand 150 mph winds. Housing prices will go up substantially, resulting in much the same demographics as the first path, at least initially.
We may be seeing Florida population peak this decade.
-
I have been thinking about this paragraph from this article:
...only the affluent will be able to afford to insure themselves against the extreme weather, floods and wildfires on our warming planet. People of more modest means will simply be priced out, industry experts say.
I just read recently that 42% of home owners do not have a mortgage. If you don't have a mortgage and you are sufficiently wealthy, I suppose it's possible to self-insure. But anyone who has a mortgage typically must have home insurance. Wonder what this is going to lead to.
Home prices and insurance costs have been skyrocketing recently in tourism destinations, like California and Florida. Everybody wants to live in paradise where the weather is never cold. Of course, the problem is these places are disaster-prone. It costs an enormous amount of money to maintain a structure there, even if we use insurance to float out the costs from hurricanes, earthquakes, and wildfires.
Some possibilities, which are not mutually exclusive:
1) Exclusivity Scenario: The high costs of living in these locations make them exclusive, and therefore even more desirable on a sustainable basis. These regions become bastions of the rich, and the wanna-be rich move there in an attempt to scrap their way to the top serving the needs of the rich. With each disaster, more of the wanna-be's are sent packing, completely broke and homeless. This makes the demographic even more predominantly rich and desirable. Basically, "if you can afford the insurance or self-insure to rebuild your home every few years, you may live in our state. Otherwise, this is not the place for you." Media and social media flock to the aspirational goal of walking on the beach someday, and everyone continues propping up the cost and desirability of living in these places. People continue to sacrifice other sorts of goals (homeownership, financial stability, retirement, kids) for the chance to live in the most popular locations. Meanwhile, states that are not resort destinations are seen as places where all the failures and poor people live. This is an extension of the concept of exclusive neighborhoods with expensive HOAs and minimum house sizes being seen as more desirable than regular neighborhoods by lots of people.
2) YoYo Housing Market Scenario: The housing ponzi scheme reaches a tipping point where there are no more buyers willing or able to pay millions of dollars to live in the places. At that moment, supply>demand and a price collapse begins, which prompts more people to try to sell, which leads to further price collapse. The 2008 housing correction could become a self-fulfilling pattern, as people who overextended to speculate on RE are forced to sell en masse, and are followed by new money expecting to buy the dip and ride the new trend up. A yo-yo effect occurs and the observation of a pattern attracts even more money. Prices zoom up and down for decades as investors try to time the market with leverage.
3) Tech-Induced Opportunity Equalization: A growing percentage of the population with WFH jobs says "fuck this, I want to live somewhere less naturally and financially precarious. I'd like to be able to own my own home, have kids, and/or retire someday." and so the migration to places like Tennessee, Colorado, or the midwest continues. Meanwhile, the Big One or more wildfires hit California, and a large Florida city gets hit hard by a category 5 hurricane, killing over a thousand people. The new cultural sense of luxury shifts from living 2 hours from the beach to being able to afford a home - anywhere - and not worry about its eventual destruction. The price of real estate nationwide evens out, as the benefits of nice weather locations are offset by their costs and risks, and as WFH equalizes opportunities across geography. Meanwhile, self-driving cars make it more popular to live 8+ hours from vacation destinations. People just let the car drive them across the country overnight while they sleep. A lifestyle of getting off work in Missouri on Friday afternoon, and waking up at the beach Saturday morning becomes possible, which means there's no need to own real estate there.
4) People start to want the cold. As summer temperatures keep climbing, mass-casualty event heat waves from 110F to 120F start making the news. After a few tens of thousands of people die, the new concept of luxury might change from watching the waves to watching it snow. With WFH reducing the demands upon commuters, cold weather might be seen as less of a problem than we currently see it. Within a generation, the concept of "good weather" may shift from tropical sun to midwestern spring and fall days. Whereas the boomers fled the winter cold, the next generation might flee the summer heat, moving toward the northern half of the continental U.S. The coasts are also a good place to escape heat, but with higher heat comes more hurricanes and the associated costs.
As I walk through each of these scenarios, I'm struck by how much our concept of value is driven by cultural ideas about what the good life is supposed to look like. "Going to the beach" as a valuable thing to do is a cultural construct. It could be replaced by "own your own home" or "live somewhere where it never gets 100F" or "try to live where the rich people are living" or "playing with the kids in the snow" because these cultural constructs have equal tangible value for most people. It's just a matter of mass culture and which way it moves.
-
It is fun to imagine huge changes and shifts ahead but the current state looks a lot like 100 years ago and is unlikely to change dramatically. People will always want to live in beautiful coastal areas with mild weather. Storms be damned. Insurance costs may knock some of the froth off home prices but not a lot.
-
This would be only a smaller version of a grand plan I think could be had for balancing the human economic engine and environmentalism. Certainly off-topic but I imagine a future in which the beef and agriculture industries are optimized via engineering and synthetic production, eliminating the need for ranches and farmland in less hospitable environments. The entire Great Plains of the US is repurchased by the federal government. No private ownership is allowed. All fences are removed and the land is restored to the way it was when Native Americans freely roamed it. Bison herds restored, etc. There are still roads and people are able to camp there for some period that makes it a public benefit and component of physical and mental well-being. Adequately funded Park Rangers ensure the maintenance of the resource. How glorious this would be.
I think Neuromancer (or another book by Gibson) discussed something similar. Some wealthy Native Americans, tired of the office and BS jobs, pooled their money and bought much of the Great Plains. They then returned to their nomadic ways.
-
I'm really interested in the work being done by the First Street Foundation. They have just released an updated report on insurability of homes in in some areas: https://firststreet.org/press/press-release-39-million-properties-are-significantly-overvalued-due-to-artificially-suppressed-home-insurance-costs/?ref=lite.improvethenews.org
-
Headline:
"We left Florida because our homeowners insurance ballooned to $12,000. We walked away from everything we knew so our kids could have a future."
https://www.businessinsider.com/florida-homeowners-insurance-rising-costs-moving-to-wisconsin-2023-9?op=1 (https://www.businessinsider.com/florida-homeowners-insurance-rising-costs-moving-to-wisconsin-2023-9?op=1)
We got a letter in the mail from our home insurance carrier in 2021 saying, "Hey, your roof is X amount of years old. You either need to replace it or we can't guarantee that we're going to insure you for the upcoming year." We were thinking, we're new homeowners — we're freaked out about everything. We thought, what are we going to do?
We didn't have enough money for a new roof. We went out and got quotes. The cheapest I could find just to replace the shingles was $28,000. We emptied out our savings and I had to borrow against my 401(k).
We weren't ready for that kind of expenditure, but we did it.
The insurance company came back and said, "Thanks for doing your roof, it'll now be $29,000 to cover you a year." We told them, "Thank you, but we can't afford it."
John: Before the roof, we paid about $6,000 for our insurance premium.
After the roof, we got a quote from the statewide insurance, Citizens Property Insurance Corporation. It was the most affordable one.
Natalia: But our premium still doubled from the year before. Before we left, we were paying $12,000 for insurance.
Our electric bill would be up 33% by this summer, and that would've given me a $1,000 bill for the months of August, September, and October. Those are your hot months out there. And I was like, I can't afford this.
So we ran the numbers for a year, it was going to cost us $31,000 for daycare and after-school care while we work in Florida.
We sold the house for about $700,000 and some change, and we only owed about $260,000 on it. So we had nice equity.... The home we purchased was about $325,000. It's five bedrooms and three bathrooms.
-
[yielding] a political crisis that will occur when all of the people living in other states finally say, “Why the fuck is so much of our federal budget going to protect these idiots’ beach houses?”
I was thinking this same thing. I live on the coast (on a boat) but I work in the boating industry so my options are mostly commute or live on the coast. But that being said, why should a guy in Kentucky be paying for all the disasters that happen in Florida and California?
-
“contextualize the money flowing in by comparing it to things like what percentage of the state’s revenue it makes up and how much the federal government gets back through its taxes on the state’s residents.”
https://wallethub.com/edu/states-most-least-dependent-on-the-federal-government/2700
"states according to their dependence on the federal government”
https://www.moneygeek.com/living/states-most-reliant-federal-government/
-
“contextualize the money flowing in by comparing it to things like what percentage of the state’s revenue it makes up and how much the federal government gets back through its taxes on the state’s residents.”
https://wallethub.com/edu/states-most-least-dependent-on-the-federal-government/2700
"states according to their dependence on the federal government”
https://www.moneygeek.com/living/states-most-reliant-federal-government/
So much to digest there. I think the purpose of those articles was more to gain support for "their" side politically.
So things I would love to have broken down a little more...
These were made using data in 2020 and 2022, I think. I would be nice to use a larger data set. California doesn't have bad wildfires every year, and Florida and Louisiana don't have a bad hurricane every year.
The second article shows a correlation between State GDP per capita and federal funding received. It would be nice to see a "score" that is standardized by GDP/Cap.
I wonder if these data sets would tell a different story.
-
“contextualize the money flowing in by comparing it to things like what percentage of the state’s revenue it makes up and how much the federal government gets back through its taxes on the state’s residents.”
https://wallethub.com/edu/states-most-least-dependent-on-the-federal-government/2700
"states according to their dependence on the federal government”
https://www.moneygeek.com/living/states-most-reliant-federal-government/
So much to digest there. I think the purpose of those articles was more to gain support for "their" side politically.
So things I would love to have broken down a little more...
These were made using data in 2020 and 2022, I think. I would be nice to use a larger data set. California doesn't have bad wildfires every year, and Florida and Louisiana don't have a bad hurricane every year.
The second article shows a correlation between State GDP per capita and federal funding received. It would be nice to see a "score" that is standardized by GDP/Cap.
I wonder if these data sets would tell a different story.
Not surprising that New Mexico is #5 and #1 on those lists. The federal government is the main driver of the economy across the state. 2 National Labs (each with 10,000+ highly paid contractors plus thousands of DoE employees for oversight), 3 Air Force Bases (each with thousands of supporting civilians and contractors), and 1 1/2 Army Bases (Fort Bliss is just over the border in El Paso, TX but extends north into New Mexico), a large portion of the land area under federal control (National Forest, National Monuments, BLM, etc.), plus a large Native American population with a significant presence from the BIA.
Not to mention a generally poor and rural population which typically receive more federal spending per capita than richer urban populations. Basically these lists seem to correlate more strongly with how poor a state is which means the citizens are contributing fewer tax dollars and receiving more transfer payments based on that same low income. $50K/year may not go far in Hawaii, California, or New York but from a federal perspective it's still above the threshold for a lot of transfer payments. Meanwhile, $25k may be enough to survive on in a rural area but would qualify you for transfer payments, and keep you from paying any significant federal income tax.
-
“contextualize the money flowing in by comparing it to things like what percentage of the state’s revenue it makes up and how much the federal government gets back through its taxes on the state’s residents.”
https://wallethub.com/edu/states-most-least-dependent-on-the-federal-government/2700
"states according to their dependence on the federal government”
https://www.moneygeek.com/living/states-most-reliant-federal-government/
This isn't a state vs. state issue, but rather high risk vs. low risk areas. Note the title of this thread (and article) is specifically about cities.
I live in Idaho, no coastal risks for me. If someone wants to live on the beach or in a hurricane zone that's fine, just don't ask me to subsidize that person's willful assumption of risk. Similarly, there are folks in my state that really want to live away from the city *in* the forest. Again, that's fine, but don't jack up my taxes or insurance rates to help pay for their choice.
-
“contextualize the money flowing in by comparing it to things like what percentage of the state’s revenue it makes up and how much the federal government gets back through its taxes on the state’s residents.”
https://wallethub.com/edu/states-most-least-dependent-on-the-federal-government/2700
"states according to their dependence on the federal government”
https://www.moneygeek.com/living/states-most-reliant-federal-government/
This isn't a state vs. state issue, but rather high risk vs. low risk areas. Note the title of this thread (and article) is specifically about cities.
I live in Idaho, no coastal risks for me. If someone wants to live on the beach or in a hurricane zone that's fine, just don't ask me to subsidize that person's willful assumption of risk. Similarly, there are folks in my state that really want to live away from the city *in* the forest. Again, that's fine, but don't jack up my taxes or insurance rates to help pay for their choice.
The problem is they have more votes than you. And their politicians can point at you and say "aren't you heartless!".
-
An interesting article on managed retreat at the Outer Banks: https://www.washingtonpost.com/climate-environment/2023/10/16/obx-rodanthe-house-collapse-ocean-bought/ (sans paywall: https://archive.ph/iRZ1K)
Thankfully taxpayer funds were not used for these buyouts, though I wonder if this can really scale. What I find most shocking (though maybe not) is that both of these properties were recently sold in 2021 despite having major issues. The amount of money people are spending to move houses and septic systems is nuts. It really seems like property owners are banking on the state or federal government bailing them out by spending unending millions to nourish the beach.
-
An interesting article on managed retreat at the Outer Banks: https://www.washingtonpost.com/climate-environment/2023/10/16/obx-rodanthe-house-collapse-ocean-bought/ (sans paywall: https://archive.ph/iRZ1K)
Thankfully taxpayer funds were not used for these buyouts, though I wonder if this can really scale. What I find most shocking (though maybe not) is that both of these properties were recently sold in 2021 despite having major issues. The amount of money people are spending to move houses and septic systems is nuts. It really seems like property owners are banking on the state or federal government bailing them out by spending unending millions to nourish the beach.
I wonder how the person who bought the house in 2021 could get insurance. It seems to me that the outer banks of NC ought to be completely uninsurable.
-
An interesting article on managed retreat at the Outer Banks: https://www.washingtonpost.com/climate-environment/2023/10/16/obx-rodanthe-house-collapse-ocean-bought/ (sans paywall: https://archive.ph/iRZ1K)
Thankfully taxpayer funds were not used for these buyouts, though I wonder if this can really scale. What I find most shocking (though maybe not) is that both of these properties were recently sold in 2021 despite having major issues. The amount of money people are spending to move houses and septic systems is nuts. It really seems like property owners are banking on the state or federal government bailing them out by spending unending millions to nourish the beach.
I wonder how the person who bought the house in 2021 could get insurance. It seems to me that the outer banks of NC ought to be completely uninsurable.
I agree. Houses on barrier islands should stop being a thing. It makes no sense for any entity to insure these. Eliminate insurance and buyers have to pony up all-cash, which would crash prices and expose the full liabilities. Paying, say, $200k cash for a beach house could mean you lose all your equity plus cleanup costs. When properties are near or below zero value is when it makes sense for conservationists to step in and make purchases, which would help this entire process scale.
Yet it seems people just can't help themselves. The desire for beach houses has too much emotional pull, like the family that bought knowing it was a problem, but really really really wanted the fond beach memories for their kids.
-
I haven’t read this thread completely, so maybe this has been covered, but I have a hard time believing that at some point there won’t be a massive pivot to geoengineering to address what is going on. So much climate change is baked in the cake already, and we are effectively geoengineering in a completely haphazard way. Won’t some people being affected start demanding that someone, anyone take steps to reverse the effects? (If you read near-future science fiction, Neal Stephenson’s “Termination Shock” addressed this possibility…)
-
I haven’t read this thread completely, so maybe this has been covered, but I have a hard time believing that at some point there won’t be a massive pivot to geoengineering to address what is going on. So much climate change is baked in the cake already, and we are effectively geoengineering in a completely haphazard way. Won’t some people being affected start demanding that someone, anyone take steps to reverse the effects? (If you read near-future science fiction, Neal Stephenson’s “Termination Shock” addressed this possibility…)
IMO this is wishful thinking. If we assume for the sake of argument that we can geoenginer the global climate in a cost effective way (a huge assumption), the bigger issue is that this will not simply reverse the current effects of climate change.
Instead, geoengineering the climate will solve some problems at the expense of creating others. This is just how large dynamic systems work. For example, maybe we can lower temperatures in polar regions to halt sea level rise. But perhaps this has the unintended side effect of aridification of large areas of Asia. This has huge ethical and geopolitical implications.
-
I haven’t read this thread completely, so maybe this has been covered, but I have a hard time believing that at some point there won’t be a massive pivot to geoengineering to address what is going on. So much climate change is baked in the cake already, and we are effectively geoengineering in a completely haphazard way. Won’t some people being affected start demanding that someone, anyone take steps to reverse the effects? (If you read near-future science fiction, Neal Stephenson’s “Termination Shock” addressed this possibility…)
IMO this is wishful thinking. If we assume for the sake of argument that we can geoenginer the global climate in a cost effective way (a huge assumption), the bigger issue is that this will not simply reverse the current effects of climate change.
Instead, geoengineering the climate will solve some problems at the expense of creating others. This is just how large dynamic systems work. For example, maybe we can lower temperatures in polar regions to halt sea level rise. But perhaps this has the unintended side effect of aridification of large areas of Asia. This has huge ethical and geopolitical implications.
I probably should have been more explicit that I didn’t think that geoengineering will be a “get out of jail free” card. It seems unlikely that we will go back to the status quo ante, at least in my lifetime (or the lifetime of anyone currently alive?). I just think if things get bad enough there will be a DEMAND for something along these lines. And perhaps we will develop some systems that slow down some effects. Who knows how effective it will be?
-
An interesting article on managed retreat at the Outer Banks: https://www.washingtonpost.com/climate-environment/2023/10/16/obx-rodanthe-house-collapse-ocean-bought/ (sans paywall: https://archive.ph/iRZ1K)
Thankfully taxpayer funds were not used for these buyouts, though I wonder if this can really scale. What I find most shocking (though maybe not) is that both of these properties were recently sold in 2021 despite having major issues. The amount of money people are spending to move houses and septic systems is nuts. It really seems like property owners are banking on the state or federal government bailing them out by spending unending millions to nourish the beach.
I wonder how the person who bought the house in 2021 could get insurance. It seems to me that the outer banks of NC ought to be completely uninsurable.
I agree. Houses on barrier islands should stop being a thing. It makes no sense for any entity to insure these. Eliminate insurance and buyers have to pony up all-cash, which would crash prices and expose the full liabilities. Paying, say, $200k cash for a beach house could mean you lose all your equity plus cleanup costs. When properties are near or below zero value is when it makes sense for conservationists to step in and make purchases, which would help this entire process scale.
Yet it seems people just can't help themselves. The desire for beach houses has too much emotional pull, like the family that bought knowing it was a problem, but really really really wanted the fond beach memories for their kids.
Wow, those buyouts seem more like bailouts. Both houses inundated by the ocean and one gets $90,000 more than they bought it for 2 years ago? I'm not sure what detailed appraisal they used, but it sounds like it didn't account for future value which is steeply trending towards zero. $260k for a house you can't live in now or in the foreseeable future, if it even remains upright? Are they getting other offers? Of course they jumped at it! That all makes me mad, even as a coastal NC resident. Just because it is oil royalties and not expressly tax dollars doesn't help.
-
Just got my homeowner's insurance bill, $4327 for a 1560 sq ft house on a tiny lot. Northeast Florida but not in a flood zone. 33% increase from last year, and they've already told me I have to replace my (not leaking) roof in order to renew next year. I will pay it this year but I think I need to seriously consider self-insuring next year.
One the one hand, count yourself lucky to find an insurer, even at $2.75/sq ft. On the other hand, consider if you want to be there long term. We live in a PNW forest fire and mega-earthquake risk zone (and in fact had a lightning fire in our back yard this summer) but pay about $0.20/sq ft for full coverage.
-
Just got my homeowner's insurance bill, $4327 for a 1560 sq ft house on a tiny lot. Northeast Florida but not in a flood zone. 33% increase from last year, and they've already told me I have to replace my (not leaking) roof in order to renew next year. I will pay it this year but I think I need to seriously consider self-insuring next year.
One the one hand, count yourself lucky to find an insurer, even at $2.75/sq ft. On the other hand, consider if you want to be there long term. We live in a PNW forest fire and mega-earthquake risk zone (and in fact had a lightning fire in our back yard this summer) but pay about $0.20/sq ft for full coverage.
I'm at $0.554/sq ft for full coverage with a $10k deductible in an area with tornado and hail risk, but no wildfire, earthquake, flood, or hurricane risk. $713 per year.
ETA: My policy is full replacement on the roof, which means if the roof is damaged for any reason they pay the full replacement cost rather than pro-rating the age of the old roof and giving me the remaining value of what was damaged. This is one way not all policies are an apples-to-apples comparison.
-
Just got my homeowner's insurance bill, $4327 for a 1560 sq ft house on a tiny lot. Northeast Florida but not in a flood zone. 33% increase from last year, and they've already told me I have to replace my (not leaking) roof in order to renew next year. I will pay it this year but I think I need to seriously consider self-insuring next year.
One the one hand, count yourself lucky to find an insurer, even at $2.75/sq ft. On the other hand, consider if you want to be there long term. We live in a PNW forest fire and mega-earthquake risk zone (and in fact had a lightning fire in our back yard this summer) but pay about $0.20/sq ft for full coverage.
I'm at $0.554/sq ft for full coverage with a $10k deductible in an area with tornado and hail risk, but no wildfire, earthquake, flood, or hurricane risk. $713 per year.
We're at $0.58/sq ft for full coverage in an area with very low risk (no earthquakes, low wildfire risk, not in flood plain, low extreme weather risk).
There's a story in the WSJ today about folks in Florida moving due to very high insurance costs: https://www.wsj.com/real-estate/home-insurance-is-so-high-in-this-florida-town-residents-are-leaving-bb00c96f (w/o paywall: https://archive.ph/hMxYe )
While they found a better rate from another insurer, at about $33,000 it is still nearly double what they paid last year. The family this month listed the home for sale with an asking price of nearly $3.5 million after determining that insurance costs made staying there too expensive. Others in Flamingo Park told The Wall Street Journal they are drawing the same conclusion.
“The for-sale signs are going up left and right,” James said of the neighborhood.
-
Surprisingly, I'm in the same ballpark in Coastal NC as Florida despite seemingly being somewhat lower risk. I'm 3 miles inland at 40 feet and outside any flood zone. My insurance is a typical $0.58 square foot, but then the required wind and hail insurance through the state adds $1900/year. My costs scale with that $3.5M FL house, so maybe they are overreacting?
-
Surprisingly, I'm in the same ballpark in Coastal NC as Florida despite seemingly being somewhat lower risk. I'm 3 miles inland at 40 feet and outside any flood zone. My insurance is a typical $0.58 square foot, but then the required wind and hail insurance through the state adds $1900/year. My costs scale with that $3.5M FL house, so maybe they are overreacting?
I think the issue is that most people buy as much house as they can "afford" so a lot of folks are already on the edge financially. If insurance was $10k/year when they first bought the $3.5M house, an increase to $30k could be very difficult.
-
Surprisingly, I'm in the same ballpark in Coastal NC as Florida despite seemingly being somewhat lower risk. I'm 3 miles inland at 40 feet and outside any flood zone. My insurance is a typical $0.58 square foot, but then the required wind and hail insurance through the state adds $1900/year. My costs scale with that $3.5M FL house, so maybe they are overreacting?
Check out further down that article. One couple is/was paying $10k for the premiums on their 1000 ft2 cottage. Ouch.
Here's a similar article from a few months ago: https://www.tampabay.com/news/real-estate/2023/08/14/soaring-home-insurance-costs-are-pushing-these-families-out-florida/
The Tampa Bay Times article quotes people worried about premiums in the low thousands, which makes me think that FINate is correct: people stretch to buy a house and even a $500-1000 unexpected increase puts a real dent in their budgets. $1800 seems reasonable for a ranch with a pool overlooking an intracoastal waterway.
-
This is also happening in areas at high risk for wildfire in CA.
https://abcnews.go.com/US/fire-prone-california-homeowners-left-insurance-companies-drop/story?id=104946925
Increasing premiums 10x to reflect the actual risks due to climate change is one way of pricing in the real cost of living in the forest. I sorta feel bad for the people now looking at $13k/year for premiums. Yet on the other hand, this whole "WE WILL REBUILD! $TOWN STRONG" mentality needs to end. When fire rips thought a community like Paradise, people need to take the hint and use their insurance proceeds to move someplace more reasonable.
-
The problem is most folks have no clue what a direct hit from a hurricane really does to an area. And it gets even more nuanced once you realize how localized the maximum damage from a direct hit will be. In 2018 when Florence was 24 hours from landfall in Wilmington it was still a Category 4. We drove away from our friends' house not expecting to have a home to come back to. I mean pushed the car against the inside of the garage door for extra reinforcement and put any truly valuable items inside the car where another set of weather seals would hopefully keep any water out.
There's no reasonable way to insure against an event like that. The way people did it in the past was not to build big homes with high end materials because they knew that at some point the area was going to get hit. Common sense has gone out the window.
We're just north of Wilmington and paying $1.00 per square foot for fire insurance, liability, and wind & hail combined. 2% deductible for a named storm which comes out to about $5,000 based on our insured value. Not sure exactly how much of that is just the wind & hail piece. Probably about 2/3 of it. $1,000 a year is certainly worth protection against the kind of damage I've seen and now know can happen but for some of the areas where insurance costs are out of control, at some point it has to start hitting the home's value.
-
There's no reasonable way to insure against an event like that. The way people did it in the past was not to build big homes with high end materials because they knew that at some point the area was going to get hit. Common sense has gone out the window.
There's the solution again. Build modest homes in tropical/subtropical areas out of concrete, roof and all. Put some metal shutters on the windows and then go without insurance. Look at how houses that survive hurricanes are build throughout the Caribbean. It's not with sticks, plastic, and flakes of petroleum.
We're going through a lot of this anguish because we never learned from the 3 little pigs.
-
This is also happening in areas at high risk for wildfire in CA.
https://abcnews.go.com/US/fire-prone-california-homeowners-left-insurance-companies-drop/story?id=104946925 (https://abcnews.go.com/US/fire-prone-california-homeowners-left-insurance-companies-drop/story?id=104946925)
Increasing premiums 10x to reflect the actual risks due to climate change is one way of pricing in the real cost of living in the forest. I sorta feel bad for the people now looking at $13k/year for premiums. Yet on the other hand, this whole "WE WILL REBUILD! $TOWN STRONG" mentality needs to end. When fire rips thought a community like Paradise, people need to take the hint and use their insurance proceeds to move someplace more reasonable.
You could argue the greater Pacific Northwest should be redlined except in safe concrete cities. However, most of the fires in recent years have been linked back to electrical lines. If PG&E and others (who have lost some big lawsuits on this already) would keep their lines clear of trees, it would make a big difference.
-
This is also happening in areas at high risk for wildfire in CA.
https://abcnews.go.com/US/fire-prone-california-homeowners-left-insurance-companies-drop/story?id=104946925 (https://abcnews.go.com/US/fire-prone-california-homeowners-left-insurance-companies-drop/story?id=104946925)
Increasing premiums 10x to reflect the actual risks due to climate change is one way of pricing in the real cost of living in the forest. I sorta feel bad for the people now looking at $13k/year for premiums. Yet on the other hand, this whole "WE WILL REBUILD! $TOWN STRONG" mentality needs to end. When fire rips thought a community like Paradise, people need to take the hint and use their insurance proceeds to move someplace more reasonable.
You could argue the greater Pacific Northwest should be redlined except in safe concrete cities. However, most of the fires in recent years have been linked back to electrical lines. If PG&E and others (who have lost some big lawsuits on this already) would keep their lines clear of trees, it would make a big difference.
Fire danger in the forested areas of the PNW is certainly much higher with climate change. Wildfires are mostly a function of fuel and weather. If PG&E lines don't start fires, then it will be lightning, sparks from a passing car, or whatever. The west needs a lot more controlled burns, and a ton more forest thinning in the WUI. Those choosing to live in high fire danger should shoulder most of these costs. Or, don't, and pay for it in higher insurance premiums. Either way, the real cost of living in the forest will eventually make itself known.
-
This is also happening in areas at high risk for wildfire in CA.
https://abcnews.go.com/US/fire-prone-california-homeowners-left-insurance-companies-drop/story?id=104946925
Increasing premiums 10x to reflect the actual risks due to climate change is one way of pricing in the real cost of living in the forest. I sorta feel bad for the people now looking at $13k/year for premiums. Yet on the other hand, this whole "WE WILL REBUILD! $TOWN STRONG" mentality needs to end. When fire rips thought a community like Paradise, people need to take the hint and use their insurance proceeds to move someplace more reasonable.
About 95% of the buildings burned in Paradise. That's a hint as big as a flashing neon billboard at the end of Main Street.
-
The problem is most folks have no clue what a direct hit from a hurricane really does to an area. And it gets even more nuanced once you realize how localized the maximum damage from a direct hit will be.
Related to this, I think many folks, including me, are accustomed to thinking about rebuilding a house with insurance that had an isolated disaster, like a house fire. The cost, contractor and materials availability and more get thrown out the window when your whole neighborhood needs new roofs, let alone major damage to most of a city. See Katrina rebuild timelines and FL reconstruction. Plus in that case, the land value may plummet temporarily or permanently, making selling difficult. Land may be a significant portion of the sales cost but not included in insurance.
-
With homes in Louisiana and Florida our largest individual cost per year is insurance after the mortgage on the Florida property. My parents have lost homeowners insurance on their Louisiana home and have been forced to citizens at a very expensive rate. In Florida there are people paying $1000 a month or more for insurance now. Many of them long retired at a fixed rate. Some of them living ok on pensions and SS when their insurance was $1000 a year. Property taxes have also greatly increased in Florida. Long term residents with homestead exemption are ok. Snowbirds or new comers are going to face higher taxes. There is a point where lower income taxes will fail to offset the higher property taxes. I think Florida's appeal for retirement will be impacted. We bought our home really cheap in 2018 during a real estate recession in Florida. I really don't care about the increased cost because we can afford to go bare. Our mortgage is only 135K but at 4% It's not the smartest move to pay off a 4% mortgage, but if our rates go to $1000 a month for insurance maybe so.
It's a snobby thing to say, but Florida for my perspective may get much nicer after housing costs increase due to population reduction.
-
It's a snobby thing to say, but Florida for my perspective may get much nicer after housing costs increase due to population reduction.
Florida population has been growing exponentially. Growth may slow once overall living costs reach par with other states, but it will still draw people due to mild weather and amenities, so the growth rate may slow, but unlikely to go negative without something dramatic happening. California is wildly expensive compared to almost any other state, yet it still grows population most years. Same for Hawaii.
-
Fire danger in the forested areas of the PNW is certainly much higher with climate change. Wildfires are mostly a function of fuel and weather. If PG&E lines don't start fires, then it will be lightning, sparks from a passing car, or whatever. The west needs a lot more controlled burns, and a ton more forest thinning in the WUI. Those choosing to live in high fire danger should shoulder most of these costs. Or, don't, and pay for it in higher insurance premiums. Either way, the real cost of living in the forest will eventually make itself known.
I'm a climate change maxi, but I don't think the fires have much to do with climate change. More of a combination of decades of fire suppression, increased rural development, and lax building codes. Prior to about 1910 there had been fires in Washington State 20 times the size of the Camp Fire.
-
Fire danger in the forested areas of the PNW is certainly much higher with climate change. Wildfires are mostly a function of fuel and weather. If PG&E lines don't start fires, then it will be lightning, sparks from a passing car, or whatever. The west needs a lot more controlled burns, and a ton more forest thinning in the WUI. Those choosing to live in high fire danger should shoulder most of these costs. Or, don't, and pay for it in higher insurance premiums. Either way, the real cost of living in the forest will eventually make itself known.
I'm a climate change maxi, but I don't think the fires have much to do with climate change. More of a combination of decades of fire suppression, increased rural development, and lax building codes. Prior to about 1910 there had been fires in Washington State 20 times the size of the Camp Fire.
Yes, I agree, it's also about forest management which is why I mentioned "fuel." Admittedly I was rather vague about this aspect. But climate change is also a large-ish factor since warmer average temps dry the accumulated fuel faster, with makes for a longer fire season and more intense fires.
-
All this climate change information scares me! Just think the temperature climbing about a half of degree in the next 500-1,000 years or even dropping a half of degree in the next 500-1,000 years; how will this effect me-SCARY!
-
All this climate change information scares me! Just think the temperature climbing about a half of degree in the next 500-1,000 years or even dropping a half of degree in the next 500-1,000 years; how will this effect me-SCARY!
More like 2 degrees the last 100 years and more on the way. Drought, floods, fires, storms, famine, loss of habitat, extinction, etc.
-
It's a snobby thing to say, but Florida for my perspective may get much nicer after housing costs increase due to population reduction.
Florida population has been growing exponentially. Growth may slow once overall living costs reach par with other states, but it will still draw people due to mild weather and amenities, so the growth rate may slow, but unlikely to go negative without something dramatic happening. California is wildly expensive compared to almost any other state, yet it still grows population most years. Same for Hawaii.
That's a perfect demonstration of how short-sighted most people are and of how little hope there is of anything other than a purely reactive approach to dealing with the consequences of climate change.
And how there is no hope at all of change on the scale required to slow or halt the coming devastating climate change.
-
Carbon emissions of richest 1% equal to those of poorest 66%, Oxfam report finds (https://www.cnbc.com/2023/11/20/richest-1percent-produce-same-carbon-emissions-as-poorest-66percent-report-.html)
-
On track for 3C of global heating by the end of this century -
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/nov/20/world-facing-hellish-3c-of-climate-heating-un-warns-before-cop28
I'm old, and used to think things wouldn't have got too bad by the end of my natural life span. I no longer think that. I think climate change will kill a significant proportion of people alive today.
-
I'm old, and used to think things wouldn't have got too bad by the end of my natural life span. I no longer think that. I think climate change will kill a significant proportion of people alive today.
And for those who live in rich/developed countries, a lower standard of living is almost certainly on its way. A lot of wealth is in primary homes and that can be diminished rapidly by significantly increased insurance premiums.
-
On track for 3C of global heating by the end of this century -
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/nov/20/world-facing-hellish-3c-of-climate-heating-un-warns-before-cop28
I'm old, and used to think things wouldn't have got too bad by the end of my natural life span. I no longer think that. I think climate change will kill a significant proportion of people alive today.
Are you really that pessimistic that you don't think people can adapt? Crops will still grow even if it's a little warmer. Rain will still fall. The seas aren't going to swallow up the entire world coastline overnight. Some areas will be affected more than others, but we will adapt.
Who knows what technological innovations will be made in the next few decades. If fusion power can be harnessed it would eliminate the need for coal and other carbon producing fuels for power generation. I just listened to a podcast about a company that has created a new process to use calcium silicate (a common rock) for making cement instead of limestone (calcium carbonate). Cement production alone accounts for 8% of global CO2 emissions, much of it due to the process of driving CO2 out of calcium carbonate to make calcium. This new process results in a byproduct that actually absorbs CO2. It will take decades to adopt this new process globally (in theory it should be cheaper than the current process) but similar things are occurring in other industries.
-
People who think technology can solve this problem don't understand that technology hasn't even provided clean water to 2 billion people yet or 4 billion with proper toilet provision.
And at the other end of the scale the richest 1% are beyond the control of any national government: technology isn't going to stop them emitting greenhouse gases at whatever rate they want.
Climate change is not a technology problem, it's a people problem, and that's why there are no solutions.
-
People who think technology can solve this problem don't understand that technology hasn't even provided clean water to 2 billion people yet or 4 billion with proper toilet provision.
And at the other end of the scale the richest 1% are beyond the control of any national government: technology isn't going to stop them emitting greenhouse gases at whatever rate they want.
Climate change is not a technology problem, it's a people problem, and that's why there are no solutions.
Clean water is an economic scarcity problem, not a technology problem.
But a related point is that the energy transition is going to be expensive. Billions of people who need affordable energy will be relying on fossil fuels for a while. China is commissioning an average of two new filthy coal-fired power plants per week. They are nowhere near the transition to cleaner natural gas, much less renewable energies.
-
People who think technology can solve this problem don't understand that technology hasn't even provided clean water to 2 billion people yet or 4 billion with proper toilet provision.
And at the other end of the scale the richest 1% are beyond the control of any national government: technology isn't going to stop them emitting greenhouse gases at whatever rate they want.
Climate change is not a technology problem, it's a people problem, and that's why there are no solutions.
Clean water is an economic scarcity problem, not a technology problem.
Clean water and sanitation is a people problem: solutions are available and affordable and are not implemented. Climate change is also a people problem: solutions are available and are affordable and are not implemented.
Just look at the people on this forum: all relatively rich, all well educated, all well informed, all conscious of and regulating their spending to a greater or lesser degree. And yet, still driving long distances for pleasure, flying long distances for pleasure, living in (and creating) bigger spaces than they need, buying carbon heavy out of season foods and new technology. All of us every day contributing more than our fair share to climate change. None of us prepared to make major change on our own account, and none of us voting for politicians who are willing and able to make those changes for us.
Examples of those behaviours are all over every single journal on the forum, so it's undeniable. Some people forgo some of them, but no-one forgoes all of them and forgoing all of them is the only thing that currently gets us to carbon neutral, and as matters stand is the only thing that will. And it's not going to happen, because that's how humans, individually and en masse, are.
-
People who think technology can solve this problem don't understand that technology hasn't even provided clean water to 2 billion people yet or 4 billion with proper toilet provision.
And at the other end of the scale the richest 1% are beyond the control of any national government: technology isn't going to stop them emitting greenhouse gases at whatever rate they want.
Climate change is not a technology problem, it's a people problem, and that's why there are no solutions.
Clean water is an economic scarcity problem, not a technology problem.
Clean water and sanitation is a people problem: solutions are available and affordable and are not implemented. Climate change is also a people problem: solutions are available and are affordable and are not implemented.
Just look at the people on this forum: all relatively rich, all well educated, all well informed, all conscious of and regulating their spending to a greater or lesser degree. And yet, still driving long distances for pleasure, flying long distances for pleasure, living in (and creating) bigger spaces than they need, buying carbon heavy out of season foods and new technology. All of us every day contributing more than our fair share to climate change. None of us prepared to make major change on our own account, and none of us voting for politicians who are willing and able to make those changes for us.
Examples of those behaviours are all over every single journal on the forum, so it's undeniable. Some people forgo some of them, but no-one forgoes all of them and forgoing all of them is the only thing that currently gets us to carbon neutral, and as matters stand is the only thing that will. And it's not going to happen, because that's how humans, individually and en masse, are.
You are right. The solution to climate change is very affordable. We all go back to living in tents or caves, cooking on campfires, and living directly off the land. What could be cheaper?
-
People who think technology can solve this problem don't understand that technology hasn't even provided clean water to 2 billion people yet or 4 billion with proper toilet provision.
And at the other end of the scale the richest 1% are beyond the control of any national government: technology isn't going to stop them emitting greenhouse gases at whatever rate they want.
Climate change is not a technology problem, it's a people problem, and that's why there are no solutions.
Clean water is an economic scarcity problem, not a technology problem.
Clean water and sanitation is a people problem: solutions are available and affordable and are not implemented. Climate change is also a people problem: solutions are available and are affordable and are not implemented.
Just look at the people on this forum: all relatively rich, all well educated, all well informed, all conscious of and regulating their spending to a greater or lesser degree. And yet, still driving long distances for pleasure, flying long distances for pleasure, living in (and creating) bigger spaces than they need, buying carbon heavy out of season foods and new technology. All of us every day contributing more than our fair share to climate change. None of us prepared to make major change on our own account, and none of us voting for politicians who are willing and able to make those changes for us.
Examples of those behaviours are all over every single journal on the forum, so it's undeniable. Some people forgo some of them, but no-one forgoes all of them and forgoing all of them is the only thing that currently gets us to carbon neutral, and as matters stand is the only thing that will. And it's not going to happen, because that's how humans, individually and en masse, are.
You are right. The solution to climate change is very affordable. We all go back to living in tents or caves, cooking on campfires, and living directly off the land. What could be cheaper?
A silly response. Why would we not continue to live in the houses we already have? Why campfires? Why living directly off the land? When instead it's entirely possible, with suitable economic and social incentives, to use existing housing more efficiently, to use renewably-generated electricity to cook with and to eat local and seasonal foods.
-
Climate change is also a people problem: solutions are available and are affordable and are not implemented.
I think they were responding to this comment. Yes the the billion people in the developed would could probably offset their carbon use by MASSIVE changes to lifestyle, spending, policy, infrastructure etc. This would not be cheap or easy.
However there are 4 billion people in Africa, India, and China who want to have electricity, they want AC when its hot, and refrigeration for their food, clean water, and medicines. They don't care if the power comes from solar panels or coal or burning tires.
-
People who think technology can solve this problem don't understand that technology hasn't even provided clean water to 2 billion people yet or 4 billion with proper toilet provision.
And at the other end of the scale the richest 1% are beyond the control of any national government: technology isn't going to stop them emitting greenhouse gases at whatever rate they want.
Climate change is not a technology problem, it's a people problem, and that's why there are no solutions.
Clean water is an economic scarcity problem, not a technology problem.
Clean water and sanitation is a people problem: solutions are available and affordable and are not implemented. Climate change is also a people problem: solutions are available and are affordable and are not implemented.
Just look at the people on this forum: all relatively rich, all well educated, all well informed, all conscious of and regulating their spending to a greater or lesser degree. And yet, still driving long distances for pleasure, flying long distances for pleasure, living in (and creating) bigger spaces than they need, buying carbon heavy out of season foods and new technology. All of us every day contributing more than our fair share to climate change. None of us prepared to make major change on our own account, and none of us voting for politicians who are willing and able to make those changes for us.
Examples of those behaviours are all over every single journal on the forum, so it's undeniable. Some people forgo some of them, but no-one forgoes all of them and forgoing all of them is the only thing that currently gets us to carbon neutral, and as matters stand is the only thing that will. And it's not going to happen, because that's how humans, individually and en masse, are.
You are right. The solution to climate change is very affordable. We all go back to living in tents or caves, cooking on campfires, and living directly off the land. What could be cheaper?
A silly response. Why would we not continue to live in the houses we already have? Why campfires? Why living directly off the land? When instead it's entirely possible, with suitable economic and social incentives, to use existing housing more efficiently, to use renewably-generated electricity to cook with and to eat local and seasonal foods.
Because you can't really have your cake and eat it too. Way too large a fraction of the lifestyle of living in that house and filling it with things requires petroleum-derivatives to either make those things or lubricate those things.
https://innovativewealth.com/inflation-monitor/what-products-made-from-petroleum-outside-of-gasoline/
-
People who think technology can solve this problem don't understand that technology hasn't even provided clean water to 2 billion people yet or 4 billion with proper toilet provision.
And at the other end of the scale the richest 1% are beyond the control of any national government: technology isn't going to stop them emitting greenhouse gases at whatever rate they want.
Climate change is not a technology problem, it's a people problem, and that's why there are no solutions.
Clean water is an economic scarcity problem, not a technology problem.
Clean water and sanitation is a people problem: solutions are available and affordable and are not implemented. Climate change is also a people problem: solutions are available and are affordable and are not implemented.
Just look at the people on this forum: all relatively rich, all well educated, all well informed, all conscious of and regulating their spending to a greater or lesser degree. And yet, still driving long distances for pleasure, flying long distances for pleasure, living in (and creating) bigger spaces than they need, buying carbon heavy out of season foods and new technology. All of us every day contributing more than our fair share to climate change. None of us prepared to make major change on our own account, and none of us voting for politicians who are willing and able to make those changes for us.
Examples of those behaviours are all over every single journal on the forum, so it's undeniable. Some people forgo some of them, but no-one forgoes all of them and forgoing all of them is the only thing that currently gets us to carbon neutral, and as matters stand is the only thing that will. And it's not going to happen, because that's how humans, individually and en masse, are.
You are right. The solution to climate change is very affordable. We all go back to living in tents or caves, cooking on campfires, and living directly off the land. What could be cheaper?
A silly response. Why would we not continue to live in the houses we already have? Why campfires? Why living directly off the land? When instead it's entirely possible, with suitable economic and social incentives, to use existing housing more efficiently, to use renewably-generated electricity to cook with and to eat local and seasonal foods.
Because you can't really have your cake and eat it too. Way too large a fraction of the lifestyle of living in that house and filling it with things requires petroleum-derivatives to either make those things or lubricate those things.
https://innovativewealth.com/inflation-monitor/what-products-made-from-petroleum-outside-of-gasoline/
That depends on the house, and on what's in it, and how people live in that house. I suspect that you are thinking of North America. Almost no-one else in the world lives in the wasteful and extravagant ways of North America.
-
Climate change is also a people problem: solutions are available and are affordable and are not implemented.
I think they were responding to this comment. Yes the the billion people in the developed would could probably offset their carbon use by MASSIVE changes to lifestyle, spending, policy, infrastructure etc. This would not be cheap or easy.
However there are 4 billion people in Africa, India, and China who want to have electricity, they want AC when its hot, and refrigeration for their food, clean water, and medicines. They don't care if the power comes from solar panels or coal or burning tires.
Which, again, is why climate change is a people problem not a technology problem, and why the human world is on an unstoppable path to disaster.
-
Because you can't really have your cake and eat it too. Way too large a fraction of the lifestyle of living in that house and filling it with things requires petroleum-derivatives to either make those things or lubricate those things.
https://innovativewealth.com/inflation-monitor/what-products-made-from-petroleum-outside-of-gasoline/
That depends on the house, and on what's in it, and how people live in that house. I suspect that you are thinking of North America. Almost no-one else in the world lives in the wasteful and extravagant ways of North America.
Australia does. :)
But you're right. There's a huge gap between living in tents and lowering our emissions enough to stop global warming. The changes required aren't all that massive either.
To paraphrase an MMM line, "One can live a rich, fulfilling, life even when living sustainably."
-
Because you can't really have your cake and eat it too. Way too large a fraction of the lifestyle of living in that house and filling it with things requires petroleum-derivatives to either make those things or lubricate those things.
https://innovativewealth.com/inflation-monitor/what-products-made-from-petroleum-outside-of-gasoline/
That depends on the house, and on what's in it, and how people live in that house. I suspect that you are thinking of North America. Almost no-one else in the world lives in the wasteful and extravagant ways of North America.
Australia does. :)
But you're right. There's a huge gap between living in tents and lowering our emissions enough to stop global warming. The changes required aren't all that massive either.
To paraphrase an MMM line, "One can live a rich, fulfilling, life even when living sustainably."
That’s interesting. Where do you get those figures? For instance,
https://www.nationmaster.com/country-info/compare/Australia/United-States/Environment seems to say otherwise.
People who think technology can solve this problem don't understand that technology hasn't even provided clean water to 2 billion people yet or 4 billion with proper toilet provision.
And at the other end of the scale the richest 1% are beyond the control of any national government: technology isn't going to stop them emitting greenhouse gases at whatever rate they want.
Climate change is not a technology problem, it's a people problem, and that's why there are no solutions.
Clean water is an economic scarcity problem, not a technology problem.
Clean water and sanitation is a people problem: solutions are available and affordable and are not implemented. Climate change is also a people problem: solutions are available and are affordable and are not implemented.
Just look at the people on this forum: all relatively rich, all well educated, all well informed, all conscious of and regulating their spending to a greater or lesser degree. And yet, still driving long distances for pleasure, flying long distances for pleasure, living in (and creating) bigger spaces than they need, buying carbon heavy out of season foods and new technology. All of us every day contributing more than our fair share to climate change. None of us prepared to make major change on our own account, and none of us voting for politicians who are willing and able to make those changes for us.
Examples of those behaviours are all over every single journal on the forum, so it's undeniable. Some people forgo some of them, but no-one forgoes all of them and forgoing all of them is the only thing that currently gets us to carbon neutral, and as matters stand is the only thing that will. And it's not going to happen, because that's how humans, individually and en masse, are.
I agree. There’s a lot of nuance in these things.
I chose to live in the ACT (a territory, rather than a state), where we pay for 100% renewable electricity, because the government we elected has paid for all our electricity needs to be generated by renewables from power plants they’ve built in multiple locations in Australia. However, all our electricity comes from the state we’re surrounded by (NSW), which means the electricity we actually receive is 70% non renewable. Of course, one third of Australian homes have solar panels, leading the world. The states and territories are having problems with the power grid because of the amount.
The ACT is governed by a Green/Labor coalition, and has been for many years. We have quite a number of climate friendly policies, and have been mocked by the media for them (we were paying more for our electricity than anyone else because of having so many renewables, until the oil price increase a couple of years ago). Our federal representatives are all left wing, so we have done as much as we can to get climate friendly politicians. The current federal government has increased our climate friendly policies dramatically, and is trying to turn around years of climate sceptic federal government. And yet they’ve increased oil and gas exploration.
I halved my water and energy usage some years ago when I made some changes to my house, but I still live in a large house. I do fly. When I fly, I pay more because I tick the carbon offsets box, but is my flight actually carbon neutral? I’ve recently been on a couple of cruises with companies who are certified as having zero emissions, but do they really? In theory, this means that my recent travel was carbon neutral, but any is worse than doing none at all. I grow a lot of my vegetables, and usually have grown more than half of what’s in my meal, but not the meat, which is the most problematic. I have 23 different fruit trees on my suburban land, so I’m self sufficient in fruit, and also have done a reasonable amount to increase my tree canopy. I’ve changed the water flow of my land, so rain takes longer to leave it, and just soaks into the ground. This enabled me to disconnect my storm water (reducing pollution in the river system). The ACT has also built large wetlands to increase the quality of our stormwater and reduce downstream water pollution.
-
Because you can't really have your cake and eat it too. Way too large a fraction of the lifestyle of living in that house and filling it with things requires petroleum-derivatives to either make those things or lubricate those things.
https://innovativewealth.com/inflation-monitor/what-products-made-from-petroleum-outside-of-gasoline/
That depends on the house, and on what's in it, and how people live in that house. I suspect that you are thinking of North America. Almost no-one else in the world lives in the wasteful and extravagant ways of North America.
Australia does. :)
But you're right. There's a huge gap between living in tents and lowering our emissions enough to stop global warming. The changes required aren't all that massive either.
To paraphrase an MMM line, "One can live a rich, fulfilling, life even when living sustainably."
That’s interesting. Where do you get those figures? For instance,
https://www.nationmaster.com/country-info/compare/Australia/United-States/Environment seems to say otherwise.
Hmm, the numbers are all over the place. For example, the World Bank has Australia and Canada, per capita, ranked higher than the US.* The European Commission's EDGAR has similar numbers.** The original source I found, which I can't find now, had an order of Australia-US-Canada. It must come down to methodology.
It doesn't matter of course. Most of the forum members are in the top 3 worse polluters (per capita and ignoring the tiny countries) and changing the habits of the US has a far much larger impact because of its population.
Back to the topic at hand -- insurance companies, in the interest of profits, may be forcing otherwise reluctant people to come to terms with reality. I'm sure some of the rebuilders in Paradise, California are regretting their decision.
* https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/EN.ATM.CO2E.PC?most_recent_value_desc=true
** https://edgar.jrc.ec.europa.eu/report_2023?vis=ghgpop#emissions_table
-
This is also happening in areas at high risk for wildfire in CA.
https://abcnews.go.com/US/fire-prone-california-homeowners-left-insurance-companies-drop/story?id=104946925 (https://abcnews.go.com/US/fire-prone-california-homeowners-left-insurance-companies-drop/story?id=104946925)
Increasing premiums 10x to reflect the actual risks due to climate change is one way of pricing in the real cost of living in the forest. I sorta feel bad for the people now looking at $13k/year for premiums. Yet on the other hand, this whole "WE WILL REBUILD! $TOWN STRONG" mentality needs to end. When fire rips thought a community like Paradise, people need to take the hint and use their insurance proceeds to move someplace more reasonable.
You could argue the greater Pacific Northwest should be redlined except in safe concrete cities. However, most of the fires in recent years have been linked back to electrical lines. If PG&E and others (who have lost some big lawsuits on this already) would keep their lines clear of trees, it would make a big difference.
PG&E's requested 13% rate hike just got approved...
-
This is also happening in areas at high risk for wildfire in CA.
https://abcnews.go.com/US/fire-prone-california-homeowners-left-insurance-companies-drop/story?id=104946925 (https://abcnews.go.com/US/fire-prone-california-homeowners-left-insurance-companies-drop/story?id=104946925)
Increasing premiums 10x to reflect the actual risks due to climate change is one way of pricing in the real cost of living in the forest. I sorta feel bad for the people now looking at $13k/year for premiums. Yet on the other hand, this whole "WE WILL REBUILD! $TOWN STRONG" mentality needs to end. When fire rips thought a community like Paradise, people need to take the hint and use their insurance proceeds to move someplace more reasonable.
You could argue the greater Pacific Northwest should be redlined except in safe concrete cities. However, most of the fires in recent years have been linked back to electrical lines. If PG&E and others (who have lost some big lawsuits on this already) would keep their lines clear of trees, it would make a big difference.
PG&E's requested 13% rate hike just got approved...
Keeping lines clear of trees is an admirable goal, but would that not be like asking department of transportation to keep all of their roads clear of potholes? Just not possible right? I mean trees grow, like all the time. And there are 100,000 of miles of line right?
I looked it up, 108,000 miles of lines. Or > around the earth 4 times. I mean yeah starting fires sucks. But if you want power you have to accept at some point lines are gonna fall down right? Shit I had my lines fall down in my back yard 2 years ago and I live in the middle of a city.
-
I have some Annect-data regarding the tree trimming. Havuing build and maintained power lines on PG&E property homeowner are often very vocal about not letting us trim the trees even when it’s clear encroaching on our right of way. Can’t count how many times a job has been cancelled bc a homeowner refuses to let us on property to do maintenance. PG&E is scared of any negative press (not defending them they’ve certainly earned their reputation)
-
The corporate owned power monopoly in my state (Oregon) has changed their maintenance, according to the power guys I talk to. I build houses and I talk to the guys that do the hook up.
This particular worker was near retirement and was totally fed up with it. According to him they quit doing routine tree trimming like the PUD across the river (different state) to save money.
Instead, they just wait for a big storm event, which is pretty often on the OR coast, and then they bring in crews from all across the West to clean it up and hook up the power.
The crews don't particularly mind because they get big overtime pay, but us locals pay the price as the power is out more often and longer.
He said when he was starting out he thought the PUD's were kind of a two bit operation, because they didn't have the big $ to spend, but after 30 years he sees it differently.
To add, Oregon had a ballot measure to allow formation of PUD's years ago which failed after concerted effort by the existing powerco.
Lol, you should hear what the CenturyLink guys think about CenturyLink; NSFW.
-
I work at a 5-county electric coop in northern middle TN. We have a hefty ROW budget each year and spend a great deal of time, energy, & money working to keep the trees trimmed back off of the lines...but as @Jakestersquat said, if a member won't allow us on the property there's not much we can do. There are lots of people here that feel like even routine maintenance work to keep the entire grid healthy is an invasion of their privacy and won't allow us to keep the trees trimmed back. We had a guy visit a location two weeks ago and a customer let a dog loose and it attacked him. He spent several days in the hospital and had to have surgery on his hand. I wish I could say that was an isolated incident, but unfortunately our guys have to be prepared for anything when we're just trying to keep everyone's power on
-
The corporate owned power monopoly in my state (Oregon) has changed their maintenance, according to the power guys I talk to. I build houses and I talk to the guys that do the hook up.
This particular worker was near retirement and was totally fed up with it. According to him they quit doing routine tree trimming like the PUD across the river (different state) to save money.
Instead, they just wait for a big storm event, which is pretty often on the OR coast, and then they bring in crews from all across the West to clean it up and hook up the power.
The crews don't particularly mind because they get big overtime pay, but us locals pay the price as the power is out more often and longer.
He said when he was starting out he thought the PUD's were kind of a two bit operation, because they didn't have the big $ to spend, but after 30 years he sees it differently.
To add, Oregon had a ballot measure to allow formation of PUD's years ago which failed after concerted effort by the existing powerco.
Lol, you should hear what the CenturyLink guys think about CenturyLink; NSFW.
The Oregon PUC requires PGE to trim trees. They outsource a lot of the work. In most areas they trim every 2-3 years. They use Asplundh crews in our area. I hate how they trim the trees in some cases, but it is nice to have electricity. Trimming keeps tree branches away from lines but storms often knock entire trees down onto the lines so cleanup is required.
-
The solution is to bury power lines, but that is a large upfront expense and comes with its own set of problems such as interference with plumbing systems and regions of solid rock.
-
The solution is to bury power lines, but that is a large upfront expense and comes with its own set of problems such as interference with plumbing systems and regions of solid rock.
Very large cost, as in doubling or tripling your rates for a decade or more.
-
The solution is to bury power lines, but that is a large upfront expense and comes with its own set of problems such as interference with plumbing systems and regions of solid rock.
We began burying all of our lines on new constructions several years back, but it will take an enormous amount of time for that to provide a significant impact for us
-
The solution is to bury power lines, but that is a large upfront expense and comes with its own set of problems such as interference with plumbing systems and regions of solid rock.
Very large cost, as in doubling or tripling your rates for a decade or more.
Plus, buried lines are more expensive to repair and have a shorter lifespan: https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=7250
Utilities can, and should, do a better job clearing vegetation. Property owners that don't allow access should be held liable if their actions contribute to a fire. This is the kind of nuts-and-bolts thing that gets overlooked because it isn't sexy, but it can be done. PG&E has increased clearing, while also making their fault tolerance detection more sensitive.
But none of this will fix inherently extreme fire danger. Lots of fuel, dry conditions, wind, terrain... one spark (e.g. dry lightning) and it all goes up in flames. Prescribed burns and mechanical clearing can help. But really the only sensible thing is to stop building in the forest.
-
The corporate owned power monopoly in my state (Oregon) has changed their maintenance, according to the power guys I talk to. I build houses and I talk to the guys that do the hook up.
This particular worker was near retirement and was totally fed up with it. According to him they quit doing routine tree trimming like the PUD across the river (different state) to save money.
Instead, they just wait for a big storm event, which is pretty often on the OR coast, and then they bring in crews from all across the West to clean it up and hook up the power.
The crews don't particularly mind because they get big overtime pay, but us locals pay the price as the power is out more often and longer.
He said when he was starting out he thought the PUD's were kind of a two bit operation, because they didn't have the big $ to spend, but after 30 years he sees it differently.
To add, Oregon had a ballot measure to allow formation of PUD's years ago which failed after concerted effort by the existing powerco.
Lol, you should hear what the CenturyLink guys think about CenturyLink; NSFW.
The Oregon PUC requires PGE to trim trees. They outsource a lot of the work. In most areas they trim every 2-3 years. They use Asplundh crews in our area. I hate how they trim the trees in some cases, but it is nice to have electricity. Trimming keeps tree branches away from lines but storms often knock entire trees down onto the lines so cleanup is required.
I'm sure Pacific Power (the utility in question) is required to trim trees, too.
The man I spoke with claimed they were doing the bare minimum, with local skeleton crews, to save money. Then, when the inevitable storm knocks down the under trimmed trees, they call in outside crews.
I imagine his complaint was mainly the decrease in local jobs maintaining the lines. A "jobs program", in other words.
Another funny thing happened on this particular job. We ran utilities underground a few thousand feet to a three house development. When the lineman was doing the hookup at the highway power pole to our conduit, a lady stopped and began filming him, she was sure he was up to no good "because 5G".
-
The solution is to bury power lines, but that is a large upfront expense and comes with its own set of problems such as interference with plumbing systems and regions of solid rock.
Very large cost, as in doubling or tripling your rates for a decade or more.
Plus, buried lines are more expensive to repair and have a shorter lifespan: https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=7250
Utilities can, and should, do a better job clearing vegetation. Property owners that don't allow access should be held liable if their actions contribute to a fire. This is the kind of nuts-and-bolts thing that gets overlooked because it isn't sexy, but it can be done. PG&E has increased clearing, while also making their fault tolerance detection more sensitive.
But none of this will fix inherently extreme fire danger. Lots of fuel, dry conditions, wind, terrain... one spark (e.g. dry lightning) and it all goes up in flames. Prescribed burns and mechanical clearing can help. But really the only sensible thing is to stop building in the forest.
One issue is the amount of land which must be cleared to support one house in the woods. If you are clearing an acre of forest to build your home, you then have to think about clearing a utility path through the forest that is about 10 meters wide, and might extend for hundreds or thousands of meters. If the house is any significant distance from the nearest road, you've cut down more forest for the power line than you did for the house and yard. And you've created a reoccurring maintenance issue that perhaps justifies ownership of an expensive tractor to keep that vegetation beat back. That's a LOT of reoccurring cost and labor for the privilege of living in the middle of nowhere.
This raises the question: why is it so valuable to live in the middle of nowhere? This has something to do with the way the United States has utterly failed - or refused - to address social problems like drug use, mental illness, violent crime, urban poverty, cultural dysfunction, and pollution. That's what you're getting away from when you choose to live in a forest with a thousand meters of electrical line supplying your home, cut through acre upon acre of land. It also has something to do with the way the US subsidizes fossil fuels, road construction and maintenance, and rural electrification. Rural people don't have to pay the full costs of the roads, power lines, or telecom lines they depend on because these costs are subsidized by cities.
-
The Senate is questioning whether Citizen's, Florida's state insurer, has enough assets to cover a major hurricane (hint: it doesn't). This is actually proactive of the feds; usually, they'd just ignore the underfunding/underplanning and accept a plea from a state when SHTF.
Two years ago, Citizens wrote that if the state was hit by a 1-in-100-year storm, Florida insurance holders “would have been on the hook for $24 billion in assessments tacked onto monthly premiums for years.” As the number of Citizens policies have grown, reports from reinsurance companies Munich Re and Swiss Re have found that number could be much higher, anywhere from $36-$162 billion dollars, depending on how severe a future hurricane could be.
Cash and the estimated market value of Citizens’ invested assets totaled $8,470,680 at December 31, 2022,
marking a decrease of $802,168 from December 31, 2021.
$36B (at best) vs $8.5B...yeah, that looks like it's underfunded. Hurricane Ian, as an example, cost insurers $63B and another $52B was uninsured.
I'd guess that Florida is a hurricane or 3 from a tipping point. There might be a mass migration to the interior or there might be an exodus due to premiums being as much as a mortgage. Home costs will decrease, wiping out a lot of equity.
-
The Senate is questioning whether Citizen's, Florida's state insurer, has enough assets to cover a major hurricane (hint: it doesn't). This is actually proactive of the feds; usually, they'd just ignore the underfunding/underplanning and accept a plea from a state when SHTF.
Two years ago, Citizens wrote that if the state was hit by a 1-in-100-year storm, Florida insurance holders “would have been on the hook for $24 billion in assessments tacked onto monthly premiums for years.” As the number of Citizens policies have grown, reports from reinsurance companies Munich Re and Swiss Re have found that number could be much higher, anywhere from $36-$162 billion dollars, depending on how severe a future hurricane could be.
Cash and the estimated market value of Citizens’ invested assets totaled $8,470,680 at December 31, 2022,
marking a decrease of $802,168 from December 31, 2021.
$36B (at best) vs $8.5B...yeah, that looks like it's underfunded. Hurricane Ian, as an example, cost insurers $63B and another $52B was uninsured.
I'd guess that Florida is a hurricane or 3 from a tipping point. There might be a mass migration to the interior or there might be an exodus due to premiums being as much as a mortgage. Home costs will decrease, wiping out a lot of equity.
The Citizens thing was an attempted political band-aid that was doomed from the start. There will have to be a federal bailout after the first hurricane.
I find it interesting how thoughtful people have been saying for literally decades that FL's coastal cities are a hidden time bomb. They've long been dismissed as doomers. In the meantime, climate change went from "just a theory" to economic reality. I.e. if the predictions of the doomers were just scare-mongering, then the insurance market would not be where it is now. Now we're seeing 50% more (https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00382-013-1713-0) category 4 and 5 hurricanes than we had just 20 years before - and that's as measured in 2013!
I also find it interesting how correct I was when I noted many years ago how illogical it was to build houses out of sticks in a tropical climate like Florida's where hurricanes should be assumed normal weather. When I was a kid watching the aftermath of Andrew in 1992 I thought to myself that surely this would change people's behavior forever, and surely all new houses would be solid poured concrete. Surely they'd learned the lessons of the 3 little pigs. Well, nope!
So after all this being right... how bold is it to say something like "It is foolish to live in a stick house within 100 miles of the Gulf Coast because there will soon be no way to insure it." or "It is foolish to live less than 10 meters above sea level."? The opinion may be unpopular, but look at how accurate all the previous warnings have been.
-
It's the "federal bailout" expectation that drives me nuts.
In 2015 Florida government environmental workers were not even allowed to say the words "climate change" or "global warming." So now when the inevitable happens they call the federal government - i.e., the rest of us who pay taxes - to rescue them yet again. Just infuriating.
-
https://www.news-journalonline.com/story/news/local/volusia/2023/11/30/daytona-beach-shores-condo-owners-563-insurance-increase-theft/71694368007/ (https://www.news-journalonline.com/story/news/local/volusia/2023/11/30/daytona-beach-shores-condo-owners-563-insurance-increase-theft/71694368007/)
Here's a new article about Florida insurance.
No one is going to bail these condo owners out, and there's no magic policy fix. These condos are simply uninsurable at prices the residents can bear.
I personally think it's time for anyone that has property in an insurance-stressed location to start looking for alternative locations. This is a problem with no realistic solution and it will get much much worse. Many of these homes will eventually be unsellable.
I'm going to be having some interesting conversations over the holidays. My dad has two properties that are at pretty extreme risk for California wildfires. Both are adjacent to dry grasslands. I know I'd move if I were in his position, but he has no interest.
-
I find it interesting how thoughtful people have been saying for literally decades that FL's coastal cities are a hidden time bomb. They've long been dismissed as doomers. In the meantime, climate change went from "just a theory" to economic reality. I.e. if the predictions of the doomers were just scare-mongering, then the insurance market would not be where it is now. Now we're seeing 50% more (https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00382-013-1713-0) category 4 and 5 hurricanes than we had just 20 years before - and that's as measured in 2013!
I also find it interesting how correct I was when I noted many years ago how illogical it was to build houses out of sticks in a tropical climate like Florida's where hurricanes should be assumed normal weather. When I was a kid watching the aftermath of Andrew in 1992 I thought to myself that surely this would change people's behavior forever, and surely all new houses would be solid poured concrete. Surely they'd learned the lessons of the 3 little pigs. Well, nope!
So after all this being right... how bold is it to say something like "It is foolish to live in a stick house within 100 miles of the Gulf Coast because there will soon be no way to insure it." or "It is foolish to live less than 10 meters above sea level."? The opinion may be unpopular, but look at how accurate all the previous warnings have been.
Ill push back some.
Yes if memory serves 1992 was basically when building codes came to (most of) Florida. Up until then you could build a house the same way as you could in Nebraska. So now they build much differently there. However I am sure there is a lot of older building that will not hold up to a decent sized storm.
That being said, wood is incredibly strong! Have you even been able to pull apart a 2x4? Not snap mind you, but pull it apart? How about plywood? Its strong as heck! What are not strong are the fasteners. Nails bend and can be pulled apart pretty easily. Screw while stronger, are way more expensive and can snap (thus why nails are favored, to bend not break)
Now houses are still made out of wood, but basically the bottom of the house is bolted to the foundation, and all top and bottom plates are connected to the studs with steel. Often with aptly named hurricane hangers. This makes a house extremely strong with a very small increase in cost.
I've even heard of guys bolting their top plate to the foundation with a long thru bolt making a nearly invincible structure. Adding extra nails and thicker sheeting also goes a long way. The next step to avoid any lateral movement to stripe the house with diagonal rolls of steel nailed off to the studs.
All of these building techniques are not expensive, not expensive at all! But until they are/were mandated by code it was not done.
Obviously none of this is gonna help if it floods, but elevation is elevation.
I guess TLDR yeah I would still build a house in Florida, AND I would expect to pay a shitload for insurance.
-
I find it interesting how thoughtful people have been saying for literally decades that FL's coastal cities are a hidden time bomb. They've long been dismissed as doomers. In the meantime, climate change went from "just a theory" to economic reality. I.e. if the predictions of the doomers were just scare-mongering, then the insurance market would not be where it is now. Now we're seeing 50% more (https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00382-013-1713-0) category 4 and 5 hurricanes than we had just 20 years before - and that's as measured in 2013!
I also find it interesting how correct I was when I noted many years ago how illogical it was to build houses out of sticks in a tropical climate like Florida's where hurricanes should be assumed normal weather. When I was a kid watching the aftermath of Andrew in 1992 I thought to myself that surely this would change people's behavior forever, and surely all new houses would be solid poured concrete. Surely they'd learned the lessons of the 3 little pigs. Well, nope!
So after all this being right... how bold is it to say something like "It is foolish to live in a stick house within 100 miles of the Gulf Coast because there will soon be no way to insure it." or "It is foolish to live less than 10 meters above sea level."? The opinion may be unpopular, but look at how accurate all the previous warnings have been.
Ill push back some.
Yes if memory serves 1992 was basically when building codes came to (most of) Florida. Up until then you could build a house the same way as you could in Nebraska. So now they build much differently there. However I am sure there is a lot of older building that will not hold up to a decent sized storm.
That being said, wood is incredibly strong! Have you even been able to pull apart a 2x4? Not snap mind you, but pull it apart? How about plywood? Its strong as heck! What are not strong are the fasteners. Nails bend and can be pulled apart pretty easily. Screw while stronger, are way more expensive and can snap (thus why nails are favored, to bend not break)
Now houses are still made out of wood, but basically the bottom of the house is bolted to the foundation, and all top and bottom plates are connected to the studs with steel. Often with aptly named hurricane hangers. This makes a house extremely strong with a very small increase in cost.
I've even heard of guys bolting their top plate to the foundation with a long thru bolt making a nearly invincible structure. Adding extra nails and thicker sheeting also goes a long way. The next step to avoid any lateral movement to stripe the house with diagonal rolls of steel nailed off to the studs.
All of these building techniques are not expensive, not expensive at all! But until they are/were mandated by code it was not done.
Obviously none of this is gonna help if it floods, but elevation is elevation.
I guess TLDR yeah I would still build a house in Florida, AND I would expect to pay a shitload for insurance.
Even if the walls and roof rafters stay attached to the foundation, what do you have at the end of the storm? It won't be a livable house. It'll be a house that needs a new roof, new siding or brick veneer, new windows, and new sheetrock + flooring due to water intrusion. If it has a garage door, that goes quickly and creates a scoop to catch more air. $100k - $150k in damage is practically unavoidable.
I have doubts about whether even the best built stick house could withstand a direct hit from a category 4-5 eye wall, so it would always be advisable to evacuate inland, at a cost of - what? - $1k per hurricane.
On the other hand, people in the Caribbean live with poured concrete walls and a poured concrete roof slab. If you shutter the windows you can safely ride out any storm and you'll have minimal repairs to do after the storm, if anything. With these sorts of houses there are usually no insurance claims, and no need to insure them. So they work well for people who can't afford insurance and have nowhere they can go to evacuate. For them, hurricanes are a way of life and the death counts area usually low.
The downside is that concrete slabs are poor insulators, so if you run the air conditioning like Americans do, you'd pay a high price. That's what this comes down to, IMO.
-
I find it interesting how thoughtful people have been saying for literally decades that FL's coastal cities are a hidden time bomb. They've long been dismissed as doomers. In the meantime, climate change went from "just a theory" to economic reality. I.e. if the predictions of the doomers were just scare-mongering, then the insurance market would not be where it is now. Now we're seeing 50% more (https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00382-013-1713-0) category 4 and 5 hurricanes than we had just 20 years before - and that's as measured in 2013!
I also find it interesting how correct I was when I noted many years ago how illogical it was to build houses out of sticks in a tropical climate like Florida's where hurricanes should be assumed normal weather. When I was a kid watching the aftermath of Andrew in 1992 I thought to myself that surely this would change people's behavior forever, and surely all new houses would be solid poured concrete. Surely they'd learned the lessons of the 3 little pigs. Well, nope!
So after all this being right... how bold is it to say something like "It is foolish to live in a stick house within 100 miles of the Gulf Coast because there will soon be no way to insure it." or "It is foolish to live less than 10 meters above sea level."? The opinion may be unpopular, but look at how accurate all the previous warnings have been.
Ill push back some.
Yes if memory serves 1992 was basically when building codes came to (most of) Florida. Up until then you could build a house the same way as you could in Nebraska. So now they build much differently there. However I am sure there is a lot of older building that will not hold up to a decent sized storm.
That being said, wood is incredibly strong! Have you even been able to pull apart a 2x4? Not snap mind you, but pull it apart? How about plywood? Its strong as heck! What are not strong are the fasteners. Nails bend and can be pulled apart pretty easily. Screw while stronger, are way more expensive and can snap (thus why nails are favored, to bend not break)
Now houses are still made out of wood, but basically the bottom of the house is bolted to the foundation, and all top and bottom plates are connected to the studs with steel. Often with aptly named hurricane hangers. This makes a house extremely strong with a very small increase in cost.
I've even heard of guys bolting their top plate to the foundation with a long thru bolt making a nearly invincible structure. Adding extra nails and thicker sheeting also goes a long way. The next step to avoid any lateral movement to stripe the house with diagonal rolls of steel nailed off to the studs.
All of these building techniques are not expensive, not expensive at all! But until they are/were mandated by code it was not done.
Obviously none of this is gonna help if it floods, but elevation is elevation.
I guess TLDR yeah I would still build a house in Florida, AND I would expect to pay a shitload for insurance.
Even if the walls and roof rafters stay attached to the foundation, what do you have at the end of the storm? It won't be a livable house. It'll be a house that needs a new roof, new siding or brick veneer, new windows, and new sheetrock + flooring due to water intrusion. If it has a garage door, that goes quickly and creates a scoop to catch more air. $100k - $150k in damage is practically unavoidable.
I have doubts about whether even the best built stick house could withstand a direct hit from a category 4-5 eye wall, so it would always be advisable to evacuate inland, at a cost of - what? - $1k per hurricane.
On the other hand, people in the Caribbean live with poured concrete walls and a poured concrete roof slab. If you shutter the windows you can safely ride out any storm and you'll have minimal repairs to do after the storm, if anything. With these sorts of houses there are usually no insurance claims, and no need to insure them. So they work well for people who can't afford insurance and have nowhere they can go to evacuate. For them, hurricanes are a way of life and the death counts area usually low.
The downside is that concrete slabs are poor insulators, so if you run the air conditioning like Americans do, you'd pay a high price. That's what this comes down to, IMO.
If a picture is worth a thousand words, this is it. Concrete house in Mexico beach survives Hurricane Matthew virtually untouched in 2018. The rest of the town was scoured to the ground.
https://abcnews.go.com/US/mexico-beach-home-survives-hurricane-michael-virtually-untouched/story?id=58505662
-
I find it interesting how thoughtful people have been saying for literally decades that FL's coastal cities are a hidden time bomb. They've long been dismissed as doomers. In the meantime, climate change went from "just a theory" to economic reality. I.e. if the predictions of the doomers were just scare-mongering, then the insurance market would not be where it is now. Now we're seeing 50% more (https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00382-013-1713-0) category 4 and 5 hurricanes than we had just 20 years before - and that's as measured in 2013!
I also find it interesting how correct I was when I noted many years ago how illogical it was to build houses out of sticks in a tropical climate like Florida's where hurricanes should be assumed normal weather. When I was a kid watching the aftermath of Andrew in 1992 I thought to myself that surely this would change people's behavior forever, and surely all new houses would be solid poured concrete. Surely they'd learned the lessons of the 3 little pigs. Well, nope!
So after all this being right... how bold is it to say something like "It is foolish to live in a stick house within 100 miles of the Gulf Coast because there will soon be no way to insure it." or "It is foolish to live less than 10 meters above sea level."? The opinion may be unpopular, but look at how accurate all the previous warnings have been.
Ill push back some.
Yes if memory serves 1992 was basically when building codes came to (most of) Florida. Up until then you could build a house the same way as you could in Nebraska. So now they build much differently there. However I am sure there is a lot of older building that will not hold up to a decent sized storm.
That being said, wood is incredibly strong! Have you even been able to pull apart a 2x4? Not snap mind you, but pull it apart? How about plywood? Its strong as heck! What are not strong are the fasteners. Nails bend and can be pulled apart pretty easily. Screw while stronger, are way more expensive and can snap (thus why nails are favored, to bend not break)
Now houses are still made out of wood, but basically the bottom of the house is bolted to the foundation, and all top and bottom plates are connected to the studs with steel. Often with aptly named hurricane hangers. This makes a house extremely strong with a very small increase in cost.
I've even heard of guys bolting their top plate to the foundation with a long thru bolt making a nearly invincible structure. Adding extra nails and thicker sheeting also goes a long way. The next step to avoid any lateral movement to stripe the house with diagonal rolls of steel nailed off to the studs.
All of these building techniques are not expensive, not expensive at all! But until they are/were mandated by code it was not done.
Obviously none of this is gonna help if it floods, but elevation is elevation.
I guess TLDR yeah I would still build a house in Florida, AND I would expect to pay a shitload for insurance.
Even if the walls and roof rafters stay attached to the foundation, what do you have at the end of the storm? It won't be a livable house. It'll be a house that needs a new roof, new siding or brick veneer, new windows, and new sheetrock + flooring due to water intrusion. If it has a garage door, that goes quickly and creates a scoop to catch more air. $100k - $150k in damage is practically unavoidable.
I have doubts about whether even the best built stick house could withstand a direct hit from a category 4-5 eye wall, so it would always be advisable to evacuate inland, at a cost of - what? - $1k per hurricane.
On the other hand, people in the Caribbean live with poured concrete walls and a poured concrete roof slab. If you shutter the windows you can safely ride out any storm and you'll have minimal repairs to do after the storm, if anything. With these sorts of houses there are usually no insurance claims, and no need to insure them. So they work well for people who can't afford insurance and have nowhere they can go to evacuate. For them, hurricanes are a way of life and the death counts area usually low.
The downside is that concrete slabs are poor insulators, so if you run the air conditioning like Americans do, you'd pay a high price. That's what this comes down to, IMO.
I have zero doubt there would be substantial damage from a direct hit from a class 4-5 hurricane. Your number does not seam that far off. Stick frame or concrete. I assume the windows are going to be the weak point, but again have no idea ( I know building but not Florida).
Most folks in the Caribbean countries make < $500 a month. So I don't think a house you buy/rent on that salary would do so well in a hurricane.
(https://www.statista.com/statistics/950903/average-salary-latin-america-by-country-2020/)
Unfortunately there is tons of death and destruction from hurricanes in the Caribbean countries. I just don't think the western media cares. Honestly this is something that I have not read about but in doing a bit of research for this post is pretty damn eye opening. Yes I am sure the 1% of 1% in the Caribbean live in hurricane proof houses, but sadly the vast majority do not.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_the_deadliest_tropical_cyclones
Jeanne and Maria both killed single digits in the States and thousands on the islands. Could be isolated incidents, but not surprisingly deadly hurricanes are pretty isolated to poorer countries.
But back to the topic of building, the old adage is that you can make a house 50% stronger by increasing cost by 5%. I think that 100% should be required for any new build that is anywhere near the coast. People are not going to stop wanting to live in beautiful places. Insurance will eventuality get so expensive, that people will go to self insured, which I think is probably a good thing!
-
Reuters Headline:
U.S. property reinsurance rates rise by up to 50% on Jan 1-broker says (https://finance.yahoo.com/news/u-property-reinsurance-rates-rise-083806785.html)
U.S. property catastrophe reinsurance rates rose by as much as 50% on Jan. 1, 2024 for policies previously hit by natural catastrophes... But reinsurance rates were unchanged for some clients who were not exposed to natural disasters last year, the report showed.
Global property catastrophe reinsurance rates rose by as much as 30% on Jan. 1 for policies previously hit by losses, reinsurance broker Guy Carpenter, part of Marsh McLennan, said in a separate report last week.
Aviation reinsurance rates rose by as much as 25%, the Gallagher Re report said.
In the marine market, war risk premiums for ships to enter the Red Sea have risen tenfold since the outbreak of the Israel-Hamas conflict
If these reinsurance rate hikes filter down to the rates paid by homeowners and drivers, it will break a lot of people. It seems the whole burden will fall on people or properties which have ever filed a claim. However, things like rents, airfare, and the price of goods will also rise based on the higher cost of insuring things like apartment buildings, airplanes, ships, and trucks. Eventually this becomes a key driver of inflation, like oil prices.
Now seems like a good time to jettison hard assets that require insurance (big houses, expensive cars, extra cars, boats, etc.) and shift to paper assets. This point is especially salient after the recent run-ups in the prices of real estate and used cars. As insurance costs bite into affordability, the value of such things should be expected to go down instead of up.
-
If these reinsurance rate hikes filter down to the rates paid by homeowners and drivers, it will break a lot of people. It seems the whole burden will fall on people or properties which have ever filed a claim. However, things like rents, airfare, and the price of goods will also rise based on the higher cost of insuring things like apartment buildings, airplanes, ships, and trucks. Eventually this becomes a key driver of inflation, like oil prices.
Now seems like a good time to jettison hard assets that require insurance (big houses, expensive cars, extra cars, boats, etc.) and shift to paper assets. This point is especially salient after the recent run-ups in the prices of real estate and used cars. As insurance costs bite into affordability, the value of such things should be expected to go down instead of up.
Every time is a good time to eliminate "big houses, expensive cars, extra cars, boats, etc.", but not sure I would shift to "paper assets". Maybe just a regular house in a low-risk walkable area, a bike, and an Uber account.
-
If these reinsurance rate hikes filter down to the rates paid by homeowners and drivers, it will break a lot of people. It seems the whole burden will fall on people or properties which have ever filed a claim. However, things like rents, airfare, and the price of goods will also rise based on the higher cost of insuring things like apartment buildings, airplanes, ships, and trucks. Eventually this becomes a key driver of inflation, like oil prices.
Now seems like a good time to jettison hard assets that require insurance (big houses, expensive cars, extra cars, boats, etc.) and shift to paper assets. This point is especially salient after the recent run-ups in the prices of real estate and used cars. As insurance costs bite into affordability, the value of such things should be expected to go down instead of up.
Every time is a good time to eliminate "big houses, expensive cars, extra cars, boats, etc.", but not sure I would shift to "paper assets". Maybe just a regular house in a low-risk walkable area, a bike, and an Uber account.
Agreed, but there are a lot of people on this forum who are hard-asset rich and need to understand the warning that their insurance costs are about to rocket. Owning too much house or an extra vacation house has been financially rewarding for the past few years, and lots of people have been pushed into fancy new cars by the state of the used car market. This is their warning that the insurance company is coming with very bad news.
-
If these reinsurance rate hikes filter down to the rates paid by homeowners and drivers, it will break a lot of people. It seems the whole burden will fall on people or properties which have ever filed a claim. However, things like rents, airfare, and the price of goods will also rise based on the higher cost of insuring things like apartment buildings, airplanes, ships, and trucks. Eventually this becomes a key driver of inflation, like oil prices.
Now seems like a good time to jettison hard assets that require insurance (big houses, expensive cars, extra cars, boats, etc.) and shift to paper assets. This point is especially salient after the recent run-ups in the prices of real estate and used cars. As insurance costs bite into affordability, the value of such things should be expected to go down instead of up.
Every time is a good time to eliminate "big houses, expensive cars, extra cars, boats, etc.", but not sure I would shift to "paper assets". Maybe just a regular house in a low-risk walkable area, a bike, and an Uber account.
Agreed, but there are a lot of people on this forum who are hard-asset rich and need to understand the warning that their insurance costs are about to rocket. Owning too much house or an extra vacation house has been financially rewarding for the past few years, and lots of people have been pushed into fancy new cars by the state of the used car market. This is their warning that the insurance company is coming with very bad news.
This feels pretty timely for us. We plan to sell one rental this summer, though it's the one least at risk of anything and pretty inexpensive to insure. Selling it would give us enough cash to pay off the mortgage on our primary residence if we decided it was worth self-insuring, being in a higher hurricane risk area.
We have another rental in the same county as our residence that is subject to the same wind & hail rules. I've been debating internally whether we should sell it and be free of that risk, especially since the builder used 3-tab shingles and that will increase the likelihood of water intrusion during a high wind event.
If we self-insure our primary residence, it would be good to go through another round of purging since we've moved twice in the last two years. Only keeping what we really need would pay priceless dividends if we ever found ourselves in the unfortunate situation of having a hurricane related loss. Most folks don't think about this stuff but I don't want a natural disaster to upend our lives for a year or longer if we can help it.
-
This seems to mostly concern policies that were hit with catastrophes in 2023:
But reinsurance rates were unchanged for some clients who were not exposed to natural disasters last year, the report showed.
This is exactly what should happen. Reinsurance should be higher in places/industries with higher risk.
I guess one could sell all hard assets, but that doesn't eliminate risk. Even cash has risk.
IMO a better strategy is to hold assets in places with lower risk. Don't buy a house in the forest, especially the western US. Don't buy a beach house. Avoid flood plains. Owning expensive property near a major fault line probably isn't a great idea (looking at you CA, which is overdue).
It's easy to look up the rate of natural disasters per US city. As long as the insurance market is functional (i.e. there's some competition), insurance costs with be in line with the lower risk.
-
RE looking up an area's risk: FEMA National Risk Index map (https://hazards.fema.gov/nri/map) I would click the "Census Tract View" to get more granular data as some counties are rather large.
-
RE looking up an area's risk: FEMA National Risk Index map (https://hazards.fema.gov/nri/map) I would click the "Census Tract View" to get more granular data as some counties are rather large.
This was fascinating! I have to agree that switching to the Census Tract View makes a huge difference in my area (northeastern NJ). There are some towns along the Hackensack River that have flooded frequently. There are also other towns like mine which are well above any flooding level, even in 2100 projections.
-
RE looking up an area's risk: FEMA National Risk Index map (https://hazards.fema.gov/nri/map) I would click the "Census Tract View" to get more granular data as some counties are rather large.
This was fascinating! I have to agree that switching to the Census Tract View makes a huge difference in my area (northeastern NJ). There are some towns along the Hackensack River that have flooded frequently. There are also other towns like mine which are well above any flooding level, even in 2100 projections.
Yes, the higher granularity helps. Some things still get lost in the aggregate in larger census tracts (very low population areas), so you still need to use your head.
Generally, the upper Midwest, and inland parts of the Northeast and Southeast are very low risk.
Pockets of the Intermountain West are also low risk, but you have to be selective. Mostly this comes down to living in larger urban areas (low fire risk) and away from seismically active areas.
Between volcanoes, earthquakes, wildfire, tsunami, coastal flooding, and landslides, much of the West Coast is a disaster waiting to happen. That's just the reality of living on the ring of fire. California offers earthquake insurance through the California Earthquake Authority (not sure what OR or WA offers), but when we lived there I was shocked at how few people had earthquake insurance. The lowest risk areas of CA are some of the cities in the Central Valley: Sacramento, Stockton, Fresno.
Out west it's worth drilling down into wildfire risk. Click on the red Risk Index drop down and select Wildfire. Throughout the west you see islands of blue/white (low/no risk) in a sea of yellow and red (moderate to very high risk). These are urban areas, usually in valleys surrounded by less fuel. If you really want to live in the forest in the west, the lowest risk places for this are west of the cascades in OR/WA (lots of rain) and parts of the Idaho panhandle (lots of snow, short summers).
-
As many predicted on this thread, insurance rates are starting to affect home values: Insurers such as State Farm and Allstate are leaving fire- and flood-prone areas. Home values could take a hit (https://www.cnbc.com/2024/02/05/what-homeowners-need-to-know-as-insurers-leave-high-risk-climate-areas.html)
Porter said First Street Foundation’s research in California concluded that “the moment that an individual gets a non-renewal letter from the private insurance market, they essentially lose 12% of their property value.”
I think this is the first time I've seen this quantified so directly. On a median priced home in CA this is an immediate $100k drop, all because of a letter in the mail.
-
...
Between volcanoes, earthquakes, wildfire, tsunami, coastal flooding, and landslides, much of the West Coast is a disaster waiting to happen. That's just the reality of living on the ring of fire. California offers earthquake insurance through the California Earthquake Authority (not sure what OR or WA offers), but when we lived there I was shocked at how few people had earthquake insurance. The lowest risk areas of CA are some of the cities in the Central Valley: Sacramento, Stockton, Fresno.
...
EQ insurance doesn't add a lot of value. The premiums are high and the deductibles usually 15% of home value. Many homeowner's policies would cover broken windows or fire resulting from an EQ. What's left is cracked drywall and pulverized glass figurine collections, which shouldn't reach the deductible. Otherwise, total destruction of the home is pretty hard to do (unless there is a landslide, which is not typically covered by EQ except in CA where it can't be excluded but if you have landslide risk you may want separate coverage if it rains and the hill slips without an EQ as we saw in Los Angeles last week). A year or two of EQ premiums would be better spend on seismic retrofits like bolting the house to the foundation or adding 3/4" plywood to the cripple wall.
-
As many predicted on this thread, insurance rates are starting to affect home values: Insurers such as State Farm and Allstate are leaving fire- and flood-prone areas. Home values could take a hit (https://www.cnbc.com/2024/02/05/what-homeowners-need-to-know-as-insurers-leave-high-risk-climate-areas.html)
Porter said First Street Foundation’s research in California concluded that “the moment that an individual gets a non-renewal letter from the private insurance market, they essentially lose 12% of their property value.”
I think this is the first time I've seen this quantified so directly. On a median priced home in CA this is an immediate $100k drop, all because of a letter in the mail.
It makes sense.
I find it fascinating how "sticky" real estate prices are. Rising mortgage and insurance rates should lower prices, because they affect the total cost of ownership. However, prices have not fallen proportionally to these costs.
Perhaps the sales clearing today are to people who strongly believe they will be able to refi the mortgage soon, and their insurance will stay flat for the next several years.
How long will it take to clear the market of this group of buyers? Stated another way - how long can mortgages and insurance stay high until expectations become locked in?
-
As many predicted on this thread, insurance rates are starting to affect home values: Insurers such as State Farm and Allstate are leaving fire- and flood-prone areas. Home values could take a hit (https://www.cnbc.com/2024/02/05/what-homeowners-need-to-know-as-insurers-leave-high-risk-climate-areas.html)
Porter said First Street Foundation’s research in California concluded that “the moment that an individual gets a non-renewal letter from the private insurance market, they essentially lose 12% of their property value.”
I think this is the first time I've seen this quantified so directly. On a median priced home in CA this is an immediate $100k drop, all because of a letter in the mail.
It makes sense.
I find it fascinating how "sticky" real estate prices are. Rising mortgage and insurance rates should lower prices, because they affect the total cost of ownership. However, prices have not fallen proportionally to these costs.
Perhaps the sales clearing today are to people who strongly believe they will be able to refi the mortgage soon, and their insurance will stay flat for the next several years.
How long will it take to clear the market of this group of buyers? Stated another way - how long can mortgages and insurance stay high until expectations become locked in?
I think this quote from the article helps explain it:
“Risk management does not come into play until it’s entirely too late when it comes to individual personal property purchasing,” Kevelighan said. “It comes into play when the mortgage provider needs you to go get it.”
“And that’s the first time when a consumer even begins to think about where they’re living and what the risks might be,” he said. “The cost reflects that risk. That should be an alarm to tell them that they’re living in a risky place and then ask themselves: How could I reduce that risk? Or do I need to think about living somewhere else?”
A lot of people really want to live in the forest or right on the coast. Yet only very recently has insurance become a major factor, and it will take time for this new reality to sink in. At some point collective views on these high risk areas will shift and be seen as less desirable. In the meantime, the market will continue to educate homeowners.
-
As many predicted on this thread, insurance rates are starting to affect home values: Insurers such as State Farm and Allstate are leaving fire- and flood-prone areas. Home values could take a hit (https://www.cnbc.com/2024/02/05/what-homeowners-need-to-know-as-insurers-leave-high-risk-climate-areas.html)
Porter said First Street Foundation’s research in California concluded that “the moment that an individual gets a non-renewal letter from the private insurance market, they essentially lose 12% of their property value.”
I think this is the first time I've seen this quantified so directly. On a median priced home in CA this is an immediate $100k drop, all because of a letter in the mail.
It makes sense.
I find it fascinating how "sticky" real estate prices are. Rising mortgage and insurance rates should lower prices, because they affect the total cost of ownership. However, prices have not fallen proportionally to these costs.
Perhaps the sales clearing today are to people who strongly believe they will be able to refi the mortgage soon, and their insurance will stay flat for the next several years.
How long will it take to clear the market of this group of buyers? Stated another way - how long can mortgages and insurance stay high until expectations become locked in?
I think this quote from the article helps explain it:
“Risk management does not come into play until it’s entirely too late when it comes to individual personal property purchasing,” Kevelighan said. “It comes into play when the mortgage provider needs you to go get it.”
“And that’s the first time when a consumer even begins to think about where they’re living and what the risks might be,” he said. “The cost reflects that risk. That should be an alarm to tell them that they’re living in a risky place and then ask themselves: How could I reduce that risk? Or do I need to think about living somewhere else?”
A lot of people really want to live in the forest or right on the coast. Yet only very recently has insurance become a major factor, and it will take time for this new reality to sink in. At some point collective views on these high risk areas will shift and be seen as less desirable. In the meantime, the market will continue to educate homeowners.
I suppose as a cheap bastard I cannot imagine people making a big real estate or automotive purchase without thinking through the costs of insurance, taxes, and energy. In my mind, all these costs are fairly transparent, and anyone in these markets should be aware of the rising trend.
Reality for other people, however, looks a lot more emotion-driven and impulsive. Sort of like the various "house hunters" reality TV shows where the ditzy buyers pick the house with the brightest paint color because they like all the "natural light" and it's $150,000 more than the house with the beige interior. We never hear about how their finances are going after making that choice on a whim, within a week, after looking at only 3 houses.
Apparently the insurance actuaries are a bit irrational too if they are only now incorporating climate change into their pricing after suffering staggering losses in Western forests and Gulf coasts.
Perhaps the classic saying should be rephrased: Prices can remain irrational long enough to trick lots of people into buying something which will leave them insolvent.
-
An interesting discussion on Bogleheads about the current realities of home insurance for a single family home in south Florida: https://www.bogleheads.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=424251
Many people are moving to home insurance that does not cover storm/wind/surge damage apparently.
-
An interesting discussion on Bogleheads about the current realities of home insurance for a single family home in south Florida: https://www.bogleheads.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=424251
Many people are moving to home insurance that does not cover storm/wind/surge damage apparently.
Interesting thread, thanks for the link. Lots of comments from people essentially saying insurance companies are signaling that your home is not suitable for long-term habitation, so move. And yet it seems OP, like so many in their situation, doesn't see it. For example, the premise of the question about paying the higher premium vs. maybe saving money by self insuring. Essentially asking if one can outsmart the insurance companies -- really ridiculous when you think about it because it's a bet on getting lucky and beating the odds in an unknowable future.
-
An interesting discussion on Bogleheads about the current realities of home insurance for a single family home in south Florida: https://www.bogleheads.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=424251
Many people are moving to home insurance that does not cover storm/wind/surge damage apparently.
Interesting thread, thanks for the link. Lots of comments from people essentially saying insurance companies are signaling that your home is not suitable for long-term habitation, so move. And yet it seems OP, like so many in their situation, doesn't see it. For example, the premise of the question about paying the higher premium vs. maybe saving money by self insuring. Essentially asking if one can outsmart the insurance companies -- really ridiculous when you think about it because it's a bet on getting lucky and beating the odds in an unknowable future.
The OP is missing the forest for the trees. All of that talk about "land value" if the house is destroyed but this poster brings up the obvious.
If the house were totaled in a major storm, I suspect the value of the land as a building lot would plummet. That land value might be a valid estimate now, before the storm. It could be far less afterward.
-
It seems like we are in a window--how large a window is hard to say--where these homes (and the land) still have all or most of their value.
We are selling our CA rental. There are many reasons, but insurance and climate change are just one of them. We haven't (yet) seen huge insurance increases. And our property is inland and up hill so it is unlikely to flood. But fire is a real risk. It feels like right now, we can still get a premium for SoCal living. I don't expect that to last forever, as the weather continues to change, making it less desirable, and the insurance prices continue to increase. Happy to be getting out this summer.
-
As many predicted on this thread, insurance rates are starting to affect home values: Insurers such as State Farm and Allstate are leaving fire- and flood-prone areas. Home values could take a hit (https://www.cnbc.com/2024/02/05/what-homeowners-need-to-know-as-insurers-leave-high-risk-climate-areas.html)
Porter said First Street Foundation’s research in California concluded that “the moment that an individual gets a non-renewal letter from the private insurance market, they essentially lose 12% of their property value.”
I think this is the first time I've seen this quantified so directly. On a median priced home in CA this is an immediate $100k drop, all because of a letter in the mail.
It makes sense.
I find it fascinating how "sticky" real estate prices are. Rising mortgage and insurance rates should lower prices, because they affect the total cost of ownership. However, prices have not fallen proportionally to these costs.
Perhaps the sales clearing today are to people who strongly believe they will be able to refi the mortgage soon, and their insurance will stay flat for the next several years.
How long will it take to clear the market of this group of buyers? Stated another way - how long can mortgages and insurance stay high until expectations become locked in?
I think this quote from the article helps explain it:
“Risk management does not come into play until it’s entirely too late when it comes to individual personal property purchasing,” Kevelighan said. “It comes into play when the mortgage provider needs you to go get it.”
“And that’s the first time when a consumer even begins to think about where they’re living and what the risks might be,” he said. “The cost reflects that risk. That should be an alarm to tell them that they’re living in a risky place and then ask themselves: How could I reduce that risk? Or do I need to think about living somewhere else?”
A lot of people really want to live in the forest or right on the coast. Yet only very recently has insurance become a major factor, and it will take time for this new reality to sink in. At some point collective views on these high risk areas will shift and be seen as less desirable. In the meantime, the market will continue to educate homeowners.
I suppose as a cheap bastard I cannot imagine people making a big real estate or automotive purchase without thinking through the costs of insurance, taxes, and energy. In my mind, all these costs are fairly transparent, and anyone in these markets should be aware of the rising trend.
Reality for other people, however, looks a lot more emotion-driven and impulsive. Sort of like the various "house hunters" reality TV shows where the ditzy buyers pick the house with the brightest paint color because they like all the "natural light" and it's $150,000 more than the house with the beige interior. We never hear about how their finances are going after making that choice on a whim, within a week, after looking at only 3 houses.
Apparently the insurance actuaries are a bit irrational too if they are only now incorporating climate change into their pricing after suffering staggering losses in Western forests and Gulf coasts.
Perhaps the classic saying should be rephrased: Prices can remain irrational long enough to trick lots of people into buying something which will leave them insolvent.
It doesn't entirely negate your post, but your contempt for the House Hunters may be slightly misplaced. The show is almost entirely fiction. The house hunters must already be in escrow on a property when filming. They've already selected a home. Often the other options aren't even properties that are for sale. They may be the home of a friend or neighbor.
Their real search included different homes, and they might have looked at dozens of properties. That beige house they reject on camera was never an option, but they have to come up with something bad to say about it.
-
An interesting discussion on Bogleheads about the current realities of home insurance for a single family home in south Florida: https://www.bogleheads.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=424251
Many people are moving to home insurance that does not cover storm/wind/surge damage apparently.
Interesting thread, thanks for the link. Lots of comments from people essentially saying insurance companies are signaling that your home is not suitable for long-term habitation, so move. And yet it seems OP, like so many in their situation, doesn't see it. For example, the premise of the question about paying the higher premium vs. maybe saving money by self insuring. Essentially asking if one can outsmart the insurance companies -- really ridiculous when you think about it because it's a bet on getting lucky and beating the odds in an unknowable future.
The OP is missing the forest for the trees. All of that talk about "land value" if the house is destroyed but this poster brings up the obvious.
If the house were totaled in a major storm, I suspect the value of the land as a building lot would plummet. That land value might be a valid estimate now, before the storm. It could be far less afterward.
+1 I was surprised reading through the Bogleheads thread that there were only two people warning of a huge drop in land value when OP was talking about just selling if the house gets destroyed, citing their house value is relatively small compared to the current land value, thus implying they could recover most of the cost.
-
It doesn't entirely negate your post, but your contempt for the House Hunters may be slightly misplaced. The show is almost entirely fiction.
https://youtu.be/ejwoUeKhFn4?si=ci6pBVQmeQbZC8ty&t=10
-
An interesting discussion on Bogleheads about the current realities of home insurance for a single family home in south Florida: https://www.bogleheads.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=424251
Many people are moving to home insurance that does not cover storm/wind/surge damage apparently.
Interesting thread, thanks for the link. Lots of comments from people essentially saying insurance companies are signaling that your home is not suitable for long-term habitation, so move. And yet it seems OP, like so many in their situation, doesn't see it. For example, the premise of the question about paying the higher premium vs. maybe saving money by self insuring. Essentially asking if one can outsmart the insurance companies -- really ridiculous when you think about it because it's a bet on getting lucky and beating the odds in an unknowable future.
The OP is missing the forest for the trees. All of that talk about "land value" if the house is destroyed but this poster brings up the obvious.
If the house were totaled in a major storm, I suspect the value of the land as a building lot would plummet. That land value might be a valid estimate now, before the storm. It could be far less afterward.
+1 I was surprised reading through the Bogleheads thread that there were only two people warning of a huge drop in land value when OP was talking about just selling if the house gets destroyed, citing their house value is relatively small compared to the current land value, thus implying they could recover most of the cost.
Insurance probably isn't helping them much anyway then, right? As that would only pay for the replacement value of the house.
-
It doesn't entirely negate your post, but your contempt for the House Hunters may be slightly misplaced. The show is almost entirely fiction. The house hunters must already be in escrow on a property when filming. They've already selected a home. Often the other options aren't even properties that are for sale. They may be the home of a friend or neighbor.
Their real search included different homes, and they might have looked at dozens of properties. That beige house they reject on camera was never an option, but they have to come up with something bad to say about it.
Some friends were on House Hunters. They were planning on building a house and only needed to buy a house as a stop gap in the interim. They were actually shopping for vacant lots.
As an aside, I met a producer for House Hunters at an airport bar. Super nice woman. I told her I wanted to see episode where the buyers totally hated their choice and wished they had gone with another property, and the problems with the current property were causing friction in their marriage. She just laughed.
-
An interesting discussion on Bogleheads about the current realities of home insurance for a single family home in south Florida: https://www.bogleheads.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=424251
Many people are moving to home insurance that does not cover storm/wind/surge damage apparently.
Interesting thread, thanks for the link. Lots of comments from people essentially saying insurance companies are signaling that your home is not suitable for long-term habitation, so move. And yet it seems OP, like so many in their situation, doesn't see it. For example, the premise of the question about paying the higher premium vs. maybe saving money by self insuring. Essentially asking if one can outsmart the insurance companies -- really ridiculous when you think about it because it's a bet on getting lucky and beating the odds in an unknowable future.
Self insuring and underinsuring seem like a universally bad idea here. The underlying premise is that homeowners can judge risk better than an insurance actuary. I'm going to go out on a limb and say that's not how things work.
-
An interesting discussion on Bogleheads about the current realities of home insurance for a single family home in south Florida: https://www.bogleheads.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=424251
Many people are moving to home insurance that does not cover storm/wind/surge damage apparently.
Interesting thread, thanks for the link. Lots of comments from people essentially saying insurance companies are signaling that your home is not suitable for long-term habitation, so move. And yet it seems OP, like so many in their situation, doesn't see it. For example, the premise of the question about paying the higher premium vs. maybe saving money by self insuring. Essentially asking if one can outsmart the insurance companies -- really ridiculous when you think about it because it's a bet on getting lucky and beating the odds in an unknowable future.
Self insuring and underinsuring seem like a universally bad idea here. The underlying premise is that homeowners can judge risk better than an insurance actuary. I'm going to go out on a limb and say that's not how things work.
Agreed. I would self-insure if I could build an elevated solid concrete house with steel shutters at least a few miles inland. However, these Floridians are talking about slab-on-grade stick houses with asphalt-over-OSB roofs.
I'm trying to figure out the angle for which this makes sense. Are they taking out mortgages, dropping coverage, and then resisting attempts at foreclosure the whole time? Otherwise they're YOLOing the entire cost to rebuild their structures, which seems like a foolish and desperate attempt to live in Florida instead of, say, inland Georgia.
-
An interesting discussion on Bogleheads about the current realities of home insurance for a single family home in south Florida: https://www.bogleheads.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=424251
Many people are moving to home insurance that does not cover storm/wind/surge damage apparently.
Interesting thread, thanks for the link. Lots of comments from people essentially saying insurance companies are signaling that your home is not suitable for long-term habitation, so move. And yet it seems OP, like so many in their situation, doesn't see it. For example, the premise of the question about paying the higher premium vs. maybe saving money by self insuring. Essentially asking if one can outsmart the insurance companies -- really ridiculous when you think about it because it's a bet on getting lucky and beating the odds in an unknowable future.
Self insuring and underinsuring seem like a universally bad idea here. The underlying premise is that homeowners can judge risk better than an insurance actuary. I'm going to go out on a limb and say that's not how things work.
Agreed. I would self-insure if I could build an elevated solid concrete house with steel shutters at least a few miles inland. However, these Floridians are talking about slab-on-grade stick houses with asphalt-over-OSB roofs.
I'm trying to figure out the angle for which this makes sense. Are they taking out mortgages, dropping coverage, and then resisting attempts at foreclosure the whole time? Otherwise they're YOLOing the entire cost to rebuild their structures, which seems like a foolish and desperate attempt to live in Florida instead of, say, inland Georgia.
You're assuming they're being thoughtful about the decision making process.
Building your highly fortified home would protect you from today's problems of hurricanes. It won't help when you start seeing saltwater intrusion into municipal water supplies and well water. That's the problem for a few years down the road. Albeit some municipalities will be massively impacted and others will be entirely unaffected.
-
An interesting discussion on Bogleheads about the current realities of home insurance for a single family home in south Florida: https://www.bogleheads.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=424251
Many people are moving to home insurance that does not cover storm/wind/surge damage apparently.
Interesting thread, thanks for the link. Lots of comments from people essentially saying insurance companies are signaling that your home is not suitable for long-term habitation, so move. And yet it seems OP, like so many in their situation, doesn't see it. For example, the premise of the question about paying the higher premium vs. maybe saving money by self insuring. Essentially asking if one can outsmart the insurance companies -- really ridiculous when you think about it because it's a bet on getting lucky and beating the odds in an unknowable future.
Self insuring and underinsuring seem like a universally bad idea here. The underlying premise is that homeowners can judge risk better than an insurance actuary. I'm going to go out on a limb and say that's not how things work.
Agreed. I would self-insure if I could build an elevated solid concrete house with steel shutters at least a few miles inland. However, these Floridians are talking about slab-on-grade stick houses with asphalt-over-OSB roofs.
I'm trying to figure out the angle for which this makes sense. Are they taking out mortgages, dropping coverage, and then resisting attempts at foreclosure the whole time? Otherwise they're YOLOing the entire cost to rebuild their structures, which seems like a foolish and desperate attempt to live in Florida instead of, say, inland Georgia.
You're assuming they're being thoughtful about the decision making process.
Building your highly fortified home would protect you from today's problems of hurricanes. It won't help when you start seeing saltwater intrusion into municipal water supplies and well water. That's the problem for a few years down the road. Albeit some municipalities will be massively impacted and others will be entirely unaffected.
Miami is already dealing with this. I just read an article about it. One of the suburb towns just north of Miami has already shut down 6 of 8 wells due to saltwater intrusion. Turns out draining the swamps wasn't such a good idea.
-
‘What, and destroy $2 billion worth of property?’ Mass. beach community undaunted after storm washes away 3-day-old $600,000 sand dune project (https://fortune.com/2024/03/13/salisbury-massachusetts-sand-dunes-storm-2-billion-of-property/)
A Massachusetts beach community is scrambling after a weekend storm washed away $600,000 in sand that was trucked in to protect homes, roads and other infrastructure.
“The state will not contribute any money to the rebuilding of dunes. That is the bottom line,” Saab said. “Everybody is angry and upset. We can’t survive without sand rebuilding the dunes and can’t survive paying out of our pocket after every storm.”
Is anyone old enough to remember when Al Gore was considered an alarmist for predicting this sort of thing?
-
‘What, and destroy $2 billion worth of property?’ Mass. beach community undaunted after storm washes away 3-day-old $600,000 sand dune project (https://fortune.com/2024/03/13/salisbury-massachusetts-sand-dunes-storm-2-billion-of-property/)
“The state will not contribute any money to the rebuilding of dunes. That is the bottom line,” Saab said. “Everybody is angry and upset. We can’t survive without sand rebuilding the dunes and can’t survive paying out of our pocket after every storm.”
To rephrase: "This town are too expensive to remain viable, so we demand the state to subsidize our vacation homes and Airbnb businesses." State funds can be better spent (say on the education funding crises that every place seems to have) than to try to keep these place sustainable.
My take is that we give up on most beach "renourishment" and shift our building on the coast or barrier islands back to the rustic cabins of the 30's that were expected to be rebuilt or moved after a big storm or beach erosion.
Hypocrisy check: I leave five miles from the ocean in hurricane country in a stick frame house.
-
‘What, and destroy $2 billion worth of property?’ Mass. beach community undaunted after storm washes away 3-day-old $600,000 sand dune project (https://fortune.com/2024/03/13/salisbury-massachusetts-sand-dunes-storm-2-billion-of-property/)
A Massachusetts beach community is scrambling after a weekend storm washed away $600,000 in sand that was trucked in to protect homes, roads and other infrastructure.
“The state will not contribute any money to the rebuilding of dunes. That is the bottom line,” Saab said. “Everybody is angry and upset. We can’t survive without sand rebuilding the dunes and can’t survive paying out of our pocket after every storm.”
Is anyone old enough to remember when Al Gore was considered an alarmist for predicting this sort of thing?
Yep, I am old enough. And it may be perverse, but I wonder in the afterlife we get to turn to these original climate change deniers and say, "Told you so, you dumbasses." It's petty but I'd like just one opportunity to see if, when the SHTF, even one of them will ever admit they were wrong.
-
‘What, and destroy $2 billion worth of property?’ Mass. beach community undaunted after storm washes away 3-day-old $600,000 sand dune project (https://fortune.com/2024/03/13/salisbury-massachusetts-sand-dunes-storm-2-billion-of-property/)
A Massachusetts beach community is scrambling after a weekend storm washed away $600,000 in sand that was trucked in to protect homes, roads and other infrastructure.
“The state will not contribute any money to the rebuilding of dunes. That is the bottom line,” Saab said. “Everybody is angry and upset. We can’t survive without sand rebuilding the dunes and can’t survive paying out of our pocket after every storm.”
Is anyone old enough to remember when Al Gore was considered an alarmist for predicting this sort of thing?
Yep, I am old enough. And it may be perverse, but I wonder in the afterlife we get to turn to these original climate change deniers and say, "Told you so, you dumbasses." It's petty but I'd like just one opportunity to see if, when the SHTF, even one of them will ever admit they were wrong.
I wonder if they've just moved on to vaccine denial and have forgotten anything they ever said about climate change?
All the trans enthusiasts are going to be the same now the shit is beginning to hit the fan about the damage transition does to kids - except for the parents who've already trans their kids and are going to have to deny that it does any damage until the death because its psychologically their only option.
MOD NOTE: Please don't bring up unrelated transphobia.
-
‘What, and destroy $2 billion worth of property?’ Mass. beach community undaunted after storm washes away 3-day-old $600,000 sand dune project (https://fortune.com/2024/03/13/salisbury-massachusetts-sand-dunes-storm-2-billion-of-property/)
A Massachusetts beach community is scrambling after a weekend storm washed away $600,000 in sand that was trucked in to protect homes, roads and other infrastructure.
“The state will not contribute any money to the rebuilding of dunes. That is the bottom line,” Saab said. “Everybody is angry and upset. We can’t survive without sand rebuilding the dunes and can’t survive paying out of our pocket after every storm.”
Is anyone old enough to remember when Al Gore was considered an alarmist for predicting this sort of thing?
Yep, I am old enough. And it may be perverse, but I wonder in the afterlife we get to turn to these original climate change deniers and say, "Told you so, you dumbasses." It's petty but I'd like just one opportunity to see if, when the SHTF, even one of them will ever admit they were wrong.
I wonder if they've just moved on to vaccine denial and have forgotten anything they ever said about climate change?
All the trans enthusiasts are going to be the same now the shit is beginning to hit the fan about the damage transition does to kids - except for the parents who've already trans their kids and are going to have to deny that it does any damage until the death because its psychologically their only option.
Going to need you to show your work on this one.
-
‘What, and destroy $2 billion worth of property?’ Mass. beach community undaunted after storm washes away 3-day-old $600,000 sand dune project (https://fortune.com/2024/03/13/salisbury-massachusetts-sand-dunes-storm-2-billion-of-property/)
A Massachusetts beach community is scrambling after a weekend storm washed away $600,000 in sand that was trucked in to protect homes, roads and other infrastructure.
“The state will not contribute any money to the rebuilding of dunes. That is the bottom line,” Saab said. “Everybody is angry and upset. We can’t survive without sand rebuilding the dunes and can’t survive paying out of our pocket after every storm.”
Is anyone old enough to remember when Al Gore was considered an alarmist for predicting this sort of thing?
Yep, I am old enough. And it may be perverse, but I wonder in the afterlife we get to turn to these original climate change deniers and say, "Told you so, you dumbasses." It's petty but I'd like just one opportunity to see if, when the SHTF, even one of them will ever admit they were wrong.
I wonder if they've just moved on to vaccine denial and have forgotten anything they ever said about climate change?
All the trans enthusiasts are going to be the same now the shit is beginning to hit the fan about the damage transition does to kids - except for the parents who've already trans their kids and are going to have to deny that it does any damage until the death because its psychologically their only option.
Well, this took an unexpected turn.
-
‘What, and destroy $2 billion worth of property?’ Mass. beach community undaunted after storm washes away 3-day-old $600,000 sand dune project (https://fortune.com/2024/03/13/salisbury-massachusetts-sand-dunes-storm-2-billion-of-property/)
A Massachusetts beach community is scrambling after a weekend storm washed away $600,000 in sand that was trucked in to protect homes, roads and other infrastructure.
“The state will not contribute any money to the rebuilding of dunes. That is the bottom line,” Saab said. “Everybody is angry and upset. We can’t survive without sand rebuilding the dunes and can’t survive paying out of our pocket after every storm.”
Is anyone old enough to remember when Al Gore was considered an alarmist for predicting this sort of thing?
Yep, I am old enough. And it may be perverse, but I wonder in the afterlife we get to turn to these original climate change deniers and say, "Told you so, you dumbasses." It's petty but I'd like just one opportunity to see if, when the SHTF, even one of them will ever admit they were wrong.
I wonder if they've just moved on to vaccine denial and have forgotten anything they ever said about climate change?
All the trans enthusiasts are going to be the same now the shit is beginning to hit the fan about the damage transition does to kids - except for the parents who've already trans their kids and are going to have to deny that it does any damage until the death because its psychologically their only option.
Going to need you to show your work on this one.
https://www.england.nhs.uk/publication/clinical-policy-puberty-suppressing-hormones/
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/apa.17150
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5694455/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9oQdwKxtqaA
-
Last night I was watching HGTV's "Rock the Block - Revenge Edition" or some such BS. The goal is for the teams to add as much value as they can to "their" unit. The four units are side-by-side on a waterway in FLORIDA! I kept thinking that the buyers weren't going to be able to get insurance, much less coverage that's "affordable". In a few years, they will potentially be literally (and perhaps even figuratively) underwater. My brain kept screaming: Why???
-
Last night I was watching HGTV's "Rock the Block - Revenge Edition" or some such BS. The goal is for the teams to add as much value as they can to "their" unit. The four units are side-by-side on a waterway in FLORIDA! I kept thinking that the buyers weren't going to be able to get insurance, much less coverage that's "affordable". In a few years, they will potentially be literally (and perhaps even figuratively) underwater. My brain kept screaming: Why???
Insanity.
Citizens holds over 1M policies, grew 65% last year (!), and is in the top 10 house insurers nationwide. The Florida leg wants to ban Citizens from insuring 2nd homes, which could decimate vacation communities.
DeSantis has blamed high rates and insurers leaving the state on ESG. Lol.
-
I recently heard a story (on NPR, not sure if that matters) about insurance companies in Florida and their purchase of "re-insurance". This is insurance for insurance companies, in case a severe weather event occurs. There's a proposal that they can purchase less re-insurance, and the Feds will cover the shortfall.
So for all of you who are NOT on the coasts, you may indeed be covering our losses. Great for me, very bad for the rest of the system.
We already do this for flood insurance to some extent. It floods, they rebuild, it floods, they rebuild, etc., etc., all on the government's dime.
The question is, then, how long can this continue with climate change? A federal bail out might work the first time and the second time but, eventually, the rest of the nation will get tired of rebuilding beach houses and houses in the woods.
-
I recently heard a story (on NPR, not sure if that matters) about insurance companies in Florida and their purchase of "re-insurance". This is insurance for insurance companies, in case a severe weather event occurs. There's a proposal that they can purchase less re-insurance, and the Feds will cover the shortfall.
So for all of you who are NOT on the coasts, you may indeed be covering our losses. Great for me, very bad for the rest of the system.
Reinsurance, as such, is not a new concept - its been around forever. See https://www.theactuary.com/archive/old-articles/part-3/2012/09/21/reinsurance-brief-history
What has changed is that reinsurers have started considering climate risks when pricing reinsurance. See: https://www.spglobal.com/ratings/en/research/articles/210923-global-reinsurers-grapple-with-climate-change-risks-12116706
Unmodelled risks and the inherent difficulties in attributing extreme events to climate change create the risk that climate change may not be fully reflected in catastrophe modelling, particularly in the short term.
-
Continued insurance troubles: California’s largest home insurer won’t renew 72,000 policies (https://www.sfchronicle.com/california/article/state-farm-insurance-nonrenewals-19357533.php)
Yet they really buried the lede on this one. The real story isn't continued non-renewal of some policies, but rather this from the *very* bottom of the article:
In its letter to the commissioner, State Farm General Insurance — State Farm's branch covering home insurance in California — acknowledged its financial troubles and said it was dedicated to improving its situation. Regulations in Illinois — where State Farm is headquartered — require the company to give state regulators a plan on how to restore the company's financial condition by April 15. If it does not improve, State Farm General could risk its home insurance no longer being accepted as a mortgage collateral, according to the letter.
If the state's largest insurer becomes longer accepted as mortgage collateral this would be extremely disruptive to the housing market in CA.
-
Continued insurance troubles: California’s largest home insurer won’t renew 72,000 policies (https://www.sfchronicle.com/california/article/state-farm-insurance-nonrenewals-19357533.php)
Yet they really buried the lede on this one. The real story isn't continued non-renewal of some policies, but rather this from the *very* bottom of the article:
In its letter to the commissioner, State Farm General Insurance — State Farm's branch covering home insurance in California — acknowledged its financial troubles and said it was dedicated to improving its situation. Regulations in Illinois — where State Farm is headquartered — require the company to give state regulators a plan on how to restore the company's financial condition by April 15. If it does not improve, State Farm General could risk its home insurance no longer being accepted as a mortgage collateral, according to the letter.
If the state's largest insurer becomes longer accepted as mortgage collateral this would be extremely disruptive to the housing market in CA.
We've never had a mortgage that required outside insurance, so I'm only vaguely familiar with this. What happens is someone has a mortgage that requires insurance, and the can't find anyone to cover them? Or is there always someone offering coverage, but the rates my be obscene?
-
Continued insurance troubles: California’s largest home insurer won’t renew 72,000 policies (https://www.sfchronicle.com/california/article/state-farm-insurance-nonrenewals-19357533.php)
Yet they really buried the lede on this one. The real story isn't continued non-renewal of some policies, but rather this from the *very* bottom of the article:
In its letter to the commissioner, State Farm General Insurance — State Farm's branch covering home insurance in California — acknowledged its financial troubles and said it was dedicated to improving its situation. Regulations in Illinois — where State Farm is headquartered — require the company to give state regulators a plan on how to restore the company's financial condition by April 15. If it does not improve, State Farm General could risk its home insurance no longer being accepted as a mortgage collateral, according to the letter.
If the state's largest insurer becomes longer accepted as mortgage collateral this would be extremely disruptive to the housing market in CA.
We've never had a mortgage that required outside insurance, so I'm only vaguely familiar with this. What happens is someone has a mortgage that requires insurance, and the can't find anyone to cover them? Or is there always someone offering coverage, but the rates my be obscene?
I haven't run into this personally, but seen some online posts from Florida residents that were dropped from coverage.
Apparently, if your insurance coverage is dropped, your bank will purchase insurance for you that gets added into your monthly payments. The banks will make sure your house is covered, and they have a reputation of buying the most expensive insurance possible.
-
Continued insurance troubles: California’s largest home insurer won’t renew 72,000 policies (https://www.sfchronicle.com/california/article/state-farm-insurance-nonrenewals-19357533.php)
Yet they really buried the lede on this one. The real story isn't continued non-renewal of some policies, but rather this from the *very* bottom of the article:
In its letter to the commissioner, State Farm General Insurance — State Farm's branch covering home insurance in California — acknowledged its financial troubles and said it was dedicated to improving its situation. Regulations in Illinois — where State Farm is headquartered — require the company to give state regulators a plan on how to restore the company's financial condition by April 15. If it does not improve, State Farm General could risk its home insurance no longer being accepted as a mortgage collateral, according to the letter.
If the state's largest insurer becomes longer accepted as mortgage collateral this would be extremely disruptive to the housing market in CA.
We've never had a mortgage that required outside insurance, so I'm only vaguely familiar with this. What happens is someone has a mortgage that requires insurance, and the can't find anyone to cover them? Or is there always someone offering coverage, but the rates my be obscene?
I haven't run into this personally, but seen some online posts from Florida residents that were dropped from coverage.
Apparently, if your insurance coverage is dropped, your bank will purchase insurance for you that gets added into your monthly payments. The banks will make sure your house is covered, and they have a reputation of buying the most expensive insurance possible.
Correct.
I've never heard of a mortgage that *didn't* require insurance. The loan is secured by the property, so the bank needs to know they will be made whole if it's destroyed/damaged.
If State Farm fails to meet the mortgage insurance standard, I expect this will result in banks first sending notification to affected homeowners saying they are required to obtain sufficient coverage within a certain time frame.
The issue is that it's already difficult to find insurance in the state, so losing the largest insurer *and* dumping tens (hundreds?) of thousands of people into the market at the same time would be pure chaos.
My guess is that even the banks would have a difficult time finding insurance at any price. Many homeowners would struggle to make the new monthly payment.
Failing to carry sufficient insurance is a violation of the contract and is grounds for foreclosure.
-
Continued insurance troubles: California’s largest home insurer won’t renew 72,000 policies (https://www.sfchronicle.com/california/article/state-farm-insurance-nonrenewals-19357533.php)
Yet they really buried the lede on this one. The real story isn't continued non-renewal of some policies, but rather this from the *very* bottom of the article:
In its letter to the commissioner, State Farm General Insurance — State Farm's branch covering home insurance in California — acknowledged its financial troubles and said it was dedicated to improving its situation. Regulations in Illinois — where State Farm is headquartered — require the company to give state regulators a plan on how to restore the company's financial condition by April 15. If it does not improve, State Farm General could risk its home insurance no longer being accepted as a mortgage collateral, according to the letter.
If the state's largest insurer becomes longer accepted as mortgage collateral this would be extremely disruptive to the housing market in CA.
We've never had a mortgage that required outside insurance, so I'm only vaguely familiar with this. What happens is someone has a mortgage that requires insurance, and the can't find anyone to cover them? Or is there always someone offering coverage, but the rates my be obscene?
I haven't run into this personally, but seen some online posts from Florida residents that were dropped from coverage.
Apparently, if your insurance coverage is dropped, your bank will purchase insurance for you that gets added into your monthly payments. The banks will make sure your house is covered, and they have a reputation of buying the most expensive insurance possible.
Correct.
I've never heard of a mortgage that *didn't* require insurance. The loan is secured by the property, so the bank needs to know they will be made whole if it's destroyed/damaged.
If State Farm fails to meet the mortgage insurance standard, I expect this will result in banks first sending notification to affected homeowners saying they are required to obtain sufficient coverage within a certain time frame.
The issue is that it's already difficult to find insurance in the state, so losing the largest insurer *and* dumping tens (hundreds?) of thousands of people into the market at the same time would be pure chaos.
My guess is that even the banks would have a difficult time finding insurance at any price. Many homeowners would struggle to make the new monthly payment.
Failing to carry sufficient insurance is a violation of the contract and is grounds for foreclosure.
This is what I wondered about. Especially if there are legal limits to what insurers can charge.
It sound like the banks could theoretically foreclose. I question whether they'd do that, as it would almost certainly lead to a massive implosion in the CA real estate market, leading to even more foreclosures from people who do still have insurance. It seems like that could potentially make '08 look like a tiny blip, though just limited to CA (and other states facing similar insurance reckonings, like FL). So I question whether they'd foreclose, but I don't know what other option they'd have. Maybe offering new loans with higher interest rates to offset some of the risk, plus recast with all the current equity on their side?
-
Continued insurance troubles: California’s largest home insurer won’t renew 72,000 policies (https://www.sfchronicle.com/california/article/state-farm-insurance-nonrenewals-19357533.php)
Yet they really buried the lede on this one. The real story isn't continued non-renewal of some policies, but rather this from the *very* bottom of the article:
In its letter to the commissioner, State Farm General Insurance — State Farm's branch covering home insurance in California — acknowledged its financial troubles and said it was dedicated to improving its situation. Regulations in Illinois — where State Farm is headquartered — require the company to give state regulators a plan on how to restore the company's financial condition by April 15. If it does not improve, State Farm General could risk its home insurance no longer being accepted as a mortgage collateral, according to the letter.
If the state's largest insurer becomes longer accepted as mortgage collateral this would be extremely disruptive to the housing market in CA.
We've never had a mortgage that required outside insurance, so I'm only vaguely familiar with this. What happens is someone has a mortgage that requires insurance, and the can't find anyone to cover them? Or is there always someone offering coverage, but the rates my be obscene?
I haven't run into this personally, but seen some online posts from Florida residents that were dropped from coverage.
Apparently, if your insurance coverage is dropped, your bank will purchase insurance for you that gets added into your monthly payments. The banks will make sure your house is covered, and they have a reputation of buying the most expensive insurance possible.
Correct.
I've never heard of a mortgage that *didn't* require insurance. The loan is secured by the property, so the bank needs to know they will be made whole if it's destroyed/damaged.
If State Farm fails to meet the mortgage insurance standard, I expect this will result in banks first sending notification to affected homeowners saying they are required to obtain sufficient coverage within a certain time frame.
The issue is that it's already difficult to find insurance in the state, so losing the largest insurer *and* dumping tens (hundreds?) of thousands of people into the market at the same time would be pure chaos.
My guess is that even the banks would have a difficult time finding insurance at any price. Many homeowners would struggle to make the new monthly payment.
Failing to carry sufficient insurance is a violation of the contract and is grounds for foreclosure.
This is what I wondered about. Especially if there are legal limits to what insurers can charge.
It sound like the banks could theoretically foreclose. I question whether they'd do that, as it would almost certainly lead to a massive implosion in the CA real estate market, leading to even more foreclosures from people who do still have insurance. It seems like that could potentially make '08 look like a tiny blip, though just limited to CA (and other states facing similar insurance reckonings, like FL). So I question whether they'd foreclose, but I don't know what other option they'd have. Maybe offering new loans with higher interest rates to offset some of the risk, plus recast with all the current equity on their side?
I'm not sure what leeway the "bank" has on whether or not to initiate foreclosure proceedings in cases of non-insurance. These things are sliced up and sold off to various financial entities with the expectation that the contracts are enforced.
It seems to me that this has the potential to be a black swan event. It's in California's best interest to make sure State Farm doesn't fail, though not sure what the state can do about it. If nothing else, they should prepare to backstop a ton of homeowners, perhaps by propping up the FAIR plan. Though depending on who you trust, the state is running a $35B - $78B deficit (I tend to believe the higher number, and think it's likely even higher), so unclear where the money comes from.
While the epicenter would be in CA, I don't think the effects would be contained within the state's boarders. Other states with similar issues, such as Florida, would suddenly look very risky. In other words, there's a contagion risk. And the pipeline of Californian's selling their expective homes and moving to other states could be disrupted... I expect this could put downward pressure in places like Boise where I live.
-
Continued insurance troubles: California’s largest home insurer won’t renew 72,000 policies (https://www.sfchronicle.com/california/article/state-farm-insurance-nonrenewals-19357533.php)
Yet they really buried the lede on this one. The real story isn't continued non-renewal of some policies, but rather this from the *very* bottom of the article:
In its letter to the commissioner, State Farm General Insurance — State Farm's branch covering home insurance in California — acknowledged its financial troubles and said it was dedicated to improving its situation. Regulations in Illinois — where State Farm is headquartered — require the company to give state regulators a plan on how to restore the company's financial condition by April 15. If it does not improve, State Farm General could risk its home insurance no longer being accepted as a mortgage collateral, according to the letter.
If the state's largest insurer becomes longer accepted as mortgage collateral this would be extremely disruptive to the housing market in CA.
We've never had a mortgage that required outside insurance, so I'm only vaguely familiar with this. What happens is someone has a mortgage that requires insurance, and the can't find anyone to cover them? Or is there always someone offering coverage, but the rates my be obscene?
I haven't run into this personally, but seen some online posts from Florida residents that were dropped from coverage.
Apparently, if your insurance coverage is dropped, your bank will purchase insurance for you that gets added into your monthly payments. The banks will make sure your house is covered, and they have a reputation of buying the most expensive insurance possible.
Correct.
I've never heard of a mortgage that *didn't* require insurance. The loan is secured by the property, so the bank needs to know they will be made whole if it's destroyed/damaged.
If State Farm fails to meet the mortgage insurance standard, I expect this will result in banks first sending notification to affected homeowners saying they are required to obtain sufficient coverage within a certain time frame.
The issue is that it's already difficult to find insurance in the state, so losing the largest insurer *and* dumping tens (hundreds?) of thousands of people into the market at the same time would be pure chaos.
My guess is that even the banks would have a difficult time finding insurance at any price. Many homeowners would struggle to make the new monthly payment.
Failing to carry sufficient insurance is a violation of the contract and is grounds for foreclosure.
This is what I wondered about. Especially if there are legal limits to what insurers can charge.
It sound like the banks could theoretically foreclose. I question whether they'd do that, as it would almost certainly lead to a massive implosion in the CA real estate market, leading to even more foreclosures from people who do still have insurance. It seems like that could potentially make '08 look like a tiny blip, though just limited to CA (and other states facing similar insurance reckonings, like FL). So I question whether they'd foreclose, but I don't know what other option they'd have. Maybe offering new loans with higher interest rates to offset some of the risk, plus recast with all the current equity on their side?
I'm not sure what leeway the "bank" has on whether or not to initiate foreclosure proceedings in cases of non-insurance. These things are sliced up and sold off to various financial entities with the expectation that the contracts are enforced.
It seems to me that this has the potential to be a black swan event. It's in California's best interest to make sure State Farm doesn't fail, though not sure what the state can do about it. If nothing else, they should prepare to backstop a ton of homeowners, perhaps by propping up the FAIR plan. Though depending on who you trust, the state is running a $35B - $78B deficit (I tend to believe the higher number, and think it's likely even higher), so unclear where the money comes from.
While the epicenter would be in CA, I don't think the effects would be contained within the state's boarders. Other states with similar issues, such as Florida, would suddenly look very risky. In other words, there's a contagion risk. And the pipeline of Californian's selling their expective homes and moving to other states could be disrupted... I expect this could put downward pressure in places like Boise where I live.
I'm in Denver. I suspect the insurance crisis is roughly 5-10 years behind California throughout the West.
I've heard the insurance industry cite two main factors when discussing California and Florida. The first is the greater disaster risk we're all seeing and discussing. The second is the less discussed high cost of construction in California and Florida.
While the rest of the country isn't at California construction prices yet, we're not that far behind.
We do seem to be on-trend for two decent precipitation years in a row, so hopefully we're getting at least a brief reprieve from the fire seasons and drought.
-
There was a good episode on the Odd Lots Podcast about the insurance crisis:
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2024-03-21/why-insurance-rates-have-been-surging-in-california-and-florida?srnd=oddlots&sref=HdNFLlbP
It was interesting to hear about Prop 103 in California (passed in 1988) which seems to be the cause of much of the problems there.
-
A short but interesting article by SwissRe (a big reinsurer) about the drivers of increase in property losses
https://www.swissre.com/institute/research/sigma-research/sigma-2024-01.html
-
Looks like this is starting to hit ocean front property prices: Luxury homes on these beaches are losing value fast, as effects of climate change hit hard (https://www.cnbc.com/2024/06/14/luxury-homes-on-these-beaches-are-losing-value-fast-as-effects-of-climate-change-hit-hard.html)
Guessing houses in the forest (esp. semi-arid western forests) will be next: The surprising way California’s home insurance crisis is affecting Tahoe (https://www.sfchronicle.com/california/article/insurance-crisis-spreading-nevada-tahoe-19513148.php)
-
Looks like this is starting to hit ocean front property prices: Luxury homes on these beaches are losing value fast, as effects of climate change hit hard (https://www.cnbc.com/2024/06/14/luxury-homes-on-these-beaches-are-losing-value-fast-as-effects-of-climate-change-hit-hard.html)
Guessing houses in the forest (esp. semi-arid western forests) will be next: The surprising way California’s home insurance crisis is affecting Tahoe (https://www.sfchronicle.com/california/article/insurance-crisis-spreading-nevada-tahoe-19513148.php)
We know a couple that had a South Carolina beach house where the town requires owners to replace any sand lost from storms. They sold after the third time replacing sand in 10 years. That price has to be factored into the sales price now as a maintenance cost. It always was, probably, but it's more frequent.
-
Looks like this is starting to hit ocean front property prices: Luxury homes on these beaches are losing value fast, as effects of climate change hit hard (https://www.cnbc.com/2024/06/14/luxury-homes-on-these-beaches-are-losing-value-fast-as-effects-of-climate-change-hit-hard.html)
Guessing houses in the forest (esp. semi-arid western forests) will be next: The surprising way California’s home insurance crisis is affecting Tahoe (https://www.sfchronicle.com/california/article/insurance-crisis-spreading-nevada-tahoe-19513148.php)
I'm working on the response to a wildfire here in New Mexico and the FEMA rep was saying how some people were having trouble registering for federal aid as they were already in the system from the last fire two years ago.
Below is a map of all the fires in the area going back 40 years.
-
I guess with climate change you may expect more (and fiercer) fires not only in their favorite old areas but expansion to new areas that were not previously as stricken.
-
It seems like we are in a window--how large a window is hard to say--where these homes (and the land) still have all or most of their value.
We are selling our CA rental. There are many reasons, but insurance and climate change are just one of them. We haven't (yet) seen huge insurance increases. And our property is inland and up hill so it is unlikely to flood. But fire is a real risk. It feels like right now, we can still get a premium for SoCal living. I don't expect that to last forever, as the weather continues to change, making it less desirable, and the insurance prices continue to increase. Happy to be getting out this summer.
posting to follow a little late but the fire, flood and landslide risk in the mountains of SoCal (and CA in general) is one (of many) reasons I've decided to sell after only being here a year. I like it there but frankly the fire risk seems to be getting worse. I imagine this late summer and fall might be a huge fire season with all the new growth of under brush from the rains. It's all drying out now with the heat and it's just a tinderbox.
-
It seems like we are in a window--how large a window is hard to say--where these homes (and the land) still have all or most of their value.
We are selling our CA rental. There are many reasons, but insurance and climate change are just one of them. We haven't (yet) seen huge insurance increases. And our property is inland and up hill so it is unlikely to flood. But fire is a real risk. It feels like right now, we can still get a premium for SoCal living. I don't expect that to last forever, as the weather continues to change, making it less desirable, and the insurance prices continue to increase. Happy to be getting out this summer.
posting to follow a little late but the fire, flood and landslide risk in the mountains of SoCal (and CA in general) is one (of many) reasons I've decided to sell after only being here a year. I like it there but frankly the fire risk seems to be getting worse. I imagine this late summer and fall might be a huge fire season with all the new growth of under brush from the rains. It's all drying out now with the heat and it's just a tinderbox.
DH and i were engaged in some fantasy spitballing about what we could do if he decided not to take another FT job. One proposed option would be to start a rent-a-goat company, where people pay us to pull up with a trailer full of goats, drop them for a few days or week, then come back and get them once they's sufficiently cleared much of the brush. Our business plan got as far as accounting for goat-loss from rattlesnake bites. And possible temporary fencing for unfenced properties, to avoid goat-loss, that way.
I know some places do this already (goats clearing brush), in a limited capacity, but I wonder if people would pay for it as an individual service, or HOAs, neighborhoods, etc., might pool resources for it.
We had friends who lived in the Netherlands and their lease included periodic sheep delivery. The sheep were a side hustle for a professional footballer. We happened to visit when the sheep were there, and it was ridiculously charming. They stayed an "mowed" the grass for about a week, then were picked up to go to someone else's property. Not quite the same because they weren't clearing thick brush, but I wonder if a similar model could be applied.
-
DH and i were engaged in some fantasy spitballing about what we could do if he decided not to take another FT job. One proposed option would be to start a rent-a-goat company, where people pay us to pull up with a trailer full of goats, drop them for a few days or week, then come back and get them once they's sufficiently cleared much of the brush. Our business plan got as far as accounting for goat-loss from rattlesnake bites. And possible temporary fencing for unfenced properties, to avoid goat-loss, that way.
I know some places do this already (goats clearing brush), in a limited capacity, but I wonder if people would pay for it as an individual service, or HOAs, neighborhoods, etc., might pool resources for it.
I bet they would. In the PNW blackberries are invasive and difficult to remove, especially on steep slopes. The city and other landowners will bring in goats to those areas to clear them up, but a lot of people just let them go wild because they are such a pain. I bet you could drive around and look for blackberry patches and offer to clear them up.
-
It seems like we are in a window--how large a window is hard to say--where these homes (and the land) still have all or most of their value.
We are selling our CA rental. There are many reasons, but insurance and climate change are just one of them. We haven't (yet) seen huge insurance increases. And our property is inland and up hill so it is unlikely to flood. But fire is a real risk. It feels like right now, we can still get a premium for SoCal living. I don't expect that to last forever, as the weather continues to change, making it less desirable, and the insurance prices continue to increase. Happy to be getting out this summer.
posting to follow a little late but the fire, flood and landslide risk in the mountains of SoCal (and CA in general) is one (of many) reasons I've decided to sell after only being here a year. I like it there but frankly the fire risk seems to be getting worse. I imagine this late summer and fall might be a huge fire season with all the new growth of under brush from the rains. It's all drying out now with the heat and it's just a tinderbox.
DH and i were engaged in some fantasy spitballing about what we could do if he decided not to take another FT job. One proposed option would be to start a rent-a-goat company, where people pay us to pull up with a trailer full of goats, drop them for a few days or week, then come back and get them once they's sufficiently cleared much of the brush. Our business plan got as far as accounting for goat-loss from rattlesnake bites. And possible temporary fencing for unfenced properties, to avoid goat-loss, that way.
I know some places do this already (goats clearing brush), in a limited capacity, but I wonder if people would pay for it as an individual service, or HOAs, neighborhoods, etc., might pool resources for it.
We had friends who lived in the Netherlands and their lease included periodic sheep delivery. The sheep were a side hustle for a professional footballer. We happened to visit when the sheep were there, and it was ridiculously charming. They stayed an "mowed" the grass for about a week, then were picked up to go to someone else's property. Not quite the same because they weren't clearing thick brush, but I wonder if a similar model could be applied.
That’s a growth industry! The big park in Santa Barbara brought in goats and sheep a few years ago as the first step in replacing invasive species with native plants. It was a big hit and people brought their kids to see the animals.
The ranchers posted a sign offering lamb for sale, which had a hand-written clarification at the bottom that this was lamb meat, not a new pet. I imagine there were some disappointed kids.
-
It seems like we are in a window--how large a window is hard to say--where these homes (and the land) still have all or most of their value.
We are selling our CA rental. There are many reasons, but insurance and climate change are just one of them. We haven't (yet) seen huge insurance increases. And our property is inland and up hill so it is unlikely to flood. But fire is a real risk. It feels like right now, we can still get a premium for SoCal living. I don't expect that to last forever, as the weather continues to change, making it less desirable, and the insurance prices continue to increase. Happy to be getting out this summer.
posting to follow a little late but the fire, flood and landslide risk in the mountains of SoCal (and CA in general) is one (of many) reasons I've decided to sell after only being here a year. I like it there but frankly the fire risk seems to be getting worse. I imagine this late summer and fall might be a huge fire season with all the new growth of under brush from the rains. It's all drying out now with the heat and it's just a tinderbox.
DH and i were engaged in some fantasy spitballing about what we could do if he decided not to take another FT job. One proposed option would be to start a rent-a-goat company, where people pay us to pull up with a trailer full of goats, drop them for a few days or week, then come back and get them once they's sufficiently cleared much of the brush. Our business plan got as far as accounting for goat-loss from rattlesnake bites. And possible temporary fencing for unfenced properties, to avoid goat-loss, that way.
I know some places do this already (goats clearing brush), in a limited capacity, but I wonder if people would pay for it as an individual service, or HOAs, neighborhoods, etc., might pool resources for it.
We had friends who lived in the Netherlands and their lease included periodic sheep delivery. The sheep were a side hustle for a professional footballer. We happened to visit when the sheep were there, and it was ridiculously charming. They stayed an "mowed" the grass for about a week, then were picked up to go to someone else's property. Not quite the same because they weren't clearing thick brush, but I wonder if a similar model could be applied.
That’s a growth industry! The big park in Santa Barbara brought in goats and sheep a few years ago as the first step in replacing invasive species with native plants. It was a big hit and people brought their kids to see the animals.
The ranchers posted a sign offering lamb for sale, which had a hand-written clarification at the bottom that this was lamb meat, not a new pet. I imagine there were some disappointed kids.
I'm sure the lambs were disappointed too.
-
I googled, and found that there are herds for hire!
https://www.goatsonthego.com/affiliate-directory
-
It seems like we are in a window--how large a window is hard to say--where these homes (and the land) still have all or most of their value.
We are selling our CA rental. There are many reasons, but insurance and climate change are just one of them. We haven't (yet) seen huge insurance increases. And our property is inland and up hill so it is unlikely to flood. But fire is a real risk. It feels like right now, we can still get a premium for SoCal living. I don't expect that to last forever, as the weather continues to change, making it less desirable, and the insurance prices continue to increase. Happy to be getting out this summer.
posting to follow a little late but the fire, flood and landslide risk in the mountains of SoCal (and CA in general) is one (of many) reasons I've decided to sell after only being here a year. I like it there but frankly the fire risk seems to be getting worse. I imagine this late summer and fall might be a huge fire season with all the new growth of under brush from the rains. It's all drying out now with the heat and it's just a tinderbox.
DH and i were engaged in some fantasy spitballing about what we could do if he decided not to take another FT job. One proposed option would be to start a rent-a-goat company, where people pay us to pull up with a trailer full of goats, drop them for a few days or week, then come back and get them once they's sufficiently cleared much of the brush. Our business plan got as far as accounting for goat-loss from rattlesnake bites. And possible temporary fencing for unfenced properties, to avoid goat-loss, that way.
I know some places do this already (goats clearing brush), in a limited capacity, but I wonder if people would pay for it as an individual service, or HOAs, neighborhoods, etc., might pool resources for it.
We had friends who lived in the Netherlands and their lease included periodic sheep delivery. The sheep were a side hustle for a professional footballer. We happened to visit when the sheep were there, and it was ridiculously charming. They stayed an "mowed" the grass for about a week, then were picked up to go to someone else's property. Not quite the same because they weren't clearing thick brush, but I wonder if a similar model could be applied.
That’s a growth industry! The big park in Santa Barbara brought in goats and sheep a few years ago as the first step in replacing invasive species with native plants. It was a big hit and people brought their kids to see the animals.
The ranchers posted a sign offering lamb for sale, which had a hand-written clarification at the bottom that this was lamb meat, not a new pet. I imagine there were some disappointed kids.
I'm sure the lambs were disappointed too.
Ha!
-
I'm in Denver. I suspect the insurance crisis is roughly 5-10 years behind California throughout the West.
Much of the upper midwest isn't far behind due to storm damage, especially hail. It's hard to find a roof in our neighborhood more than about 10 years old now. Everything has been replaced, and that's a whole lot of $$$.
I was talking to an adjuster the other day, and he said to expect state legislation very soon that would reduce the costs of hail claims, allowing them to repair roofs in most cases rather than replace, and to deny claims for cosmetics, like dents in window wraps and gutters.
I'm not sure I'm against that change if it leads to lower rates and a stable market. Residential roofing is a racket.
-
I'm in Denver. I suspect the insurance crisis is roughly 5-10 years behind California throughout the West.
Much of the upper midwest isn't far behind due to storm damage, especially hail. It's hard to find a roof in our neighborhood more than about 10 years old now. Everything has been replaced, and that's a whole lot of $$$.
I was talking to an adjuster the other day, and he said to expect state legislation very soon that would reduce the costs of hail claims, allowing them to repair roofs in most cases rather than replace, and to deny claims for cosmetics, like dents in window wraps and gutters.
I'm not sure I'm against that change if it leads to lower rates and a stable market. Residential roofing is a racket.
I agree. It’s a little more personal right now as a hailstorm just took out my roof. My roof is tied for oldest on our block at 14 years. At least I have an opportunity to upgrade my solar during the process.
At a very minimum, impact resistant shingles should be part of the building code. It wouldn’t eliminate all claims, but it would certainly reduce them. The incremental cost is pretty minor.
I’d have mixed emotions about changing laws to reduce claims payouts. It’s probably necessary, but there’s some downsides too.
-
I'm wondering how all the storm, tornado and flood damage happening now will effect both rates and the ability to get (or keep) a HO policy anywhere and not just Calif and western states. After reading thru this thread I think renting might be for me!
-
I'm wondering how all the storm, tornado and flood damage happening now will effect both rates and the ability to get (or keep) a HO policy anywhere and not just Calif and western states. After reading thru this thread I think renting might be for me!
Pick your insurance calamity poison:
- Gulf Coast hurricanes
- Southwest extreme heat
- PNW fires, ice storms, volcanos, and mega-earthquakes
- Western states forest fires, flashfloods, landslides and earthquakes
- SE hurricanes
- Central states tornados, hailstorms, floods in flat river valleys
- NE blizzards but otherwise not too bad!
- HI volcanos and now fires
- AK volcanos, EQs, fires, landslides, floods, blizzards, wind events, etc.
Did I miss anyone?
Where to move?
-
I'm wondering how all the storm, tornado and flood damage happening now will effect both rates and the ability to get (or keep) a HO policy anywhere and not just Calif and western states. After reading thru this thread I think renting might be for me!
Pick your insurance calamity poison:
- Gulf Coast hurricanes
- Southwest extreme heat
- PNW fires, ice storms, volcanos, and mega-earthquakes
- Western states forest fires, flashfloods, landslides and earthquakes
- SE hurricanes
- Central states tornados, hailstorms, floods in flat river valleys
- NE blizzards but otherwise not too bad!
- HI volcanos and now fires
- AK volcanos, EQs, fires, landslides, floods, blizzards, wind events, etc.
Did I miss anyone?
Where to move?
It’s becoming pretty clear that no place will be entirely spared from climate change. I was talking to my roofer, and apparently our recent hailstorms demolished something like 70,000 roofs across the region. One of his current projects is a house he put impact resistant shingles on 3 years ago.
But there are ranges of risk. There’s things that can be recovered (roofs) and things that may never be fully recovered from.
If you live somewhere that a fire like the Camp Fire or Marshall Fire might happen, it’s time to move. Those fires are increasingly lethal, impossible to stop, and incredibly difficult to financially & emotionally recover from.
The same is true if you live in a coastal area seriously at risk of hurricanes, erosion, flooding, or saltwater intrusion into the water supply.
I have a lot of sympathy for people that moved to these areas decades ago. I’m going to have trouble mustering the same sympathy for people buying real estate in places like Miami today.
-
I'm wondering how all the storm, tornado and flood damage happening now will effect both rates and the ability to get (or keep) a HO policy anywhere and not just Calif and western states. After reading thru this thread I think renting might be for me!
Pick your insurance calamity poison:
- Gulf Coast hurricanes
- Southwest extreme heat
- PNW fires, ice storms, volcanos, and mega-earthquakes
- Western states forest fires, flashfloods, landslides and earthquakes
- SE hurricanes
- Central states tornados, hailstorms, floods in flat river valleys
- NE blizzards but otherwise not too bad!
- HI volcanos and now fires
- AK volcanos, EQs, fires, landslides, floods, blizzards, wind events, etc.
Did I miss anyone?
Where to move?
Maybe central East, but not on the coast? I'm thinking inland by at least 20 miles in Virginia and Maryland. Southern enough that massive blizzards are unlikely, inland enough that if hurricanes make it that for north it shouldn't be too bad, tornados are rare (though who knows if they will continue to be so), damp enough that big fires aren't likely. You might catch Dengue Fever from the mosquitos (Dengue is on the rise!), and like most places, it's getting hotter, but probably not "wet bulb temps say that death is likely" heat, or at least not for more than short bursts.
-
- NE blizzards but otherwise not too bad!
I live in the northeast - its not so much blizzards but sudden heavy rain leading to flash flooding. In fact, we have barely received any snow in the past four or five winters. See this page (http://www.nrcc.cornell.edu/services/blog/2023/11/15/20231115_extreme_precip_northeast.jpg) for example. I recall a report by the First Street Foundation that flood risks due to extreme precipitation have been severely underestimated.
The Northeast has seen a roughly 60% increase in the number of days with extreme precipitation, the largest increase of all the U.S. regions. The intensity of these events has also increased. This trend, along with an increased risk of flooding, is also expected to continue.
-
I'm wondering how all the storm, tornado and flood damage happening now will effect both rates and the ability to get (or keep) a HO policy anywhere and not just Calif and western states. After reading thru this thread I think renting might be for me!
Pick your insurance calamity poison:
- Gulf Coast hurricanes
- Southwest extreme heat
- PNW fires, ice storms, volcanos, and mega-earthquakes
- Western states forest fires, flashfloods, landslides and earthquakes
- SE hurricanes
- Central states tornados, hailstorms, floods in flat river valleys
- NE blizzards but otherwise not too bad!
- HI volcanos and now fires
- AK volcanos, EQs, fires, landslides, floods, blizzards, wind events, etc.
Did I miss anyone?
Where to move?
Maybe central East, but not on the coast? I'm thinking inland by at least 20 miles in Virginia and Maryland. Southern enough that massive blizzards are unlikely, inland enough that if hurricanes make it that for north it shouldn't be too bad, tornados are rare (though who knows if they will continue to be so), damp enough that big fires aren't likely. You might catch Dengue Fever from the mosquitos (Dengue is on the rise!), and like most places, it's getting hotter, but probably not "wet bulb temps say that death is likely" heat, or at least not for more than short bursts.
I've lived in a ton of different coastal places (ex-coast guard) in the US, including Alaska and Hawaii, but things very different now as far as climate goes. We made the decision (compromise blech) to stay on the west coast - most likely in Calif - but renting long term seems it might be a better choice if you want to live in a place that has more extreme climate "events" and you can't get insurance to cover a loss if something happens. I did live in coastal NC and VA and thought they were great but to warm for me. If it was just me with no other considerations I'd live on the coast of Maine!
-
I'm wondering how all the storm, tornado and flood damage happening now will effect both rates and the ability to get (or keep) a HO policy anywhere and not just Calif and western states. After reading thru this thread I think renting might be for me!
Pick your insurance calamity poison:
- Gulf Coast hurricanes
- Southwest extreme heat
- PNW fires, ice storms, volcanos, and mega-earthquakes
- Western states forest fires, flashfloods, landslides and earthquakes
- SE hurricanes
- Central states tornados, hailstorms, floods in flat river valleys
- NE blizzards but otherwise not too bad!
- HI volcanos and now fires
- AK volcanos, EQs, fires, landslides, floods, blizzards, wind events, etc.
Did I miss anyone?
Where to move?
Maybe central East, but not on the coast? I'm thinking inland by at least 20 miles in Virginia and Maryland. Southern enough that massive blizzards are unlikely, inland enough that if hurricanes make it that for north it shouldn't be too bad, tornados are rare (though who knows if they will continue to be so), damp enough that big fires aren't likely. You might catch Dengue Fever from the mosquitos (Dengue is on the rise!), and like most places, it's getting hotter, but probably not "wet bulb temps say that death is likely" heat, or at least not for more than short bursts.
I've lived in a ton of different coastal places (ex-coast guard) in the US, including Alaska and Hawaii, but things very different now as far as climate goes. We made the decision (compromise blech) to stay on the west coast - most likely in Calif - but renting long term seems it might be a better choice if you want to live in a place that has more extreme climate "events" and you can't get insurance to cover a loss if something happens. I did live in coastal NC and VA and thought they were great but to warm for me. If it was just me with no other considerations I'd live on the coast of Maine!
Maine winter wouldn't be too cold for you? Are their areas you could be car free in coastal NC and VA? Coastal CA is too cold for me most of the year, but it's perfect right now though.
-
I'm wondering how all the storm, tornado and flood damage happening now will effect both rates and the ability to get (or keep) a HO policy anywhere and not just Calif and western states. After reading thru this thread I think renting might be for me!
Pick your insurance calamity poison:
- Gulf Coast hurricanes
- Southwest extreme heat
- PNW fires, ice storms, volcanos, and mega-earthquakes
- Western states forest fires, flashfloods, landslides and earthquakes
- SE hurricanes
- Central states tornados, hailstorms, floods in flat river valleys
- NE blizzards but otherwise not too bad!
- HI volcanos and now fires
- AK volcanos, EQs, fires, landslides, floods, blizzards, wind events, etc.
Did I miss anyone?
Where to move?
Maybe central East, but not on the coast? I'm thinking inland by at least 20 miles in Virginia and Maryland. Southern enough that massive blizzards are unlikely, inland enough that if hurricanes make it that for north it shouldn't be too bad, tornados are rare (though who knows if they will continue to be so), damp enough that big fires aren't likely. You might catch Dengue Fever from the mosquitos (Dengue is on the rise!), and like most places, it's getting hotter, but probably not "wet bulb temps say that death is likely" heat, or at least not for more than short bursts.
I've lived in a ton of different coastal places (ex-coast guard) in the US, including Alaska and Hawaii, but things very different now as far as climate goes. We made the decision (compromise blech) to stay on the west coast - most likely in Calif - but renting long term seems it might be a better choice if you want to live in a place that has more extreme climate "events" and you can't get insurance to cover a loss if something happens. I did live in coastal NC and VA and thought they were great but to warm for me. If it was just me with no other considerations I'd live on the coast of Maine!
Maine winter wouldn't be too cold for you? Are their areas you could be car free in coastal NC and VA? Coastal CA is too cold for me most of the year, but it's perfect right now though.
No not too cold at all. I lived there for a few years (as well as other cold places like Alaska for 4 years and Canada as a kid/teen). I love the snow, cold fog in summer and the humidity but I'm not a rain person and it seems like it's extra rainy and warm everywhere in New England now. And the storms are bad. One thing I do like about coastal Calif is the marine layer most of the year that keeps it cooler. Anything above 70, especially if dry and sunny, sucks the life out of me. Just saw a current wildfire map of the US and it's really looming bad for most places and it's early in the season.
-
I'm wondering how all the storm, tornado and flood damage happening now will effect both rates and the ability to get (or keep) a HO policy anywhere and not just Calif and western states. After reading thru this thread I think renting might be for me!
Pick your insurance calamity poison:
- Gulf Coast hurricanes
- Southwest extreme heat
- PNW fires, ice storms, volcanos, and mega-earthquakes
- Western states forest fires, flashfloods, landslides and earthquakes
- SE hurricanes
- Central states tornados, hailstorms, floods in flat river valleys
- NE blizzards but otherwise not too bad!
- HI volcanos and now fires
- AK volcanos, EQs, fires, landslides, floods, blizzards, wind events, etc.
Did I miss anyone?
Where to move?
Maybe central East, but not on the coast? I'm thinking inland by at least 20 miles in Virginia and Maryland. Southern enough that massive blizzards are unlikely, inland enough that if hurricanes make it that for north it shouldn't be too bad, tornados are rare (though who knows if they will continue to be so), damp enough that big fires aren't likely. You might catch Dengue Fever from the mosquitos (Dengue is on the rise!), and like most places, it's getting hotter, but probably not "wet bulb temps say that death is likely" heat, or at least not for more than short bursts.
I've lived in a ton of different coastal places (ex-coast guard) in the US, including Alaska and Hawaii, but things very different now as far as climate goes. We made the decision (compromise blech) to stay on the west coast - most likely in Calif - but renting long term seems it might be a better choice if you want to live in a place that has more extreme climate "events" and you can't get insurance to cover a loss if something happens. I did live in coastal NC and VA and thought they were great but to warm for me. If it was just me with no other considerations I'd live on the coast of Maine!
Maine winter wouldn't be too cold for you? Are their areas you could be car free in coastal NC and VA? Coastal CA is too cold for me most of the year, but it's perfect right now though.
No not too cold at all. I lived there for a few years (as well as other cold places like Alaska for 4 years and Canada as a kid/teen). I love the snow, cold fog in summer and the humidity but I'm not a rain person and it seems like it's extra rainy and warm everywhere in New England now. And the storms are bad. One thing I do like about coastal Calif is the marine layer most of the year that keeps it cooler. Anything above 70, especially if dry and sunny, sucks the life out of me. Just saw a current wildfire map of the US and it's really looming bad for most places and it's early in the season.
Interesting - we are the opposite - I am happy the few months when the marine layer is not there. :D
-
As much as I hate winter, the climate here (Southern Ontario) is a fantastic compromise of all the things. We get winter, but the "real winter" is only a couple weeks long, and there's only a couple truly heavy snows each year. We get summer heat. But the deadly hot is only a few weeks late in August. Muddy rain in spring - yup. Just a week or two followed by all the flowers. Autumn is blissful with a cold snap late enough that we can grow heat loving veggies.
I look at California or Costa Rica with envy of their endless summers, but for a year round place that still has good quality of life, this is pretty OK.
-
I'm wondering how all the storm, tornado and flood damage happening now will effect both rates and the ability to get (or keep) a HO policy anywhere and not just Calif and western states. After reading thru this thread I think renting might be for me!
Pick your insurance calamity poison:
- Gulf Coast hurricanes
- Southwest extreme heat
- PNW fires, ice storms, volcanos, and mega-earthquakes
- Western states forest fires, flashfloods, landslides and earthquakes
- SE hurricanes
- Central states tornados, hailstorms, floods in flat river valleys
- NE blizzards but otherwise not too bad!
- HI volcanos and now fires
- AK volcanos, EQs, fires, landslides, floods, blizzards, wind events, etc.
Did I miss anyone?
Where to move?
Maybe central East, but not on the coast? I'm thinking inland by at least 20 miles in Virginia and Maryland. Southern enough that massive blizzards are unlikely, inland enough that if hurricanes make it that for north it shouldn't be too bad, tornados are rare (though who knows if they will continue to be so), damp enough that big fires aren't likely. You might catch Dengue Fever from the mosquitos (Dengue is on the rise!), and like most places, it's getting hotter, but probably not "wet bulb temps say that death is likely" heat, or at least not for more than short bursts.
I've lived in a ton of different coastal places (ex-coast guard) in the US, including Alaska and Hawaii, but things very different now as far as climate goes. We made the decision (compromise blech) to stay on the west coast - most likely in Calif - but renting long term seems it might be a better choice if you want to live in a place that has more extreme climate "events" and you can't get insurance to cover a loss if something happens. I did live in coastal NC and VA and thought they were great but to warm for me. If it was just me with no other considerations I'd live on the coast of Maine!
Maine winter wouldn't be too cold for you? Are their areas you could be car free in coastal NC and VA? Coastal CA is too cold for me most of the year, but it's perfect right now though.
No not too cold at all. I lived there for a few years (as well as other cold places like Alaska for 4 years and Canada as a kid/teen). I love the snow, cold fog in summer and the humidity but I'm not a rain person and it seems like it's extra rainy and warm everywhere in New England now. And the storms are bad. One thing I do like about coastal Calif is the marine layer most of the year that keeps it cooler. Anything above 70, especially if dry and sunny, sucks the life out of me. Just saw a current wildfire map of the US and it's really looming bad for most places and it's early in the season.
Interesting - we are the opposite - I am happy the few months when the marine layer is not there. :D
The sign of a True (southern) Californian!! Which apparently I'm not but BF is so...dreaded compromise ;-). I try to get all outdoor activities done before 11 am otherwise too hot and sunny for me most places in SoCal.
I like 4 seasons and really cold temps and snow in winter and warmer but not hot summers but it is harder in the west to find that without all the wildfire and flood risks. Like the fish dude above, I lived in a more northern part of Ontario (closer to Timmons) as a kid/early teen before moving to SoCal and winters were pretty harsh then up there. But now they seem milder and mud season (and black fly season!) seems longer. I hear that's pretty noticible in the Arctic were permafrost is melting at an alarming rate.
-
Maybe central East, but not on the coast? I'm thinking inland by at least 20 miles in Virginia and Maryland. Southern enough that massive blizzards are unlikely, inland enough that if hurricanes make it that for north it shouldn't be too bad, tornados are rare (though who knows if they will continue to be so), damp enough that big fires aren't likely. You might catch Dengue Fever from the mosquitos (Dengue is on the rise!), and like most places, it's getting hotter, but probably not "wet bulb temps say that death is likely" heat, or at least not for more than short bursts.
I'm in central Maryland, it's a great place for stability. No natural disasters, no hurricanes, no (major) tornadoes, no fires, no earthquakes, no floods (small exceptions), hail is rare and small, no extreme winds, winters are mild, summers are hot but not deadly, we don't get many mosquitos here (you will in eastern MD), our government is a reasonable center left, jobs are a-plenty, everyone is sane and well-off.
-
I'm wondering how all the storm, tornado and flood damage happening now will effect both rates and the ability to get (or keep) a HO policy anywhere and not just Calif and western states. After reading thru this thread I think renting might be for me!
Pick your insurance calamity poison:
- Gulf Coast hurricanes
- Southwest extreme heat
- PNW fires, ice storms, volcanos, and mega-earthquakes
- Western states forest fires, flashfloods, landslides and earthquakes
- SE hurricanes
- Central states tornados, hailstorms, floods in flat river valleys
- NE blizzards but otherwise not too bad!
- HI volcanos and now fires
- AK volcanos, EQs, fires, landslides, floods, blizzards, wind events, etc.
Did I miss anyone?
Where to move?
It is worth being more specific about Alaska given that it is 20% of the US landmass, granted that the vast majority of that would be seen as unlivable to the vast majority of those currently living Outside. I could see it becoming a climate change haven in terms of overall conditions, though climate change is happening more rapidly in the arctic, forcing village relocations, more rain-on-snow events (the worst weather possible for both driving and recreating), and more. Even one of the few main highways just washed out due to a river eroding its banks very quickly.
- volcanoes are limited to lightly populated areas, though ash can and has impacted air travel, which is far more "essential" in Alaska
- earthquakes do happen with high regularity (here is just the last two weeks:https://earthquake.alaska.edu/earthquakes/?XQAAAAIrAAAAAAAAAABBqQmmE3eV5EUgH7ZjD94iJiVMLSD7BL5qFARwj-vOYglc0XNTTXBFtOiMF2ah7bY3_9ZSAAA (https://earthquake.alaska.edu/earthquakes/?XQAAAAIrAAAAAAAAAABBqQmmE3eV5EUgH7ZjD94iJiVMLSD7BL5qFARwj-vOYglc0XNTTXBFtOiMF2ah7bY3_9ZSAAA)) but only occasionally impact urban areas, which are designed for it. The Anchorage 7.2 a few years ago mostly just broke some dishes if your cabinets were aligned with the axis of movement, though the 9.2 in '64 did some damage to poorly built buildings. Most places are pretty immune to tsunamis as well, especially Anchorage.
- fires are absolutely becoming more regular and more significant, impacting outlying populated areas
- landslides certainly do happen and killed a few people in Juneau this winter, but is limited to small areas in Southeast
- floods besides permafrost melting, river erosion, and ice dams, Alaska doesn't see the flooding of the rest of the country from storms.
- blizzards are technically low visibility events due to blowing snow so I'll add heavy snowfall. Yes, this does collapse a few roofs sometimes in heavy snow years, but is generally not a safety issue or even impact flights due to maintenance capabilities and general competency of the public
- wind events are common and do knock down a lot of trees occasionally, but don't really do any widespread damage
- etc: I'll give you general cold, but again, not if you are prepared for it. Homeless folks regularly see subzero temps and the UAF students break out their swimwear for photos with the sign at -40 (F or C). Also, not as much of this as there used to be.
Most of Alaska is more resilient than most of the US given the popularity of chest freezers full of fish and game, chainsaws, and general capabilities. However, and this strays from insurance, there is no reasonable way to evacuate populations in a calamity, whether that be isolated areas to Anchorage, or Anchorage to elsewhere. There is not enough fuel, airplane capacity, available passenger ships, food, etc to get people out. There are few or just one road route and those pass through huge remote areas with very limited logistics, susceptible bridges, etc. The nearest population centers than could handle and Anchorage-sized population are Vancouver, Edmonton, and Calgary, all 2,000 road miles away, not all of which is paved.
Okay, that got a bit off topic, but interesting to think about the total location risk picture.
-
^^^ I lived in anchorage for 4 years inn the early 1990s and while there seemed to be a lot of earthquakes and especially wind storms coming up turnagain arm at 100 mph it just seems to be getting worse up there according to Alaskan friends. I agree it's a hard place to evacuate in any disaster and that may likely get harder if the few main roads get washed out. Or the wildfire fires make it impossible to get out. I lived there during the MT. Spur eruption and you couldn't fly or drive anywhere for quite a while due to the thick ash - what a mess!!
-
I'm wondering how all the storm, tornado and flood damage happening now will effect both rates and the ability to get (or keep) a HO policy anywhere and not just Calif and western states. After reading thru this thread I think renting might be for me!
Pick your insurance calamity poison:
- Gulf Coast hurricanes
- Southwest extreme heat
- PNW fires, ice storms, volcanos, and mega-earthquakes
- Western states forest fires, flashfloods, landslides and earthquakes
- SE hurricanes
- Central states tornados, hailstorms, floods in flat river valleys
- NE blizzards but otherwise not too bad!
- HI volcanos and now fires
- AK volcanos, EQs, fires, landslides, floods, blizzards, wind events, etc.
Did I miss anyone?
Where to move?
Most of these risks are fairly localized and don't apply evenly to entire regions.
I live in Boise, so the West and (by some definitions) the PNW. We don't really have earthquakes with the most problematic faults 100 miles away. No volcano risk. Fire is a danger in the mountains/forest, but not really much in the valley where the city is located. No landslide risk in the valley. Some flood risk near rivers, but otherwise not a problem. We don't get much snow and ice storms aren't common.
Same can be said for cities in California away from active faults and not in the forest. E.g. Sacramento, Fresno, etc.
Hurricanes dissipate quickly over land, so inland areas of the SE are fine.
Pretty much any place not right on the ring of fire, inland, and not in forest is fairly low risk. Yet people are drawn to the beauty of these risky places.
-
Re roofing and hail risk - my limited understanding is that metal roofing is less prone to damage from hail. Yet in my area at least, only a fraction of roofers do metal roofs and they overcharge massively for them compared to asphalt. That's why I did asphalt - a metal roof would have been at least $10k more than asphalt. Maybe it's time for insurance companies to incentivize metal roofs. Get all the roofers doing metal and costs will likely come down.
-
Re roofing and hail risk - my limited understanding is that metal roofing is less prone to damage from hail. Yet in my area at least, only a fraction of roofers do metal roofs and they overcharge massively for them compared to asphalt. That's why I did asphalt - a metal roof would have been at least $10k more than asphalt. Maybe it's time for insurance companies to incentivize metal roofs. Get all the roofers doing metal and costs will likely come down.
Agreed. I asked about metal when my roof was damaged. The roofer said it would be about 3x the cost. Although that was likely his F-no price because he doesn’t specialize in metal roofs.
I’m not an expert in the topic, but I believe part of the added cost has to do with complex rooflines that are prevelant on newish construction. A simple roof would be relatively easy to do metal with, but complex dormers and eves probably make construction a huge pain.
-
First hurricane of the 2024 season in the USA:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c51y49gwln0o
-
Re roofing and hail risk - my limited understanding is that metal roofing is less prone to damage from hail. Yet in my area at least, only a fraction of roofers do metal roofs and they overcharge massively for them compared to asphalt. That's why I did asphalt - a metal roof would have been at least $10k more than asphalt. Maybe it's time for insurance companies to incentivize metal roofs. Get all the roofers doing metal and costs will likely come down.
We're in the process of replacing our roof due to an insurance claim, and we got the same story.
Our roofer was even more blunt. He said metal roofs are great, but there's no real value to the homeowner since we'd get our shingles replaced again with another hail claim well before their 25 year lifespan. Insurance is just an installment plan for a new roof in his mind.
-
First hurricane of the 2024 season in the USA:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c51y49gwln0o
I believe that is the earliest Cat 4/5 hurricane ever in the US. Water temps are very warm and likely to create a lot of big hurricanes (and the inland flooding and tornados they cause) this year. Here in the western states were all pretty much on fire already with some big early wildfires. Super hot too (except along the Calif coast where Im at now and it's almost cold).
-
First hurricane of the 2024 season in the USA:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c51y49gwln0o
I believe that is the earliest Cat 4/5 hurricane ever in the US. Water temps are very warm and likely to create a lot of big hurricanes (and the inland flooding and tornados they cause) this year. Here in the western states were all pretty much on fire already with some big early wildfires. Super hot too (except along the Calif coast where Im at now and it's almost cold).
Correct. Both earliest Cat 4 and earliest Cat 5 on the historical record.
-
First hurricane of the 2024 season in the USA:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c51y49gwln0o
I believe that is the earliest Cat 4/5 hurricane ever in the US. Water temps are very warm and likely to create a lot of big hurricanes (and the inland flooding and tornados they cause) this year. Here in the western states were all pretty much on fire already with some big early wildfires. Super hot too (except along the Calif coast where Im at now and it's almost cold).
I saw "extreme heat warning. Stay hydrated" signs on the freeway sign near Dana Point the other day, but it was at most high 70s. :D
-
As much as I hate winter, the climate here (Southern Ontario) is a fantastic compromise of all the things. We get winter, but the "real winter" is only a couple weeks long, and there's only a couple truly heavy snows each year. We get summer heat. But the deadly hot is only a few weeks late in August. Muddy rain in spring - yup. Just a week or two followed by all the flowers. Autumn is blissful with a cold snap late enough that we can grow heat loving veggies.
I look at California or Costa Rica with envy of their endless summers, but for a year round place that still has good quality of life, this is pretty OK.
Do you get the grey Lake Erie winters, or do those only happen south of lake, like lake effect snow? I feel mostly the same about Northern Ohio weather (and climate is ultimately why we chose to settle here instead of taking a job in TX), but the unrelenting grey from November-April bother me more than I had anticipated.
-
First hurricane of the 2024 season in the USA:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c51y49gwln0o
I believe that is the earliest Cat 4/5 hurricane ever in the US. Water temps are very warm and likely to create a lot of big hurricanes (and the inland flooding and tornados they cause) this year. Here in the western states were all pretty much on fire already with some big early wildfires. Super hot too (except along the Calif coast where Im at now and it's almost cold).
I saw "extreme heat warning. Stay hydrated" signs on the freeway sign near Dana Point the other day, but it was at most high 70s. :D
I saw those signs too and figured that since those freeways go inland a bit where it's hotter they gotta warn you (Warning: Entering Mission Viejo. You're all gonna die of heat stroke!!). I guess when it's this hot and people go off even slightly inland and stop for a hike it can be dangerous. A least we don't have the big winds (Santa Ana's) yet as that could be a mega-disaster with wildfires.
"Mission Viejo, CA Severe Weather Alert. 81 degrees" lol actually it's now 90 but we're all weather wimps here so we feel like death is imminent.
-
Re roofing and hail risk - my limited understanding is that metal roofing is less prone to damage from hail. Yet in my area at least, only a fraction of roofers do metal roofs and they overcharge massively for them compared to asphalt. That's why I did asphalt - a metal roof would have been at least $10k more than asphalt. Maybe it's time for insurance companies to incentivize metal roofs. Get all the roofers doing metal and costs will likely come down.
We're in the process of replacing our roof due to an insurance claim, and we got the same story.
Our roofer was even more blunt. He said metal roofs are great, but there's no real value to the homeowner since we'd get our shingles replaced again with another hail claim well before their 25 year lifespan. Insurance is just an installment plan for a new roof in his mind.
That would change in a hurry if insurance companies stopped paying for asphalt roofs. Or put a limit on how often they'll pay for a roof or repairs, and said limit is the actual lifespan of the roof. That would help with the fraud as well.
-
This was in the news again today although I'm not sure the map is new. Shows the coasts as risky but also some of the hotter inland parts of the west and some midwest tornado/blizzard areas.
I imagine most of us are in these counties (we are orange...) as most of the forum seems to be west coast software engineers.
https://hazards.fema.gov/nri/map
(https://img-s-msn-com.akamaized.net/tenant/amp/entityid/BB1pKvDK.img)
-
This was in the news again today although I'm not sure the map is new. Shows the coasts as risky but also some of the hotter inland parts of the west and some midwest tornado/blizzard areas.
I imagine most of us are in these counties (we are orange...) as most of the forum seems to be west coast software engineers.
https://hazards.fema.gov/nri/map
(https://img-s-msn-com.akamaized.net/tenant/amp/entityid/BB1pKvDK.img)
I think Counties out west are too large to be useful for individual risk assessment purposes. Instead, click on the Census Tract View to get more granular info.
As regions go, the Upper Midwest, Interior East Coast, and Interior Southeast are the lowest risk. Mots of the West Coast is a disaster waiting to happen. In California specifically the Central Valley cities such as Sacramento and Fresno are your best bet. The Mountain West is a mixed bag, but generally larger cities have low fire risk (as long as you stay out of the WUI!) and so cities away from active faults are mostly low risk. Most of Florida is a no-go.
-
For my county specifically, here's the risk ratings:
Avalanche - Not Applicable
Coastal Flooding - Very Low
Cold Wave - Very High
Drought* - No Rating (um, we're in one. Whatever the official stuff says, my garden is quite firm on that)
Earthquake - Relatively Low
Hail - Very Low (you can't be very high on tornado and vey low on hail. Does not compute)
Heat Wave - Relatively High
Hurricane - Very Low
Ice Storm - Relatively Moderate
Landslide - Relatively Moderate (where? It's pretty flat)
Lightning - Relatively High
Riverine Flooding - Relatively Moderate
Strong Wind - Relatively High
Tornado - Very High
Tsunami - Insufficient Data
Volcanic Activity - Not Applicable
Wildfire - Relatively Low
Winter Weather - Relatively Moderate
So yes, there's nuance here.
-
Im in the red zone mostly because of very high risk from earthquakes, wildfires, floods, mudflows/landslided and winter weather hazards. Basicly west coast mountains. Even my old county was red for many of the same reasons but nothing winter weather related. Of course it's all dependant on your location even within a red zone. What I wonder is why some cities are high risk zones surrounded by lower risk zones. Places like Detroit and Chicago for example. Is that due to higher populations so more individuals at risk if something happens or some kind if social risk (crime) or just in unique locations (like being on big lakes or rivers that flood) that are more subjected to greater risks?
-
I think Counties out west are too large to be useful for individual risk assessment purposes. Instead, click on the Census Tract View to get more granular info.
As regions go, the Upper Midwest, Interior East Coast, and Interior Southeast are the lowest risk. Mots of the West Coast is a disaster waiting to happen. In California specifically the Central Valley cities such as Sacramento and Fresno are your best bet. The Mountain West is a mixed bag, but generally larger cities have low fire risk (as long as you stay out of the WUI!) and so cities away from active faults are mostly low risk. Most of Florida is a no-go.
Holy cow, when you look at Census Tract View, all the counties that were blue turn yellow or red! The whole country lights up. Where to live? Upper MN or WI? No thanks. Maybe Gallup NM, with one of the highest crime rates in the country? There is no perfect place it seems.
-
I think Counties out west are too large to be useful for individual risk assessment purposes. Instead, click on the Census Tract View to get more granular info.
As regions go, the Upper Midwest, Interior East Coast, and Interior Southeast are the lowest risk. Mots of the West Coast is a disaster waiting to happen. In California specifically the Central Valley cities such as Sacramento and Fresno are your best bet. The Mountain West is a mixed bag, but generally larger cities have low fire risk (as long as you stay out of the WUI!) and so cities away from active faults are mostly low risk. Most of Florida is a no-go.
Holy cow, when you look at Census Tract View, all the counties that were blue turn yellow or red! The whole country lights up. Where to live? Upper MN or WI? No thanks. Maybe Gallup NM, with one of the highest crime rates in the country? There is no perfect place it seems.
Duluth, MN, the favorite of climatologists everywhere!
-
I think Counties out west are too large to be useful for individual risk assessment purposes. Instead, click on the Census Tract View to get more granular info.
As regions go, the Upper Midwest, Interior East Coast, and Interior Southeast are the lowest risk. Mots of the West Coast is a disaster waiting to happen. In California specifically the Central Valley cities such as Sacramento and Fresno are your best bet. The Mountain West is a mixed bag, but generally larger cities have low fire risk (as long as you stay out of the WUI!) and so cities away from active faults are mostly low risk. Most of Florida is a no-go.
Holy cow, when you look at Census Tract View, all the counties that were blue turn yellow or red! The whole country lights up. Where to live? Upper MN or WI? No thanks. Maybe Gallup NM, with one of the highest crime rates in the country? There is no perfect place it seems.
I'm located in a completely deep blue (climate safe) region that also happens to be consistently ranked among the top small towns to live.
-
This is a FEMA map which means government agencies planning for events are the primary audience.
The drought metric is about risk to agriculture, not your family garden :)
Yes, there's a lot of nuance hiding in the aggregate, which is why I think it's generally more useful to look at the Census Tract View. It's also helpful to look at individual risks, which you can do by selecting the red menu at top left. Wildfire Risk is an important one for those to pay attention to in the west.
Indeed there are no perfect places, but risk isn't the same everywhere. I live in an urban area of Boise that is very low risk yet we're surrounded by high risk (mostly wildfire). Which makes sense, wildfire risk is low in more urban areas (though not zero), but the risk of range fires is very high in the foothills. A house on a hill has great views which seems desirable until you realize the hill is covered with brush and fire races uphill very quickly. This isn't unique to Boise, look at other urban centers in places like SLC, Denver, Spokane, Phoenix, etc. and you'll find islands of blue in the sea of red and yellow. Yet Americans love living in the forest and/or having views, so we keep building in the WUI and other high risk areas.
-
^^^ Yeah I think the only thing you can do is weigh the risks to the benefits and cross your fingers and hope for the best! Most of us have to make compromise for jobs or loved ones as well as costs so sometimes there's not a lots of choices to be made. I love the east coast - especially New England - and the risks and cost would be worth the reward for me. But...compromise (blech) so have been living in the west with its own risks. If I wasn't worried about continuously rising rent costs or being at a LLs mercy I'd just rent forever. But don't want to find myself at 80 or 90 years old getting the boot or priced out of the rental market.
-
^^^ Yeah I think the only thing you can do is weigh the risks to the benefits and cross your fingers and hope for the best! Most of us have to make compromise for jobs or loved ones as well as costs so sometimes there's not a lots of choices to be made. I love the east coast - especially New England - and the risks and cost would be worth the reward for me. But...compromise (blech) so have been living in the west with its own risks. If I wasn't worried about continuously rising rent costs or being at a LLs mercy I'd just rent forever. But don't want to find myself at 80 or 90 years old getting the boot or priced out of the rental market.
I agree. This is why I feel I need to leave California sooner or later. I mean, I can probably swing a tiny place in Long Beach. But I'd rather live in more comfort.
I keep waiting for a another 2009-like housing collapse, but it doesn't seem like it's going to happen.
-
I'm not sure that I have a lot faith in the accuracy. Here is the Honolulu report.
Drought low
Coastal flooding, Hurricane, Earthquake moderate
Winter weather no score
Ice Storm 89.1 relatively High.. How the hell is that possible
Hail is very low, (It think there have been two reports of hail in my 25 years)
-
I'm not sure that I have a lot faith in the accuracy. Here is the Honolulu report.
Drought low
Coastal flooding, Hurricane, Earthquake moderate
Winter weather no score
Ice Storm 89.1 relatively High.. How the hell is that possible
Hail is very low, (It think there have been two reports of hail in my 25 years)
I think ice storms come down from the Artic to California? Hawaii is south of that, but the climate will be destabilising for decades in ways that are not yet known.
-
Re roofing and hail risk - my limited understanding is that metal roofing is less prone to damage from hail. Yet in my area at least, only a fraction of roofers do metal roofs and they overcharge massively for them compared to asphalt. That's why I did asphalt - a metal roof would have been at least $10k more than asphalt. Maybe it's time for insurance companies to incentivize metal roofs. Get all the roofers doing metal and costs will likely come down.
We're in the process of replacing our roof due to an insurance claim, and we got the same story.
Our roofer was even more blunt. He said metal roofs are great, but there's no real value to the homeowner since we'd get our shingles replaced again with another hail claim well before their 25 year lifespan. Insurance is just an installment plan for a new roof in his mind.
My problem is that my latest quotes increased the wind/hail deductible on all the policies. One was 2% of policy value. That means on a less expensive home you will have some coverage. But if you are in a $500,000 home but have a fairly basic roof like a single story ranch you are going to be paying the majority of the roofing cost. Every policy I had quoted last year for my Midwest home had a separate wind/hail limit. My current roof is 17 years old and just lost the first shingle due to wind. I'm just waiting for them to start excluding roof coverage all together.
-
This is a FEMA map which means government agencies planning for events are the primary audience.
The drought metric is about risk to agriculture, not your family garden :)
Yes, there's a lot of nuance hiding in the aggregate, which is why I think it's generally more useful to look at the Census Tract View. It's also helpful to look at individual risks, which you can do by selecting the red menu at top left. Wildfire Risk is an important one for those to pay attention to in the west.
Indeed there are no perfect places, but risk isn't the same everywhere. I live in an urban area of Boise that is very low risk yet we're surrounded by high risk (mostly wildfire). Which makes sense, wildfire risk is low in more urban areas (though not zero), but the risk of range fires is very high in the foothills. A house on a hill has great views which seems desirable until you realize the hill is covered with brush and fire races uphill very quickly. This isn't unique to Boise, look at other urban centers in places like SLC, Denver, Spokane, Phoenix, etc. and you'll find islands of blue in the sea of red and yellow. Yet Americans love living in the forest and/or having views, so we keep building in the WUI and other high risk areas.
Watching the Marshall fire, I came to a greater appreciation that while the WUI is significantly more risky, fires can spread pretty rapidly away from that as well. IIRC, there were instances of neighborhoods catching on fire about a mile deep in the city and completely away from the flames. The high winds gathered burning embers and distributed them that far. There was nothing the firefighters could do to stop or even slow the fire.
I realize that's not a "normal" fire pattern. But a fire like that happening in late-December isn't normal either. There should have been snow on the ground.
I'm also watching what's going on with electricity recovery in Houston. While it's hard to quantify, there's clearly value living in an area that's investing in hardening infrastructure with well managed institutions. I think urban areas are safer in a way because they naturally pool resources to manage things like storm infrastructure, disaster rehearsal, fire protection, etc.
I suspect people going off to live "prepper" lives in Idaho will be much less prepared for climate change than those in urban areas with the resources to better prepare for climate change.
-
^^^There's been quite a few big wildfires in urban areas in Calif over the years. Malibu, Laguna Beach, Santa Rosa, suburban San Diego, etc... Lots of destruction. Lots of fuel and hills in those urban areas to create big fires. And lots of expensive real estate too. There are several small fires around SoCal now and several big ones further north and more insurance companies are trying to increase rates here for HO insurance or not issuing policies so those in even suburban and urban areas might not be able to get coverage soon. My places has had some offers so hope to accept one this weekend and then go somewhere less fiery! And rent lol!
-
Our old neighborhood in the East Bay, a woodsy enclave near Berkeley, has developed an insurance crisis and recently had a town hall with state leaders. People are near panic. The area has also had rainy season home-destroying landslides in recent years which are even scarier as such events are uninsurable.
-
Our old neighborhood in the East Bay, a woodsy enclave near Berkeley, has developed an insurance crisis and recently had a town hall with state leaders. People are near panic. The area has also had rainy season home-destroying landslides in recent years which are even scarier as such events are uninsurable.
That's the problem in SoCal too - big wildfires in summer and fall followed by big mudslides due to lack of vegetation during winter rains. It's a big double whammy and some pretty expensive neighborhoods have been hit hard. I actually don't blame insurers too much for upping their rates or even denying coverage in some locations. Apparently All State joined the bandwagon too.
-
This is a FEMA map which means government agencies planning for events are the primary audience.
The drought metric is about risk to agriculture, not your family garden :)
Yes, there's a lot of nuance hiding in the aggregate, which is why I think it's generally more useful to look at the Census Tract View. It's also helpful to look at individual risks, which you can do by selecting the red menu at top left. Wildfire Risk is an important one for those to pay attention to in the west.
Indeed there are no perfect places, but risk isn't the same everywhere. I live in an urban area of Boise that is very low risk yet we're surrounded by high risk (mostly wildfire). Which makes sense, wildfire risk is low in more urban areas (though not zero), but the risk of range fires is very high in the foothills. A house on a hill has great views which seems desirable until you realize the hill is covered with brush and fire races uphill very quickly. This isn't unique to Boise, look at other urban centers in places like SLC, Denver, Spokane, Phoenix, etc. and you'll find islands of blue in the sea of red and yellow. Yet Americans love living in the forest and/or having views, so we keep building in the WUI and other high risk areas.
Watching the Marshall fire, I came to a greater appreciation that while the WUI is significantly more risky, fires can spread pretty rapidly away from that as well. IIRC, there were instances of neighborhoods catching on fire about a mile deep in the city and completely away from the flames. The high winds gathered burning embers and distributed them that far. There was nothing the firefighters could do to stop or even slow the fire.
I realize that's not a "normal" fire pattern. But a fire like that happening in late-December isn't normal either. There should have been snow on the ground.
I'm also watching what's going on with electricity recovery in Houston. While it's hard to quantify, there's clearly value living in an area that's investing in hardening infrastructure with well managed institutions. I think urban areas are safer in a way because they naturally pool resources to manage things like storm infrastructure, disaster rehearsal, fire protection, etc.
I suspect people going off to live "prepper" lives in Idaho will be much less prepared for climate change than those in urban areas with the resources to better prepare for climate change.
Indeed, the Marshall Fire shows no place is immune. Very high winds in dry conditions is always a danger. Here in Boise we've been in a heat wave for a few days and may have dry lightning today/tomorrow, so I'm somewhat nervously watching for smoke. Thankfully the prevailing winds here are almost always westerly which would push fire into the wilderness and not the city. Fingers crossed.
With insurance it's all about probabilities. A city surrounded by high loads of highly combustible fuels, e.g. oak and chaparral around Santa Rosa, is a high risk for producing ember storms that sweep into the urban area. This is one of the issues of building timber frame homes in the WUI -- it's adding fuel to the fuel. Small cities surrounded by thick brush/forest are particularly vulnerable, places like Malibu (esp. during Santa Ana winds) and Durango CO (which we considered moving to but rejected due to fire risk) are primed to burn. I expect these types of places will become uninsurable as risk models are updated.
Most of the crazy preppers out here are in North Idaho, which culturally and geographically is essentially a different state. Much of North Idaho is low risk for wildfire due to lots of snow and a short summer, though again not risk free. All it takes is drought followed by a hot dry summer and things can quickly get out of hand, as happened with the CZU fire in the Santa Cruz Mountains. Which is why I've started paying a lot more attention to fuel loads. I love the forest, but no longer want to live in it.
-
I'm just waiting for them to start excluding roof coverage all together.
It seems likely that there'll be a big fight between insurers and mortgage companies over roofing coverage.
I mentioned upthread that insurers are already talking about pitching state legislation to change the standard coverage to functional (i.e. repair it so that it doesn't leak) from the present standard of fully replacing roofs that show a number of hail dents even if they're functionally fine.
I imagine in the midwest the savings would be substantial, but would open mortgage companies to more risk as older roofs stayed on houses.
-
Most of the crazy preppers out here are in North Idaho, which culturally and geographically is essentially a different state. Much of North Idaho is low risk for wildfire due to lots of snow and a short summer, though again not risk free. All it takes is drought followed by a hot dry summer and things can quickly get out of hand, as happened with the CZU fire in the Santa Cruz Mountains. Which is why I've started paying a lot more attention to fuel loads. I love the forest, but no longer want to live in it.
I'm not very familiar with the details of Northern Idaho's climate and geography. How different is it from the areas around Jasper and Banff burning now?
I'm looking at my parents places that I might inherit someday, and I honestly hope they get sold before that happens.
My dad has 3 acres in napa. It's the house my great-grandfather built in the early 1900's with his own hands, and is barely holding together. My dad's idea of fun is using his tractor to mow fire breaks for him and all his neighbors. He even started a fire that nearly took out the neighborhood when his lawnmower hit a rock while mowing a firebreak. That's not something I'm going to manage from 1,000 miles away.
The house he lives in back up to the grasslands of Mt. Diablo State Park.
Even if these properties manage to avoid burning, they will be un-insurable in 20 years.
-
Most of the crazy preppers out here are in North Idaho, which culturally and geographically is essentially a different state. Much of North Idaho is low risk for wildfire due to lots of snow and a short summer, though again not risk free. All it takes is drought followed by a hot dry summer and things can quickly get out of hand, as happened with the CZU fire in the Santa Cruz Mountains. Which is why I've started paying a lot more attention to fuel loads. I love the forest, but no longer want to live in it.
I'm not very familiar with the details of Northern Idaho's climate and geography. How different is it from the areas around Jasper and Banff burning now?
I'm looking at my parents places that I might inherit someday, and I honestly hope they get sold before that happens.
My dad has 3 acres in napa. It's the house my great-grandfather built in the early 1900's with his own hands, and is barely holding together. My dad's idea of fun is using his tractor to mow fire breaks for him and all his neighbors. He even started a fire that nearly took out the neighborhood when his lawnmower hit a rock while mowing a firebreak. That's not something I'm going to manage from 1,000 miles away.
The house he lives in back up to the grasslands of Mt. Diablo State Park.
Even if these properties manage to avoid burning, they will be un-insurable in 20 years.
I'm not super familiar with Jasper's climate, but at a glance they look somewhat similar. North Idaho has long winters with more snowfall and short mild summers. It's all fine until there's a drought and the forest dries out, which is what I understand happened in Jasper.
Take a drive around San Francisco and the greater Bay Area and one of the things that stands out, especially to East Coasters, is the lack of brick buildings. People learned these don't do well in earthquakes, so as brick buildings failed they were rebuilt with designs more suitable for the area.
My guess is that something similar will take shape in high risk fire areas because there's simply too much desire to live in nature. Timber frame homes in the forest were never a good idea, so as these burn and become uninsurable we'll see them replaced with concrete and steel structures with metal/slate roofs designed to withstand wildfire. Wooden decks will be replaced with non-combustible patios, and trees/vegetation will be removed from around the property. It won't look like a traditional house in the woods, and they will be more expensive to build, but won't be in danger of burning.
Your dad's house in Napa (though I'm a little confused if it's in Napa or near Mt Diablo, which aren't really the same area) may be uninsurable in 20 years (IMO, probably much sooner), yet the property may still be worth quite a bit by then. Napa is the kind of place wealthy folks from the Bay Area don't mind dropping a lot of money building second/third homes.
PS - get your dad to mow earlier in the season before the vegetation dries out :)
-
I should add that the Great Fire of 1910 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Fire_of_1910) was mostly in North Idaho. Basically the same story playing out in Jasper: drought followed by wind driven fire.
The 1910 fire informed the modern era of wildfire suppression, with the goal of controlling and containing fires before they get out of hand. I think it's clear at this point that we learned the wrong lessons from 1910. Fire is necessary and healthy for the forest, whereas 100 years of fire suppression have resulted in a build up of fuels. In a warming and drying climate it's even more important to manage these fuels. Near population centers and in the WUI this means mechanical thinning, which is expensive and should be paid for by those in these areas. In wilderness this means a lot more prescribed burns when conditions are suitable, likely requires changing some liability and air quality laws.
-
Most of the crazy preppers out here are in North Idaho, which culturally and geographically is essentially a different state. Much of North Idaho is low risk for wildfire due to lots of snow and a short summer, though again not risk free. All it takes is drought followed by a hot dry summer and things can quickly get out of hand, as happened with the CZU fire in the Santa Cruz Mountains. Which is why I've started paying a lot more attention to fuel loads. I love the forest, but no longer want to live in it.
I'm not very familiar with the details of Northern Idaho's climate and geography. How different is it from the areas around Jasper and Banff burning now?
I'm looking at my parents places that I might inherit someday, and I honestly hope they get sold before that happens.
My dad has 3 acres in napa. It's the house my great-grandfather built in the early 1900's with his own hands, and is barely holding together. My dad's idea of fun is using his tractor to mow fire breaks for him and all his neighbors. He even started a fire that nearly took out the neighborhood when his lawnmower hit a rock while mowing a firebreak. That's not something I'm going to manage from 1,000 miles away.
The house he lives in back up to the grasslands of Mt. Diablo State Park.
Even if these properties manage to avoid burning, they will be un-insurable in 20 years.
I'm not super familiar with Jasper's climate, but at a glance they look somewhat similar. North Idaho has long winters with more snowfall and short mild summers. It's all fine until there's a drought and the forest dries out, which is what I understand happened in Jasper.
Take a drive around San Francisco and the greater Bay Area and one of the things that stands out, especially to East Coasters, is the lack of brick buildings. People learned these don't do well in earthquakes, so as brick buildings failed they were rebuilt with designs more suitable for the area.
My guess is that something similar will take shape in high risk fire areas because there's simply too much desire to live in nature. Timber frame homes in the forest were never a good idea, so as these burn and become uninsurable we'll see them replaced with concrete and steel structures with metal/slate roofs designed to withstand wildfire. Wooden decks will be replaced with non-combustible patios, and trees/vegetation will be removed from around the property. It won't look like a traditional house in the woods, and they will be more expensive to build, but won't be in danger of burning.
Your dad's house in Napa (though I'm a little confused if it's in Napa or near Mt Diablo, which aren't really the same area) may be uninsurable in 20 years (IMO, probably much sooner), yet the property may still be worth quite a bit by then. Napa is the kind of place wealthy folks from the Bay Area don't mind dropping a lot of money building second/third homes.
PS - get your dad to mow earlier in the season before the vegetation dries out :)
At some point though, baking becomes as big a problem as burning for a house in the middle of a raging forest fire. Maybe the walls stay standing and the metal roof repels the flames, but the rubber or vinyl surrounding the windows can melt, flanges around roof penetrations can melt or burn, the exterior wiring can melt, door seals can melt, the exterior AC can melt, the interior could get so hot it will bake plastic stuff, etc. Then there's smoke damage. A "fire-proof" home might still require a complete rehab if it was close enough to the burning trees and logs, and be as toxic as an old burn barrel afterward.
-
Most of the crazy preppers out here are in North Idaho, which culturally and geographically is essentially a different state. Much of North Idaho is low risk for wildfire due to lots of snow and a short summer, though again not risk free. All it takes is drought followed by a hot dry summer and things can quickly get out of hand, as happened with the CZU fire in the Santa Cruz Mountains. Which is why I've started paying a lot more attention to fuel loads. I love the forest, but no longer want to live in it.
I'm not very familiar with the details of Northern Idaho's climate and geography. How different is it from the areas around Jasper and Banff burning now?
I'm looking at my parents places that I might inherit someday, and I honestly hope they get sold before that happens.
My dad has 3 acres in napa. It's the house my great-grandfather built in the early 1900's with his own hands, and is barely holding together. My dad's idea of fun is using his tractor to mow fire breaks for him and all his neighbors. He even started a fire that nearly took out the neighborhood when his lawnmower hit a rock while mowing a firebreak. That's not something I'm going to manage from 1,000 miles away.
The house he lives in back up to the grasslands of Mt. Diablo State Park.
Even if these properties manage to avoid burning, they will be un-insurable in 20 years.
I'm not super familiar with Jasper's climate, but at a glance they look somewhat similar. North Idaho has long winters with more snowfall and short mild summers. It's all fine until there's a drought and the forest dries out, which is what I understand happened in Jasper.
Take a drive around San Francisco and the greater Bay Area and one of the things that stands out, especially to East Coasters, is the lack of brick buildings. People learned these don't do well in earthquakes, so as brick buildings failed they were rebuilt with designs more suitable for the area.
My guess is that something similar will take shape in high risk fire areas because there's simply too much desire to live in nature. Timber frame homes in the forest were never a good idea, so as these burn and become uninsurable we'll see them replaced with concrete and steel structures with metal/slate roofs designed to withstand wildfire. Wooden decks will be replaced with non-combustible patios, and trees/vegetation will be removed from around the property. It won't look like a traditional house in the woods, and they will be more expensive to build, but won't be in danger of burning.
Your dad's house in Napa (though I'm a little confused if it's in Napa or near Mt Diablo, which aren't really the same area) may be uninsurable in 20 years (IMO, probably much sooner), yet the property may still be worth quite a bit by then. Napa is the kind of place wealthy folks from the Bay Area don't mind dropping a lot of money building second/third homes.
PS - get your dad to mow earlier in the season before the vegetation dries out :)
At some point though, baking becomes as big a problem as burning for a house in the middle of a raging forest fire. Maybe the walls stay standing and the metal roof repels the flames, but the rubber or vinyl surrounding the windows can melt, flanges around roof penetrations can melt or burn, the exterior wiring can melt, door seals can melt, the exterior AC can melt, the interior could get so hot it will bake plastic stuff, etc. Then there's smoke damage. A "fire-proof" home might still require a complete rehab if it was close enough to the burning trees and logs, and be as toxic as an old burn barrel afterward.
Yep, which is why I mention landscaping. The entire area around the structure needs to be non-combustible. No vinyl windows, upgraded glazing. And yes, ventilation matters. Housing in these areas becomes a fire resistant structure on a large bare patch of land.
-
Most of the crazy preppers out here are in North Idaho, which culturally and geographically is essentially a different state. Much of North Idaho is low risk for wildfire due to lots of snow and a short summer, though again not risk free. All it takes is drought followed by a hot dry summer and things can quickly get out of hand, as happened with the CZU fire in the Santa Cruz Mountains. Which is why I've started paying a lot more attention to fuel loads. I love the forest, but no longer want to live in it.
I'm not very familiar with the details of Northern Idaho's climate and geography. How different is it from the areas around Jasper and Banff burning now?
I'm looking at my parents places that I might inherit someday, and I honestly hope they get sold before that happens.
My dad has 3 acres in napa. It's the house my great-grandfather built in the early 1900's with his own hands, and is barely holding together. My dad's idea of fun is using his tractor to mow fire breaks for him and all his neighbors. He even started a fire that nearly took out the neighborhood when his lawnmower hit a rock while mowing a firebreak. That's not something I'm going to manage from 1,000 miles away.
The house he lives in back up to the grasslands of Mt. Diablo State Park.
Even if these properties manage to avoid burning, they will be un-insurable in 20 years.
I'm not super familiar with Jasper's climate, but at a glance they look somewhat similar. North Idaho has long winters with more snowfall and short mild summers. It's all fine until there's a drought and the forest dries out, which is what I understand happened in Jasper.
Take a drive around San Francisco and the greater Bay Area and one of the things that stands out, especially to East Coasters, is the lack of brick buildings. People learned these don't do well in earthquakes, so as brick buildings failed they were rebuilt with designs more suitable for the area.
My guess is that something similar will take shape in high risk fire areas because there's simply too much desire to live in nature. Timber frame homes in the forest were never a good idea, so as these burn and become uninsurable we'll see them replaced with concrete and steel structures with metal/slate roofs designed to withstand wildfire. Wooden decks will be replaced with non-combustible patios, and trees/vegetation will be removed from around the property. It won't look like a traditional house in the woods, and they will be more expensive to build, but won't be in danger of burning.
Your dad's house in Napa (though I'm a little confused if it's in Napa or near Mt Diablo, which aren't really the same area) may be uninsurable in 20 years (IMO, probably much sooner), yet the property may still be worth quite a bit by then. Napa is the kind of place wealthy folks from the Bay Area don't mind dropping a lot of money building second/third homes.
PS - get your dad to mow earlier in the season before the vegetation dries out :)
Yea, my mental image of N. Idaho is similar to the pacific northwest. It's not an area that would be at high risk of fires, but the sheer volume of combustible materials would be insane if fire took hold.
I wasn't clear on the properties; The napa property is separate from where my his primary residence. It's usually rented out, but he's fixing it up now.
I looked up both properties on the First Street foundation website. The napa property has a 60% change of complete destruction in the next 30 years, although that could go down to 13% with fireproofing updates. The property is valuable for location, but the home would be considered a tear-down by most would-be buyers.
His home near Mt. Diablo is similar, with a 56% chance of total destruction in 30 years.
I'm no actuary, but I can do enough simple math to see why insurance companies aren't interested in insuring those homes. A $1M house replaced every 30 years at a 60% probability works out to $20k/yr. For this risk alone. That math doesn't math.
The NY Times did a good article (paywalled) about what the insurance companies would like to see for updating building codes to deal with fire. It looks expensive, but I hope some of this starts getting put into the building code sooner rather than later.
https://www.nytimes.com/2024/07/15/business/wildfires-home-insurance-building-standards.html?searchResultPosition=3 (https://www.nytimes.com/2024/07/15/business/wildfires-home-insurance-building-standards.html?searchResultPosition=3)
-
I'm just looking at the FIRE map and smoke map of current active fires and holy crap! It's crazy up north and further east in AZ and NM. Maybe this will be the year where they all merge into one super giant mega-fire. There's been predictions of that for a long time (along with "The Big One" earthquake in Calif so who knows! The End is Neigh apparently blah blah blah. Seriously scary those. My house is in escrow now and I'm just hoping it goes thru before the big winds cone and push all our little wildfires into a big wildfire.
-
Question on the built up fuels. The most efficient way to remove it is to do a controlled burn, but that is difficult to do. In a populated area with a lot of built up dead vegetation or whatever, how do you manage it? The more fuel = for need to do a controlled burn but also the more risk it'll get out of hand.
-
Question on the built up fuels. The most efficient way to remove it is to do a controlled burn, but that is difficult to do. In a populated area with a lot of built up dead vegetation or whatever, how do you manage it? The more fuel = for need to do a controlled burn but also the more risk it'll get out of hand.
There's no easy solution for controlled burns in populated areas. I'm going to keep repeating myself here: we need to stop building into wildlands, and those who really want to live in these areas need to bear the full cost of their choices. This includes the very labor and cost intensive mechanical thinning. Selective logging can, and should, be part of this. This cannot be clear cutting or companies taking only the largest most profitable trees, but needs to be part of an overall forest management plan of also thinning younger trees and brush.
Prescribed burns are for large unpopulated wilderness areas. Forest managers track vegetation moisture levels and combined with weather forecasts and seasonal patterns, they plan burns to produce low intensity fire that stays in the understory and mostly consumes dead and down fuel and thins brush. They want to avoid crown fires that climb trees and kill the entire forest. Out west this mostly means early or late season burns, depending on elevation and other factors. E.g. in the Sierra Nevada mountains late October after some amount of rain/snow combined with higher humidity and lower temperatures. The goal should be to return to what's known as a mosaic burn pattern.
This is very healthy for the forest and wildlife. Many of our forests in the West are way too dense and overgrown. They look pretty from a distance, but if you hike into these (as I have while hunting) they are essentially dead zones because the forest is so thick no sunlight reaches the forest floor and is impassable for larger animals. The forest density also means trees are competing for too little water, making them susceptible to bark beetle infestations.
The best example I can think of for a well managed wilderness out west is Yosemite National Park. They've been doing controlled burns for decades and generally monitor yet allow lightning ignited wildfires to burn in the high country. The result is larger trees with further spacing and less brush/deadwood -- forest that one can actually walk through. We need a lot more of this, but this means changing laws to limit liability if a prescribed burn is property planned but happens to get out of hand (it happens), and we need to accept that this means air quality will be negatively impacted in places but this is far more desirable than weeks of thick smoke from a monster fire.
-
I live in the capital of Australia, where we have controlled burns every month of the year when wildfire isn’t likely. They do a mosaic of burns. We have a lot of urban nature reserves (every ridge and small waterway is a park, mainly of native vegetation). The 2003 Canberra firestorm showed that the city plan enables fire to break the city into pieces along the ridges of urban nature reserves (during that fire, the fire crossed every road joining some areas to the rest of the city), but some of our urban nature reserves are the largest contiguous pieces of a particular ecosystem extant, including several highly endangered species (all but 1% of this ecosystem has been used for agriculture), so it’s impossible to infill them. We narrowly missed being hit by the 2019-2020 fires (I could see them from my house for a few weeks), possibly partly because of all the controlled burns. I live in a suburb surrounded by other suburbs - not on the semi-rural fringe.
While our vegetation is some of the most pyrogenic in the world (many Australian plants require fire to germinate), most of it expects the cooler fires that are part of controlled burns, and our indigenous people have cultural methods that are being adapted and used for our burns.
-
^^^ we actually have a lot of controlled/prescribed burns in Calif despite what many people say. But I think in very high wildfire years (like now) it's probably not enough. Or maybe it gets too risky too soon. IDK. We've got a big fire up north now (Park Fire coving 600 square Miles) which isn't even wind driven like most big fires are here later in the fall. Lots of people demanding more controlled burns asap but unlikely to happen and most residents in fire prone areas are cutting down trees and clearing underbrush around their homes (which is required by law anyways) but the fires are just too massive for that to help much if at all.
-
We just don't do nearly enough controlled burns, as in total acreage. From NYT about the giant Park Fire in NorCal (https://www.nytimes.com/2024/07/30/climate/park-fire-california-heat.html)
What’s more, there’s not only dry fuel, but a lot of it. The blaze has spread across parts of the state that haven’t experienced fire in decades. Fire suppression practices have allowed vegetation to build up over long periods, in contrast to the frequent burns that were a common forest management tool of Indigenous tribes in California pre-1850, said Hugh Safford, a research ecologist at the University of California, Davis, and a former ecologist for the United States Forest Service in California. Those policies mean the rapid spread of the Park fire was “absolutely not surprising at any level,” he said.
-
^^^ we actually have a lot of controlled/prescribed burns in Calif despite what many people say. But I think in very high wildfire years (like now) it's probably not enough. Or maybe it gets too risky too soon. IDK. We've got a big fire up north now (Park Fire coving 600 square Miles) which isn't even wind driven like most big fires are here later in the fall. Lots of people demanding more controlled burns asap but unlikely to happen and most residents in fire prone areas are cutting down trees and clearing underbrush around their homes (which is required by law anyways) but the fires are just too massive for that to help much if at all.
One challenge with climate change is that the season that is acceptable for prescribed burns is getting shorter every year. There’s a lot of forest, and limited time and resources to do it.
-
^^^ we actually have a lot of controlled/prescribed burns in Calif despite what many people say. But I think in very high wildfire years (like now) it's probably not enough. Or maybe it gets too risky too soon. IDK. We've got a big fire up north now (Park Fire coving 600 square Miles) which isn't even wind driven like most big fires are here later in the fall. Lots of people demanding more controlled burns asap but unlikely to happen and most residents in fire prone areas are cutting down trees and clearing underbrush around their homes (which is required by law anyways) but the fires are just too massive for that to help much if at all.
One challenge with climate change is that the season that is acceptable for prescribed burns is getting shorter every year. There’s a lot of forest, and limited time and resources to do it.
True, which means we need to start take a bit more risk and do controlled burns in less than ideal conditions. We need to disabuse ourselves of the fiction that wildfire can be prevented indefinitely. Especially in the semi-arid West, every forest must burn at some point -- it's a fire adapted ecosystem and fire is part of the natural and necessary cycle. The longer we put it off the more fuel builds up, it's like accumulating debt that eventually has to be paid. A less-than-ideal prescribed burn is far better than waiting until an extended heat wave dries vegetation combined with high winds to produce a worst case scenario like we see with the Park Fire, which doesn't just burn the accumulated fuel but also destroys the entire forest, killing mature trees and even degrading the soil due to extreme temperatures.
-
The same controlled burning is needed in the East as well, though we aren't at the same risk for massive fires threatening cities. Plus we can get inches of rain in a day and still technically be in drought. We had a prescribed burn that got out of hand last year in Coastal NC that ended up burning 16,000 acres of preserve that hadn't burned in 70 years. Turns out it was great for the long leaf pine and the flytraps that only live in this small part of the world. https://www.wfae.org/2024-06-06/one-year-after-the-pulp-road-wildfire-green-swamp-preserve-has-bounced-back-even-better (https://www.wfae.org/2024-06-06/one-year-after-the-pulp-road-wildfire-green-swamp-preserve-has-bounced-back-even-better)
-
After reading along here for a while I got to wondering what our fire situation looked like in Ontario. In teh far north, a lot of the fires are just allowed to burn since they pose no risk. Most of the efforts to put fires out are near communities or commercial installations (mines, wells, logging operations). The forests are very wild and unmaintained and natural.
The biggest fire I could find was 6022 hectares (15,000 acres) and has been burning since June 2. There is another 3,000 hectare (7500 acre) fire not too far from it. Most of the province is under low fire risk, and honestly, we don't even talk about forest fires around here. I wouldn't know how to protect my property if there was a risk of a forest fire near me.
The fire map is here: https://www.lioapplications.lrc.gov.on.ca/ForestFireInformationMap/index.html?viewer=FFIM.FFIM
-
^^^ we actually have a lot of controlled/prescribed burns in Calif despite what many people say. But I think in very high wildfire years (like now) it's probably not enough. Or maybe it gets too risky too soon. IDK. We've got a big fire up north now (Park Fire coving 600 square Miles) which isn't even wind driven like most big fires are here later in the fall. Lots of people demanding more controlled burns asap but unlikely to happen and most residents in fire prone areas are cutting down trees and clearing underbrush around their homes (which is required by law anyways) but the fires are just too massive for that to help much if at all.
One challenge with climate change is that the season that is acceptable for prescribed burns is getting shorter every year. There’s a lot of forest, and limited time and resources to do it.
True, which means we need to start take a bit more risk and do controlled burns in less than ideal conditions. We need to disabuse ourselves of the fiction that wildfire can be prevented indefinitely. Especially in the semi-arid West, every forest must burn at some point -- it's a fire adapted ecosystem and fire is part of the natural and necessary cycle. The longer we put it off the more fuel builds up, it's like accumulating debt that eventually has to be paid. A less-than-ideal prescribed burn is far better than waiting until an extended heat wave dries vegetation combined with high winds to produce a worst case scenario like we see with the Park Fire, which doesn't just burn the accumulated fuel but also destroys the entire forest, killing mature trees and even degrading the soil due to extreme temperatures.
I know that they are doing lots of backfires now on the western and northern ends of the Park Fire hoping to contain it when another big heat wave and winds starts tomorrow. I know some people about 10 miles west of the fire (who live about 10 miles east of Cottonwood) who have evacuted and I guess they are starting back fires there too. Massive smoke. If the wind does shift it will likely impact the larger cities of Redding and Redbluff. Larsen Nat. Park is now shut down and is in the fires path. Calif does need to.start taking more risk with controlled burn - especially near larger population center - as the fires are just too big and fast moving now.
-
I rent in Houston. I've decided that the only way I will buy here is if it's a cheap enough condo that it wouldn't be financial ruin for me to walk away from it, which would be about $250,000. The amount of flooding and the randomness of it make buying a "forever home" unthinkable to me. I fully expect the Texas coast to be the next place insurance places start retreating from.
-
I rent in Houston. I've decided that the only way I will buy here is if it's a cheap enough condo that it wouldn't be financial ruin for me to walk away from it, which would be about $250,000. The amount of flooding and the randomness of it make buying a "forever home" unthinkable to me. I fully expect the Texas coast to be the next place insurance places start retreating from.
Yeah it's been crazy in Houston the last few years. I hope the hurricanes that are expected this year aren't as bad as they predicted. I was stationed (coast guard) in some coastal places like NOLA, Key West, coastal NC etc and while they got hammered most years, and I was glad I was renting, I don't remember it being as bad as it is now. I've been a homeowner for more than 20 years but am seriously looking into renting forever once my house sells.
-
Containment has reached 25% on the Park Fire, which is great considering they're still battling a 200+ mile fire front. It's difficult to comprehend how large these things are. They've had a few days of more moderate temperatures and higher overnight humidity, so hopefully the lines they've put in will hold with hotter windier conditions this weekend.
LAT ran a heartbreaking story (https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2024-08-01/california-wildfires-family-loses-two-homes-paradise-cohasset) about a couple that lost their home in Paradise during the Camp Fire then lost their home again in Cohasset. Only this time they didn't have fire insurance because they couldn't afford the FAIR plan increasing premiums to $12k/year.
I sincerely feel bad for these folks and everyone affected by the fires. Yet also somewhat conflicted, maybe frustrated, that people persist in rebuilding and moving to these extremely high risk areas. When the insurer of last resort increases your premiums from $7k to $12k that's not "unfair" (per the article), it's a reflection of risk. And if someone can no longer afford fire insurance that's a clear indication they can no longer afford to live in such a location. Forgoing insurance on "faith and hope" because they want a "rural setting" (per their GoFundMe) isn't a good plan. Better to sell, even at a loss, than a complete loss.
In related news, the FAIR plan now has over 400k policies, but only $385M to pay claims (https://www.sfchronicle.com/california-wildfires/article/california-fair-plan-insurance-19613638.php). That's shockingly low. If their reserves are exceeded, insurance companies operating in the state are on the hook to cover the rest, proportional to their market share. Which is why insurers are racing to reduce their market share in CA, no one wants to be left holding the bag.
-
Containment has reached 25% on the Park Fire, which is great considering they're still battling a 200+ mile fire front. It's difficult to comprehend how large these things are. They've had a few days of more moderate temperatures and higher overnight humidity, so hopefully the lines they've put in will hold with hotter windier conditions this weekend.
LAT ran a heartbreaking story (https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2024-08-01/california-wildfires-family-loses-two-homes-paradise-cohasset) about a couple that lost their home in Paradise during the Camp Fire and than lost their home again in Cohasset. Only this time they didn't have fire insurance because they couldn't afford the FAIR plan increasing premiums to $12k/year.
I sincerely feel bad for these folks and everyone affected by the fires. Yet also someone conflicted, maybe frustrated, that people persist in rebuilding and moving to these extremely high risk areas. When the insurer of last resort increases your premiums from $7k to $12k that's not "unfair" (per the article), it's a reflection of risk. And if someone can no longer afford fire insurance that's a clear indication they can no longer afford to live in such a location. Forgoing insurance on a "faith and hope" because they want a "rural setting" (per their GoFundMe) isn't a good plan. Better to sell, even at a loss, than a complete loss.
“Not once, but twice. What are the odds?” he said.
Pretty good, I'd say, if you choose to live in that area. And the odds are increasing.
Looking at the Cohasset pictures, those homes were not practicing good fire hygiene as there are trees maybe 50 feet from the houses. California requires a 100 feet zone in a "State Responsibility Area." This may not have been an SRA but the town should've followed the same rules.
-
“Not once, but twice. What are the odds?” he said.
Pretty good, I'd say, if you choose to live in that area. And the odds are increasing.
Looking at the Cohasset pictures, those homes were not practicing good fire hygiene as there are trees maybe 50 feet from the houses. California requires a 100 feet zone in a "State Responsibility Area." This may not have been an SRA but the town should've followed the same rules.
Yeah, that quote stuck out to me as well for the same reason. In the language of probabilities, these were independent events. If you live in a place with a high probability for wildfire the odds of your house burning down are high, regardless of how many houses you lost in the past. If they buy again in, say, Forest Ranch then the odds of losing that home are also very high.
Confession time: curiosity got the best of me and I looked up their details. Not going to post specifics here, but it's all public record. The house in Cohasset was indeed "affordable" in the sense that it was on the lower end of prices. But that, in large part, was likely because the property needed a ton of fire mitigation work. Based on satellite imagery, which is usually pretty up to date, there's little defensible space around the structure. And there were other options in the same price range in cities/tows in the valley, so I'm not buying the notion that it was the only thing they could afford.
Again, I don't want to be overly critical. What they're going through is really hard and I feel for them. But I wish the media would vet these stories better rather than presenting the most sympathetic narrative. This should be a cautionary tale but instead comes across as just a series of unfortunate random events.
-
I rent in Houston. I've decided that the only way I will buy here is if it's a cheap enough condo that it wouldn't be financial ruin for me to walk away from it, which would be about $250,000. The amount of flooding and the randomness of it make buying a "forever home" unthinkable to me. I fully expect the Texas coast to be the next place insurance places start retreating from.
Yeah it's been crazy in Houston the last few years. I hope the hurricanes that are expected this year aren't as bad as they predicted. I was stationed (coast guard) in some coastal places like NOLA, Key West, coastal NC etc and while they got hammered most years, and I was glad I was renting, I don't remember it being as bad as it is now. I've been a homeowner for more than 20 years but am seriously looking into renting forever once my house sells.
Renting makes sense from the standpoint of protecting a big cash investment in a property.
But don't forget that landlords pay property insurance too. From my limited exposure to the real estate investor market, I'd operate under the assumption that most landlords are drastically underinsured and will quickly pass along any insurance increases into rent increases.
I once almost bought a 9-unit apartment building. I was under contract. The insurance agents were quite surprised when I asked about any level of insurance above the minimum lender requirements.
-
I rent in Houston. I've decided that the only way I will buy here is if it's a cheap enough condo that it wouldn't be financial ruin for me to walk away from it, which would be about $250,000. The amount of flooding and the randomness of it make buying a "forever home" unthinkable to me. I fully expect the Texas coast to be the next place insurance places start retreating from.
Yeah it's been crazy in Houston the last few years. I hope the hurricanes that are expected this year aren't as bad as they predicted. I was stationed (coast guard) in some coastal places like NOLA, Key West, coastal NC etc and while they got hammered most years, and I was glad I was renting, I don't remember it being as bad as it is now. I've been a homeowner for more than 20 years but am seriously looking into renting forever once my house sells.
Renting makes sense from the standpoint of protecting a big cash investment in a property.
But don't forget that landlords pay property insurance too. From my limited exposure to the real estate investor market, I'd operate under the assumption that most landlords are drastically underinsured and will quickly pass along any insurance increases into rent increases.
I once almost bought a 9-unit apartment building. I was under contract. The insurance agents were quite surprised when I asked about any level of insurance above the minimum lender requirements.
Yeah I always assume large rent increases even with caps put on them (I think Calif maybe just LA just put a cap of 8.5%/ year on rent increases). And Calif has pretty hardline laws around evictions. But that doesn't mean when you move to a new rental the price could be really high. Like others who own in extremely high fire (or other risks) zones, if I stayed I'd likely lose my insurance eventually. When you are surround by Nat Forest land on all sides there's not much you can do. Thus...I'm GTFO!! Plus I think I'd rather pay a higher rent amount then have a house worth $500k to $1mm that's I risk losing and being uninsured.
-
Containment has reached 25% on the Park Fire, which is great considering they're still battling a 200+ mile fire front. It's difficult to comprehend how large these things are. They've had a few days of more moderate temperatures and higher overnight humidity, so hopefully the lines they've put in will hold with hotter windier conditions this weekend.
I've been watching this fire closely and the people I know in Lake California (a place that's my version of Hell) about 10 miles from the fire's western border have been able to return home .... but... it seems things are shifting right now. Hotter, drier, winds shifting towards the West etc so they aren't out of the woods yet. I think the heavy ash and smoke is keeping most people away anyways. It's a monster fire though and likely to flare up somewhere. I left my place as escrow closes next week (crossed fingers) and we are staying by the coast now. But I really would have liked to stay up there longer but it's just too much a tinder box now. Plus without a car myself I'd have to evacuate by bicycle if BF wasn't around. At least it's all downhill ;-).
-
“Not once, but twice. What are the odds?” he said.
Pretty good, I'd say, if you choose to live in that area. And the odds are increasing.
Looking at the Cohasset pictures, those homes were not practicing good fire hygiene as there are trees maybe 50 feet from the houses. California requires a 100 feet zone in a "State Responsibility Area." This may not have been an SRA but the town should've followed the same rules.
Yeah, that quote stuck out to me as well for the same reason. In the language of probabilities, these were independent events. If you live in a place with a high probability for wildfire the odds of your house burning down are high, regardless of how many houses you lost in the past. If they buy again in, say, Forest Ranch then the odds of losing that home are also very high.
Confession time: curiosity got the best of me and I looked up their details. Not going to post specifics here, but it's all public record. The house in Cohasset was indeed "affordable" in the sense that it was on the lower end of prices. But that, in large part, was likely because the property needed a ton of fire mitigation work. Based on satellite imagery, which is usually pretty up to date, there's little defensible space around the structure. And there were other options in the same price range in cities/tows in the valley, so I'm not buying the notion that it was the only thing they could afford.
Again, I don't want to be overly critical. What they're going through is really hard and I feel for them. But I wish the media would vet these stories better rather than presenting the most sympathetic narrative. This should be a cautionary tale but instead comes across as just a series of unfortunate random events.
It helps to remind yourself that we're participating in this conversation as a self-selecting group of people interested in the impacts of climate change, insurance and policy. We are the weird ones in most of the world's eyes.
Most people think "I want to live in the country" and stop at that.
-
Containment has reached 25% on the Park Fire, which is great considering they're still battling a 200+ mile fire front. It's difficult to comprehend how large these things are. They've had a few days of more moderate temperatures and higher overnight humidity, so hopefully the lines they've put in will hold with hotter windier conditions this weekend.
I've been watching this fire closely and the people I know in Lake California (a place that's my version of Hell) about 10 miles from the fire's western border have been able to return home .... but... it seems things are shifting right now. Hotter, drier, winds shifting towards the West etc so they aren't out of the woods yet. I think the heavy ash and smoke is keeping most people away anyways. It's a monster fire though and likely to flare up somewhere. I left my place as escrow closes next week (crossed fingers) and we are staying by the coast now. But I really would have liked to stay up there longer but it's just too much a tinder box now. Plus without a car myself I'd have to evacuate by bicycle if BF wasn't around. At least it's all downhill ;-).
Glad you're staying safe, best wishes on the escrow.
A downhill bike evacuation may be faster if traffic backs up. My main concern would be safety. Drivers on the best of days tend to lose their minds if a bike is in front of them, in a heightened evacuation state it this would be terrifying.
RE rent vs. own. I think we may be entering a prolonged period where renting makes more sense. It's looking like CA is serious about building more housing units, mostly higher density multi family in cities. Add in a long-term demographic decline in the US and a likely continued net negative migration out of CA, and this *should* put downward pressure on rents, including SFH. I say should because, admittedly, this is uncommon in CA except for short blips (SoCal in the 90s, the housing bust, and COVID migration). So who knows?
-
Containment has reached 25% on the Park Fire, which is great considering they're still battling a 200+ mile fire front. It's difficult to comprehend how large these things are. They've had a few days of more moderate temperatures and higher overnight humidity, so hopefully the lines they've put in will hold with hotter windier conditions this weekend.
I've been watching this fire closely and the people I know in Lake California (a place that's my version of Hell) about 10 miles from the fire's western border have been able to return home .... but... it seems things are shifting right now. Hotter, drier, winds shifting towards the West etc so they aren't out of the woods yet. I think the heavy ash and smoke is keeping most people away anyways. It's a monster fire though and likely to flare up somewhere. I left my place as escrow closes next week (crossed fingers) and we are staying by the coast now. But I really would have liked to stay up there longer but it's just too much a tinder box now. Plus without a car myself I'd have to evacuate by bicycle if BF wasn't around. At least it's all downhill ;-).
We drove from Reno to Oregon yesterday and went the long way via Sac to avoid the smoke. I5 was fine, luckily.
-
Containment has reached 25% on the Park Fire, which is great considering they're still battling a 200+ mile fire front. It's difficult to comprehend how large these things are. They've had a few days of more moderate temperatures and higher overnight humidity, so hopefully the lines they've put in will hold with hotter windier conditions this weekend.
I've been watching this fire closely and the people I know in Lake California (a place that's my version of Hell) about 10 miles from the fire's western border have been able to return home .... but... it seems things are shifting right now. Hotter, drier, winds shifting towards the West etc so they aren't out of the woods yet. I think the heavy ash and smoke is keeping most people away anyways. It's a monster fire though and likely to flare up somewhere. I left my place as escrow closes next week (crossed fingers) and we are staying by the coast now. But I really would have liked to stay up there longer but it's just too much a tinder box now. Plus without a car myself I'd have to evacuate by bicycle if BF wasn't around. At least it's all downhill ;-).
We drove from Reno to Oregon yesterday and went the long way via Sac to avoid the smoke. I5 was fine, luckily.
You mean "The" I-5 ;-). Yeah winds have been blowing towards the east and lots of smoke all the way across several states.
-
Containment has reached 25% on the Park Fire, which is great considering they're still battling a 200+ mile fire front. It's difficult to comprehend how large these things are. They've had a few days of more moderate temperatures and higher overnight humidity, so hopefully the lines they've put in will hold with hotter windier conditions this weekend.
I've been watching this fire closely and the people I know in Lake California (a place that's my version of Hell) about 10 miles from the fire's western border have been able to return home .... but... it seems things are shifting right now. Hotter, drier, winds shifting towards the West etc so they aren't out of the woods yet. I think the heavy ash and smoke is keeping most people away anyways. It's a monster fire though and likely to flare up somewhere. I left my place as escrow closes next week (crossed fingers) and we are staying by the coast now. But I really would have liked to stay up there longer but it's just too much a tinder box now. Plus without a car myself I'd have to evacuate by bicycle if BF wasn't around. At least it's all downhill ;-).
Glad you're staying safe, best wishes on the escrow.
A downhill bike evacuation may be faster if traffic backs up. My main concern would be safety. Drivers on the best of days tend to lose their minds if a bike is in front of them, in a heightened evacuation state it this would be terrifying.
RE rent vs. own. I think we may be entering a prolonged period where renting makes more sense. It's looking like CA is serious about building more housing units, mostly higher density multi family in cities. Add in a long-term demographic decline in the US and a likely continued net negative migration out of CA, and this *should* put downward pressure on rents, including SFH. I say should because, admittedly, this is uncommon in CA except for short blips (SoCal in the 90s, the housing bust, and COVID migration). So who knows?
Thanks. It's all stressful and like I said I'd just keep it longer and take my chances but trying to compromise on a joint place to live we both like. Whether we buy eventually will depend on the market. We both made a mint on selling our individual coastal SoCal places during the pandemic so could financially stay in the area and buy but still would rather rent for now. Just have a short term rental now and plan to hit the road to explore once all the house stuff is done. Of course the same climate change issues will crop up if staying in Calif - fires, floods, earthquakes, mud/land slides, not able to insure, etc - so that makes renting long term much more appealing.
-
“Not once, but twice. What are the odds?” he said.
Pretty good, I'd say, if you choose to live in that area. And the odds are increasing.
Looking at the Cohasset pictures, those homes were not practicing good fire hygiene as there are trees maybe 50 feet from the houses. California requires a 100 feet zone in a "State Responsibility Area." This may not have been an SRA but the town should've followed the same rules.
Yeah, that quote stuck out to me as well for the same reason. In the language of probabilities, these were independent events. If you live in a place with a high probability for wildfire the odds of your house burning down are high, regardless of how many houses you lost in the past. If they buy again in, say, Forest Ranch then the odds of losing that home are also very high.
Confession time: curiosity got the best of me and I looked up their details. Not going to post specifics here, but it's all public record. The house in Cohasset was indeed "affordable" in the sense that it was on the lower end of prices. But that, in large part, was likely because the property needed a ton of fire mitigation work. Based on satellite imagery, which is usually pretty up to date, there's little defensible space around the structure. And there were other options in the same price range in cities/tows in the valley, so I'm not buying the notion that it was the only thing they could afford.
Again, I don't want to be overly critical. What they're going through is really hard and I feel for them. But I wish the media would vet these stories better rather than presenting the most sympathetic narrative. This should be a cautionary tale but instead comes across as just a series of unfortunate random events.
It helps to remind yourself that we're participating in this conversation as a self-selecting group of people interested in the impacts of climate change, insurance and policy. We are the weird ones in most of the world's eyes.
Most people think "I want to live in the country" and stop at that.
Also people suck at understanding odds. You know how many folks will look at a roulette table where there has been six reds in a row and then be sure that the odds are better that black will come up next?
-
You mean "The" I-5 ;-).
Don't you Californians just call it "The 5?" Everyone I knew growing up in the Northwest called it "I-5."
-
You mean "The" I-5 ;-).
Don't you Californians just call it "The 5?" Everyone I knew growing up in the Northwest called it "I-5."
It's a NorCal vs SoCal shibboleth. Northerners say I-5 whereas southerners say The 5.
-
You mean "The" I-5 ;-).
Don't you Californians just call it "The 5?" Everyone I knew growing up in the Northwest called it "I-5."
Well I'm half Norcal and half SoCal so improvised;-). But yeah - The 5 is correct and everyone else is wrong!
-
Containment has reached 25% on the Park Fire, which is great considering they're still battling a 200+ mile fire front. It's difficult to comprehend how large these things are. They've had a few days of more moderate temperatures and higher overnight humidity, so hopefully the lines they've put in will hold with hotter windier conditions this weekend.
I've been watching this fire closely and the people I know in Lake California (a place that's my version of Hell) about 10 miles from the fire's western border have been able to return home .... but... it seems things are shifting right now. Hotter, drier, winds shifting towards the West etc so they aren't out of the woods yet. I think the heavy ash and smoke is keeping most people away anyways. It's a monster fire though and likely to flare up somewhere. I left my place as escrow closes next week (crossed fingers) and we are staying by the coast now. But I really would have liked to stay up there longer but it's just too much a tinder box now. Plus without a car myself I'd have to evacuate by bicycle if BF wasn't around. At least it's all downhill ;-).
We drove from Reno to Oregon yesterday and went the long way via Sac to avoid the smoke. I5 was fine, luckily.
You mean "The" I-5 ;-). Yeah winds have been blowing towards the east and lots of smoke all the way across several states.
It's not "The" I-5 when you are near Sacramento :)
-
You mean there's another city in Calif? I thought It was just LA and SF and nothing but a Mad Max land of desolation and fires inbetween ;-). All my cousins live up that way but they live off The 50.
-
You mean there's another city in Calif? I thought It was just LA and SF and nothing but a Mad Max land of desolation and fires inbetween ;-). All my cousins live up that way but they live off The 50.
Now you're just toying with me :)
-
You mean there's another city in Calif? I thought It was just LA and SF and nothing but a Mad Max land of desolation and fires inbetween ;-). All my cousins live up that way but they live off The 50.
Now you're just toying with me :)
Ha ha yeah! My Dad, and all his side of the family, immigrated to NorCal and grew up in the Auburn and Tahoe area so roll their eyes at my SoCal ways;-). One of my next goals in life is to live where there's only one freeway/big highway in the area (preferably THE 101 if innCalif). Im trying to align that goal with climate change goals but it's not happening. Plus $$$ for housing cost. I lived in Marin County for awhile and loved it but very unaffordable now.
-
You mean there's another city in Calif? I thought It was just LA and SF and nothing but a Mad Max land of desolation and fires inbetween ;-). All my cousins live up that way but they live off The 50.
Now you're just toying with me :)
Ha ha yeah! My Dad, and all his side of the family, immigrated to NorCal and grew up in the Auburn and Tahoe area so roll their eyes at my SoCal ways;-). One of my next goals in life is to live where there's only one freeway/big highway in the area (preferably THE 101 if innCalif). Im trying to align that goal with climate change goals but it's not happening. Plus $$$ for housing cost. I lived in Marin County for awhile and loved it but very unaffordable now.
I thought you were going to bail on California?
-
You mean there's another city in Calif? I thought It was just LA and SF and nothing but a Mad Max land of desolation and fires inbetween ;-). All my cousins live up that way but they live off The 50.
Now you're just toying with me :)
Ha ha yeah! My Dad, and all his side of the family, immigrated to NorCal and grew up in the Auburn and Tahoe area so roll their eyes at my SoCal ways;-). One of my next goals in life is to live where there's only one freeway/big highway in the area (preferably THE 101 if innCalif). Im trying to align that goal with climate change goals but it's not happening. Plus $$$ for housing cost. I lived in Marin County for awhile and loved it but very unaffordable now.
I thought you were going to bail on California?
Well I'd like to but gotta make those (stupid) compromises for partner ;-). He gave up living in Hawaii for me so I guess the least I can do is give up living in the mountains and stay in coastal Calif for him.
-
You mean there's another city in Calif? I thought It was just LA and SF and nothing but a Mad Max land of desolation and fires inbetween ;-). All my cousins live up that way but they live off The 50.
Now you're just toying with me :)
Ha ha yeah! My Dad, and all his side of the family, immigrated to NorCal and grew up in the Auburn and Tahoe area so roll their eyes at my SoCal ways;-). One of my next goals in life is to live where there's only one freeway/big highway in the area (preferably THE 101 if innCalif). Im trying to align that goal with climate change goals but it's not happening. Plus $$$ for housing cost. I lived in Marin County for awhile and loved it but very unaffordable now.
I thought you were going to bail on California?
Well I'd like to but gotta make those (stupid) compromises for partner ;-). He gave up living in Hawaii for me so I guess the least I can do is give up living in the mountains and stay in coastal Calif for him.
Wow. I didn't know it was that serious. Good for you.
-
You mean there's another city in Calif? I thought It was just LA and SF and nothing but a Mad Max land of desolation and fires inbetween ;-). All my cousins live up that way but they live off The 50.
Now you're just toying with me :)
Ha ha yeah! My Dad, and all his side of the family, immigrated to NorCal and grew up in the Auburn and Tahoe area so roll their eyes at my SoCal ways;-). One of my next goals in life is to live where there's only one freeway/big highway in the area (preferably THE 101 if innCalif). Im trying to align that goal with climate change goals but it's not happening. Plus $$$ for housing cost. I lived in Marin County for awhile and loved it but very unaffordable now.
I've always been partial to HWY1.
-
You mean there's another city in Calif? I thought It was just LA and SF and nothing but a Mad Max land of desolation and fires inbetween ;-). All my cousins live up that way but they live off The 50.
Now you're just toying with me :)
Ha ha yeah! My Dad, and all his side of the family, immigrated to NorCal and grew up in the Auburn and Tahoe area so roll their eyes at my SoCal ways;-). One of my next goals in life is to live where there's only one freeway/big highway in the area (preferably THE 101 if innCalif). Im trying to align that goal with climate change goals but it's not happening. Plus $$$ for housing cost. I lived in Marin County for awhile and loved it but very unaffordable now.
I thought you were going to bail on California?
Well I'd like to but gotta make those (stupid) compromises for partner ;-). He gave up living in Hawaii for me so I guess the least I can do is give up living in the mountains and stay in coastal Calif for him.
Wow. I didn't know it was that serious. Good for you.
We've been together for years on and off and lived together for most of the past 4 - 5 years but had a few "breaks" due to family or life style reasons. As you know I'm a weirdo commitmentphobe who wouldn't make a long term commitment to anyone not FIRE (or soon-to-be-FIRE) and he FIREd at the beginning of the pandemic...finally. Where to live however has always been a big point of contension and trying to figure that out now.
Like @Giles said, anywhere along THE 1 is great but too remote in some places or very expensive. Also, the environmental/climate hazards might be too risky to put so much into buying housing if you can't be covered by insurance. Renting would be ok though in most places like Monerey or Santa Cruz or Morro Bay etc even if costly. And we can do a small house or apt easily.
-
Again, I don't want to be overly critical. What they're going through is really hard and I feel for them. But I wish the media would vet these stories better rather than presenting the most sympathetic narrative. This should be a cautionary tale but instead comes across as just a series of unfortunate random events.
The media really do find people to fit their narrative and spin things to generate sympathy and views. I remember an article in, I believe, People, about homeowners at risk of foreclosure and how they were near losing their homes despite "doing everything right." (It actually said that in the article - these people did "everything right.") But upon reading the article you would find that every single one of the people had used home equity loans or refinancing to pull equity out of their homes, multiple times, just to spend it on things not invest it. That was their idea of a group of homeowners put upon by a poor economy. It seemed more like a bunch of high risk gamblers who finally lost their roll.
-
Another hurricane in Florida, the main problem is flooding -
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cj4xxdknr94o
-
Another hurricane in Florida, the main problem is flooding -
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cj4xxdknr94o
While it's not a big hurricane it's suppose to dump historic levels of rainfall (the 'once in a thousand years" level) and cause massive flooding. Something like 30 inches of rain expected in coastal areas of North Carolina.
Meanwhile in SoCal we have another wildfire in a populated area. Just started and not big but has burnt down several houses and evacuation orders are in place. I think it's around 95F in LA today and over 100 in most inland areas.
-
Another hurricane in Florida, the main problem is flooding -
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cj4xxdknr94o (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cj4xxdknr94o)
While it's not a big hurricane it's suppose to dump historic levels of rainfall (the 'once in a thousand years" level) and cause massive flooding. Something like 30 inches of rain expected in coastal areas of North Carolina.
Meanwhile in SoCal we have another wildfire in a populated area. Just started and not big but has burnt down several houses and evacuation orders are in place. I think it's around 95F in LA today and over 100 in most inland areas.
More storms and more damage means more claims and costs for insurers which can drive up rates for all of us eventually, even outside storm areas. I don't know how it all works on a regional or national scale but hard to believe insurers struggling from claims in FL won't try to make up the difference with higher rates elsewhere. I know CA doesn't allow that (no re-insurance outside the state) which has actually made their rates even higher.
-
Another hurricane in Florida, the main problem is flooding -
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cj4xxdknr94o (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cj4xxdknr94o)
While it's not a big hurricane it's suppose to dump historic levels of rainfall (the 'once in a thousand years" level) and cause massive flooding. Something like 30 inches of rain expected in coastal areas of North Carolina.
Meanwhile in SoCal we have another wildfire in a populated area. Just started and not big but has burnt down several houses and evacuation orders are in place. I think it's around 95F in LA today and over 100 in most inland areas.
More storms and more damage means more claims and costs for insurers which can drive up rates for all of us eventually, even outside storm areas. I don't know how it all works on a regional or national scale but hard to believe insurers struggling from claims in FL won't try to make up the difference with higher rates elsewhere. I know CA doesn't allow that (no re-insurance outside the state) which has actually made their rates even higher.
I can definitely see that happening. Especially with all the very expensive homes here and what it would cost to repair or rebuild them. The insurance companies will be taking a big hit added to the already big hit in other states. But much easier to replace a bunch of $200k homes compared to replace the same number of $2 million homes.
I probably mentioned this already but on the news they said insurance companies were (illegally) using drones to check people property to decide whether to renew their policy. One lady was doing renovations and had a big pile of debris in her yard and, using a drone, the insurer decided she was a hoarder and high fire and damage risk and dropped her coverage.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.cbsnews.com/amp/sacramento/news/modesto-home-insurance-dropped-clutter-unsanitary-during-renovation-call-kurtis/
-
Kinda weird to see Geico and Allstate commercials and ads everywhere, while simultaneously insurers are dropping customers aggressively and exiting entire regions.
Apparently some customers/areas are uninsurable, or not profitable to work with at any price. So the goal is to cycle out those customers and fight over the ones who never make claims. This violates some of our assumptions about markets - that someone will always come along and offer a product, perhaps at a high price, to even the least desirable customers.
Insurance could be different. When you're collecting premiums of 1-3% of a property's replacement value in exchange for a liability of 100% of the property's replacement value (a couple of years from now, with inflation), perhaps there comes a point where the premiums would have to rise so high as to not be affordable by the customers. People are struggling to come up with the now-common 6-7% down payments to buy houses - what happens when the insurance premium is 4-5% per year, every year? There's no profitable market is what happens.
It's like selling car insurance to a spiraling alcoholic with three DWIs in the past few months. Even if you quadruple the premium, you know they are heading for a crash within the next year. Even if they can afford a $10,000/year premium, you as the insurer will still lose money on the $50,000 claim you know is coming.
-
Kinda weird to see Geico and Allstate commercials and ads everywhere, while simultaneously insurers are dropping customers aggressively and exiting entire regions.
Apparently some customers/areas are uninsurable, or not profitable to work with at any price. So the goal is to cycle out those customers and fight over the ones who never make claims. This violates some of our assumptions about markets - that someone will always come along and offer a product, perhaps at a high price, to even the least desirable customers.
Insurance could be different. When you're collecting premiums of 1-3% of a property's replacement value in exchange for a liability of 100% of the property's replacement value (a couple of years from now, with inflation), perhaps there comes a point where the premiums would have to rise so high as to not be affordable by the customers. People are struggling to come up with the now-common 6-7% down payments to buy houses - what happens when the insurance premium is 4-5% per year, every year? There's no profitable market is what happens.
It's like selling car insurance to a spiraling alcoholic with three DWIs in the past few months. Even if you quadruple the premium, you know they are heading for a crash within the next year. Even if they can afford a $10,000/year premium, you as the insurer will still lose money on the $50,000 claim you know is coming.
It's possible insurance doesn't operate under the laws of economics, but that would make it highly unusual. The power of the market is such a consistently observed phenomena. We really need to consider other, more likely, explanations first.
You may be seeing ads for insurance companies while they're pulling back from homeowners policies because the insurance industry is a lot larger and diverse. Things like auto, renters, umbrella, and so on. These other types of insurance may be very profitable while they're losing money on homeowners.
Then there are government polices that distort the market. In CA, which I'm quite familiar with, a state agency effectively caps prices thereby artificially limiting premiums to unprofitable levels based on forward looking risk modeling. There has been some reform to allow upward adjustments (hence the large premium increases in recent months), but in many cases the market is still below the clearing price. The hard reality in many parts of CA is insurance prices need to go quite a bit higher to accurately reflect the growing risk from climate change. This is understandably deeply unpopular so elected officials are trying to walk a tight rope of doing what's necessary while slowing it down and/or making it look like they're being helpful. In he meantime, competition is not going to rush in to fill the market need if they cannot do so at a profit.
Finally, there's the mess that is the FAIR plan further complicating the picture. FAIR is the insurer of last resort established by the state. It is privately owned, but backstopped by insurers operating in the state. If a fire wipes out FAIR's reserves then insurers like Allstate and Geico are on the hook to cover the excess claims in proportion to their market share. By holding all the highest risk properties in the state, FAIR is at very high risk of being wiped out, and no insurance company wants to be left holding the bag. So they're all in a race to reduce their overall market share in CA.
-
Kinda weird to see Geico and Allstate commercials and ads everywhere, while simultaneously insurers are dropping customers aggressively and exiting entire regions.
Apparently some customers/areas are uninsurable, or not profitable to work with at any price. So the goal is to cycle out those customers and fight over the ones who never make claims. This violates some of our assumptions about markets - that someone will always come along and offer a product, perhaps at a high price, to even the least desirable customers.
Insurance could be different. When you're collecting premiums of 1-3% of a property's replacement value in exchange for a liability of 100% of the property's replacement value (a couple of years from now, with inflation), perhaps there comes a point where the premiums would have to rise so high as to not be affordable by the customers. People are struggling to come up with the now-common 6-7% down payments to buy houses - what happens when the insurance premium is 4-5% per year, every year? There's no profitable market is what happens.
It's like selling car insurance to a spiraling alcoholic with three DWIs in the past few months. Even if you quadruple the premium, you know they are heading for a crash within the next year. Even if they can afford a $10,000/year premium, you as the insurer will still lose money on the $50,000 claim you know is coming.
Insurers are not going out of business by any means so they will continue to advertise. I don't think you will see them on billboards in markets they want to exit, but everywhere else they carry on. In fact, if there is a public perception they are no longer offering insurance anywhere, all the more reason to advertise that they are.
-
Kinda weird to see Geico and Allstate commercials and ads everywhere, while simultaneously insurers are dropping customers aggressively and exiting entire regions.
Apparently some customers/areas are uninsurable, or not profitable to work with at any price. So the goal is to cycle out those customers and fight over the ones who never make claims. This violates some of our assumptions about markets - that someone will always come along and offer a product, perhaps at a high price, to even the least desirable customers.
Insurance could be different. When you're collecting premiums of 1-3% of a property's replacement value in exchange for a liability of 100% of the property's replacement value (a couple of years from now, with inflation), perhaps there comes a point where the premiums would have to rise so high as to not be affordable by the customers. People are struggling to come up with the now-common 6-7% down payments to buy houses - what happens when the insurance premium is 4-5% per year, every year? There's no profitable market is what happens.
It's like selling car insurance to a spiraling alcoholic with three DWIs in the past few months. Even if you quadruple the premium, you know they are heading for a crash within the next year. Even if they can afford a $10,000/year premium, you as the insurer will still lose money on the $50,000 claim you know is coming.
Makes sense for insurance to become a more and more selective market - which is how the free market works. It can be a bit problematic with things that are group-rated though (ie everyone pays the same premium, or at least a premium that is not dependent on all individual factors). Fortunately home and car insurance are not.
-
Citizens says the Florida insurance "market is improving". Only $11,000/yr average cost for Floridians (vs $2300 nationwide). Crikey.
https://www.newsweek.com/florida-biggest-insurer-increase-rates-1935388
-
Citizens says the Florida insurance "market is improving". Only $11,000/yr average cost for Floridians (vs $2300 nationwide). Crikey.
https://www.newsweek.com/florida-biggest-insurer-increase-rates-1935388
What they are saying is that the Citizens (the insurer of last resort) would have to raise their rates by 93% in order to be uncompetitive with private insurers! By law Citizens has to be more expensive than private insurers but they cannot raise their rates than a certain percentage every year (10% as I recall). A real catch 22 situation.
Meanwhile, there has been flooding in a fairly big swathe of southwestern Florida as a result of Debby: https://www.wusf.org/weather/2024-08-06/debby-aftermath-severe-sarasota-flooding-storm-surge-along-coast
-
I just came across a good article on Bloomberg this group would appreciate. I've referenced First Street on here a few times. Bloomberg is highlighting how even the best flooding models come to dramatically different conclusions when looking at the details.
https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2024-flood-fire-climate-risk-analytics/?accessToken=eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJzb3VyY2UiOiJTdWJzY3JpYmVyR2lmdGVkQXJ0aWNsZSIsImlhdCI6MTcyMzIyMTY4NSwiZXhwIjoxNzIzODI2NDg1LCJhcnRpY2xlSWQiOiJTSFlLR0VEV1gyUFMwMCIsImJjb25uZWN0SWQiOiJEQTk1RTUyQjRFNDg0RTBDOEIyRDVCMUM1NDU4NDAyRSJ9.E0bkBCpHgvbx5Wk86oXQuuT3F4WEr93rUMfCSEIiYUU (https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2024-flood-fire-climate-risk-analytics/?accessToken=eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJzb3VyY2UiOiJTdWJzY3JpYmVyR2lmdGVkQXJ0aWNsZSIsImlhdCI6MTcyMzIyMTY4NSwiZXhwIjoxNzIzODI2NDg1LCJhcnRpY2xlSWQiOiJTSFlLR0VEV1gyUFMwMCIsImJjb25uZWN0SWQiOiJEQTk1RTUyQjRFNDg0RTBDOEIyRDVCMUM1NDU4NDAyRSJ9.E0bkBCpHgvbx5Wk86oXQuuT3F4WEr93rUMfCSEIiYUU)
-
I just came across a good article on Bloomberg this group would appreciate. I've referenced First Street on here a few times. Bloomberg is highlighting how even the best flooding models come to dramatically different conclusions when looking at the details.
https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2024-flood-fire-climate-risk-analytics/?accessToken=eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJzb3VyY2UiOiJTdWJzY3JpYmVyR2lmdGVkQXJ0aWNsZSIsImlhdCI6MTcyMzIyMTY4NSwiZXhwIjoxNzIzODI2NDg1LCJhcnRpY2xlSWQiOiJTSFlLR0VEV1gyUFMwMCIsImJjb25uZWN0SWQiOiJEQTk1RTUyQjRFNDg0RTBDOEIyRDVCMUM1NDU4NDAyRSJ9.E0bkBCpHgvbx5Wk86oXQuuT3F4WEr93rUMfCSEIiYUU (https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2024-flood-fire-climate-risk-analytics/?accessToken=eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJzb3VyY2UiOiJTdWJzY3JpYmVyR2lmdGVkQXJ0aWNsZSIsImlhdCI6MTcyMzIyMTY4NSwiZXhwIjoxNzIzODI2NDg1LCJhcnRpY2xlSWQiOiJTSFlLR0VEV1gyUFMwMCIsImJjb25uZWN0SWQiOiJEQTk1RTUyQjRFNDg0RTBDOEIyRDVCMUM1NDU4NDAyRSJ9.E0bkBCpHgvbx5Wk86oXQuuT3F4WEr93rUMfCSEIiYUU)
That's interesting. And weird that they came to two different conclusions. Im feeling like I dodge a bullet - at least a potential bullet - by moving out of the SoCal mountains since apparently there's some big fires there (24,000 acres now for one of them). Not likely to hit my former hood but you never know! Plus the smoke is bad up there.
-
I just came across a good article on Bloomberg this group would appreciate. I've referenced First Street on here a few times. Bloomberg is highlighting how even the best flooding models come to dramatically different conclusions when looking at the details.
https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2024-flood-fire-climate-risk-analytics/?accessToken=eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJzb3VyY2UiOiJTdWJzY3JpYmVyR2lmdGVkQXJ0aWNsZSIsImlhdCI6MTcyMzIyMTY4NSwiZXhwIjoxNzIzODI2NDg1LCJhcnRpY2xlSWQiOiJTSFlLR0VEV1gyUFMwMCIsImJjb25uZWN0SWQiOiJEQTk1RTUyQjRFNDg0RTBDOEIyRDVCMUM1NDU4NDAyRSJ9.E0bkBCpHgvbx5Wk86oXQuuT3F4WEr93rUMfCSEIiYUU (https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2024-flood-fire-climate-risk-analytics/?accessToken=eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJzb3VyY2UiOiJTdWJzY3JpYmVyR2lmdGVkQXJ0aWNsZSIsImlhdCI6MTcyMzIyMTY4NSwiZXhwIjoxNzIzODI2NDg1LCJhcnRpY2xlSWQiOiJTSFlLR0VEV1gyUFMwMCIsImJjb25uZWN0SWQiOiJEQTk1RTUyQjRFNDg0RTBDOEIyRDVCMUM1NDU4NDAyRSJ9.E0bkBCpHgvbx5Wk86oXQuuT3F4WEr93rUMfCSEIiYUU)
That's interesting. And weird that they came to two different conclusions. Im feeling like I dodge a bullet - at least a potential bullet - by moving out of the SoCal mountains since apparently there's some big fires there (24,000 acres now for one of them). Not likely to hit my former hood but you never know! Plus the smoke is bad up there.
Yikes - and the evacuation centers are in Fontana and Victorville.
https://www.fire.ca.gov/incidents/2024/9/5/line-fire
-
Big Bear Valley from the Dam to Cactus Rd (essentially the entire valley I think) is now under an evacuation warning: https://inciweb.wildfire.gov/incident-information/cabdf-line-fire#
-
Big Bear Valley from the Dam to Cactus Rd (essentially the entire valley I think) is now under an evacuation warning: https://inciweb.wildfire.gov/incident-information/cabdf-line-fire#
That's like...all the roads there! I read that of the 3 roads down the mountain only the one that goes far far out of the way for most people (Hwy 18 east) is open. Probably over 100 miles out of the way. Its pretty dry there so not surprised wildfires are starting up. 2 more nearby but not as big but more populated I think.
-
Big Bear Valley from the Dam to Cactus Rd (essentially the entire valley I think) is now under an evacuation warning: https://inciweb.wildfire.gov/incident-information/cabdf-line-fire#
That's like...all the roads there! I read that of the 3 roads down the mountain only the one that goes far far out of the way for most people (Hwy 18 east) is open. Probably over 100 miles out of the way. Its pretty dry there so not surprised wildfires are starting up. 2 more nearby but not as big but more populated I think.
Yes, seems like 18 north to the desert is the only option. It's just an evacuation warning at this point, the firefighters will hopefully stop it from getting there, but this thing will burn for weeks and all it takes is one southwesterly wind event to push it to Big Bear. I wouldn't feel great trying to get out in a hurry with everyone else on a single highway. Thoughts with the people there, please stay safe.
-
FYI, Google maps now has overlays for air quality and wildfire locations which, in addition to road closures, are useful for route planning. We used them to get around the northern california wildfires last month without choking to death.
-
Big Bear Valley from the Dam to Cactus Rd (essentially the entire valley I think) is now under an evacuation warning: https://inciweb.wildfire.gov/incident-information/cabdf-line-fire#
That's like...all the roads there! I read that of the 3 roads down the mountain only the one that goes far far out of the way for most people (Hwy 18 east) is open. Probably over 100 miles out of the way. Its pretty dry there so not surprised wildfires are starting up. 2 more nearby but not as big but more populated I think.
Yes, seems like 18 north to the desert is the only option. It's just an evacuation warning at this point, the firefighters will hopefully stop it from getting there, but this thing will burn for weeks and all it takes is one southwesterly wind event to push it to Big Bear. I wouldn't feel great trying to get out in a hurry with everyone else on a single highway. Thoughts with the people there, please stay safe.
They haven't evacuated Big Bear yet and are trying hard to protect it but yeah, with only one road to evacuate out of I'd be gone myself. Of course, if I was still living alone and carless, I'd be doing it by human-powered bicycle thru thick smoke. At least it's down hill all the way ;-)! The fires grown to over 27,000 acres now and moving towards Big Bear but can be contained. But with 2 other big fires in SoCal resources are thin. Just glad I GTFO last month.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.sbsun.com/2024/09/10/attempt-to-protect-big-bear-from-line-fire-is-looking-good-fire-official-says/amp/
-
Related to the firefighting stuff: I see that California's Gov. Newsom has signed a law in 2020 allowing inmate firefighters to apply to become professional firefighters after they complete their sentence. Seems like a good deal for everyone.
I hope more states consider that option given that wildfires are expected to increase due to climate change.
-
Related to the firefighting stuff: I see that California's Gov. Newsom has signed a law in 2020 allowing inmate firefighters to apply to become professional firefighters after they complete their sentence. Seems like a good deal for everyone.
I hope more states consider that option given that wildfires are expected to increase due to climate change.
I had read somewhere that a lot of inmate firefighters in Calif have a hard time finding firefighting jobs once released so not sure how that will work out but a step in the right direction.
As for the fires in SoCal (I'm currently in Orange County until Sunday) it getting bad. 3 huge fires with zero containment wiping out a lot of mountain towns and beautiful forests (Big Bear Lake is evacuating now) as well as many homes and businesses. The smoke is bad too.
-
Related to the firefighting stuff: I see that California's Gov. Newsom has signed a law in 2020 allowing inmate firefighters to apply to become professional firefighters after they complete their sentence. Seems like a good deal for everyone.
I hope more states consider that option given that wildfires are expected to increase due to climate change.
I had read somewhere that a lot of inmate firefighters in Calif have a hard time finding firefighting jobs once released so not sure how that will work out but a step in the right direction.
As for the fires in SoCal (I'm currently in Orange County until Sunday) it getting bad. 3 huge fires with zero containment wiping out a lot of mountain towns and beautiful forests (Big Bear Lake is evacuating now) as well as many homes and businesses. The smoke is bad too.
Yes! I’m not clear on all the specifics, but I understood that Cal Fire and/or other firefighting agencies had rules in place that made it very hard to get hired if you had a criminal record. The bill cleared some of those obstacles.
Here’s an NPR article with more of the details: https://www.npr.org/2020/09/11/912193742/california-bill-clears-path-for-ex-inmates-to-become-firefighters
-
Related to the firefighting stuff: I see that California's Gov. Newsom has signed a law in 2020 allowing inmate firefighters to apply to become professional firefighters after they complete their sentence. Seems like a good deal for everyone.
I hope more states consider that option given that wildfires are expected to increase due to climate change.
I had read somewhere that a lot of inmate firefighters in Calif have a hard time finding firefighting jobs once released so not sure how that will work out but a step in the right direction.
As for the fires in SoCal (I'm currently in Orange County until Sunday) it getting bad. 3 huge fires with zero containment wiping out a lot of mountain towns and beautiful forests (Big Bear Lake is evacuating now) as well as many homes and businesses. The smoke is bad too.
Yes! I’m not clear on all the specifics, but I understood that Cal Fire and/or other firefighting agencies had rules in place that made it very hard to get hired if you had a criminal record. The bill cleared some of those obstacles.
Here’s an NPR article with more of the details: https://www.npr.org/2020/09/11/912193742/california-bill-clears-path-for-ex-inmates-to-become-firefighters
It sounds like it has really opened up professional fire fighting jobs for former non-violent offenders - which is something very much needed here in firey Calif.
Have been trying to find new info on the SoCal fires this morning - which are huge and appear to be very close now to my old hood - but they're too busy talking about another earth quake they had in SoCal :-(
-
Have been trying to find new info on the SoCal fires this morning - which are huge and appear to be very close now to my old hood - but they're too busy talking about another earth quake they had in SoCal :-(
Looks like the fire has crested the ridge into Big Bear Valley. There are a number of USFS roads in that area before the fire gets to town, and the fire is now moving down slope which is advantageous for firefighters. As long as the winds cooperate they should be able to stop it before it gets to the urban area. My guess from looking at the terrain is they will take their stand closer to town and let the fire burn up to near the dam and then use highway 18 to the west to stop northward spread.
RE earthquakes: It sure seems like something is happening in SoCal. Completely unpredictable of course, but historically earthquakes have portended more earthquakes. And it's been a long time since they've had a big one. For those in the area, make sure you have an emergency kit at a safe place at your house: https://earthquake.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/sites/8/2019/10/Earthquake-Preparedness-Checklist.pdf
-
Have been trying to find new info on the SoCal fires this morning - which are huge and appear to be very close now to my old hood - but they're too busy talking about another earth quake they had in SoCal :-(
Looks like the fire has crested the ridge into Big Bear Valley. There are a number of USFS roads in that area before the fire gets to town, and the fire is now moving down slope which is advantageous for firefighters. As long as the winds cooperate they should be able to stop it before it gets to the urban area. My guess from looking at the terrain is they will take their stand closer to town and let the fire burn up to near the dam and then use highway 18 to the west to stop northward spread.
RE earthquakes: It sure seems like something is happening in SoCal. Completely unpredictable of course, but historically earthquakes have portended more earthquakes. And it's been a long time since they've had a big one. For those in the area, make sure you have an emergency kit at a safe place at your house: https://earthquake.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/sites/8/2019/10/Earthquake-Preparedness-Checklist.pdf (https://earthquake.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/sites/8/2019/10/Earthquake-Preparedness-Checklist.pdf)
Typical earthquake sequences are larger quakes followed by smaller aftershocks. Smaller foreshocks are rare, accounting for less than 5% of quakes.
-
Have been trying to find new info on the SoCal fires this morning - which are huge and appear to be very close now to my old hood - but they're too busy talking about another earth quake they had in SoCal :-(
Looks like the fire has crested the ridge into Big Bear Valley. There are a number of USFS roads in that area before the fire gets to town, and the fire is now moving down slope which is advantageous for firefighters. As long as the winds cooperate they should be able to stop it before it gets to the urban area. My guess from looking at the terrain is they will take their stand closer to town and let the fire burn up to near the dam and then use highway 18 to the west to stop northward spread.
RE earthquakes: It sure seems like something is happening in SoCal. Completely unpredictable of course, but historically earthquakes have portended more earthquakes. And it's been a long time since they've had a big one. For those in the area, make sure you have an emergency kit at a safe place at your house: https://earthquake.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/sites/8/2019/10/Earthquake-Preparedness-Checklist.pdf (https://earthquake.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/sites/8/2019/10/Earthquake-Preparedness-Checklist.pdf)
Typical earthquake sequences are larger quakes followed by smaller aftershocks. Smaller foreshocks are rare, accounting for less than 5% of quakes.
It depends on the geology of a given location. In SoCal smaller earthquakes often increase the chance of larger earthquakes.
https://ktla.com/news/california/seismologist-warns-of-increased-earthquake-activity-in-southern-california/
While many people may believe—or hope—that a series of smaller quakes reduces the chance of a major one hitting the region, Jones says that is simply not how it works.
“The most constant feature of earthquakes is the relative number of large to small,” she said. “For every magnitude seven, you have 10 magnitude sixes, 100 magnitude fives, 1,000 magnitude fours, etc. So, if your rate of [magnitude] fours goes up, your chance of having a bigger one would go up by about the same amount.”
In other words, Jones says more earthquakes mean – more earthquakes.
-
Have been trying to find new info on the SoCal fires this morning - which are huge and appear to be very close now to my old hood - but they're too busy talking about another earth quake they had in SoCal :-(
Looks like the fire has crested the ridge into Big Bear Valley. There are a number of USFS roads in that area before the fire gets to town, and the fire is now moving down slope which is advantageous for firefighters. As long as the winds cooperate they should be able to stop it before it gets to the urban area. My guess from looking at the terrain is they will take their stand closer to town and let the fire burn up to near the dam and then use highway 18 to the west to stop northward spread.
RE earthquakes: It sure seems like something is happening in SoCal. Completely unpredictable of course, but historically earthquakes have portended more earthquakes. And it's been a long time since they've had a big one. For those in the area, make sure you have an emergency kit at a safe place at your house: https://earthquake.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/sites/8/2019/10/Earthquake-Preparedness-Checklist.pdf
Thanks for the update (been at the VA all day doing all the annual medical stuff so limited media access). Hopefully they'll be able to stop or redirect it before it reaches town. Lots of homes and businesses there. Some other smaller towns (Wrightwood) lots 3 or 4 dozen homes in the now-larger Bridge fire. It'll be sad to see all the beautiful Nat forests surrounding all those towns decimated too. Now I'm REALLY feeling glad I sold last month. While I feel bad for the new owners Im selfishly glad it's not me. Maybe if I could have gotten wildfire insurance but that's almost impossible here.
As for earthquakes - seeks there have been a lot of small one lately and have also heard they can be a precursor for a very large one. I've also heard they relieve pressure along a fault line and make a big one less likely. Where do all the geologists ( @Glenstache ) stand on this?
-
Have been trying to find new info on the SoCal fires this morning - which are huge and appear to be very close now to my old hood - but they're too busy talking about another earth quake they had in SoCal :-(
Looks like the fire has crested the ridge into Big Bear Valley. There are a number of USFS roads in that area before the fire gets to town, and the fire is now moving down slope which is advantageous for firefighters. As long as the winds cooperate they should be able to stop it before it gets to the urban area. My guess from looking at the terrain is they will take their stand closer to town and let the fire burn up to near the dam and then use highway 18 to the west to stop northward spread.
RE earthquakes: It sure seems like something is happening in SoCal. Completely unpredictable of course, but historically earthquakes have portended more earthquakes. And it's been a long time since they've had a big one. For those in the area, make sure you have an emergency kit at a safe place at your house: https://earthquake.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/sites/8/2019/10/Earthquake-Preparedness-Checklist.pdf (https://earthquake.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/sites/8/2019/10/Earthquake-Preparedness-Checklist.pdf)
Thanks for the update (been at the VA all day doing all the annual medical stuff so limited media access). Hopefully they'll be able to stop or redirect it before it reaches town. Lots of homes and businesses there. Some other smaller towns (Wrightwood) lots 3 or 4 dozen homes in the now-larger Bridge fire. It'll be sad to see all the beautiful Nat forests surrounding all those towns decimated too. Now I'm REALLY feeling glad I sold last month. While I feel bad for the new owners Im selfishly glad it's not me. Maybe if I could have gotten wildfire insurance but that's almost impossible here.
As for earthquakes - seeks there have been a lot of small one lately and have also heard they can be a precursor for a very large one. I've also heard they relieve pressure along a fault line and make a big one less likely. Where do all the geologists ( @Glenstache ) stand on this?
Earthquakes are virtually impossible to predict and have shown to be random. More earthquakes doesn't mean there are more or less ahead or larger or smaller ones.
-
Have been trying to find new info on the SoCal fires this morning - which are huge and appear to be very close now to my old hood - but they're too busy talking about another earth quake they had in SoCal :-(
Looks like the fire has crested the ridge into Big Bear Valley. There are a number of USFS roads in that area before the fire gets to town, and the fire is now moving down slope which is advantageous for firefighters. As long as the winds cooperate they should be able to stop it before it gets to the urban area. My guess from looking at the terrain is they will take their stand closer to town and let the fire burn up to near the dam and then use highway 18 to the west to stop northward spread.
RE earthquakes: It sure seems like something is happening in SoCal. Completely unpredictable of course, but historically earthquakes have portended more earthquakes. And it's been a long time since they've had a big one. For those in the area, make sure you have an emergency kit at a safe place at your house: https://earthquake.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/sites/8/2019/10/Earthquake-Preparedness-Checklist.pdf (https://earthquake.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/sites/8/2019/10/Earthquake-Preparedness-Checklist.pdf)
Thanks for the update (been at the VA all day doing all the annual medical stuff so limited media access). Hopefully they'll be able to stop or redirect it before it reaches town. Lots of homes and businesses there. Some other smaller towns (Wrightwood) lots 3 or 4 dozen homes in the now-larger Bridge fire. It'll be sad to see all the beautiful Nat forests surrounding all those towns decimated too. Now I'm REALLY feeling glad I sold last month. While I feel bad for the new owners Im selfishly glad it's not me. Maybe if I could have gotten wildfire insurance but that's almost impossible here.
As for earthquakes - seeks there have been a lot of small one lately and have also heard they can be a precursor for a very large one. I've also heard they relieve pressure along a fault line and make a big one less likely. Where do all the geologists ( @Glenstache ) stand on this?
Earthquakes are virtually impossible to predict and have shown to be random. More earthquakes doesn't mean there are more or less ahead or larger or smaller ones.
I'm not a seismologist, not sure if you are, so take the following with a big grain of salt. I learned about this stuff growing up in CA and some college level science courses.
For sure, we can use a probability distribution to model earthquake behavior, but that doesn't mean they are purely random in the real world.
In a simple straight line slip fault system, smaller earthquakes can relieve pressure in an area thereby decreasing the likelihood of a larger event.
But SoCal is a different beast. Look at a map of the faults there:
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/18/SoCal_Faults.svg
It's a twisted mess of faults running in all directions. There are slip forces, but also compression and extension forces. It's a very complex system, where smaller earthquakes have the potential to release pressure in some areas while increasing pressure in others. This is why foreshocks -- smaller events leading up to a mainshock -- are a thing in SoCal.
Again, I'm not saying any of this is a prediction. We simple don't know for sure. But SoCal has been in a so-called earthquake drought for 30-ish years, whereas seismic activity is now picking up again. And statistically the area is overdue for a larger shock (same is true in the Bay Area). A 6.0-7.0 is very possible on any number of the smaller faults. But what is really concerning is the next big one, a 7.0-8ish event that could rupture hundreds of miles of the San Andreas fault.
No need to live in fear, but respect the situation. Have an earthquake kit and family plan ready. Cellphone networks will likely be down/overwhelmed, and millions of people will need to shelter in place for a number of days. Just be prepared.
-
Have been trying to find new info on the SoCal fires this morning - which are huge and appear to be very close now to my old hood - but they're too busy talking about another earth quake they had in SoCal :-(
Looks like the fire has crested the ridge into Big Bear Valley. There are a number of USFS roads in that area before the fire gets to town, and the fire is now moving down slope which is advantageous for firefighters. As long as the winds cooperate they should be able to stop it before it gets to the urban area. My guess from looking at the terrain is they will take their stand closer to town and let the fire burn up to near the dam and then use highway 18 to the west to stop northward spread.
RE earthquakes: It sure seems like something is happening in SoCal. Completely unpredictable of course, but historically earthquakes have portended more earthquakes. And it's been a long time since they've had a big one. For those in the area, make sure you have an emergency kit at a safe place at your house: https://earthquake.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/sites/8/2019/10/Earthquake-Preparedness-Checklist.pdf (https://earthquake.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/sites/8/2019/10/Earthquake-Preparedness-Checklist.pdf)
Thanks for the update (been at the VA all day doing all the annual medical stuff so limited media access). Hopefully they'll be able to stop or redirect it before it reaches town. Lots of homes and businesses there. Some other smaller towns (Wrightwood) lots 3 or 4 dozen homes in the now-larger Bridge fire. It'll be sad to see all the beautiful Nat forests surrounding all those towns decimated too. Now I'm REALLY feeling glad I sold last month. While I feel bad for the new owners Im selfishly glad it's not me. Maybe if I could have gotten wildfire insurance but that's almost impossible here.
As for earthquakes - seeks there have been a lot of small one lately and have also heard they can be a precursor for a very large one. I've also heard they relieve pressure along a fault line and make a big one less likely. Where do all the geologists ( @Glenstache ) stand on this?
Earthquakes are virtually impossible to predict and have shown to be random. More earthquakes doesn't mean there are more or less ahead or larger or smaller ones.
I'm not a seismologist, not sure if you are, so take the following with a big grain of salt. I learned about this stuff growing up in CA and some college level science courses.
For sure, we can use a probability distribution to model earthquake behavior, but that doesn't mean they are purely random in the real world.
In a simple straight line slip fault system, smaller earthquakes can relieve pressure in an area thereby decreasing the likelihood of a larger event.
But SoCal is a different beast. Look at a map of the faults there:
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/18/SoCal_Faults.svg (https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/18/SoCal_Faults.svg)
It's a twisted mess of faults running in all directions. There are slip forces, but also compression and extension forces. It's a very complex system, where smaller earthquakes have the potential to release pressure in some areas while increasing pressure in others. This is why foreshocks -- smaller events leading up to a mainshock -- are a thing in SoCal.
Again, I'm not saying any of this is a prediction. We simple don't know for sure. But SoCal has been in a so-called earthquake drought for 30-ish years, whereas seismic activity is now picking up again. And statistically the area is overdue for a larger shock (same is true in the Bay Area). A 6.0-7.0 is very possible on any number of the smaller faults. But what is really concerning is the next big one, a 7.0-8ish event that could rupture hundreds of miles of the San Andreas fault.
No need to live in fear, but respect the situation. Have an earthquake kit and family plan ready. Cellphone networks will likely be down/overwhelmed, and millions of people will need to shelter in place for a number of days. Just be prepared.
The problem with foreshocks is that there is no way to identify them as such until The Big One occurs to which they can be linked. A flurry of quakes, a quiet spell or anything in between may occur before a larger event.
-
Earthquakes happen all of the time, but most are small and not newsworthy.
https://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/map/?extent=21.86496,-135.79102&extent=57.84674,-82.35352&range=month&magnitude=all&settings=true
Yes, earthquakes do relieve stress on the fault. The thing is that it takes a lot of small ones to relieve the energy equivalent of a bit one. The scale is logarithmic, so it takes ten M3s to release as much as a M4, or 100 M2s to match that M4. The stress tends to not build up uniformly along a fault plane because geology is messy that way. Stress release and slippage along a fault allows motion in the surrounding crust that can load up ohter nearby faults or fault segments. Geologists and geophysicists have been getting MUCH better at understanding these things, but definitive prediction is not available in the state of the science.
TLDR: M4 is unexpected and part of a continuum of earthquakes that are ongoing. A bigger one will happen again (and again, and again) in the not distant future. We don't know when and planning for it 3 days out is the same as 3 years out: don't put your bed below big heavy things or glass that can/will crush or cut you, and keep at least a week of food and water in an emergency kit along with other things you may need for your climate like blankets if gas heat is unavailable. And don't try and run out of your house because it turns out you are pretty likely to fall and break yourself while trying to run in a box that is being violently shaken. Things tend to fall of tall buildings, so getting out the door of a building can also just put you in the line of fire of getting cut/crushed.
-
^^^Thanks @Glenstache that aligns with what I vaguely remember from my college geology classes - back when dinosaurs roam what we believed to be a flat earth, we all lived in caves, and (HORRORS!) the internet hadn't been invented yet - ya know...the 1990s ;-). There are so many faults in Calif I can see how it doesn't really matter where you live as you're likely close to one, even a non-major fulltime, that could slip or slide at any time. I had earthquake insurance at both of my last two houses but the deducable is pretty high and no guarantee you can even rebuild if the land is too damaged.
-
It seems they were able to stop the Line Fire after it crested the ridge: https://inciweb.wildfire.gov/incident-information/cabdf-line-fire Not totally out of danger yet, but as long as there are no wind events it'll probably be kept out of town limits.
Interesting article in the NYT a couple days ago the increasing cost and difficulty of living in California's mountain towns: https://www.nytimes.com/2024/09/18/us/san-bernardino-wildfire-risk.html Though I doubt this problem is unique to California since many towns in the forests of the semi-arid West have similar risks.
-
It seems they were able to stop the Line Fire after it crested the ridge: https://inciweb.wildfire.gov/incident-information/cabdf-line-fire Not totally out of danger yet, but as long as there are no wind events it'll probably be kept out of town limits.
Interesting article in the NYT a couple days ago the increasing cost and difficulty of living in California's mountain towns: https://www.nytimes.com/2024/09/18/us/san-bernardino-wildfire-risk.html Though I doubt this problem is unique to California since many towns in the forests of the semi-arid West have similar risks.
It's still not fully contained but much better. And with rain on the way that should help. Of course then the mudslides are next! They are even doing their annual Ocktoberfest (a big deal there) and have returned all the animals to the zoo. So saved for another day! All those mountain towns are at high risk for fires and mudflows still as the heat and big Santa Ana winds haven't started yet. Now that the state put a moratorium on insurance companies to not cancel policies for a year I think more people will remain but sounds like lots of people want to move out asap.
-
For a long time, I have wondered how the densely populated barrier islands off the coasts of Florida would fare in a hurricane. Looks like they got hit hard (https://disq.us/url?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.tampabay.com%2Fhurricane%2F2024%2F09%2F26%2Fhurricane-helene-florida-beaches-pinellas-flooding-storm-surge%2F%3ADrmOHo3SvA-DiahgDhAh6IT9DTA&cuid=6515783) by Helene.
-
Helene released her fury on Floridians. I like the lady who thought she would be safe and dry because she put some tape around the bottom of her doors.
I have a frenemy who has a $3 million home (no stilts) a few steps from the beach in the Keys. Am I terrible for wanting him to get a couple lashes from a storm one day?
-
Of all the words to use in the headline, "unbelievable" is an absurd one. Just because something hasn't happened in your 40 years in a house (but happened repeatedly in your state), doesn't mean it couldn't happen. 100 years storms are happening once a decade now. Heck, an unnamed storm just dropped 20+" of rain in 12 hours in our neighboring town just last week. They hadn't even closed school. They are calling it a 1,000 year storm.
People not evacuating based on their experience is going to be a huge danger. Further evidence of the degrading view on experts. I've heard so many people here say they won't ever evacuate again after the did or didn't during Florence in 2018. It was a Cat 5 until 12 hours before hitting the coast, then just sat and rained for a week and cut off our city.
-
For a long time, I have wondered how the densely populated barrier islands off the coasts of Florida would fare in a hurricane. Looks like they got hit hard (https://disq.us/url?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.tampabay.com%2Fhurricane%2F2024%2F09%2F26%2Fhurricane-helene-florida-beaches-pinellas-flooding-storm-surge%2F%3ADrmOHo3SvA-DiahgDhAh6IT9DTA&cuid=6515783) by Helene.
From the link:
"His van was toast, he said. His front door was sealed shut by surging water and beating wind. The option to leave was gone.
”This is astronomical,” he said. “I’ve never seen it this bad, never imagined it could be this bad. There’s no way I would have stayed if I’d known.”"
This individual managed to ignore the weather reports I was aware of 600 miles away, local authorities who had been encouraging people to spend the night inland, local word of mouth, economic signals from the insurance industry, and 30 years of climate science. His traits of ignoring information left him dumbfounded in a situation where:
"[His] sliding glass door looked like an aquarium as water pressed against it. His yard sat under five feet of surge and each successive wave that battered his bungalow submerged the windows entirely."
At some point, these sand bar towns must be entirely populated by people with the common tendency to ignore information about the threats offshore. Perhaps they create a local information bubble that screens out talk of hurricanes, beach erosion, or climate change. This information problem leads to situations where people are making poor choices:
Other people are building their houses on sand two meters above sea level so why shouldn't I? Other people ride out hurricanes on the beach so why shouldn't I? My car won't get flooded because if it gets bad enough I'll just drive out, right?
Denial extends far inland from the beach. The whole state of Florida is in denial. The people living in Galveston, New Orleans, Mobile, or Savannah are in denial. We're all in denial.
-
For a long time, I have wondered how the densely populated barrier islands off the coasts of Florida would fare in a hurricane. Looks like they got hit hard (https://disq.us/url?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.tampabay.com%2Fhurricane%2F2024%2F09%2F26%2Fhurricane-helene-florida-beaches-pinellas-flooding-storm-surge%2F%3ADrmOHo3SvA-DiahgDhAh6IT9DTA&cuid=6515783) by Helene.
From the link:
"His van was toast, he said. His front door was sealed shut by surging water and beating wind. The option to leave was gone.
”This is astronomical,” he said. “I’ve never seen it this bad, never imagined it could be this bad. There’s no way I would have stayed if I’d known.”"
This individual managed to ignore the weather reports I was aware of 600 miles away, local authorities who had been encouraging people to spend the night inland, local word of mouth, economic signals from the insurance industry, and 30 years of climate science. His traits of ignoring information left him dumbfounded in a situation where:
"[His] sliding glass door looked like an aquarium as water pressed against it. His yard sat under five feet of surge and each successive wave that battered his bungalow submerged the windows entirely."
At some point, these sand bar towns must be entirely populated by people with the common tendency to ignore information about the threats offshore. Perhaps they create a local information bubble that screens out talk of hurricanes, beach erosion, or climate change. This information problem leads to situations where people are making poor choices:
Other people are building their houses on sand two meters above sea level so why shouldn't I? Other people ride out hurricanes on the beach so why shouldn't I? My car won't get flooded because if it gets bad enough I'll just drive out, right?
Denial extends far inland from the beach. The whole state of Florida is in denial. The people living in Galveston, New Orleans, Mobile, or Savannah are in denial. We're all in denial.
Familiarity breeds complacency. Humans are notoriously short-sighted. In the big scheme of things, 40 or even 100 years is nothing. Throw in a large dose of cognitive dissonance because someone *really* wants to believe living on the beach/in the woods/on an ocean bluff is their best life, and you get people that ignore all the warnings and are legitimately surprised when disaster strikes. It's why people keep building/buying houses in extreme fire risk, on barrier islands, or don't carry earthquake insurance in some of the most seismically active areas of the world. Honesty, I would be shocked if this didn't happen.
This may sound harsh, but I think the only way people are going to internalize the risks is if they experience the cost, and then these stories make it to the general public as cautionary tales.
-
^^^My experience as ex-coast guard stationed in places like NOLA (pre-Katrina), Key West, and several coastal east coast places like NC, VA, NJ, Boston and Maine is that people have evacuated in several past hurricanes that didn't turn out to be that destructive so they use the logic of "well I evacuated in the past and nothing happened so Im staying put and riding it out". Then one comes along that IS that bad and it's too late to do anything. They seem to have the same additude towards building (or worse, rebuilding) in disaster prone places. "It's never happened here before so I can build my dream house here".
-
I think stop signs should start having elevations put on them showing the height of various storm surges (2, 4, 6 ft, for example) to make the storm predictions more visceral. As a nerd, when I was looking for a house and considering a location in a flood plain, the staff gauges for measuring stream height were pretty compelling for putting it firmly in the "no" category and much more tangible than the flood maps. A more approachable storm surge pole as means of public education would be useful to help people visualize just how deep a 6 foot surge (or whatever) would be in their neighborhood.
-
^^^My experience as ex-coast guard stationed in places like NOLA (pre-Katrina), Key West, and several coastal east coast places like NC, VA, NJ, Boston and Maine is that people have evacuated in several past hurricanes that didn't turn out to be that destructive so they use the logic of "well I evacuated in the past and nothing happened so Im staying put and riding it out". Then one comes along that IS that bad and it's too late to do anything. They seem to have the same additude towards building (or worse, rebuilding) in disaster prone places. "It's never happened here before so I can build my dream house here".
That happened when furious Katrina slammed NOLA then Houston evacuated for Miss Rita and people spent 6-8 hours in their cars in I10 gridlock, some running out of gas, for a nothingburger storm.
-
^^^My experience as ex-coast guard stationed in places like NOLA (pre-Katrina), Key West, and several coastal east coast places like NC, VA, NJ, Boston and Maine is that people have evacuated in several past hurricanes that didn't turn out to be that destructive so they use the logic of "well I evacuated in the past and nothing happened so Im staying put and riding it out". Then one comes along that IS that bad and it's too late to do anything. They seem to have the same additude towards building (or worse, rebuilding) in disaster prone places. "It's never happened here before so I can build my dream house here".
That happened when furious Katrina slammed NOLA then Houston evacuated for Miss Rita and people spent 6-8 hours in their cars in I10 gridlock, some running out of gas, for a nothingburger storm.
Maybe the sequence of rationalization goes like this:
1) "I'll live here and if it ever gets bad I'll just evacuate."
2) It gets bad. Attempt evacuation. End up stuck in gridlock traffic for 6-8 hours. House was fine the whole time because the storm went another way and destroyed other homes.
3) Vow not to evacuate next time.
4) Become a victim the next time.
The error is in step 3. The correct conclusion people should make is "I live in an unsafe place that I cannot evacuate from, so I should move."
-
At some point, these sand bar towns must be entirely populated by people with the common tendency to ignore information about the threats offshore. Perhaps they create a local information bubble that screens out talk of hurricanes, beach erosion, or climate change. This information problem leads to situations where people are making poor choices:
Other people are building their houses on sand two meters above sea level so why shouldn't I? Other people ride out hurricanes on the beach so why shouldn't I? My car won't get flooded because if it gets bad enough I'll just drive out, right?
I've seen the stat bandied about that 13% of Florida homes lack any insurance at all, and it's probably higher on the coasts.
I wonder if older folks/retirees are actually less risk averse than younger people when it comes to property damage. If you're 65 and looking at an uninsurable beach bungalow that has a 20% chance of being a total loss in the next 15 years, maybe you decide to YOLO and take that bet?
Not to mention the not insignificant number of people who literally think they can summon divine intervention through prayer, and so they are not subject to the laws of nature or probabilities.
-
I’m mostly surprised about the inland damage.
I was in Tennessee when Katrina hit, and what was left of the storm went right over me. I remember it being an above-average thunderstorm at that time, but nothing particularly noteworthy.
Major flooding in Atlanta, North Carolina, and Tennessee seems crazy to me. I wonder how many don’t have flood insurance because they don’t live in a flood plain.
-
At some point, these sand bar towns must be entirely populated by people with the common tendency to ignore information about the threats offshore. Perhaps they create a local information bubble that screens out talk of hurricanes, beach erosion, or climate change. This information problem leads to situations where people are making poor choices:
Other people are building their houses on sand two meters above sea level so why shouldn't I? Other people ride out hurricanes on the beach so why shouldn't I? My car won't get flooded because if it gets bad enough I'll just drive out, right?
Just a guess, but I'd think that older people are far more likely not to have mortgages, and in most cases not having a mortgage is the only way to not have insurance. So I'm sure the elderly make up a huge% of that 13%. they are probably also least able to self-insure or rebuild--or even just find affordable housing--if their home is destroyed or heavily damaged since they are presumably mostly retired.
I've seen the stat bandied about that 13% of Florida homes lack any insurance at all, and it's probably higher on the coasts.
I wonder if older folks/retirees are actually less risk averse than younger people when it comes to property damage. If you're 65 and looking at an uninsurable beach bungalow that has a 20% chance of being a total loss in the next 15 years, maybe you decide to YOLO and take that bet?
Not to mention the not insignificant number of people who literally think they can summon divine intervention through prayer, and so they are not subject to the laws of nature or probabilities.
-
I’m mostly surprised about the inland damage.
I was in Tennessee when Katrina hit, and what was left of the storm went right over me. I remember it being an above-average thunderstorm at that time, but nothing particularly noteworthy.
Major flooding in Atlanta, North Carolina, and Tennessee seems crazy to me. I wonder how many don’t have flood insurance because they don’t live in a flood plain.
Did you hear of major flooding in Atlanta? I live about an hour south and it rained yesterday a few inches, but its been sunny today and we've just had to clear out some downed branches. No real damage
-
I read a book, "The Unthinkable: Who Survives When Disaster Strikes". It was very interesting, a bit dated. I believe it's been updated more recently but I didn't read that version. Denial is a real thing. Relying on past experience, but not realizing that past experience doesn't apply to the situation happens. Sometimes to tragic effect.
There was a story in the book about an elderly man who died in Katrina. Could have evacuated, his family did, but he refused. He died. The author broke down why it happened. There were a lot of older people who didn't evacuate because of a previous hurricane and they did just fine, so they used that experience to decide not to evacuate. That decision however was made with no longer accurate information: the previous hurricane, the wetlands and other natural features which actually protected inland from flooding were still intact. With Katrina, that was no longer the case.
This experience, assuming the people survive, may result in them choosing to evacuate in future. However, you also have to be careful about when you make the call to evacuate. Because if the government says to evacuate, and it ends up not being necessary, then people in general are less likely to pay attention next time.
Real example: tornado sirens in my town. They set them off WAY too often. As a result, my response when the siren goes off is to check the weather, then make my own determination if I need to do anything. I rarely do. My parents moved to the area, and where they were living if the siren goes off you get in the basement immediately. After a couple years here, now they call me. They have learned in 3 years that the tornado siren is not something you need to pay attention to, because in 3 years the siren has gone off at least a dozen times and only once was it truly serious. I need to figure out who makes that decision and write a letter to them, because they're going to get people killed at some point.
The Boy Who Cried Wolf needs to make a resurgence in popularity.
-
Guy buys an oceanfront house, knowing it could erode into the ocean in 10 years or less.
David Moot spent about two decades longing for an oceanfront home on Cape Cod.
This year, he’ll be spending the holidays at his dream house. Moot, 59, bought a three-bedroom, two-bathroom bungalow with sweeping views of the Atlantic Ocean for just under $400,000 late last year, he told The Washington Post.
The catch? It might crumble off the cliff soon.
Experts say it could fall into the ocean within 10 years.
But where most see risk, Moot saw opportunity.
“The prices were always far beyond my reach. So this particular house came into my price range due to the erosion issue. So I said, well, let me see what I can do, if I can make it happen,” Moot said. “Life’s too short. People think I’m crazy. Well, I could walk out of the door tomorrow and get hit by a car.”
He casually searched for oceanfront homes, scouring small towns and checking on property listings. The dream remained unattainable until he saw a home, built in Eastham, Mass., in 1965, listed for $395,000. Two years ago, that same home was listed for about $1.2 million, he said.
Sellers immediately informed Moot of the erosion problem, and the risk that the home may not be inhabitable for very long. He decided to take on the house, and the erosion that came with it, he said.
We tend to view houses as something that will last indefinitely, that we can live in as long as we want, and that will retain (or gain) value when we want to sell. Viewing them almost as consumables to be used for as long as they last is kind of interesting. Probably not many places where the future risk is obvious enough to bring the price down this much, though.
https://wapo.st/3ZLmCtA
-
I’m mostly surprised about the inland damage.
I was in Tennessee when Katrina hit, and what was left of the storm went right over me. I remember it being an above-average thunderstorm at that time, but nothing particularly noteworthy.
Major flooding in Atlanta, North Carolina, and Tennessee seems crazy to me. I wonder how many don’t have flood insurance because they don’t live in a flood plain.
Did you hear of major flooding in Atlanta? I live about an hour south and it rained yesterday a few inches, but its been sunny today and we've just had to clear out some downed branches. No real damage
Some of the early news reports covered flooding in the broader Atlanta area. I don’t recall if it was Atlanta proper or surrounding areas.
It presumably got attention for the simple reason that a lot of reporters live in Atlanta.
-
Real example: tornado sirens in my town. They set them off WAY too often. As a result, my response when the siren goes off is to check the weather, then make my own determination if I need to do anything. I rarely do. My parents moved to the area, and where they were living if the siren goes off you get in the basement immediately. After a couple years here, now they call me. They have learned in 3 years that the tornado siren is not something you need to pay attention to, because in 3 years the siren has gone off at least a dozen times and only once was it truly serious. I need to figure out who makes that decision and write a letter to them, because they're going to get people killed at some point.
The Boy Who Cried Wolf needs to make a resurgence in popularity.
Tornado sirens and emergency alerts drive me batty. They activate for the entire county when there is a warning. I live about half a mile from the northern county line so they never apply to me. They also test them twice a week. They are almost background noise at this point. I have to force myself to check sometimes to see if it applies to me.
The one time I had to get in the basement was for a tornado the next county over. I noticed the green sky, checked my phone (saw nothing), and then googled emergency alerts for the metro area. Saw the other county had a warning. Tornado touched down a couple of miles away.
-
I can't believe the level of devastation from Helene and the few discussions here. Has the national news not shared it? This hurricane was HUGE.
-
I can't believe the level of devastation from Helene and the few discussions here. Has the national news not shared it? This hurricane was HUGE.
I’ll take this as an opportunity to bemoan the state of journalism today.
There’s a reason that 80%+ of the news you see is politics.
Politics is cheap to cover. If you give them the opportunity, political campaigns and lobbyists will even write most of an article for the various news organizations.
There just aren’t enough journalists left to cover real world events. Much less travel to the site of a news story.
Heck, it even came out recently that the WSJ editorial board is taking policy positions straight from corporate PR teams. I’m not in a place to find the link to this now, but I can track it down later if anyone is interested.
-
I can't believe the level of devastation from Helene and the few discussions here. Has the national news not shared it? This hurricane was HUGE.
I get most of my news from TikTok these days.
-
Guy buys an oceanfront house, knowing it could erode into the ocean in 10 years or less.
David Moot spent about two decades longing for an oceanfront home on Cape Cod.
This year, he’ll be spending the holidays at his dream house. Moot, 59, bought a three-bedroom, two-bathroom bungalow with sweeping views of the Atlantic Ocean for just under $400,000 late last year, he told The Washington Post.
The catch? It might crumble off the cliff soon.
Experts say it could fall into the ocean within 10 years.
But where most see risk, Moot saw opportunity.
“The prices were always far beyond my reach. So this particular house came into my price range due to the erosion issue. So I said, well, let me see what I can do, if I can make it happen,” Moot said. “Life’s too short. People think I’m crazy. Well, I could walk out of the door tomorrow and get hit by a car.”
He casually searched for oceanfront homes, scouring small towns and checking on property listings. The dream remained unattainable until he saw a home, built in Eastham, Mass., in 1965, listed for $395,000. Two years ago, that same home was listed for about $1.2 million, he said.
Sellers immediately informed Moot of the erosion problem, and the risk that the home may not be inhabitable for very long. He decided to take on the house, and the erosion that came with it, he said.
We tend to view houses as something that will last indefinitely, that we can live in as long as we want, and that will retain (or gain) value when we want to sell. Viewing them almost as consumables to be used for as long as they last is kind of interesting. Probably not many places where the future risk is obvious enough to bring the price down this much, though.
https://wapo.st/3ZLmCtA
Traditionally in Japan (I'm guessing due to storm and earthquake damage?), houses are valued lower and lower the older they are. After 30-40 years they're usually considered worthless.
-
I can't believe the level of devastation from Helene and the few discussions here. Has the national news not shared it? This hurricane was HUGE.
It seems to be getting plenty of coverage on the various news websites that I frequent. Either Helene or the war in Lebanon has been the top story for the past few days.
-
Guy buys an oceanfront house, knowing it could erode into the ocean in 10 years or less.
David Moot spent about two decades longing for an oceanfront home on Cape Cod.
This year, he’ll be spending the holidays at his dream house. Moot, 59, bought a three-bedroom, two-bathroom bungalow with sweeping views of the Atlantic Ocean for just under $400,000 late last year, he told The Washington Post.
The catch? It might crumble off the cliff soon.
Experts say it could fall into the ocean within 10 years.
But where most see risk, Moot saw opportunity.
“The prices were always far beyond my reach. So this particular house came into my price range due to the erosion issue. So I said, well, let me see what I can do, if I can make it happen,” Moot said. “Life’s too short. People think I’m crazy. Well, I could walk out of the door tomorrow and get hit by a car.”
He casually searched for oceanfront homes, scouring small towns and checking on property listings. The dream remained unattainable until he saw a home, built in Eastham, Mass., in 1965, listed for $395,000. Two years ago, that same home was listed for about $1.2 million, he said.
Sellers immediately informed Moot of the erosion problem, and the risk that the home may not be inhabitable for very long. He decided to take on the house, and the erosion that came with it, he said.
We tend to view houses as something that will last indefinitely, that we can live in as long as we want, and that will retain (or gain) value when we want to sell. Viewing them almost as consumables to be used for as long as they last is kind of interesting. Probably not many places where the future risk is obvious enough to bring the price down this much, though.
https://wapo.st/3ZLmCtA
This is an interesting twist on “die with nothing”.
I’m guessing this is an individual who doesn’t plan to live much longer, and is done with long-term planning. Still it’s interesting that many people in that position seek whatever brief gratification comes from living on the beach. They could spend the last few years of their life making a difference in the world, helping their families through their loss, learning new things, exploring art or philosophy, etc. Nope. They’ve heard living on the beach is the best way to live so they’ll gamble everything, spend obscene amounts of money, and end up living on a precarious sandbar watching the waves roll in at a cost of maybe 50 cents per wave.
I could write a short story about a character in this position, realizing in the end that they’ve simply bought a product sold by popular culture as a stand-in for instant happiness - that the sound of ocean waves and the view of the skyline get as old and bland as anything else.
-
I can't believe the level of devastation from Helene and the few discussions here. Has the national news not shared it? This hurricane was HUGE.
I get most of my news from TikTok these days.
Cell service & internet has been down throughout the flood areas, in the mountains. We still can't reach our friends up there. I drove up to check on our cabin near Boone, NC on Saturday. Cell service & power outages began in Hickory, NC which is about 45 minutes from Boone. Parts of Lenoir had electricity & cell coverage. Customers were lined up around all the gas stations there.
Downtown Boone was drying out by then, with the streets & sidewalks covered in mud. As I headed West the roads got bad, with water rushing across the highway, downed powerlines across the highway, trees leaning across the road & onto powerlines. The road banks & ditches were washed out in many areas & it was nerve-wracking wondering whether the roadway might break away as I drove through.
Our place is a couple hundred feet above the creeks, so flooding wasn't a real concern. I worried that the driveway had washed out, fallen trees on our home or shop, and mudslides were possible. Fortunately, I was able to make it up the driveway and the house and shop were fine. About 6-8 large trees were uprooted around the yard, and many more down in the surrounding woods. I'd carried a chainsaw along in case I needed to clear a road, the driveway, or if there were trees on the buildings. It was a relief being able to leave the saw in the van. I emptied the food from the fridge & the deep freezer and unplugged them, and called it "job-done". I left a 5-gallon can of gas for my neighbor's generator.
We have numerous friends up there that I hoped were okay. I couldn't check on all of them, so I decided to visit a friend who lives alone in a very remote part of the county. I made it out to her house and was happy to see that she was fine.
From the limited views I had around Watauga County, it seems that the damage isn't quite as bad as the neighboring counties to the South and West. News is just now coming out about many of the areas between Boone and Asheville. Many of these areas are impossible to reach by road because the roads are gone.
-
I just saw the news last night for the first time in a few days and wow the destruction and desvastation is massive. Something like one of those once-in-a-1000 year storms. And apparently in Atlanta it was the first ever recorded flooding event of that magnitude. So while it's probably under reported out here on the west coast (where we are dealing with our wildfires and wishing for rain) the world news seems to be actively reporting on it. That and the middle east and the elections seem to be the main topics. My ex-FIL lives in Asheville and 3 of my ex's sibs live in NC and Georgia and I guess no one's been able to contact them. The ex (also Coast Guard) is headed out that way as part of a support team so hope his family are OK.
Meanwhile, in my old hood, the 40k acre Line FIRE has rekindled yesterday and evacuations are starting again. Big heat wave starts today too. Glad I moved down "The Hill" to the moist foggy coast!
-
I just saw the news last night for the first time in a few days and wow the destruction and desvastation is massive. Something like one of those once-in-a-1000 year storms. And apparently in Atlanta it was the first ever recorded flooding event of that magnitude. So while it's probably under reported out here on the west coast (where we are dealing with our wildfires and wishing for rain) the world news seems to be actively reporting on it. That and the middle east and the elections seem to be the main topics. My ex-FIL lives in Asheville and 3 of my ex's sibs live in NC and Georgia and I guess no one's been able to contact them. The ex (also Coast Guard) is headed out that way as part of a support team so hope his family are OK.
Meanwhile, in my old hood, the 40k acre Line FIRE has rekindled yesterday and evacuations are starting again. Big heat wave starts today too. Glad I moved down "The Hill" to the moist foggy coast!
I have friends in SC and NC in the affected areas who are going on 4 days without power but are otherwise feeling fortunate comparatively. This time of year is also big for the tourist industry with the folks coming to see the fall colors, etc so that will be an additional hit to those businesses.
-
I'm in the other end of the state from the destruction (I'm coming to realize the benefits of a flood just draining back into the ocean vs. it tearing off downhill). To pull a few discussions together, TikTok and "reporting" from private citizens has become essential for breaking news. The old way of local reporters passing up official reports from emergency personnel has been supplemented by "this is video of the flood in my backyard" livestreaming, to the point where news agencies are depending on it for prompt reporting, especially like here were power, cell service, and local travel are all unreliable AND the conditions are so localized based on each individual stream becoming a different torrent.
As a result, TikTok may be the best source for up to the minute conditions, though those conditions may be highly localized and potentially suspect with regards to location, date/time, accompanying text etc, as it gets filtered through the pay-per-thousand-views media platforms.
North Carolina saw two separate "1,000 year" rain events at opposite ends of the state in a little over a week.
-
Guy buys an oceanfront house, knowing it could erode into the ocean in 10 years or less.
David Moot spent about two decades longing for an oceanfront home on Cape Cod.
This year, he’ll be spending the holidays at his dream house. Moot, 59, bought a three-bedroom, two-bathroom bungalow with sweeping views of the Atlantic Ocean for just under $400,000 late last year, he told The Washington Post.
The catch? It might crumble off the cliff soon.
Experts say it could fall into the ocean within 10 years.
But where most see risk, Moot saw opportunity.
“The prices were always far beyond my reach. So this particular house came into my price range due to the erosion issue. So I said, well, let me see what I can do, if I can make it happen,” Moot said. “Life’s too short. People think I’m crazy. Well, I could walk out of the door tomorrow and get hit by a car.”
He casually searched for oceanfront homes, scouring small towns and checking on property listings. The dream remained unattainable until he saw a home, built in Eastham, Mass., in 1965, listed for $395,000. Two years ago, that same home was listed for about $1.2 million, he said.
Sellers immediately informed Moot of the erosion problem, and the risk that the home may not be inhabitable for very long. He decided to take on the house, and the erosion that came with it, he said.
We tend to view houses as something that will last indefinitely, that we can live in as long as we want, and that will retain (or gain) value when we want to sell. Viewing them almost as consumables to be used for as long as they last is kind of interesting. Probably not many places where the future risk is obvious enough to bring the price down this much, though.
https://wapo.st/3ZLmCtA
This is an interesting twist on “die with nothing”.
I’m guessing this is an individual who doesn’t plan to live much longer, and is done with long-term planning. Still it’s interesting that many people in that position seek whatever brief gratification comes from living on the beach. They could spend the last few years of their life making a difference in the world, helping their families through their loss, learning new things, exploring art or philosophy, etc. Nope. They’ve heard living on the beach is the best way to live so they’ll gamble everything, spend obscene amounts of money, and end up living on a precarious sandbar watching the waves roll in at a cost of maybe 50 cents per wave.
I could write a short story about a character in this position, realizing in the end that they’ve simply bought a product sold by popular culture as a stand-in for instant happiness - that the sound of ocean waves and the view of the skyline get as old and bland as anything else.
I also wonder how much the property would be worth eroded and without a house on it.
Even if the lot itself can't be build on, maybe it's worth ~$200k for someone to park a camper on? Or some other alternative use?
It wouldn't be my approach, but it's not totally crazy to pay $200k ($400k purchase - $200k resale) for a decade of ocean views from a million dollar house.
That's obviously complete speculation, but seems like one way this purchase would be less crazy.
-
^^^He may just look at it as equivalent to renting. Instead of buying a million dollar ocean view home he's pre-paying $500k to live there as long as he can - maybe 10 years, maybe longer. Once it becomes uninhabitable he just walks away owing nothing. He'll still have the other $500k (plus interest) to live on or buy another place once needed. While not my idea of stability (pun intended ;-)) I can see it as a way to YOLO and not much different then renting an expensive ocean view place for a few years.
-
Real example: tornado sirens in my town. They set them off WAY too often. As a result, my response when the siren goes off is to check the weather, then make my own determination if I need to do anything. I rarely do. My parents moved to the area, and where they were living if the siren goes off you get in the basement immediately. After a couple years here, now they call me. They have learned in 3 years that the tornado siren is not something you need to pay attention to, because in 3 years the siren has gone off at least a dozen times and only once was it truly serious. I need to figure out who makes that decision and write a letter to them, because they're going to get people killed at some point.
The Boy Who Cried Wolf needs to make a resurgence in popularity.
Tornado sirens and emergency alerts drive me batty. They activate for the entire county when there is a warning. I live about half a mile from the northern county line so they never apply to me. They also test them twice a week. They are almost background noise at this point. I have to force myself to check sometimes to see if it applies to me.
The one time I had to get in the basement was for a tornado the next county over. I noticed the green sky, checked my phone (saw nothing), and then googled emergency alerts for the metro area. Saw the other county had a warning. Tornado touched down a couple of miles away.
Yep. The problem is they centralized the alert system. But weather isn't centralized, it's localized. So there's a mismatch. But testing twice a week? That's massive overkill. Once a month in my town.
-
I'm in the other end of the state from the destruction (I'm coming to realize the benefits of a flood just draining back into the ocean vs. it tearing off downhill). To pull a few discussions together, TikTok and "reporting" from private citizens has become essential for breaking news. The old way of local reporters passing up official reports from emergency personnel has been supplemented by "this is video of the flood in my backyard" livestreaming, to the point where news agencies are depending on it for prompt reporting, especially like here were power, cell service, and local travel are all unreliable AND the conditions are so localized based on each individual stream becoming a different torrent.
As a result, TikTok may be the best source for up to the minute conditions, though those conditions may be highly localized and potentially suspect with regards to location, date/time, accompanying text etc, as it gets filtered through the pay-per-thousand-views media platforms.
North Carolina saw two separate "1,000 year" rain events at opposite ends of the state in a little over a week.
A few months ago, I volunteered with the National Guard for forest fire response. I was working in the headquarters coordinating our response as opposed to out in the field. The information I was getting from social media (X and Facebook) was sometimes better than I was receiving in briefings in the emergency operations center. At least insofar as activity on the ground. Local governments were primarily posting things on Facebook and sometimes it would conflict with what we were hearing from our Soldiers on the ground. One video or piece of information from social media might make it into the news but there might be 10 or 20 additional videos, photos, first-hand accounts, etc. if you were on the platform.
-
Traditionally in Japan (I'm guessing due to storm and earthquake damage?), houses are valued lower and lower the older they are. After 30-40 years they're usually considered worthless.
It is because of demographics. There are fewer and fewer people each year in the home buying market so homes go down in value.
-
I realize this discussion of Helene's inland effect is getting off topic, but I wanted to share 2 photos that impressed me. This is a bridge that crosses the New River, one town over from where I live. The river peaked at 31 feet above its normal level, which is the 2nd highest ever recorded. In 1940, it was at 36 feet, but all other major floods have been 20-24 feet. The surprising this is that we didn't actually get much rain here. There was 5 inches of accumulation over a week period (there was some rain a couple of days before Helene) and only 2 inches the day the storm passed closest to here. The reason for the intense river flood which has destroyed many homes along its banks, is that it flows north from the direction of the hurricane.
-
“We flooded here four times in the last four years,” said Driscoll, as he threw his television sets, furniture, appliances and other belongings to the curb. “I’m just hoping I can sell the house. It’s a good neighborhood for sure, but dealing with the floods is horrible.”
https://www.wsj.com/real-estate/st-petersburg-florida-homeowners-hurricane-insurance-cost-4bc92822?st=Tj5dtv&reflink=mobilewebshare_permalink
-
My friend's aunt lives in Ashville and is in her 80s. Apparently she only watches some, in my opinion, questionable cable channels. They never mentioned the hurricane so the first she found out about it was when it was over her house and took out her power. She had enough cell phone power to call my friend, but that was about it. The only way to get to the house is via a bridge that's been taken out. Thankfully she's a bit of a hoarder so she should have enough food to last a few days, but he's been in contact with some emergency groups to get someone to check on here.
-
“We flooded here four times in the last four years,” said Driscoll, as he threw his television sets, furniture, appliances and other belongings to the curb. “I’m just hoping I can sell the house. It’s a good neighborhood for sure, but dealing with the floods is horrible.”
https://www.wsj.com/real-estate/st-petersburg-florida-homeowners-hurricane-insurance-cost-4bc92822?st=Tj5dtv&reflink=mobilewebshare_permalink
Finally some good reporting from the WSJ.
Maybe I’m looking at confirmation bias, but I feel like there will be a tipping point on the real estate market in the next few years.
Most consumers and businesses have been sticking their head in the sand because it’s easier than dealing with hypothetical future losses on real estate.
Now these losses are turning into reality with upside down mortgages, lost equity, and impossible insurance math.
With losses changing from hypothetical to real in Tampa, it doesn’t take much for people to turn their imagination to their own neighborhood.
It also maybe takes 1-2 troubling quarters in regional banks before mortgage underwriters start asking questions about their regional exposure. I’m not saying it will turn to contagion, but we might start hearing about neighborhoods where lenders won’t go.
I’m not saying this is going to happen immediately. But I think we will be looking back on this time as a fairly significant inflection point in the real estate market.
-
“We flooded here four times in the last four years,” said Driscoll, as he threw his television sets, furniture, appliances and other belongings to the curb. “I’m just hoping I can sell the house. It’s a good neighborhood for sure, but dealing with the floods is horrible.”
https://www.wsj.com/real-estate/st-petersburg-florida-homeowners-hurricane-insurance-cost-4bc92822?st=Tj5dtv&reflink=mobilewebshare_permalink
Finally some good reporting from the WSJ.
Maybe I’m looking at confirmation bias, but I feel like there will be a tipping point on the real estate market in the next few years.
Most consumers and businesses have been sticking their head in the sand because it’s easier than dealing with hypothetical future losses on real estate.
Now these losses are turning into reality with upside down mortgages, lost equity, and impossible insurance math.
With losses changing from hypothetical to real in Tampa, it doesn’t take much for people to turn their imagination to their own neighborhood.
It also maybe takes 1-2 troubling quarters in regional banks before mortgage underwriters start asking questions about their regional exposure. I’m not saying it will turn to contagion, but we might start hearing about neighborhoods where lenders won’t go.
I’m not saying this is going to happen immediately. But I think we will be looking back on this time as a fairly significant inflection point in the real estate market.
The lenders may not have to start getting selective. They require insurance (in most cases) and if insurers won't write, or policies are so expensive that they aren't feasible, the effect will be the same. People won't be able to get mortgages. I think we may also see people starting to default on loans that require insurance, when they can't find an insurer, or can't afford the skyrocketing insurance premiums.
The insurance companies may do most of the work for the lenders, by making it so people can't buy (or can't borrow) in certain neighborhoods unless they are willing to pay cash and eat the significant possibility of catastrophic loss, like the guy who bought that cliffside home did.
-
“We flooded here four times in the last four years,” said Driscoll, as he threw his television sets, furniture, appliances and other belongings to the curb. “I’m just hoping I can sell the house. It’s a good neighborhood for sure, but dealing with the floods is horrible.”
https://www.wsj.com/real-estate/st-petersburg-florida-homeowners-hurricane-insurance-cost-4bc92822?st=Tj5dtv&reflink=mobilewebshare_permalink (https://www.wsj.com/real-estate/st-petersburg-florida-homeowners-hurricane-insurance-cost-4bc92822?st=Tj5dtv&reflink=mobilewebshare_permalink)
Finally some good reporting from the WSJ.
Maybe I’m looking at confirmation bias, but I feel like there will be a tipping point on the real estate market in the next few years.
Most consumers and businesses have been sticking their head in the sand because it’s easier than dealing with hypothetical future losses on real estate.
Now these losses are turning into reality with upside down mortgages, lost equity, and impossible insurance math.
With losses changing from hypothetical to real in Tampa, it doesn’t take much for people to turn their imagination to their own neighborhood.
It also maybe takes 1-2 troubling quarters in regional banks before mortgage underwriters start asking questions about their regional exposure. I’m not saying it will turn to contagion, but we might start hearing about neighborhoods where lenders won’t go.
I’m not saying this is going to happen immediately. But I think we will be looking back on this time as a fairly significant inflection point in the real estate market.
The lenders may not have to start getting selective. They require insurance (in most cases) and if insurers won't write, or policies are so expensive that they aren't feasible, the effect will be the same. People won't be able to get mortgages. I think we may also see people starting to default on loans that require insurance, when they can't find an insurer, or can't afford the skyrocketing insurance premiums.
The insurance companies may do most of the work for the lenders, by making it so people can't buy (or can't borrow) in certain neighborhoods unless they are willing to pay cash and eat the significant possibility of catastrophic loss, like the guy who bought that cliffside home did.
It will be interesting to see how that changes the demographics and landscapes of those areas. Without insurance and financing, people could only use portable structures or ones they could afford to lose. Like in the old days, coastal areas would likely become mostly campgrounds and shanty towns. Perhaps a bit more of an MMM lifestyle. Maybe nature is forcing us to "get back to nature", so to speak.
As we're all watching the lower Appalachians trying to recover from Helene I can't help but wonder how many folks might choose to relocate to milder terrain. As these 1000-year weather events become more common it will definitely reshape how and where we live.
-
It will be interesting to see how that changes the demographics and landscapes of those areas. Without insurance and financing, people could only use portable structures or ones they could afford to lose. Like in the old days, coastal areas would likely become mostly campgrounds and shanty towns. Perhaps a bit more of an MMM lifestyle. Maybe nature is forcing us to "get back to nature", so to speak.
As we're all watching the lower Appalachians trying to recover from Helene I can't help but wonder how many folks might choose to relocate to milder terrain. As these 1000-year weather events become more common it will definitely reshape how and where we live.
Yes, I'm all for the return of fishing shacks and beach cabins to our coasts...rebuilt every 20-30 years and moved as needed with moving coastlines. Can folks enjoy the beach without running water and A/C?
I've been thinking a lot about the NC mountains. So many more people live there than when they last had a major flood so the impacts are worse whether or not the volume of water is higher. The nature of the mountain gorges and such seems to indicate that there are high risk and low risk areas in close proximity, unlike in Florida where your roof can get torn off about anywhere. Perhaps swaths that got washed away aren't rebuilt for anything permanent, and the rest accept that they will have to put up with a few weeks without power, water, and a highway out every few decades. Obviously that depends on the political will and funding to keep rebuilding infrastructure.
There is a lot more talk of resiliency in the transportation profession these days with the goal of minimizing the impacts of these storms by strengthening key bridges, raising grades, and building redundant routes.
-
As I watch video of inland North Carolina, I think America's inland cities can also be a hidden time bomb. Some of these folks are suffering catastrophic loss hundreds of miles from the sea.
WRT beach shanties... the modern version would be mobile homes. The new problem would be the sheer amount of building debris floating in the ocean or lurking just below the water with sharp metal edges and nails.
-
As I watch video of inland North Carolina, I think America's inland cities can also be a hidden time bomb. Some of these folks are suffering catastrophic loss hundreds of miles from the sea.
WRT beach shanties... the modern version would be mobile homes. The new problem would be the sheer amount of building debris floating in the ocean or lurking just below the water with sharp metal edges and nails.
Indeed. There is no place for the water to go besides down the small gorges. It was slightly worse than the 1916 Asheville flood in terms of river crest. However, the population in the area grew from 20,000 to 375,000 in the mean time and a lot of those houses and business are probably where it flooded in 1916 and everywhere else on the hillsides.
Building debris has been a big concern in Rodanthe on the Outer Banks as several houses have been washed into the sea as the barrier islands are moving a block westward every decade or two.. Maybe they are built-in tiny homes on trailers or robust RVs that can be evacuated for the big one? Otherwise, the shacks would have less building material than the row of multi million dollar rentals.
-
As I watch video of inland North Carolina, I think America's inland cities can also be a hidden time bomb. Some of these folks are suffering catastrophic loss hundreds of miles from the sea.
WRT beach shanties... the modern version would be mobile homes. The new problem would be the sheer amount of building debris floating in the ocean or lurking just below the water with sharp metal edges and nails.
The risks are any place that can be flooded (by a canyon, river, lake or the ocean), blown (by hurricane or tornadic winds), shaken (by earthquakes), burned (esp. by a forest fired but also by lava or just good old global warming of already very hot places), frozen (by ice storms or blizzards), or slip-slid away (landslide). Did I miss any?
Maps like this https://hazards.fema.gov/nri/map are supposed to summarize the relative risks by county but are not updated often enough.
-
As I watch video of inland North Carolina, I think America's inland cities can also be a hidden time bomb. Some of these folks are suffering catastrophic loss hundreds of miles from the sea.
WRT beach shanties... the modern version would be mobile homes. The new problem would be the sheer amount of building debris floating in the ocean or lurking just below the water with sharp metal edges and nails.
We had actually toyed with the idea of moving to the Asheville area after we "retire" from our current jobs. Mostly because our kids are in the general area ( Durham ). We love the area, but realize now that it definitely isn't a "climate refuge" like we thought it was....sigh. We probably will just stay in southern Minnesota for the foreseeable future.
-
As I watch video of inland North Carolina, I think America's inland cities can also be a hidden time bomb. Some of these folks are suffering catastrophic loss hundreds of miles from the sea.
WRT beach shanties... the modern version would be mobile homes. The new problem would be the sheer amount of building debris floating in the ocean or lurking just below the water with sharp metal edges and nails.
The risks are any place that can be flooded (by a canyon, river, lake or the ocean), blown (by hurricane or tornadic winds), shaken (by earthquakes), burned (esp. by a forest fired but also by lava or just good old global warming of already very hot places), frozen (by ice storms or blizzards), or slip-slid away (landslide). Did I miss any?
Maps like this https://hazards.fema.gov/nri/map are supposed to summarize the relative risks by county but are not updated often enough.
Heat stress kills more people than any other climate risk.
-
As I watch video of inland North Carolina, I think America's inland cities can also be a hidden time bomb. Some of these folks are suffering catastrophic loss hundreds of miles from the sea.
WRT beach shanties... the modern version would be mobile homes. The new problem would be the sheer amount of building debris floating in the ocean or lurking just below the water with sharp metal edges and nails.
The risks are any place that can be flooded (by a canyon, river, lake or the ocean), blown (by hurricane or tornadic winds), shaken (by earthquakes), burned (esp. by a forest fired but also by lava or just good old global warming of already very hot places), frozen (by ice storms or blizzards), or slip-slid away (landslide). Did I miss any?
Maps like this https://hazards.fema.gov/nri/map are supposed to summarize the relative risks by county but are not updated often enough.
Sharknado is a consideration. Although it may be Gatornado with the right hurricane hitting Florida.
In seriousness, the infrastructure we have today was built for the climate of ~75 years ago. If the original planners of Asheville had expected that much rain, they would have built different. Bridges would be higher. Dams and flood control catch-basins would have been designed different. Low-lying buildings wouldn’t be where they are.
Infrastructure can be designed for most expected weather events. It’s the unexpected weather events that cause this level of damage. Even in hurricane or earthquake prone areas, there are dramatic differences in outcomes based on whether buildings and infrastructure were built to handle the expected risks.
-
In seriousness, the infrastructure we have today was built for the climate of ~75 years ago. If the original planners of Asheville had expected that much rain, they would have built different. Bridges would be higher. Dams and flood control catch-basins would have been designed different. Low-lying buildings wouldn’t be where they are.
Asheville had a near identical event 100 years ago. Humans are just bad at evaluating risks of infrequent events. There is infrastructure all across the country that has been repeatedly flooded, in a known landslide area, too close to rivers and oceans, built on fault lines, etc.
https://www.citizen-times.com/story/weather/2024/09/30/how-does-helene-compare-to-the-ashevilles-great-flood-of-1916/75450985007/
-
Apparently Calif sellers are letting buyers cancel sales contracts if they can't find affordable insurance... https://www.sfchronicle.com/california/article/home-insurance-real-estate-disclosures-19807560.php
I got an email from the buyer of our house yesterday asking what insurer we used as he has had no luck in finding one since closing in July. Yikes. Pro tip: always get an insurance quote before even making an offer.
-
Apparently Calif sellers are letting buyers cancel sales contracts if they can't find affordable insurance... https://www.sfchronicle.com/california/article/home-insurance-real-estate-disclosures-19807560.php
I got an email from the buyer of our house yesterday asking what insurer we used as he has had no luck in finding one since closing in July. Yikes. Pro tip: always get an insurance quote before even making an offer.
I heard that too. Apparently people are having to drop prices on Calif homes they want to sell to entice insurers to offer coverage to potential buyers. That doesn't seem to be working. I can imagine more insurers will pull out of all areas or increase prices after the devastation Helene caused.
-
Apparently Calif sellers are letting buyers cancel sales contracts if they can't find affordable insurance... https://www.sfchronicle.com/california/article/home-insurance-real-estate-disclosures-19807560.php
I got an email from the buyer of our house yesterday asking what insurer we used as he has had no luck in finding one since closing in July. Yikes. Pro tip: always get an insurance quote before even making an offer.
Article is behind a paywall so I can't read it.
When we were CA sellers earlier this year we had this happen. It's not so much that we "let" them cancel, as it is that they still had contingencies in place that allowed them to walk away. They did get a quote for insurance, but it was crazy high. (The heart of the problem is that the master system insurance companies use to look at a property's history had incorrect info, making it look like we had 2 massive claims, a few days apart, instead of the 1 moderate claim we actually had, but it spooked the buyer and they bailed. We were under contract again with a new buyer less than a week later and while we had to jump through a few hoops on the insurance, they were able to get a semi-reasonable quote.)
-
Apparently Calif sellers are letting buyers cancel sales contracts if they can't find affordable insurance... https://www.sfchronicle.com/california/article/home-insurance-real-estate-disclosures-19807560.php
I got an email from the buyer of our house yesterday asking what insurer we used as he has had no luck in finding one since closing in July. Yikes. Pro tip: always get an insurance quote before even making an offer.
Article is behind a paywall so I can't read it.
When we were CA sellers earlier this year we had this happen. It's not so much that we "let" them cancel, as it is that they still had contingencies in place that allowed them to walk away. They did get a quote for insurance, but it was crazy high. (The heart of the problem is that the master system insurance companies use to look at a property's history had incorrect info, making it look like we had 2 massive claims, a few days apart, instead of the 1 moderate claim we actually had, but it spooked the buyer and they bailed. We were under contract again with a new buyer less than a week later and while we had to jump through a few hoops on the insurance, they were able to get a semi-reasonable quote.)
It sounds like this can't get insurance --> can't sell situation might be the pathway by which home prices in the riskiest markets are reset to reflect their inherent risk.
Stated another way, an inability to obtain affordable insurance would be a reversal of the previous situation where insurers were over-exposed to risk in certain areas, and they were thereby subsidizing the sort of settlements we're seeing in wildfire/hurricane/earthquake prone places. The insurance industry's subsidy, which arose because they previously did not account for risks correctly, led to a lot of construction in places where it never should have happened. Those properties may be stranded assets now.
This will, of course, create political pressure for state-run insurance companies like in Florida, insurance price controls like in California, and a bunch of other sandbagging interventions to prevent economic forces from taking their course. Someone has to pay for all the stick houses our culture builds in places where they will burn or blow down, and it will either be the taxpayer or the homeowner.
The insurance market must be allowed to take its course, but I still think new construction techniques and the removal of certain zoning/code restrictions are the answer.
Humble concrete buildings in Latin America withstand storm after storm, and can be simply cleaned out after a flood. Meanwhile American-style McMansions and snout houses made of OSB, tape, glue, plastic, and eigth-inch thick tar roof shingles keep getting utterly destroyed by the sorts of storms that are routine in Mexico or Costa Rica.
Zoning and code restrictions prevent cities from developing and densifying, leading to a rotted-out ghetto core surrounded by exurbs. The solution is to let free markets replace SFH's surrounded by wasteful lawns with rowhomes or townhomes, and then to eventually replace these with taller buildings. People should just refuse to live in SFH neighborhoods with HOAs or long commutes because that's like writing a blank check.
-
There are some serious environmental implications to the idea of building all our houses out of concrete.
-
There are some serious environmental implications to the idea of building all our houses out of concrete.
VR windows are the answer—paradise views without the paradise risks.
-
There are some serious environmental implications to the idea of building all our houses out of concrete.
VR windows are the answer—paradise views without the paradise risks.
Probably a wise investment for the future. A nice screen that shows you AI generated versions of the grassy fields and quiet forests that used to exist before we all needed to hide from the planet all alone in our highly personalized concrete bunkers. That's how the song goes, right? Pave paradise and live in a concrete box . . .
-
There are some serious environmental implications to the idea of building all our houses out of concrete.
IDK. A house with a 200+ year lifespan, that cannot be destroyed by wind, fire, termites, or flood, and that doesn't involve as much chopping down forests or processing oil has to be a close contender to a stick house in environmental terms.
3D printed houses are most interesting in my opinion, because it's easy to build an unbridged insulated cavity between the concrete walls. This would seem to negate many of the energy efficiency concerns. Then again, any house with enough space for 15-20 solar panels can generate sufficient energy to run a heat pump even if it is inefficiently insulated, so maybe this isn't a big deal.
In terms of financial sustainability, we might be able to go without insurance in such a house. What is the present value of a lifetime of insurance payments in Florida or California right now? Whatever it is should be added to the reasonable purchase price of a 3D printed concrete house.
-
IDK. A house with a 200+ year lifespan, that cannot be destroyed by wind, fire, termites, or flood, and that doesn't involve as much chopping down forests or processing oil has to be a close contender to a stick house in environmental terms.
Concrete is a very carbon-intensive material (https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/solving-cements-massive-carbon-problem/).
-
In seriousness, the infrastructure we have today was built for the climate of ~75 years ago. If the original planners of Asheville had expected that much rain, they would have built different. Bridges would be higher. Dams and flood control catch-basins would have been designed different. Low-lying buildings wouldn’t be where they are.
Asheville had a near identical event 100 years ago. Humans are just bad at evaluating risks of infrequent events. There is infrastructure all across the country that has been repeatedly flooded, in a known landslide area, too close to rivers and oceans, built on fault lines, etc.
https://www.citizen-times.com/story/weather/2024/09/30/how-does-helene-compare-to-the-ashevilles-great-flood-of-1916/75450985007/
This^^^ Nowhere is completely safe from natural disasters, but the frequency and severity of the risk are not uniformly distributed.
What's changed since the 1916 flood, however, are how many people live in the area and how spread out they are. This is mostly a function of the automobile and the American impulse to live in nature. Looking at maps of the Asheville area, I'm struck by how much the low density development goes in all directions. I don't know what to call this.... rural sprawl? It's difficult to tell the actual extent of the destruction as the media focuses on the most visually compelling stories. So we see a lot of flooded and washed out buildings, yet I suspect the bigger issue going forward will be the cost of rebuilding infrastructure. Restoring roads/power/water/comms to a compact rural town is one thing, whereas it's much more difficult (and expensive) to do this for thousands of houses spread out over a wide area. In my view, climate change is exposing the downsides of building anti-patterns that emerged in the wake of mid-twentieth century car culture.
-
In seriousness, the infrastructure we have today was built for the climate of ~75 years ago. If the original planners of Asheville had expected that much rain, they would have built different. Bridges would be higher. Dams and flood control catch-basins would have been designed different. Low-lying buildings wouldn’t be where they are.
Asheville had a near identical event 100 years ago. Humans are just bad at evaluating risks of infrequent events. There is infrastructure all across the country that has been repeatedly flooded, in a known landslide area, too close to rivers and oceans, built on fault lines, etc.
https://www.citizen-times.com/story/weather/2024/09/30/how-does-helene-compare-to-the-ashevilles-great-flood-of-1916/75450985007/
This^^^ Nowhere is completely safe from natural disasters, but the frequency and severity of the risk are not uniformly distributed.
What's changed since the 1916 flood, however, are how many people live in the area and how spread out they are. This is mostly a function of the automobile and the American impulse to live in nature. Looking at maps of the Asheville area, I'm struck by how much the low density development goes in all directions. I don't know what to call this.... rural sprawl? It's difficult to tell the actual extent of the destruction as the media focuses on the most visually compelling stories. So we see a lot of flooded and washed out buildings, yet I suspect the bigger issue going forward will be the cost of rebuilding infrastructure. Restoring roads/power/water/comms to a compact rural town is one thing, whereas it's much more difficult (and expensive) to do this for thousands of houses spread out over a wide area. In my view, climate change is exposing the downsides of building anti-patterns that emerged in the wake of mid-twentieth century car culture.
Trying to tell rural people that they have to live in a more economically sensible manner is going to radically polarize them against any climate change initiative. And rural people have disproportionate voting share in the US. (I mean, granted, they typically vote in a very anti-climate change manner anyway so this may not actually change much. :P )
-
In seriousness, the infrastructure we have today was built for the climate of ~75 years ago. If the original planners of Asheville had expected that much rain, they would have built different. Bridges would be higher. Dams and flood control catch-basins would have been designed different. Low-lying buildings wouldn’t be where they are.
Asheville had a near identical event 100 years ago. Humans are just bad at evaluating risks of infrequent events. There is infrastructure all across the country that has been repeatedly flooded, in a known landslide area, too close to rivers and oceans, built on fault lines, etc.
https://www.citizen-times.com/story/weather/2024/09/30/how-does-helene-compare-to-the-ashevilles-great-flood-of-1916/75450985007/
This^^^ Nowhere is completely safe from natural disasters, but the frequency and severity of the risk are not uniformly distributed.
What's changed since the 1916 flood, however, are how many people live in the area and how spread out they are. This is mostly a function of the automobile and the American impulse to live in nature. Looking at maps of the Asheville area, I'm struck by how much the low density development goes in all directions. I don't know what to call this.... rural sprawl? It's difficult to tell the actual extent of the destruction as the media focuses on the most visually compelling stories. So we see a lot of flooded and washed out buildings, yet I suspect the bigger issue going forward will be the cost of rebuilding infrastructure. Restoring roads/power/water/comms to a compact rural town is one thing, whereas it's much more difficult (and expensive) to do this for thousands of houses spread out over a wide area. In my view, climate change is exposing the downsides of building anti-patterns that emerged in the wake of mid-twentieth century car culture.
This is a solid insight.
More sprawl = more pipes, wires, bridges, asphalt, etc. per taxpayer, plus the likelihood that the next neighborhood is built in a vulnerable place because those are the only places left to build. On the net this means disasters cause more damage per person, because it takes so much infrastructure to live this way.
Perhaps the ticking time bomb is the U.S's approach to subsidizing sprawl with taxpayer-subsidized road construction, electrification and internet services, and cities taking over the infrastructure liabilities of sprawl developers.
-
I’ve been dreaming of moving into an expensive tiny apartment in a crowded city, so I can reduce my infrastructure footprint.
-
Here's an interesting video from Not Just Bikes about how dense urban areas subsidize suburbia (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Nw6qyyrTeI). The cost of infrastructure makes sprawl a net loss. If people want to live in suburbia that's fine, but they should pay to cover the full cost of proving services over a large area.
There's a reason some areas were not inhabited by large populations historically. Western NC reminds me of the coastal mountain ranges in California. E.g. the Santa Cruz mountains were, until relatively recently, low population left over from when logging was a thing. It was mostly cheaply constructed seasonal cabins for those in the Bay Area looking for summer getaways. Then with better roads and cars, people started deciding it was desirable to live full time in the mountains and commute into cities for work. Now there are many $1M+ homes in the area. But between fire, floods, land slides, and downed trees, the costs are becoming prohibitive for many. And on the infrastructure side, the county doesn't have the funds to keep repairing washed out roads (https://lookout.co/mountain-charlie-road-santa-cruz-mountains-residents-still-stranded-and-impacted-by-road-failures-still-seeking-answers/), so people have these beautiful expensive homes that can only be reached via hiking trails.
I get that people don't necessarily want to live in cities or *gasp* multifamily buildings, but economic reality will continually assert itself, and the effects of climate change will accelerate this.
-
As I watch video of inland North Carolina, I think America's inland cities can also be a hidden time bomb. Some of these folks are suffering catastrophic loss hundreds of miles from the sea.
WRT beach shanties... the modern version would be mobile homes. The new problem would be the sheer amount of building debris floating in the ocean or lurking just below the water with sharp metal edges and nails.
The risks are any place that can be flooded (by a canyon, river, lake or the ocean), blown (by hurricane or tornadic winds), shaken (by earthquakes), burned (esp. by a forest fired but also by lava or just good old global warming of already very hot places), frozen (by ice storms or blizzards), or slip-slid away (landslide). Did I miss any?
Maps like this https://hazards.fema.gov/nri/map are supposed to summarize the relative risks by county but are not updated often enough.
Heat stress kills more people than any other climate risk.
Maricopa County (which includes Phoenix) reported 645 heat related deaths for 2023. About 60% of those were heat caused.
They're not as dramatic and "newsworthy" as the toll from a big storm but that's a lot of people in one county.
-
I’ve been dreaming of moving into an expensive tiny apartment in a crowded city, so I can reduce my infrastructure footprint.
Well you could live in Whitter Alaska where everyone, and all the stores, restaurants, and even a bowling alley live in one building ;-).
https://www.npr.org/2015/01/18/378162264/welcome-to-whittier-alaska-a-community-under-one-roof
I always wanted to live in a small apt or condo in a small city like Portland Maine or Burlington Vermont. All the city amenities but highly walkable and close to more open spaces for recreation.
-
And on the infrastructure side, the county doesn't have the funds to keep repairing washed out roads (https://lookout.co/mountain-charlie-road-santa-cruz-mountains-residents-still-stranded-and-impacted-by-road-failures-still-seeking-answers/), so people have these beautiful expensive homes that can only be reached via hiking trails.
Wow. Now that's a subsidy (for 65 homes!). This stood out to me as the solution for these edge cases:
the county’s board of supervisors on Tuesday approved a partnership with the Community Foundation Santa Cruz County to open up a charitable fund to begin raising money for the road repair.
-
I’ve been dreaming of moving into an expensive tiny apartment in a crowded city, so I can reduce my infrastructure footprint.
Well you could live in Whitter Alaska where everyone, and all the stores, restaurants, and even a bowling alley live in one building ;-).
https://www.npr.org/2015/01/18/378162264/welcome-to-whittier-alaska-a-community-under-one-roof
I always wanted to live in a small apt or condo in a small city like Portland Maine or Burlington Vermont. All the city amenities but highly walkable and close to more open spaces for recreation.
I like the idea of living in a small super walkable city too - just need to escape during the winter. :D
-
And on the infrastructure side, the county doesn't have the funds to keep repairing washed out roads (https://lookout.co/mountain-charlie-road-santa-cruz-mountains-residents-still-stranded-and-impacted-by-road-failures-still-seeking-answers/), so people have these beautiful expensive homes that can only be reached via hiking trails.
Wow. Now that's a subsidy (for 65 homes!). This stood out to me as the solution for these edge cases:
the county’s board of supervisors on Tuesday approved a partnership with the Community Foundation Santa Cruz County to open up a charitable fund to begin raising money for the road repair.
It'll be interesting to see how much of the $3M they can raise via charitable gifts. I don't expect they'll get very far. A better solution is a special tax/bond assessment on the impacted homes, which would come out to roughly $50k per house, paid over 30 years. But this isn't going to happen, because they really want someone else to pay for it.
Just up the coast in Half Moon Bay there's a legal battle brewing over a proposed seawall. There are two main issues in play. One, oceanfront condo owners are going against the Coastal Commission, environmentalists, and surfers over permitting the seawall. Because armoring the coast in one area causes more erosion in other areas and has other impacts. And two, what no one is talking about yet (because we're stuck at step 1) is who's going to pay the $5M cost. The homeowners seem to be assuming the county and/or state/federal grants will cover it... again, that's quite a subsidy for a small number of individuals.
More recently, we have a fire burning here in the mountains above Boise. Some folks from rural areas of Idaho got upset at the level of resources employed to fight this fire, with accusations of favoritism because they don't have the same resources. What they're missing is how fire districts are funded locally, so a metro area of 800k can marshal a lot more resources. These are anti-government anti-tax types, so it's fascinating to see them complaining about not enough government.
-
Florida may be about to have a "Come to Jesus" moment on home insurance. Tropical Storm Milton has formed in the Gulf and is projected to make landfall on Wednesday as a Cat 3. A Cat 4 and Cat 3 in less than two weeks? Fuck.
-
Florida may be about to have a "Come to Jesus" moment on home insurance. Tropical Storm Milton has formed in the Gulf and is projected to make landfall on Wednesday as a Cat 3. A Cat 4 and Cat 3 in less than two weeks? Fuck.
Yikes. The insurance there was already really bad and presumably will affect the parts of the state that are not hurricane prone also. I wonder if @chasesfish chosen spot is still 'safe'.
-
I'm also late to the discussion about the NC mountains / hurricane Helene. We spent a month in Brevard, NC this summer and will continue to go back. Such a wonderful area.
This cleanup will take a long time, such an increidble amount of rain combined with wind / mudslides in an area that's used to a lot of water, just not that much all at once. When I was growing up I'd hear stories about Hurricane Camile in 1969, it did the same thing to Nelson County, VA. Just an incredible amount of water coming in from a hurricane that hits a wall of 3,000ft mountains and unloads on them.
-
I’ve been dreaming of moving into an expensive tiny apartment in a crowded city, so I can reduce my infrastructure footprint.
Well you could live in Whitter Alaska where everyone, and all the stores, restaurants, and even a bowling alley live in one building ;-).
https://www.npr.org/2015/01/18/378162264/welcome-to-whittier-alaska-a-community-under-one-roof
I always wanted to live in a small apt or condo in a small city like Portland Maine or Burlington Vermont. All the city amenities but highly walkable and close to more open spaces for recreation.
I like the idea of living in a small super walkable city too - just need to escape during the winter. :D
There are a lot around but, at least those on the coastal part of the West Coast, are massively expensive to buy or rent. Plus, sadly, are very over run by drugs now and the problems (homeless, squalor and crime mostly) that occurs with that. But mostly it's the cost. When that 600 SF 2 bedroom bungalow in Monterey or Santa Cruz or Santa Barbara cost close to $2 million it doesn't matter how cute and walkable they are. Plus they all come with their own natural disaster risks too.
Eta just looked up walkable small cities in Calif and Santa Cruz was rated the most walkable in CA and the most expensive housing-wise... in the nation! I personally wouldn't live there now but years ago it was pretty awesome.
Well it is charming ;-): https://www.zillow.com/homedetails/106-Doane-St-Santa-Cruz-CA-95062/16112277_zpid/
-
I’ve been dreaming of moving into an expensive tiny apartment in a crowded city, so I can reduce my infrastructure footprint.
Well you could live in Whitter Alaska where everyone, and all the stores, restaurants, and even a bowling alley live in one building ;-).
https://www.npr.org/2015/01/18/378162264/welcome-to-whittier-alaska-a-community-under-one-roof
I always wanted to live in a small apt or condo in a small city like Portland Maine or Burlington Vermont. All the city amenities but highly walkable and close to more open spaces for recreation.
I like the idea of living in a small super walkable city too - just need to escape during the winter. :D
There are a lot around but, at least those on the coastal part of the West Coast, are massively expensive to buy or rent. Plus, sadly, are very over run by drugs now and the problems (homeless, squalor and crime mostly) that occurs with that. But mostly it's the cost. When that 600 SF 2 bedroom bungalow in Monterey or Santa Cruz or Santa Barbara cost close to $2 million it doesn't matter how cute and walkable they are. Plus they all come with their own natural disaster risks too.
Eta just looked up walkable small cities in Calif and Santa Cruz was rated the most walkable in CA and the most expensive housing-wise... in the nation! I personally wouldn't live there now but years ago it was pretty awesome.
Well it is charming ;-): https://www.zillow.com/homedetails/106-Doane-St-Santa-Cruz-CA-95062/16112277_zpid/
Coronado, CA is kinda my dream location, should I win an 8+ figure lottery. (7 figures probably wouldn't do it!). Super walkable. We lived in a temporary apartment there for about 7 months, and the lifestyle was amazing. I could walk to everything I needed on a daily basis. Mostly smaller stores with limited choices, but as long as you are okay with only having a choices of 4 different hoses at the hardware store, instead of 30 at Home Depot, you rarely have to leave the island (which isn't actually an island, but is still called that even though there's a strip of land connecting it to the rest of San Diego.) Plus, I could have my toes in the sand in 7 minutes, if I recall correctly.
Most people who live there own golf carts, which are legal on the streets. That's plenty for getting around to most of the places you need to go. But you can also walk, of course.
Here's <1500 sqft, for $3.675m. Not especially fancy or updated or anything else. This one even has a garage, which is pretty unusual, especially at this "lower" pricepoint. https://www.zillow.com/homedetails/811-10th-St-Coronado-CA-92118/17072495_zpid/ (https://www.zillow.com/homedetails/811-10th-St-Coronado-CA-92118/17072495_zpid/)
-
I’ve been dreaming of moving into an expensive tiny apartment in a crowded city, so I can reduce my infrastructure footprint.
Well you could live in Whitter Alaska where everyone, and all the stores, restaurants, and even a bowling alley live in one building ;-).
https://www.npr.org/2015/01/18/378162264/welcome-to-whittier-alaska-a-community-under-one-roof
I always wanted to live in a small apt or condo in a small city like Portland Maine or Burlington Vermont. All the city amenities but highly walkable and close to more open spaces for recreation.
I like the idea of living in a small super walkable city too - just need to escape during the winter. :D
There are a lot around but, at least those on the coastal part of the West Coast, are massively expensive to buy or rent. Plus, sadly, are very over run by drugs now and the problems (homeless, squalor and crime mostly) that occurs with that. But mostly it's the cost. When that 600 SF 2 bedroom bungalow in Monterey or Santa Cruz or Santa Barbara cost close to $2 million it doesn't matter how cute and walkable they are. Plus they all come with their own natural disaster risks too.
Eta just looked up walkable small cities in Calif and Santa Cruz was rated the most walkable in CA and the most expensive housing-wise... in the nation! I personally wouldn't live there now but years ago it was pretty awesome.
Well it is charming ;-): https://www.zillow.com/homedetails/106-Doane-St-Santa-Cruz-CA-95062/16112277_zpid/
I lived in Santa Cruz for 6 years during the 90s as the tech industry over the hill in Palo Alto really took off. The amount of money coming into Santa Cruz (and increase in traffic over Hwy 17) was incredible. The cost of living for students shifted very dramatically from a normal college town to people living in closets... and continued to get worse after I left town to go on to other things. Housing costs throughout the Bay Area were going up in that time period but the rate of change in Santa Cruz was much crazier. I'm glad I got to live there for a while, but wouldn't go back now.
-
I’ve been dreaming of moving into an expensive tiny apartment in a crowded city, so I can reduce my infrastructure footprint.
Well you could live in Whitter Alaska where everyone, and all the stores, restaurants, and even a bowling alley live in one building ;-).
https://www.npr.org/2015/01/18/378162264/welcome-to-whittier-alaska-a-community-under-one-roof
I always wanted to live in a small apt or condo in a small city like Portland Maine or Burlington Vermont. All the city amenities but highly walkable and close to more open spaces for recreation.
I like the idea of living in a small super walkable city too - just need to escape during the winter. :D
There are a lot around but, at least those on the coastal part of the West Coast, are massively expensive to buy or rent. Plus, sadly, are very over run by drugs now and the problems (homeless, squalor and crime mostly) that occurs with that. But mostly it's the cost. When that 600 SF 2 bedroom bungalow in Monterey or Santa Cruz or Santa Barbara cost close to $2 million it doesn't matter how cute and walkable they are. Plus they all come with their own natural disaster risks too.
Eta just looked up walkable small cities in Calif and Santa Cruz was rated the most walkable in CA and the most expensive housing-wise... in the nation! I personally wouldn't live there now but years ago it was pretty awesome.
Well it is charming ;-): https://www.zillow.com/homedetails/106-Doane-St-Santa-Cruz-CA-95062/16112277_zpid/
Coronado, CA is kinda my dream location, should I win an 8+ figure lottery. (7 figures probably wouldn't do it!). Super walkable. We lived in a temporary apartment there for about 7 months, and the lifestyle was amazing. I could walk to everything I needed on a daily basis. Mostly smaller stores with limited choices, but as long as you are okay with only having a choices of 4 different hoses at the hardware store, instead of 30 at Home Depot, you rarely have to leave the island (which isn't actually an island, but is still called that even though there's a strip of land connecting it to the rest of San Diego.) Plus, I could have my toes in the sand in 7 minutes, if I recall correctly.
Most people who live there own golf carts, which are legal on the streets. That's plenty for getting around to most of the places you need to go. But you can also walk, of course.
Here's <1500 sqft, for $3.675m. Not especially fancy or updated or anything else. This one even has a garage, which is pretty unusual, especially at this "lower" pricepoint. https://www.zillow.com/homedetails/811-10th-St-Coronado-CA-92118/17072495_zpid/ (https://www.zillow.com/homedetails/811-10th-St-Coronado-CA-92118/17072495_zpid/)
I spent 5 nights there for work about a year ago (I was working nights in downtown San Diego). I loved everything except driving around was a bit stressful with the narrow streets. But I walked for everything except getting to the worksite. Definitely out of my budget. There did seem to quite a bit of cars parked on the streets.
-
I’ve been dreaming of moving into an expensive tiny apartment in a crowded city, so I can reduce my infrastructure footprint.
Well you could live in Whitter Alaska where everyone, and all the stores, restaurants, and even a bowling alley live in one building ;-).
https://www.npr.org/2015/01/18/378162264/welcome-to-whittier-alaska-a-community-under-one-roof
I always wanted to live in a small apt or condo in a small city like Portland Maine or Burlington Vermont. All the city amenities but highly walkable and close to more open spaces for recreation.
I like the idea of living in a small super walkable city too - just need to escape during the winter. :D
There are a lot around but, at least those on the coastal part of the West Coast, are massively expensive to buy or rent. Plus, sadly, are very over run by drugs now and the problems (homeless, squalor and crime mostly) that occurs with that. But mostly it's the cost. When that 600 SF 2 bedroom bungalow in Monterey or Santa Cruz or Santa Barbara cost close to $2 million it doesn't matter how cute and walkable they are. Plus they all come with their own natural disaster risks too.
Eta just looked up walkable small cities in Calif and Santa Cruz was rated the most walkable in CA and the most expensive housing-wise... in the nation! I personally wouldn't live there now but years ago it was pretty awesome.
Well it is charming ;-): https://www.zillow.com/homedetails/106-Doane-St-Santa-Cruz-CA-95062/16112277_zpid/
Yes, if I prioritized a walkable small city and wanted it to be cheap, it certainly owuldn't be in coastal California.
If i wanted to FIRE in coastal Cali, I would need to live in a super tiny box like this:
https://hotpads.com/encinitas-ca-92024-1m4djcs/a/pad?lat=33.0484&listingTypes=rental&lon=-117.2503&orderBy=lowPrice&propertyTypes=condo-townhouse&z=13
-
I’ve been dreaming of moving into an expensive tiny apartment in a crowded city, so I can reduce my infrastructure footprint.
Well you could live in Whitter Alaska where everyone, and all the stores, restaurants, and even a bowling alley live in one building ;-).
https://www.npr.org/2015/01/18/378162264/welcome-to-whittier-alaska-a-community-under-one-roof
I always wanted to live in a small apt or condo in a small city like Portland Maine or Burlington Vermont. All the city amenities but highly walkable and close to more open spaces for recreation.
I like the idea of living in a small super walkable city too - just need to escape during the winter. :D
There are a lot around but, at least those on the coastal part of the West Coast, are massively expensive to buy or rent. Plus, sadly, are very over run by drugs now and the problems (homeless, squalor and crime mostly) that occurs with that. But mostly it's the cost. When that 600 SF 2 bedroom bungalow in Monterey or Santa Cruz or Santa Barbara cost close to $2 million it doesn't matter how cute and walkable they are. Plus they all come with their own natural disaster risks too.
Eta just looked up walkable small cities in Calif and Santa Cruz was rated the most walkable in CA and the most expensive housing-wise... in the nation! I personally wouldn't live there now but years ago it was pretty awesome.
Well it is charming ;-): https://www.zillow.com/homedetails/106-Doane-St-Santa-Cruz-CA-95062/16112277_zpid/
Coronado, CA is kinda my dream location, should I win an 8+ figure lottery. (7 figures probably wouldn't do it!). Super walkable. We lived in a temporary apartment there for about 7 months, and the lifestyle was amazing. I could walk to everything I needed on a daily basis. Mostly smaller stores with limited choices, but as long as you are okay with only having a choices of 4 different hoses at the hardware store, instead of 30 at Home Depot, you rarely have to leave the island (which isn't actually an island, but is still called that even though there's a strip of land connecting it to the rest of San Diego.) Plus, I could have my toes in the sand in 7 minutes, if I recall correctly.
Most people who live there own golf carts, which are legal on the streets. That's plenty for getting around to most of the places you need to go. But you can also walk, of course.
Here's <1500 sqft, for $3.675m. Not especially fancy or updated or anything else. This one even has a garage, which is pretty unusual, especially at this "lower" pricepoint. https://www.zillow.com/homedetails/811-10th-St-Coronado-CA-92118/17072495_zpid/ (https://www.zillow.com/homedetails/811-10th-St-Coronado-CA-92118/17072495_zpid/)
I spent 5 nights there for work about a year ago (I was working nights in downtown San Diego). I loved everything except driving around was a bit stressful with the narrow streets. But I walked for everything except getting to the worksite. Definitely out of my budget. There did seem to quite a bit of cars parked on the streets.
I'm not sure I'd want to live in a place surrounded by millionaires, many of whom were born into money.
The whole mentality of shopping for entertainment, not knowing how your car works and not caring, being influenced by high end marketing to care about and believe weird things about high end products, talking about how much trouble it is to deal with contractors all day and how you're always on the verge of selling your condo in Vail because you didn't even go skiing last year, the subtle shift toward comparison and jealousy, and the two-tier world of homeowners and housekeepers, blah blah blah... just nope.
It strikes me as a fragile way to live, clinging to the liability of expensive real estate on the edge of a faultline, relying on people to perform services for you but those people have to commute a couple of hours from where they can almost afford housing, spending mid-six figures a year to live like all the other "normal" people in your comparison group, and all the money only flows because the tech and venture capital industries have not yet figured out how to expand out of one city.
I mean, I'm no survivalist homesteader, but when I visit places like this I meet lots of very mono-skilled people who are working their butts off to surf the crest of a handful of social constructs that could come and go. And like most people, they can only imagine things continuing as they currently exist forever. If forced to leave, or forced to spend less money, it is unclear how many of these nouveau riche could prosper outside their cultural and geographic bubbles.
I guess I don't want to be like that, and moving into such a place would cause me to merge somewhat into their mentality, even if I tried not to. Maybe we're all in our own little bubbles, but I recognize some value in constantly dealing with a diverse range of people with a diverse range of attitudes, each finding a new way to write the story of their lives. Maybe it's nice to reduce one's range of struggles to commuting, career advancement, and hiring workers to keep your home from falling apart, but once you are on that track it seems like it would be hard to change course.
-
I’ve been dreaming of moving into an expensive tiny apartment in a crowded city, so I can reduce my infrastructure footprint.
Well you could live in Whitter Alaska where everyone, and all the stores, restaurants, and even a bowling alley live in one building ;-).
https://www.npr.org/2015/01/18/378162264/welcome-to-whittier-alaska-a-community-under-one-roof
I always wanted to live in a small apt or condo in a small city like Portland Maine or Burlington Vermont. All the city amenities but highly walkable and close to more open spaces for recreation.
I like the idea of living in a small super walkable city too - just need to escape during the winter. :D
There are a lot around but, at least those on the coastal part of the West Coast, are massively expensive to buy or rent. Plus, sadly, are very over run by drugs now and the problems (homeless, squalor and crime mostly) that occurs with that. But mostly it's the cost. When that 600 SF 2 bedroom bungalow in Monterey or Santa Cruz or Santa Barbara cost close to $2 million it doesn't matter how cute and walkable they are. Plus they all come with their own natural disaster risks too.
Eta just looked up walkable small cities in Calif and Santa Cruz was rated the most walkable in CA and the most expensive housing-wise... in the nation! I personally wouldn't live there now but years ago it was pretty awesome.
Well it is charming ;-): https://www.zillow.com/homedetails/106-Doane-St-Santa-Cruz-CA-95062/16112277_zpid/
Coronado, CA is kinda my dream location, should I win an 8+ figure lottery. (7 figures probably wouldn't do it!). Super walkable. We lived in a temporary apartment there for about 7 months, and the lifestyle was amazing. I could walk to everything I needed on a daily basis. Mostly smaller stores with limited choices, but as long as you are okay with only having a choices of 4 different hoses at the hardware store, instead of 30 at Home Depot, you rarely have to leave the island (which isn't actually an island, but is still called that even though there's a strip of land connecting it to the rest of San Diego.) Plus, I could have my toes in the sand in 7 minutes, if I recall correctly.
Most people who live there own golf carts, which are legal on the streets. That's plenty for getting around to most of the places you need to go. But you can also walk, of course.
Here's <1500 sqft, for $3.675m. Not especially fancy or updated or anything else. This one even has a garage, which is pretty unusual, especially at this "lower" pricepoint. https://www.zillow.com/homedetails/811-10th-St-Coronado-CA-92118/17072495_zpid/ (https://www.zillow.com/homedetails/811-10th-St-Coronado-CA-92118/17072495_zpid/)
I spent 5 nights there for work about a year ago (I was working nights in downtown San Diego). I loved everything except driving around was a bit stressful with the narrow streets. But I walked for everything except getting to the worksite. Definitely out of my budget. There did seem to quite a bit of cars parked on the streets.
I'm not sure I'd want to live in a place surrounded by millionaires, many of whom were born into money.
The whole mentality of shopping for entertainment, not knowing how your car works and not caring, being influenced by high end marketing to care about and believe weird things about high end products, talking about how much trouble it is to deal with contractors all day and how you're always on the verge of selling your condo in Vail because you didn't even go skiing last year, the subtle shift toward comparison and jealousy, and the two-tier world of homeowners and housekeepers, blah blah blah... just nope.
It strikes me as a fragile way to live, clinging to the liability of expensive real estate on the edge of a faultline, relying on people to perform services for you but those people have to commute a couple of hours from where they can almost afford housing, spending mid-six figures a year to live like all the other "normal" people in your comparison group, and all the money only flows because the tech and venture capital industries have not yet figured out how to expand out of one city.
I mean, I'm no survivalist homesteader, but when I visit places like this I meet lots of very mono-skilled people who are working their butts off to surf the crest of a handful of social constructs that could come and go. And like most people, they can only imagine things continuing as they currently exist forever. If forced to leave, or forced to spend less money, it is unclear how many of these nouveau riche could prosper outside their cultural and geographic bubbles.
I guess I don't want to be like that, and moving into such a place would cause me to merge somewhat into their mentality, even if I tried not to. Maybe we're all in our own little bubbles, but I recognize some value in constantly dealing with a diverse range of people with a diverse range of attitudes, each finding a new way to write the story of their lives. Maybe it's nice to reduce one's range of struggles to commuting, career advancement, and hiring workers to keep your home from falling apart, but once you are on that track it seems like it would be hard to change course.
I think this is one reason why moving back to Orange County CA has been very socially challenging to me. I just can't relate to a lot of the people who are here, even in the local and nearby ChooseFI groups. They are playing the game with larger numbers in all things, and they think "all you need to do is upskill" to match their crazy high incomes.
I grew up in a million dollar home in the burbs. Many of the people i knew from high school now own their own homes in Orange County, or moved to just as expensive Los Angeles or San Diego. Clearly these people picked better education and career paths than I did. Or maybe they have parents who were even more generosity than my generous parents.
My parents bought a 3850 sq ft home in the early 1990s. I have no idea what it cost them back then, but I can see that my parents sold it for 1.1M in 2004. It has since sold for 1.3M in 2015, and 1.5M in 2021. Even a condo in that city has got to be at least $500k today. That's a very suburban family-oriented place that would require commuting to most jobs. And it's still well over a million dollars for a house. There's no way I could afford to live somewhere like that as an adult, but I also definitely don't need that sort of sq ft.
That house was not particularly close to the coast by the way.
I personally have minimal handyman skills, so this is exactly why I prefer to live in a small condo or apartment and the idea of living in a big house sounds much more expensive with all the added maintenance and responsibility. There is some stuff I can figure out by watching YouTube, but most things I am hiring out.
But the other thing about living in more diverse places is that you also tend to have a greater variety and bigger diversity of restaurants whereas the super wealthy places tend to have a lot of chain (and particularly high end chain) restaurants which are not as interesting to me after experiencing so many local spots in the other places that I've lived.
I currently live in a spot with a 93 walk score, but I definitely see more people traveling by car than by foot.
I enjoyed my time in Coronado, but would I want to spend 20+ years living there? I don't know. I suppose you can just take a ferry to endless options and not to mention the greater diversity of people in downtown San Diego.
-
I’ve been dreaming of moving into an expensive tiny apartment in a crowded city, so I can reduce my infrastructure footprint.
Well you could live in Whitter Alaska where everyone, and all the stores, restaurants, and even a bowling alley live in one building ;-).
https://www.npr.org/2015/01/18/378162264/welcome-to-whittier-alaska-a-community-under-one-roof
I always wanted to live in a small apt or condo in a small city like Portland Maine or Burlington Vermont. All the city amenities but highly walkable and close to more open spaces for recreation.
I like the idea of living in a small super walkable city too - just need to escape during the winter. :D
There are a lot around but, at least those on the coastal part of the West Coast, are massively expensive to buy or rent. Plus, sadly, are very over run by drugs now and the problems (homeless, squalor and crime mostly) that occurs with that. But mostly it's the cost. When that 600 SF 2 bedroom bungalow in Monterey or Santa Cruz or Santa Barbara cost close to $2 million it doesn't matter how cute and walkable they are. Plus they all come with their own natural disaster risks too.
Eta just looked up walkable small cities in Calif and Santa Cruz was rated the most walkable in CA and the most expensive housing-wise... in the nation! I personally wouldn't live there now but years ago it was pretty awesome.
Well it is charming ;-): https://www.zillow.com/homedetails/106-Doane-St-Santa-Cruz-CA-95062/16112277_zpid/
Coronado, CA is kinda my dream location, should I win an 8+ figure lottery. (7 figures probably wouldn't do it!). Super walkable. We lived in a temporary apartment there for about 7 months, and the lifestyle was amazing. I could walk to everything I needed on a daily basis. Mostly smaller stores with limited choices, but as long as you are okay with only having a choices of 4 different hoses at the hardware store, instead of 30 at Home Depot, you rarely have to leave the island (which isn't actually an island, but is still called that even though there's a strip of land connecting it to the rest of San Diego.) Plus, I could have my toes in the sand in 7 minutes, if I recall correctly.
Most people who live there own golf carts, which are legal on the streets. That's plenty for getting around to most of the places you need to go. But you can also walk, of course.
Here's <1500 sqft, for $3.675m. Not especially fancy or updated or anything else. This one even has a garage, which is pretty unusual, especially at this "lower" pricepoint. https://www.zillow.com/homedetails/811-10th-St-Coronado-CA-92118/17072495_zpid/ (https://www.zillow.com/homedetails/811-10th-St-Coronado-CA-92118/17072495_zpid/)
I spent 5 nights there for work about a year ago (I was working nights in downtown San Diego). I loved everything except driving around was a bit stressful with the narrow streets. But I walked for everything except getting to the worksite. Definitely out of my budget. There did seem to quite a bit of cars parked on the streets.
I'm not sure I'd want to live in a place surrounded by millionaires, many of whom were born into money.
The whole mentality of shopping for entertainment, not knowing how your car works and not caring, being influenced by high end marketing to care about and believe weird things about high end products, talking about how much trouble it is to deal with contractors all day and how you're always on the verge of selling your condo in Vail because you didn't even go skiing last year, the subtle shift toward comparison and jealousy, and the two-tier world of homeowners and housekeepers, blah blah blah... just nope.
It strikes me as a fragile way to live, clinging to the liability of expensive real estate on the edge of a faultline, relying on people to perform services for you but those people have to commute a couple of hours from where they can almost afford housing, spending mid-six figures a year to live like all the other "normal" people in your comparison group, and all the money only flows because the tech and venture capital industries have not yet figured out how to expand out of one city.
I mean, I'm no survivalist homesteader, but when I visit places like this I meet lots of very mono-skilled people who are working their butts off to surf the crest of a handful of social constructs that could come and go. And like most people, they can only imagine things continuing as they currently exist forever. If forced to leave, or forced to spend less money, it is unclear how many of these nouveau riche could prosper outside their cultural and geographic bubbles.
I guess I don't want to be like that, and moving into such a place would cause me to merge somewhat into their mentality, even if I tried not to. Maybe we're all in our own little bubbles, but I recognize some value in constantly dealing with a diverse range of people with a diverse range of attitudes, each finding a new way to write the story of their lives. Maybe it's nice to reduce one's range of struggles to commuting, career advancement, and hiring workers to keep your home from falling apart, but once you are on that track it seems like it would be hard to change course.
That was not at all my experience with Coronado or Coronadans. IIRC, you often take jabs at people here for being snobs about the mid-west or smaller towns, but it feels like you are doing kind of the same thing. (When you visit "places like this"? Not even sure what that means, exactly. You sound just as snobby and ignorant as those who refer to the mid-west as fly-over country.) I found the people in Coronado to be welcoming and very chill. There are many military families there (though admittedly fewer and fewer as prices increase, but many still stretch to make it happen), almost none of whom were born with money. Even the monied people are often new money--at one time, I believe Coronado had the highest concentration of retired flag officers in the US, though I don't know it that's still true (or even was; I suppose it could have been a rumor.) Most people who join the military, even as officers, aren't born with a silver spoon. People seemed more interested in meeting in the park for concerts than talking about their latest luxury goods purchase. And of course the reason many people choose to live on the island is to reduce their commute to almost nothing, often accomplished by bike. Rather than "surfing social constructs", many of them are doing actual surfing.
-
I’ve been dreaming of moving into an expensive tiny apartment in a crowded city, so I can reduce my infrastructure footprint.
Well you could live in Whitter Alaska where everyone, and all the stores, restaurants, and even a bowling alley live in one building ;-).
https://www.npr.org/2015/01/18/378162264/welcome-to-whittier-alaska-a-community-under-one-roof
I always wanted to live in a small apt or condo in a small city like Portland Maine or Burlington Vermont. All the city amenities but highly walkable and close to more open spaces for recreation.
I like the idea of living in a small super walkable city too - just need to escape during the winter. :D
There are a lot around but, at least those on the coastal part of the West Coast, are massively expensive to buy or rent. Plus, sadly, are very over run by drugs now and the problems (homeless, squalor and crime mostly) that occurs with that. But mostly it's the cost. When that 600 SF 2 bedroom bungalow in Monterey or Santa Cruz or Santa Barbara cost close to $2 million it doesn't matter how cute and walkable they are. Plus they all come with their own natural disaster risks too.
Eta just looked up walkable small cities in Calif and Santa Cruz was rated the most walkable in CA and the most expensive housing-wise... in the nation! I personally wouldn't live there now but years ago it was pretty awesome.
Well it is charming ;-): https://www.zillow.com/homedetails/106-Doane-St-Santa-Cruz-CA-95062/16112277_zpid/
Coronado, CA is kinda my dream location, should I win an 8+ figure lottery. (7 figures probably wouldn't do it!). Super walkable. We lived in a temporary apartment there for about 7 months, and the lifestyle was amazing. I could walk to everything I needed on a daily basis. Mostly smaller stores with limited choices, but as long as you are okay with only having a choices of 4 different hoses at the hardware store, instead of 30 at Home Depot, you rarely have to leave the island (which isn't actually an island, but is still called that even though there's a strip of land connecting it to the rest of San Diego.) Plus, I could have my toes in the sand in 7 minutes, if I recall correctly.
Most people who live there own golf carts, which are legal on the streets. That's plenty for getting around to most of the places you need to go. But you can also walk, of course.
Here's <1500 sqft, for $3.675m. Not especially fancy or updated or anything else. This one even has a garage, which is pretty unusual, especially at this "lower" pricepoint. https://www.zillow.com/homedetails/811-10th-St-Coronado-CA-92118/17072495_zpid/ (https://www.zillow.com/homedetails/811-10th-St-Coronado-CA-92118/17072495_zpid/)
I spent 5 nights there for work about a year ago (I was working nights in downtown San Diego). I loved everything except driving around was a bit stressful with the narrow streets. But I walked for everything except getting to the worksite. Definitely out of my budget. There did seem to quite a bit of cars parked on the streets.
I'm not sure I'd want to live in a place surrounded by millionaires, many of whom were born into money.
The whole mentality of shopping for entertainment, not knowing how your car works and not caring, being influenced by high end marketing to care about and believe weird things about high end products, talking about how much trouble it is to deal with contractors all day and how you're always on the verge of selling your condo in Vail because you didn't even go skiing last year, the subtle shift toward comparison and jealousy, and the two-tier world of homeowners and housekeepers, blah blah blah... just nope.
It strikes me as a fragile way to live, clinging to the liability of expensive real estate on the edge of a faultline, relying on people to perform services for you but those people have to commute a couple of hours from where they can almost afford housing, spending mid-six figures a year to live like all the other "normal" people in your comparison group, and all the money only flows because the tech and venture capital industries have not yet figured out how to expand out of one city.
I mean, I'm no survivalist homesteader, but when I visit places like this I meet lots of very mono-skilled people who are working their butts off to surf the crest of a handful of social constructs that could come and go. And like most people, they can only imagine things continuing as they currently exist forever. If forced to leave, or forced to spend less money, it is unclear how many of these nouveau riche could prosper outside their cultural and geographic bubbles.
I guess I don't want to be like that, and moving into such a place would cause me to merge somewhat into their mentality, even if I tried not to. Maybe we're all in our own little bubbles, but I recognize some value in constantly dealing with a diverse range of people with a diverse range of attitudes, each finding a new way to write the story of their lives. Maybe it's nice to reduce one's range of struggles to commuting, career advancement, and hiring workers to keep your home from falling apart, but once you are on that track it seems like it would be hard to change course.
Its not necessarily like that as there are both many people, often skilled labor working class people, who've bought years (decades) ago and still live there or have passed their houses onto their middle class or working class kids, as well as many young enlisted military people who aren't rich and don't hold upper middle class values. Sure the military people don't buy there (or they head over the bridge to San Diego or down The Strand to Imperial Beach, but they make up a portion of the population.
As for @tj comment about Orange County for the most part I agree that's likely true for the coastal areas but there are a ton of very low income working class families who live there too amongst the richly rich! Or, people like me who were working class, who bought a home when prices were lower or inherited and either still live there or sold to become chubby FI and move to LCOL areas.
But yeah people who have big bucks and/or were born into wealth may better fit your stereotype of those living in the wealthy coastal.communities.
-
I’ve been dreaming of moving into an expensive tiny apartment in a crowded city, so I can reduce my infrastructure footprint.
Well you could live in Whitter Alaska where everyone, and all the stores, restaurants, and even a bowling alley live in one building ;-).
https://www.npr.org/2015/01/18/378162264/welcome-to-whittier-alaska-a-community-under-one-roof
I always wanted to live in a small apt or condo in a small city like Portland Maine or Burlington Vermont. All the city amenities but highly walkable and close to more open spaces for recreation.
I like the idea of living in a small super walkable city too - just need to escape during the winter. :D
There are a lot around but, at least those on the coastal part of the West Coast, are massively expensive to buy or rent. Plus, sadly, are very over run by drugs now and the problems (homeless, squalor and crime mostly) that occurs with that. But mostly it's the cost. When that 600 SF 2 bedroom bungalow in Monterey or Santa Cruz or Santa Barbara cost close to $2 million it doesn't matter how cute and walkable they are. Plus they all come with their own natural disaster risks too.
Eta just looked up walkable small cities in Calif and Santa Cruz was rated the most walkable in CA and the most expensive housing-wise... in the nation! I personally wouldn't live there now but years ago it was pretty awesome.
Well it is charming ;-): https://www.zillow.com/homedetails/106-Doane-St-Santa-Cruz-CA-95062/16112277_zpid/
Coronado, CA is kinda my dream location, should I win an 8+ figure lottery. (7 figures probably wouldn't do it!). Super walkable. We lived in a temporary apartment there for about 7 months, and the lifestyle was amazing. I could walk to everything I needed on a daily basis. Mostly smaller stores with limited choices, but as long as you are okay with only having a choices of 4 different hoses at the hardware store, instead of 30 at Home Depot, you rarely have to leave the island (which isn't actually an island, but is still called that even though there's a strip of land connecting it to the rest of San Diego.) Plus, I could have my toes in the sand in 7 minutes, if I recall correctly.
Most people who live there own golf carts, which are legal on the streets. That's plenty for getting around to most of the places you need to go. But you can also walk, of course.
Here's <1500 sqft, for $3.675m. Not especially fancy or updated or anything else. This one even has a garage, which is pretty unusual, especially at this "lower" pricepoint. https://www.zillow.com/homedetails/811-10th-St-Coronado-CA-92118/17072495_zpid/ (https://www.zillow.com/homedetails/811-10th-St-Coronado-CA-92118/17072495_zpid/)
I spent 5 nights there for work about a year ago (I was working nights in downtown San Diego). I loved everything except driving around was a bit stressful with the narrow streets. But I walked for everything except getting to the worksite. Definitely out of my budget. There did seem to quite a bit of cars parked on the streets.
I'm not sure I'd want to live in a place surrounded by millionaires, many of whom were born into money.
The whole mentality of shopping for entertainment, not knowing how your car works and not caring, being influenced by high end marketing to care about and believe weird things about high end products, talking about how much trouble it is to deal with contractors all day and how you're always on the verge of selling your condo in Vail because you didn't even go skiing last year, the subtle shift toward comparison and jealousy, and the two-tier world of homeowners and housekeepers, blah blah blah... just nope.
It strikes me as a fragile way to live, clinging to the liability of expensive real estate on the edge of a faultline, relying on people to perform services for you but those people have to commute a couple of hours from where they can almost afford housing, spending mid-six figures a year to live like all the other "normal" people in your comparison group, and all the money only flows because the tech and venture capital industries have not yet figured out how to expand out of one city.
I mean, I'm no survivalist homesteader, but when I visit places like this I meet lots of very mono-skilled people who are working their butts off to surf the crest of a handful of social constructs that could come and go. And like most people, they can only imagine things continuing as they currently exist forever. If forced to leave, or forced to spend less money, it is unclear how many of these nouveau riche could prosper outside their cultural and geographic bubbles.
I guess I don't want to be like that, and moving into such a place would cause me to merge somewhat into their mentality, even if I tried not to. Maybe we're all in our own little bubbles, but I recognize some value in constantly dealing with a diverse range of people with a diverse range of attitudes, each finding a new way to write the story of their lives. Maybe it's nice to reduce one's range of struggles to commuting, career advancement, and hiring workers to keep your home from falling apart, but once you are on that track it seems like it would be hard to change course.
Its not necessarily like that as there are both many people, often skilled labor working class people, who've bought years (decades) ago and still live there or have passed their houses onto their middle class or working class kids, as well as many young enlisted military people who aren't rich and don't hold upper middle class values. Sure the military people don't buy there (or they head over the bridge to San Diego or down The Strand to Imperial Beach, but they make up a portion of the population.
As for @tj comment about Orange County for the most part I agree that's likely true for the coastal areas but there are a ton of very low income working class families who live there too amongst the richly rich! Or, people like me who were working class, who bought a home when prices were lower or inherited and either still live there or sold to become chubby FI and move to LCOL areas.
But yeah people who have big bucks and/or were born into wealth may better fit your stereotype of those living in the wealthy coastal.communities.
Yes, there is definitely SOME level of income diversity even in the wealthy coastal areas. For example, in the local FB groups where people are looking for housing, I've seen some people in their 40s and beyond with restaurant jobs looking for roommates. though it's not as common as people in their 20s.
If you're willing to make enough compromises on your living situation, you can probably live anywhere.
-
Yeah it's tough in OC and similar places but I was trying to show @ChpBstrd that not everyone living in expensive coastal communities fits his stereotype. Actually I often see the opposite. Hard work industrious people who are just trying to give themselves and their kids a normal life.
-
Yeah it's tough in OC and similar places but I was trying to show @ChpBstrd that not everyone living in expensive coastal communities fits his stereotype. Actually I often see the opposite. Hard work industrious people who are just trying to give themselves and their kids a normal life.
My sister lives in OC. She and her husband bought the house we lived in as kids, when my parents moved to a retirement community. She inherited their tax basis (thanks, Pop 13!) which was from the late 80s. She probably wouldn't have purchased that house, but it cost her about the same as purchasing a smaller home and paying full property tax. She's not coastal, but it's still a pretty wealthy area. I wouldn't say she and her spouse are working class, but they don't have advanced degrees. She spent most of her career as a county employee, and he's a mid-level GS employee. They aren't exactly the uber rich. Until recently, the guy across the street was a plumber. (He moved, not switched careers.) These are houses that would all sell for >$1m, even the ones that haven't been updated since the early 80s. The updated ones go for more than $1.5. There are even brown people! The minimum wage country people's snobbery misses the mark a bit.
-
There are a lot around but, at least those on the coastal part of the West Coast, are massively expensive to buy or rent. Plus, sadly, are very over run by drugs now and the problems (homeless, squalor and crime mostly) that occurs with that. But mostly it's the cost. When that 600 SF 2 bedroom bungalow in Monterey or Santa Cruz or Santa Barbara cost close to $2 million it doesn't matter how cute and walkable they are. Plus they all come with their own natural disaster risks too.
Eta just looked up walkable small cities in Calif and Santa Cruz was rated the most walkable in CA and the most expensive housing-wise... in the nation! I personally wouldn't live there now but years ago it was pretty awesome.
Well it is charming ;-): https://www.zillow.com/homedetails/106-Doane-St-Santa-Cruz-CA-95062/16112277_zpid/
Heh, I used to live a block from that house. Love that neighborhood, but it's highly impacted by tourists. Between beach goers and those looking to avoid parking fees at the Boardwalk and parking is a mess, and this house has on street parking. And it's not really walkable, though there are some nice restaurants and a great climbing gym nearby. The nearest grocery store is downtown, though the New Leaf is closing in October so will be down to Trader Joe's. There are a few walkable areas in Santa Cruz, e.g. downtown and the area around Swift St. Biking is usually a better option and I biked all over town, though safety and bike theft are a real concern: https://lookout.co/riding-my-bike-on-the-santa-cruz-levee-bike-path-is-making-me-change-my-politics-its-too-dangerous-here-to-be-green/
-
There are a lot around but, at least those on the coastal part of the West Coast, are massively expensive to buy or rent. Plus, sadly, are very over run by drugs now and the problems (homeless, squalor and crime mostly) that occurs with that. But mostly it's the cost. When that 600 SF 2 bedroom bungalow in Monterey or Santa Cruz or Santa Barbara cost close to $2 million it doesn't matter how cute and walkable they are. Plus they all come with their own natural disaster risks too.
Eta just looked up walkable small cities in Calif and Santa Cruz was rated the most walkable in CA and the most expensive housing-wise... in the nation! I personally wouldn't live there now but years ago it was pretty awesome.
Well it is charming ;-): https://www.zillow.com/homedetails/106-Doane-St-Santa-Cruz-CA-95062/16112277_zpid/
Heh, I used to live a block from that house. Love that neighborhood, but it's highly impacted by tourists. Between beach goers and those looking to avoid parking fees at the Boardwalk and parking is a mess, and this house has on street parking. And it's not really walkable, though there are some nice restaurants and a great climbing gym nearby. The nearest grocery store is downtown, though the New Leaf is closing in October so will be down to Trader Joe's. There are a few walkable areas in Santa Cruz, e.g. downtown and the area around Swift St. Biking is usually a better option and I biked all over town, though safety and bike theft are a real concern: https://lookout.co/riding-my-bike-on-the-santa-cruz-levee-bike-path-is-making-me-change-my-politics-its-too-dangerous-here-to-be-green/
That neighborhood is cute and easy walking to most places. I go up the coast from O.C. a couple of times a year and ogle all the lovely towns that most working stiffs can no longer afford. I generally park up by the lighthouse and walk the coast path from end to end and then thru town and the boardwalk. It's a great walk and the surfing, kayaking, hiking in the redwoods and beach volleyball are awesome and it still has that old Calif beach bum vibe (pre-homeless and drug issues) and you don't feel like your amongst the rich but I do feel less safe there then in the past. Especially downtown.
It's too bad as it use to be a great place and would be pretty perfect . Monterey is also great but like most small cities it is severely over priced, crowded and becoming more crime ridden. Plus with the earthquakes, mudslides and huge wild fire risk it's a high disaster risk area. I generally tent camp at the Henry Cowell Redwood Grove state park. Love that whole area. Although biking is scary but beautiful.
-
Yeah it's tough in OC and similar places but I was trying to show @ChpBstrd that not everyone living in expensive coastal communities fits his stereotype. Actually I often see the opposite. Hard work industrious people who are just trying to give themselves and their kids a normal life.
My sister lives in OC. She and her husband bought the house we lived in as kids, when my parents moved to a retirement community. She inherited their tax basis (thanks, Pop 13!) which was from the late 80s. She probably wouldn't have purchased that house, but it cost her about the same as purchasing a smaller home and paying full property tax. She's not coastal, but it's still a pretty wealthy area. I wouldn't say she and her spouse are working class, but they don't have advanced degrees. She spent most of her career as a county employee, and he's a mid-level GS employee. They aren't exactly the uber rich. Until recently, the guy across the street was a plumber. (He moved, not switched careers.) These are houses that would all sell for >$1m, even the ones that haven't been updated since the early 80s. The updated ones go for more than $1.5. There are even brown people! The minimum wage country people's snobbery misses the mark a bit.
Lots of people I know did that or something similar. Or bought cheap during the crash, which is how I bought my OC place in 2012, and a decade later find themselves owning a million plus dollar house even if they are just low to median income earners. Many, again including myself, got a couple of roommates to help off set even the relatively low housing expenses for a few years. I definitely didn't live a wealthy lifestyle, and still don't, but found myself to be living in what would be a very expensive house and location. Sure new buyers had big money but there were enough "regular" people with more down to earth spending and lifestyles values.
-
I have managed to live in some expensive places in my life on the cheap, as a homeowner and renter. For undergrad, I lived in coastal neighborhoods in San Diego (Ocean Beach, Mission Beach, and Pacific Beach) while attending San Diego Mesa College and later SDSU. I got accepted to an MA program at Cal State San Marcos and moved inland (Vista and later Encinitas). I spent one winter living in Breckenridge, CO as a snowboard instructor. My first job out of grad school was in Fort Myers, FL and my wife worked in Naples, FL. My wife was a shoe manager and would occasionally do house deliveries for high end clients. She once delivered shoes to a 5 million dollar house (2013 value) on the beach. It was 3 stories with an elevator. It was in the gated community on the beach, just south of Bonita Beach Rd. This was a 2nd home and there were only there 3 months/year. The rest of the time it sat vacant. I'm guessing that house is now 10 million+.
I lived on Kauai full-time time from 2015 to 2019 and bought a house in Koloa, HI for 603K. It's now a rental and worth 1.3 million. The cartoon South Park has an episode making fun of part-time residents of Kauai. They live in timeshare condos 3 months/year, call themselves locals and are very difficult to deal with. I think one of the creators of South Park owns a house on Kauai. He noticed the trend and decided to make an episode of it. Everyone else seemed to be pretty nice. The poor people and crazy rich people seemed to co-exist just fine.
From my experience, crazy rich people act normal because they want to fit in. Semi-wealthy people that are trying to prove something are the one's that are difficult to deal with (see South Park episode).
From my experience, the most difficult to deal with are those born with money, but never learned a skill set. Their wealth slowly decreases over time. They are constantly worried about being poor in the future. They end up bullying others with less resources as a way to cope with their own anxiety. I'm not a therapist, but I like to play one on television.
-
Florida may be about to have a "Come to Jesus" moment on home insurance. Tropical Storm Milton has formed in the Gulf and is projected to make landfall on Wednesday as a Cat 3. A Cat 4 and Cat 3 in less than two weeks? Fuck.
More like "Fuck around [with the planet] and find out."
The irony, if climate change dropped enough hurricanes on Florida to turn it from red to purple or blue during a presidential election year, would be wild.
-
There are a lot around but, at least those on the coastal part of the West Coast, are massively expensive to buy or rent. Plus, sadly, are very over run by drugs now and the problems (homeless, squalor and crime mostly) that occurs with that. But mostly it's the cost. When that 600 SF 2 bedroom bungalow in Monterey or Santa Cruz or Santa Barbara cost close to $2 million it doesn't matter how cute and walkable they are. Plus they all come with their own natural disaster risks too.
Eta just looked up walkable small cities in Calif and Santa Cruz was rated the most walkable in CA and the most expensive housing-wise... in the nation! I personally wouldn't live there now but years ago it was pretty awesome.
Well it is charming ;-): https://www.zillow.com/homedetails/106-Doane-St-Santa-Cruz-CA-95062/16112277_zpid/
Heh, I used to live a block from that house. Love that neighborhood, but it's highly impacted by tourists. Between beach goers and those looking to avoid parking fees at the Boardwalk and parking is a mess, and this house has on street parking. And it's not really walkable, though there are some nice restaurants and a great climbing gym nearby. The nearest grocery store is downtown, though the New Leaf is closing in October so will be down to Trader Joe's. There are a few walkable areas in Santa Cruz, e.g. downtown and the area around Swift St. Biking is usually a better option and I biked all over town, though safety and bike theft are a real concern: https://lookout.co/riding-my-bike-on-the-santa-cruz-levee-bike-path-is-making-me-change-my-politics-its-too-dangerous-here-to-be-green/
That neighborhood is cute and easy walking to most places. I go up the coast from O.C. a couple of times a year and ogle all the lovely towns that most working stiffs can no longer afford. I generally park up by the lighthouse and walk the coast path from end to end and then thru town and the boardwalk. It's a great walk and the surfing, kayaking, hiking in the redwoods and beach volleyball are awesome and it still has that old Calif beach bum vibe (pre-homeless and drug issues) and you don't feel like your amongst the rich but I do feel less safe there then in the past. Especially downtown.
It's too bad as it use to be a great place and would be pretty perfect . Monterey is also great but like most small cities it is severely over priced, crowded and becoming more crime ridden. Plus with the earthquakes, mudslides and huge wild fire risk it's a high disaster risk area. I generally tent camp at the Henry Cowell Redwood Grove state park. Love that whole area. Although biking is scary but beautiful.
It's a very cute neighborhood and we enjoyed living there. And there are a lot of great places to walk to, so in that sense it is walkable. My point is, for day to day living it's not easy on foot.
If you need eggs or something from the drug store (Longs before it became CVS) that's a very long trek by foot, not practical. During summer/weekends/holidays you hate to take the car because you know you'll be circling the block looking for parking when you get back. So we biked a lot. Biking in Santa Cruz, like many American cities, is a mixed bag because the infrastructure is fragmented. There are some really nice trails and bike lanes, but these often dump bikers on to stressful roads or scary crime spots.
The root of the problem is that biking has typically been viewed as recreation first, and second as transportation of last resort (i.e. for the homeless). So getting from that neighborhood to downtown we'd have to bike down a stretch of E Cliff Dr, but there's no bike lane there and the cars drive very aggressively. For this reason we'd bike on the sidewalk (which I believe is not legal) to get to the Riverwalk path which would take us all the way to downtown w/o any intersections. The Riverwalk path is an amazing way to get around Santa Cruz and avoid the terrible traffic, and it has the potential to be a beautiful and pleasant experience, but it has a lot of crime and drug issues (per the article linked up thread).
To be clear, Santa Cruz isn't a bad place to live, and we certainly don't hate the area. But there are some pretty big trade-offs living there. We were always very internally conflicted about it as we could never find walkable/bikeable neighborhoods that were also clean/safe and somewhat affordable. We did a couple of big road trips around the western US to explore our options and found a number of cities that were a much better fit for us.
Santa Cruz is finally starting to propose and build higher density housing downtown and along transportation corridors. If enough gets built it should greatly improve walkability in desirable areas. And if they can address the crime/blight issues (stuff like Prop 36) then I can see moving back at some point. Though this would have to wait until the kids are out of the house as we don't want to uproot them again now that they're older and have good peer groups.
-
Florida may be about to have a "Come to Jesus" moment on home insurance. Tropical Storm Milton has formed in the Gulf and is projected to make landfall on Wednesday as a Cat 3. A Cat 4 and Cat 3 in less than two weeks? Fuck.
More like "Fuck around [with the planet] and find out."
The irony, if climate change dropped enough hurricanes on Florida to turn it from red to purple or blue during a presidential election year, would be wild.
With two back-to-back hurricanes with damage in the billions, it’s going to be extremely bad. Particularly with lots of unexpected damages in North Carolina where climate risk isn’t really priced in.
I wonder what the spectrum of outcomes will be from the insurance industry. More firms will leave the state. Maybe some will be bankrupt. It sounds like Citizens wasn’t very far from needing to place an assessment on all of their policy holders already. It could be a big unexpected bill for many people that aren’t in the hurricanes path.
It’s pretty much guaranteed to have some impact on the election (particularly state and local races) but I don’t know Florida well enough to venture a guess on how. The biggest impact will simply be that many people in the throes of recovering from a hurricane will have bigger priorities than showing up on Election Day. There will probably be a wide variance in turnout based on which counties get hit the hardest.
-
Florida may be about to have a "Come to Jesus" moment on home insurance. Tropical Storm Milton has formed in the Gulf and is projected to make landfall on Wednesday as a Cat 3. A Cat 4 and Cat 3 in less than two weeks? Fuck.
More like "Fuck around [with the planet] and find out."
The irony, if climate change dropped enough hurricanes on Florida to turn it from red to purple or blue during a presidential election year, would be wild.
There is a current conspiracy theory that the "Liberal Left" is funding projects that "seed the clouds" to produce hurricanes to then "prove climate change is real" to win the Presidential Election.
-
Florida may be about to have a "Come to Jesus" moment on home insurance. Tropical Storm Milton has formed in the Gulf and is projected to make landfall on Wednesday as a Cat 3. A Cat 4 and Cat 3 in less than two weeks? Fuck.
More like "Fuck around [with the planet] and find out."
The irony, if climate change dropped enough hurricanes on Florida to turn it from red to purple or blue during a presidential election year, would be wild.
There is a current conspiracy theory that the "Liberal Left" is funding projects that "seed the clouds" to produce hurricanes to then "prove climate change is real" to win the Presidential Election.
Today I had a right leaning person explain to me that the severe storms in the US this year were all because of MAGNETIC RADIATION from the SOLAR MAX caused during the extreme GEOSTORM CYCLE we're undergoing. Of course, there is a LOT of scientific data describing this but they couldn't provide any to me because it is all being SUPPRESSED and IGNORED.
The idea that people on the right will wake up and recognize reality seems to me rather idealistic and quaint. More likely they'll just weave tighter conspiracy theories to explain things away. Anyway, can't stay to talk - I gotta go crack open a couple cans of sacrificial child's blood so I can up my adenochrome levels and live forever. (Remember, more than half of Republicans in the US believe in that.)
-
GuitarStv,
don't forget our upcoming meeting on Declaring War on Christmas...start practicing yelling at retail workers who say Merry Christmas instead of Happy Solstice ..!
-
GuitarStv,
don't forget our upcoming meeting on Declaring War on Christmas...start practicing yelling at retail workers who say Merry Christmas instead of Happy Solstice ..!
Is that before or after we audition the crisis actors for the next school shooting we're planning?
-
Florida may be about to have a "Come to Jesus" moment on home insurance. Tropical Storm Milton has formed in the Gulf and is projected to make landfall on Wednesday as a Cat 3. A Cat 4 and Cat 3 in less than two weeks? Fuck.
More like "Fuck around [with the planet] and find out."
The irony, if climate change dropped enough hurricanes on Florida to turn it from red to purple or blue during a presidential election year, would be wild.
With two back-to-back hurricanes with damage in the billions, it’s going to be extremely bad. Particularly with lots of unexpected damages in North Carolina where climate risk isn’t really priced in.
I wonder what the spectrum of outcomes will be from the insurance industry. More firms will leave the state. Maybe some will be bankrupt. It sounds like Citizens wasn’t very far from needing to place an assessment on all of their policy holders already. It could be a big unexpected bill for many people that aren’t in the hurricanes path.
It’s pretty much guaranteed to have some impact on the election (particularly state and local races) but I don’t know Florida well enough to venture a guess on how. The biggest impact will simply be that many people in the throes of recovering from a hurricane will have bigger priorities than showing up on Election Day. There will probably be a wide variance in turnout based on which counties get hit the hardest.
The insurance industry in NC wanted a 42% increase across the state and a 92% increase in coastal areas this year. The commissioner did not agree so the case is about the head to court. I'm afraid the aftermath of Helene is making the insurance inductry's case for them. Paying almost 2% of replacement value every year is crazy to me.
-
Florida may be about to have a "Come to Jesus" moment on home insurance. Tropical Storm Milton has formed in the Gulf and is projected to make landfall on Wednesday as a Cat 3. A Cat 4 and Cat 3 in less than two weeks? Fuck.
More like "Fuck around [with the planet] and find out."
The irony, if climate change dropped enough hurricanes on Florida to turn it from red to purple or blue during a presidential election year, would be wild.
With two back-to-back hurricanes with damage in the billions, it’s going to be extremely bad. Particularly with lots of unexpected damages in North Carolina where climate risk isn’t really priced in.
I wonder what the spectrum of outcomes will be from the insurance industry. More firms will leave the state. Maybe some will be bankrupt. It sounds like Citizens wasn’t very far from needing to place an assessment on all of their policy holders already. It could be a big unexpected bill for many people that aren’t in the hurricanes path.
It’s pretty much guaranteed to have some impact on the election (particularly state and local races) but I don’t know Florida well enough to venture a guess on how. The biggest impact will simply be that many people in the throes of recovering from a hurricane will have bigger priorities than showing up on Election Day. There will probably be a wide variance in turnout based on which counties get hit the hardest.
The insurance industry in NC wanted a 42% increase across the state and a 92% increase in coastal areas this year. The commissioner did not agree so the case is about the head to court. I'm afraid the aftermath of Helene is making the insurance inductry's case for them. Paying almost 2% of replacement value every year is crazy to me.
I think Helene is going to result in insurance rate hikes in inland areas. The worst hit spots in NC were over 100 miles from the coast. I'm a few hundred miles from the Gulf coast, but I'm pretty sure I'll end up covering some hurricane damage in NC at renewal time. After Helene, who can say hurricane remnants won't come and flood my area?
Insurance and the housing affordability crisis are going to push American culture in the direction it needed to go anyway. We need to desire and build smaller houses, with smaller mortgages, smaller insurance bills, and smaller energy bills.
The McMansion mania era of the last 25 years may give way to an updated American Dream, which looks something like a 1,000 or 1,200sf cottage made of fireproof materials. Developments of 2BR homes may need to become a thing again, and small, inexpensive factory-built modular homes may be the future if they can be designed to be insurable. The new Mustachianism might be to own such a cottage free and clear, and to self-insure it.
-
I'm interested in what happens where people move, too. Are people aware that sleepy Midwest cities have property tax five times higher than Colorado, Alabama, Tennessee etc? How will those taxes change if population rises or the need for winter mitigation drops? A lot of my friends have this vague idea in their heads that they might have to migrate back some day, but how many others are thinking that too? Tides change. Go ask someone from 1955 if they'd pay 7x sticker price to live in Seattle instead of Detroit.
-
Milton has upgraded to a Category 5 and is currently forecast to make landfall at Tampa as a Cat 3 hurricane. Milton intensified from Cat 1 to Cat 5 in 7 hours. Warm ocean temperatures at work. Jeebus.
-
I'm interested in what happens where people move, too. Are people aware that sleepy Midwest cities have property tax five times higher than Colorado, Alabama, Tennessee etc? How will those taxes change if population rises or the need for winter mitigation drops? A lot of my friends have this vague idea in their heads that they might have to migrate back some day, but how many others are thinking that too? Tides change. Go ask someone from 1955 if they'd pay 7x sticker price to live in Seattle instead of Detroit.
Maybe not 5x (unless you're in Illinois). But then again, a 3x higher tax rate on home that's half the price will basically balance out once you take into account cheaper homeowner's insurance as you're insuring less replacement cost. Not to mention the home cost half as much to begin with.
https://taxfoundation.org/data/all/state/property-taxes-by-state-county-2024/
(https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/idclu/full.png)
-
I wonder if we will see a shift toward less solid structures, rather than more solid. Homes in Japan always struck me as being very cheaply built, especially given how the Japanese generally seem to embrace quality in most things. Walls were thin. Insulation was awful.** The value of a home was in the land. The structure was a quickly depreciating asset. It seems that in most cases, when someone bought a new home, they tore down the old and put up a new one and the homes were built accordingly--to last a couple of decades, not half a century or more.
This made them much cheaper to build or rebuild after a disaster. I wonder if we will go more in that direction, especially in disaster-prone areas. If the structure rebuild cost is $50k instead of $500k, insurance rates will stay lower, or at least less high. Of course, that's far more junk that ends up in a landfill, but I guess it's less waste than tearing down a comparable-sized home built with more materials, so if it's going to be destroyed by weather anyway, maybe this is less bad?
**This part always struck we as odd, especially given electric costs and considerations. Yes, people are more okay with a range of temperatures. They don't cool to 68 in summer and heat to 70 in winter. Low tables (kotatsu) with built-in heaters, covered by thick blankets are popular. Everyone sits around the table with their legs under the blanket. You heat only the small area you need to use, not the whole house. Central a/c or heat is rare, with mini-splits being common. (This is why you really want a heated toilet seat; your bathroom will be freezing--perhaps almost literally--in winter.)
-
I'm interested in what happens where people move, too. Are people aware that sleepy Midwest cities have property tax five times higher than Colorado, Alabama, Tennessee etc? How will those taxes change if population rises or the need for winter mitigation drops? A lot of my friends have this vague idea in their heads that they might have to migrate back some day, but how many others are thinking that too? Tides change. Go ask someone from 1955 if they'd pay 7x sticker price to live in Seattle instead of Detroit.
Maybe not 5x (unless you're in Illinois). But then again, a 3x higher tax rate on home that's half the price will basically balance out once you take into account cheaper homeowner's insurance as you're insuring less replacement cost. Not to mention the home cost half as much to begin with.
https://taxfoundation.org/data/all/state/property-taxes-by-state-county-2024/
(https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/idclu/full.png)
All true. But what will happen to the sticker price if people migrate? What if we experience sustained lower interest rates without an increase in housing price, making tax is an even higher percentage of cost? Also, a lot of Midwest stock is small and old. People with a median house in Tampa or Denver might find that their like-for-like house in Indianapolis is an 85th percentile house locally. Interesting times all around, I'm afraid. I expect we'll be fine unless the migration happens suddenly and wealthy people will be fine, but leanfire types should plan with caution against a get out of jail free migration card.
-
I'm interested in what happens where people move, too. Are people aware that sleepy Midwest cities have property tax five times higher than Colorado, Alabama, Tennessee etc? How will those taxes change if population rises or the need for winter mitigation drops? A lot of my friends have this vague idea in their heads that they might have to migrate back some day, but how many others are thinking that too? Tides change. Go ask someone from 1955 if they'd pay 7x sticker price to live in Seattle instead of Detroit.
Maybe not 5x (unless you're in Illinois). But then again, a 3x higher tax rate on home that's half the price will basically balance out once you take into account cheaper homeowner's insurance as you're insuring less replacement cost. Not to mention the home cost half as much to begin with.
https://taxfoundation.org/data/all/state/property-taxes-by-state-county-2024/
(https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/idclu/full.png)
I would think higher taxes lose out. A houses costs what it costs to build. Anything beyond that and the value is the land, which you don't insure. That's why quarter acre empty lots in Boulder County are 400-500k.
It's quite the gamification for a FIREd person to think about the cost structures you end up weighing when considering where to live. Health insurance premiums, property taxes, home insurance, utilities, and electric make up the bulk of one's fixed costs. That's just the money side.
-
I'm interested in what happens where people move, too. Are people aware that sleepy Midwest cities have property tax five times higher than Colorado, Alabama, Tennessee etc? How will those taxes change if population rises or the need for winter mitigation drops? A lot of my friends have this vague idea in their heads that they might have to migrate back some day, but how many others are thinking that too? Tides change. Go ask someone from 1955 if they'd pay 7x sticker price to live in Seattle instead of Detroit.
Maybe not 5x (unless you're in Illinois). But then again, a 3x higher tax rate on home that's half the price will basically balance out once you take into account cheaper homeowner's insurance as you're insuring less replacement cost. Not to mention the home cost half as much to begin with.
https://taxfoundation.org/data/all/state/property-taxes-by-state-county-2024/
(https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/idclu/full.png)
I would think higher taxes lose out. A houses costs what it costs to build. Anything beyond that and the value is the land, which you don't insure. That's why quarter acre empty lots in Boulder County are 400-500k.
It's quite the gamification for a FIREd person to think about the cost structures you end up weighing when considering where to live. Health insurance premiums, property taxes, home insurance, utilities, and electric make up the bulk of one's fixed costs. That's just the money side.
I'm sorry for taking us off-topic but I laughed a bit since I live in Boulder =).
That does remind me that utility costs vary a lot by region too. Look at Denver electricity compared to Minneapolis, plus you might need to use a ton more of it to with colder winters and humid summers.
https://www.bls.gov/regions/midwest/data/averageenergyprices_selectedareas_table.htm (https://www.bls.gov/regions/midwest/data/averageenergyprices_selectedareas_table.htm). Of course gas can be different. And where I grew up no one's ever heard of a car emissions test and would fall over at registration costs. And on and on in both directions - have you ever heated your engine block overnight? Watered your foundation?
Who knows how any of these things will change for Midwesterners with climate and migration. Just make sure to look beyond sticker price and be a little careful if half your NW is in a small costal house or mountain town kinda thing. Coasties' ticking time bomb might be even worse the deeper you look and it'll impact us all.
-
Insurance and the housing affordability crisis are going to push American culture in the direction it needed to go anyway.
I'm struggling to think of an example where markets forced a change in the desired status quo of American lifestyles. Maybe the emergence of small cars in response to the oil embargo? But then we pretty quickly, by engineering and foreign intervention, restored the status quo of big vehicles going long distances for cheap.
I guess I'm not confident at all that American lifestyles will change, even when it seems inevitable. So many elements of the American status quo (housing, healthcare, education) have seemed untenable for decades, and yet here we are.
-
Insurance and the housing affordability crisis are going to push American culture in the direction it needed to go anyway.
I'm struggling to think of an example where markets forced a change in the desired status quo of American lifestyles. Maybe the emergence of small cars in response to the oil embargo? But then we pretty quickly, by engineering and foreign intervention, restored the status quo of big vehicles going long distances for cheap.
I guess I'm not confident at all that American lifestyles will change, even when it seems inevitable. So many elements of the American status quo (housing, healthcare, education) have seemed untenable for decades, and yet here we are.
This would assume we're able to engineer similar cost efficiencies in the housing market. It's definitely possible but building codes seem much more lethargic to change. If anything it seems that newer codes are adding cost as we recognize the need for higher R-values (insulation), fire retardants, etc. Obviously safety comes into play but at some point I do have to wonder if it would be better in the long run to not require these expensive building materials and people can more affordably.self-insure. Then if the house burns down you just build another.
-
Milton has upgraded to a Category 5 and is currently forecast to make landfall at Tampa as a Cat 3 hurricane. Milton intensified from Cat 1 to Cat 5 in 7 hours. Warm ocean temperatures at work. Jeebus.
The central pressure is 905mb as of the 2100UTC update. JEEBUS.
-
Insurance and the housing affordability crisis are going to push American culture in the direction it needed to go anyway.
I'm struggling to think of an example where markets forced a change in the desired status quo of American lifestyles. Maybe the emergence of small cars in response to the oil embargo? But then we pretty quickly, by engineering and foreign intervention, restored the status quo of big vehicles going long distances for cheap.
I guess I'm not confident at all that American lifestyles will change, even when it seems inevitable. So many elements of the American status quo (housing, healthcare, education) have seemed untenable for decades, and yet here we are.
This would assume we're able to engineer similar cost efficiencies in the housing market. It's definitely possible but building codes seem much more lethargic to change. If anything it seems that newer codes are adding cost as we recognize the need for higher R-values (insulation), fire retardants, etc. Obviously safety comes into play but at some point I do have to wonder if it would be better in the long run to not require these expensive building materials and people can more affordably.self-insure. Then if the house burns down you just build another.
I don't know that it assumes any particular way of avoiding change, so much as people doing something, anything to limp the status quo along.
Alternatives probably include direct government subsidies of an even greater scale, forced cost pooling, or some exotic financial instruments I can't exactly imagine.
-
Milton has upgraded to a Category 5 and is currently forecast to make landfall at Tampa as a Cat 3 hurricane. Milton intensified from Cat 1 to Cat 5 in 7 hours. Warm ocean temperatures at work. Jeebus.
The central pressure is 905mb as of the 2100UTC update. JEEBUS.
And 175 mph winds. That's a massive increase in power in about 24 hours.
-
Milton has upgraded to a Category 5 and is currently forecast to make landfall at Tampa as a Cat 3 hurricane. Milton intensified from Cat 1 to Cat 5 in 7 hours. Warm ocean temperatures SPACE LASERS AND HAARP at work!. Jeebus.
Fixed
Sigh, if only people could do the math and calculate the amount of energy required for a hurricane to form and move and realize it's more than all of human civilization can produce in months or years. Of course, the kind of people who think the government can control hurricanes probably couldn't comprehend the math necessary to realize why it's such an absurd conspiracy theory.
-
I'm interested in what happens where people move, too. Are people aware that sleepy Midwest cities have property tax five times higher than Colorado, Alabama, Tennessee etc? How will those taxes change if population rises or the need for winter mitigation drops? A lot of my friends have this vague idea in their heads that they might have to migrate back some day, but how many others are thinking that too? Tides change. Go ask someone from 1955 if they'd pay 7x sticker price to live in Seattle instead of Detroit.
I did a math exercise maybe a decade ago. I took total tax revenue collected from each state and divided it by the population.
I forget the exact details, but it did come out as fairly comparable across states. Many states we think of as “high tax” were middle of the pack. Some states we think of as “low tax” collected a lot of revenue per capita. Alaska has the highest revenue per capita, presumably due to oil income.
Wikipedia lays the relevant numbers out in an easy to manipulate table.
-
Florida may be about to have a "Come to Jesus" moment on home insurance. Tropical Storm Milton has formed in the Gulf and is projected to make landfall on Wednesday as a Cat 3. A Cat 4 and Cat 3 in less than two weeks? Fuck.
More like "Fuck around [with the planet] and find out."
The irony, if climate change dropped enough hurricanes on Florida to turn it from red to purple or blue during a presidential election year, would be wild.
There is a current conspiracy theory that the "Liberal Left" is funding projects that "seed the clouds" to produce hurricanes to then "prove climate change is real" to win the Presidential Election.
Today I had a right leaning person explain to me that the severe storms in the US this year were all because of MAGNETIC RADIATION from the SOLAR MAX caused during the extreme GEOSTORM CYCLE we're undergoing. Of course, there is a LOT of scientific data describing this but they couldn't provide any to me because it is all being SUPPRESSED and IGNORED.
(https://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/google_solar_cycle.png)
-
I’ve been dreaming of moving into an expensive tiny apartment in a crowded city, so I can reduce my infrastructure footprint.
Well you could live in Whitter Alaska where everyone, and all the stores, restaurants, and even a bowling alley live in one building ;-).
https://www.npr.org/2015/01/18/378162264/welcome-to-whittier-alaska-a-community-under-one-roof
The military built two massive buildings in Whittier back in the '50s: Begich Towers (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begich_Towers), referenced in the article, where most of the town population lives, and the Buckner Building (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buckner_Building), which was abandoned in the '70s and now reportedly sometimes has bears roaming the halls.
-
There are a lot around but, at least those on the coastal part of the West Coast, are massively expensive to buy or rent. Plus, sadly, are very over run by drugs now and the problems (homeless, squalor and crime mostly) that occurs with that. But mostly it's the cost. When that 600 SF 2 bedroom bungalow in Monterey or Santa Cruz or Santa Barbara cost close to $2 million it doesn't matter how cute and walkable they are. Plus they all come with their own natural disaster risks too.
Eta just looked up walkable small cities in Calif and Santa Cruz was rated the most walkable in CA and the most expensive housing-wise... in the nation! I personally wouldn't live there now but years ago it was pretty awesome.
Well it is charming ;-): https://www.zillow.com/homedetails/106-Doane-St-Santa-Cruz-CA-95062/16112277_zpid/
Heh, I used to live a block from that house. Love that neighborhood, but it's highly impacted by tourists. Between beach goers and those looking to avoid parking fees at the Boardwalk and parking is a mess, and this house has on street parking. And it's not really walkable, though there are some nice restaurants and a great climbing gym nearby. The nearest grocery store is downtown, though the New Leaf is closing in October so will be down to Trader Joe's. There are a few walkable areas in Santa Cruz, e.g. downtown and the area around Swift St. Biking is usually a better option and I biked all over town, though safety and bike theft are a real concern: https://lookout.co/riding-my-bike-on-the-santa-cruz-levee-bike-path-is-making-me-change-my-politics-its-too-dangerous-here-to-be-green/
That neighborhood is cute and easy walking to most places. I go up the coast from O.C. a couple of times a year and ogle all the lovely towns that most working stiffs can no longer afford. I generally park up by the lighthouse and walk the coast path from end to end and then thru town and the boardwalk. It's a great walk and the surfing, kayaking, hiking in the redwoods and beach volleyball are awesome and it still has that old Calif beach bum vibe (pre-homeless and drug issues) and you don't feel like your amongst the rich but I do feel less safe there then in the past. Especially downtown.
It's too bad as it use to be a great place and would be pretty perfect . Monterey is also great but like most small cities it is severely over priced, crowded and becoming more crime ridden. Plus with the earthquakes, mudslides and huge wild fire risk it's a high disaster risk area. I generally tent camp at the Henry Cowell Redwood Grove state park. Love that whole area. Although biking is scary but beautiful.
It's a very cute neighborhood and we enjoyed living there. And there are a lot of great places to walk to, so in that sense it is walkable. My point is, for day to day living it's not easy on foot.
If you need eggs or something from the drug store (Longs before it became CVS) that's a very long trek by foot, not practical. During summer/weekends/holidays you hate to take the car because you know you'll be circling the block looking for parking when you get back. So we biked a lot. Biking in Santa Cruz, like many American cities, is a mixed bag because the infrastructure is fragmented. There are some really nice trails and bike lanes, but these often dump bikers on to stressful roads or scary crime spots.
The root of the problem is that biking has typically been viewed as recreation first, and second as transportation of last resort (i.e. for the homeless). So getting from that neighborhood to downtown we'd have to bike down a stretch of E Cliff Dr, but there's no bike lane there and the cars drive very aggressively. For this reason we'd bike on the sidewalk (which I believe is not legal) to get to the Riverwalk path which would take us all the way to downtown w/o any intersections. The Riverwalk path is an amazing way to get around Santa Cruz and avoid the terrible traffic, and it has the potential to be a beautiful and pleasant experience, but it has a lot of crime and drug issues (per the article linked up thread).
To be clear, Santa Cruz isn't a bad place to live, and we certainly don't hate the area. But there are some pretty big trade-offs living there. We were always very internally conflicted about it as we could never find walkable/bikeable neighborhoods that were also clean/safe and somewhat affordable. We did a couple of big road trips around the western US to explore our options and found a number of cities that were a much better fit for us.
Santa Cruz is finally starting to propose and build higher density housing downtown and along transportation corridors. If enough gets built it should greatly improve walkability in desirable areas. And if they can address the crime/blight issues (stuff like Prop 36) then I can see moving back at some point. Though this would have to wait until the kids are out of the house as we don't want to uproot them again now that they're older and have good peer groups.
I.think since you've made the move already out of that area to a better-for-you place then you'll probably never want to.go back. But then lots of Californians want to do that so who knows? Most are priced out of the market now though. With those huge wildfires and mudslides there a few years ago (and I seem to.remeber a big earthquake in the SC mountains being pretty devastation not too long ago) I'd have to do some serious soul searching before moving there - or at least buying there - including most places in Calif.
We took a recent trip up the central coast (Pismo Beach to Santa Cruz) to look at housing and would likely choose to rent in most towns in that area. While less expensive than coastal SoCal or the Bay area Its still high and a lot more natural disaster prone.
-
I’ve been dreaming of moving into an expensive tiny apartment in a crowded city, so I can reduce my infrastructure footprint.
Well you could live in Whitter Alaska where everyone, and all the stores, restaurants, and even a bowling alley live in one building ;-).
https://www.npr.org/2015/01/18/378162264/welcome-to-whittier-alaska-a-community-under-one-roof
The military built two massive buildings in Whittier back in the '50s: Begich Towers (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begich_Towers), referenced in the article, where most of the town population lives, and the Buckner Building (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buckner_Building), which was abandoned in the '70s and now reportedly sometimes has bears roaming the halls.
I was stati9ned out of Anchorage for 4 years and had to go to Whittier a couple of times. Definitely a weird and interesting place. Wouldn't want to live there though!
-
Whittier is one of the most incredibly beautiful places on Earth. No way would I live there.
-
There are a lot around but, at least those on the coastal part of the West Coast, are massively expensive to buy or rent. Plus, sadly, are very over run by drugs now and the problems (homeless, squalor and crime mostly) that occurs with that. But mostly it's the cost. When that 600 SF 2 bedroom bungalow in Monterey or Santa Cruz or Santa Barbara cost close to $2 million it doesn't matter how cute and walkable they are. Plus they all come with their own natural disaster risks too.
Eta just looked up walkable small cities in Calif and Santa Cruz was rated the most walkable in CA and the most expensive housing-wise... in the nation! I personally wouldn't live there now but years ago it was pretty awesome.
Well it is charming ;-): https://www.zillow.com/homedetails/106-Doane-St-Santa-Cruz-CA-95062/16112277_zpid/
Heh, I used to live a block from that house. Love that neighborhood, but it's highly impacted by tourists. Between beach goers and those looking to avoid parking fees at the Boardwalk and parking is a mess, and this house has on street parking. And it's not really walkable, though there are some nice restaurants and a great climbing gym nearby. The nearest grocery store is downtown, though the New Leaf is closing in October so will be down to Trader Joe's. There are a few walkable areas in Santa Cruz, e.g. downtown and the area around Swift St. Biking is usually a better option and I biked all over town, though safety and bike theft are a real concern: https://lookout.co/riding-my-bike-on-the-santa-cruz-levee-bike-path-is-making-me-change-my-politics-its-too-dangerous-here-to-be-green/
That neighborhood is cute and easy walking to most places. I go up the coast from O.C. a couple of times a year and ogle all the lovely towns that most working stiffs can no longer afford. I generally park up by the lighthouse and walk the coast path from end to end and then thru town and the boardwalk. It's a great walk and the surfing, kayaking, hiking in the redwoods and beach volleyball are awesome and it still has that old Calif beach bum vibe (pre-homeless and drug issues) and you don't feel like your amongst the rich but I do feel less safe there then in the past. Especially downtown.
It's too bad as it use to be a great place and would be pretty perfect . Monterey is also great but like most small cities it is severely over priced, crowded and becoming more crime ridden. Plus with the earthquakes, mudslides and huge wild fire risk it's a high disaster risk area. I generally tent camp at the Henry Cowell Redwood Grove state park. Love that whole area. Although biking is scary but beautiful.
It's a very cute neighborhood and we enjoyed living there. And there are a lot of great places to walk to, so in that sense it is walkable. My point is, for day to day living it's not easy on foot.
If you need eggs or something from the drug store (Longs before it became CVS) that's a very long trek by foot, not practical. During summer/weekends/holidays you hate to take the car because you know you'll be circling the block looking for parking when you get back. So we biked a lot. Biking in Santa Cruz, like many American cities, is a mixed bag because the infrastructure is fragmented. There are some really nice trails and bike lanes, but these often dump bikers on to stressful roads or scary crime spots.
The root of the problem is that biking has typically been viewed as recreation first, and second as transportation of last resort (i.e. for the homeless). So getting from that neighborhood to downtown we'd have to bike down a stretch of E Cliff Dr, but there's no bike lane there and the cars drive very aggressively. For this reason we'd bike on the sidewalk (which I believe is not legal) to get to the Riverwalk path which would take us all the way to downtown w/o any intersections. The Riverwalk path is an amazing way to get around Santa Cruz and avoid the terrible traffic, and it has the potential to be a beautiful and pleasant experience, but it has a lot of crime and drug issues (per the article linked up thread).
To be clear, Santa Cruz isn't a bad place to live, and we certainly don't hate the area. But there are some pretty big trade-offs living there. We were always very internally conflicted about it as we could never find walkable/bikeable neighborhoods that were also clean/safe and somewhat affordable. We did a couple of big road trips around the western US to explore our options and found a number of cities that were a much better fit for us.
Santa Cruz is finally starting to propose and build higher density housing downtown and along transportation corridors. If enough gets built it should greatly improve walkability in desirable areas. And if they can address the crime/blight issues (stuff like Prop 36) then I can see moving back at some point. Though this would have to wait until the kids are out of the house as we don't want to uproot them again now that they're older and have good peer groups.
I.think since you've made the move already out of that area to a better-for-you place then you'll probably never want to.go back. But then lots of Californians want to do that so who knows? Most are priced out of the market now though. With those huge wildfires and mudslides there a few years ago (and I seem to.remeber a big earthquake in the SC mountains being pretty devastation not too long ago) I'd have to do some serious soul searching before moving there - or at least buying there - including most places in Calif.
We took a recent trip up the central coast (Pismo Beach to Santa Cruz) to look at housing and would likely choose to rent in most towns in that area. While less expensive than coastal SoCal or the Bay area Its still high and a lot more natural disaster prone.
Oh for sure, it's not anywhere near a real plan. There's no doubt that the move to Boise was the right thing for our family, and it is *way* less disaster prone. But we still have friends and family in Santa Cruz, and we enjoy visiting. For us to even seriously consider moving back the atrocious COL and crime issues would need be addressed -- not easy problems to fix though I'm seeing some movement in the right direction. Living in the mountains with the landslides and fires is not something we'd consider, would have to be a condo/apartment downtown or other walkable area. I lived ~10 miles from 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake epicenter and know that the big one will happen at some point, but would not be too worried about it in something built to modern earthquake codes on stable geology. All that said, if we're ever looking to relocate again we'll evaluate Santa Cruz, but would also cast a wide net as I think there are lots of wonderful, interesting places to live in the US.
-
I would think higher taxes lose out. A houses costs what it costs to build. Anything beyond that and the value is the land, which you don't insure. That's why quarter acre empty lots in Boulder County are 400-500k.
It's quite the gamification for a FIREd person to think about the cost structures you end up weighing when considering where to live. Health insurance premiums, property taxes, home insurance, utilities, and electric make up the bulk of one's fixed costs. That's just the money side.
Not really true about it costs what it costs to build. https://todayshomeowner.com/home-finances/guides/cost-of-building-a-home-by-state/
The average cost of building a 2,100-square-foot home in the U.S. is $332,376, or $158 per square foot.
Building the same 2,100-square-foot home varies by more than $140,000 across states.
That's almost a 50% variance in cost to build!
-
Whittier is one of the most incredibly beautiful places on Earth. No way would I live there.
Alaskans say to replace the "W" with an "S" and you describe most of the time in Whittier. Those rare bluebird days are something special though. I'm not sure being connected to civilization by a single one-mile long tunnel in an earthquake zone is "resilient" but there is always the three hour ferry to Valdez.
-
I would think higher taxes lose out. A houses costs what it costs to build. Anything beyond that and the value is the land, which you don't insure. That's why quarter acre empty lots in Boulder County are 400-500k.
It's quite the gamification for a FIREd person to think about the cost structures you end up weighing when considering where to live. Health insurance premiums, property taxes, home insurance, utilities, and electric make up the bulk of one's fixed costs. That's just the money side.
Not really true about it costs what it costs to build. https://todayshomeowner.com/home-finances/guides/cost-of-building-a-home-by-state/
The average cost of building a 2,100-square-foot home in the U.S. is $332,376, or $158 per square foot.
Building the same 2,100-square-foot home varies by more than $140,000 across states.
That's almost a 50% variance in cost to build!
It's based on local cost of labor and materials, yes. What I meant was all the value beyond what it costs to build a house is in the land. If it cost 500k to build the structure but demand in the area makes it a $1 million property, the other 500k value is in the land, and you'll see vacant lots selling for that much. It doesn't mean the structure is worth more than the cost to build because of demand.
This is most notable with oceanfront property. A $1.5 million house may cost 500k to build, meaning the lot is worth $1 million. If erosion on a barrier island eats enough of the lot that a house cannot be rebuilt, the owner is out $1 million. You cannot insure the value of the land and the insurance company will not pay you for that loss. This is an unfortunate situation playing out in WNC right now where riverfront homes had the earth eaten from under them. Those lots no longer exist. The government will not let those people rebuild. They'll get paid the value of their house as a total loss but that's just the structure. Whatever value was in the land just evaporated with no way to recover it.
-
I'm interested in what happens where people move, too. Are people aware that sleepy Midwest cities have property tax five times higher than Colorado, Alabama, Tennessee etc? How will those taxes change if population rises or the need for winter mitigation drops? A lot of my friends have this vague idea in their heads that they might have to migrate back some day, but how many others are thinking that too? Tides change. Go ask someone from 1955 if they'd pay 7x sticker price to live in Seattle instead of Detroit.
Maybe not 5x (unless you're in Illinois). But then again, a 3x higher tax rate on home that's half the price will basically balance out once you take into account cheaper homeowner's insurance as you're insuring less replacement cost. Not to mention the home cost half as much to begin with.
https://taxfoundation.org/data/all/state/property-taxes-by-state-county-2024/
(https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/idclu/full.png)
Interesting; I'm in central Ohio and pay just about exactly 2.1% property taxes. They're pretty painful.
-
I'm interested in what happens where people move, too. Are people aware that sleepy Midwest cities have property tax five times higher than Colorado, Alabama, Tennessee etc? How will those taxes change if population rises or the need for winter mitigation drops? A lot of my friends have this vague idea in their heads that they might have to migrate back some day, but how many others are thinking that too? Tides change. Go ask someone from 1955 if they'd pay 7x sticker price to live in Seattle instead of Detroit.
Maybe not 5x (unless you're in Illinois). But then again, a 3x higher tax rate on home that's half the price will basically balance out once you take into account cheaper homeowner's insurance as you're insuring less replacement cost. Not to mention the home cost half as much to begin with.
https://taxfoundation.org/data/all/state/property-taxes-by-state-county-2024/
(https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/idclu/full.png)
Interesting; I'm in central Ohio and pay just about exactly 2.1% property taxes. They're pretty painful.
I'm in Arkansas and pay about half a percent in property taxes, but 9.5% sales taxes, plus about 4% of AGI income taxes.
-
I would think higher taxes lose out. A houses costs what it costs to build. Anything beyond that and the value is the land, which you don't insure. That's why quarter acre empty lots in Boulder County are 400-500k.
It's quite the gamification for a FIREd person to think about the cost structures you end up weighing when considering where to live. Health insurance premiums, property taxes, home insurance, utilities, and electric make up the bulk of one's fixed costs. That's just the money side.
Not really true about it costs what it costs to build. https://todayshomeowner.com/home-finances/guides/cost-of-building-a-home-by-state/
The average cost of building a 2,100-square-foot home in the U.S. is $332,376, or $158 per square foot.
Building the same 2,100-square-foot home varies by more than $140,000 across states.
That's almost a 50% variance in cost to build!
It's based on local cost of labor and materials, yes. What I meant was all the value beyond what it costs to build a house is in the land. If it cost 500k to build the structure but demand in the area makes it a $1 million property, the other 500k value is in the land, and you'll see vacant lots selling for that much. It doesn't mean the structure is worth more than the cost to build because of demand.
This is most notable with oceanfront property. A $1.5 million house may cost 500k to build, meaning the lot is worth $1 million. If erosion on a barrier island eats enough of the lot that a house cannot be rebuilt, the owner is out $1 million. You cannot insure the value of the land and the insurance company will not pay you for that loss. This is an unfortunate situation playing out in WNC right now where riverfront homes had the earth eaten from under them. Those lots no longer exist. The government will not let those people rebuild. They'll get paid the value of their house as a total loss but that's just the structure. Whatever value was in the land just evaporated with no way to recover it.
Further, it doesn't have to actually hit your property. What happens if your 1.5 million dollar house with 1 million dollars in property value loses half the property value due to climate change repricing right while people are migrating? You might be hundreds of thousands of dollars underwater right when climate-safe places prices jump up. There's not, to my knowledge, insurance you can buy for your property value getting cut in half. That much in property value is just fragile if it's a lot of your NW, like a NYC taxi medallion. Heck, if your house burns down tomorrow your 3% interest mortgage goes with it, you'll need a brand new 7% mortgage in a high property tax state with rising sticker price right? I guess we can look again to Detroit's decline to see it's usually not so bad for the rich who get out early.
I've idly wondered about buying a house with low relative property value and about not buying a house in a state touching the ocean or fire areas. I wouldn't recommend protectively thinking that way or anything, I'm just spending time thinking where to live and RE# and it factors in a bit.
-
The older guy at the dog park today that was proud of dropping his homeowners insurance didn't seem as thrilled today.
Lives on a waterway island with around 12' of elevation.
In his defense, the lot is worth 3x what he paid for the house + lot years ago, but would still be a pain to move vs. rebuild.
-
In his defense, the lot is worth 3x what he paid for the house + lot years ago, but would still be a pain to move vs. rebuild.
Last week it was...
-
I would like to chime in on the property taxes, coming from a former Illinois resident. While the state might average 2%, Chicagoland is around 3%. I lived in a house as a kid that had property taxes at 5.6% at one point in time. In 2013, it sold for 140K and the property taxes were $7854/year. When I look it up on Zillow, the property taxes only go to 2022. They were $9350/year in 2022 and Zillow had the property valued at 290K, so that's 3.2%
I now live in Colorado. I have a primary house and a rental. My primary is worth 400K and the taxes are 2750/year, so that's 0.69%. For the rental property, it's worth 525K and the property taxes are $3123/year, so that's 0.59%.
Florida and Hawaii both charge higher property taxes for second homes vs. primary residence. Not sure why Colorado doesn't do that.
-
It's based on local cost of labor and materials, yes. What I meant was all the value beyond what it costs to build a house is in the land. If it cost 500k to build the structure but demand in the area makes it a $1 million property, the other 500k value is in the land, and you'll see vacant lots selling for that much. It doesn't mean the structure is worth more than the cost to build because of demand.
This is most notable with oceanfront property. A $1.5 million house may cost 500k to build, meaning the lot is worth $1 million. If erosion on a barrier island eats enough of the lot that a house cannot be rebuilt, the owner is out $1 million. You cannot insure the value of the land and the insurance company will not pay you for that loss. This is an unfortunate situation playing out in WNC right now where riverfront homes had the earth eaten from under them. Those lots no longer exist. The government will not let those people rebuild. They'll get paid the value of their house as a total loss but that's just the structure. Whatever value was in the land just evaporated with no way to recover it.
Indeed, the very basis for home insurance is that the land on which the house is standing will not disappear! Clearly this will have to be revisited in the future.
Its not just Florida - 12 years after Sandy hit us in NJ, there are still people building houses on delicate barrier islands on the Atlantic coast.
This article (https://e360.yale.edu/features/for_vulnerable_barrier_islands_a_rush_to_rebuild_on_us_coast) is from 9 years ago
Along the New Jersey and New York coasts after Hurricane Sandy, down the shores of Virginia and North Carolina following major storms, and across the Gulf of Mexico coast in the wake of recent hurricanes, rebuilding has taken place on dozens of vulnerable barrier islands. Not only does this recurring reconstruction place billions of dollars of property at risk, but it often means the construction of hugely expensive flood protection and storm-control projects that can harm coastal ecosystems.
-
I would like to chime in on the property taxes, coming from a former Illinois resident. While the state might average 2%, Chicagoland is around 3%. I lived in a house as a kid that had property taxes at 5.6% at one point in time. In 2013, it sold for 140K and the property taxes were $7854/year. When I look it up on Zillow, the property taxes only go to 2022. They were $9350/year in 2022 and Zillow had the property valued at 290K, so that's 3.2%
I now live in Colorado. I have a primary house and a rental. My primary is worth 400K and the taxes are 2750/year, so that's 0.69%. For the rental property, it's worth 525K and the property taxes are $3123/year, so that's 0.59%.
Florida and Hawaii both charge higher property taxes for second homes vs. primary residence. Not sure why Colorado doesn't do that.
We just sold a property in Chicago (Lakeview) that was taxed at a 2.1% rate (like most Chicago properties) but undervalued by the county. Using the sales price the rate was 1.5% which is pretty reasonable given all the public services provided by the city and county. Our rural place in the PNW was taxed around 0.5% but with minimal services provided - fire dept was 20 minutes away, sheriff could be 30 minutes or more, no water, no sewer, no public transport, nada.
-
Indeed, the very basis for home insurance is that the land on which the house is standing will not disappear! Clearly this will have to be revisited in the future.
At some point the land might be depreciated even if it stays stable. What is a lot worth if regulations prevent the building of houses there? What's it worth if any house you build will be uninsurable? Would a $200k lot become a $100k lot if the insurance bill for a typical house there rose from $4k per year to $18k per year?
In economic terms it should depreciate. In cultural terms, our world produces a lot of YOLO people who are willing to work very long hours to have a house near the beach someday, so money keeps getting flung at these sandbar houses.
When we look back in time at how housing was affordably priced during the 1970s and 1980s, we realize it was high mortgage rates keeping prices down. Insurance costs might have a similar effect.
-
Keep in mind that property tax rates are also tied to the cost of housing.
A 1% rate on a $1.5M SF Bay Area shack is similar to a 3% rate on a $500k medium sized house in a lower COL area.
That’s why I think it always makes sense to look at it on a per-capita basis when talking about public policy implications.
-
Indeed, the very basis for home insurance is that the land on which the house is standing will not disappear! Clearly this will have to be revisited in the future.
Property insurance protects the building and doesn't care what happens to the land. If the land is affected by flooding, that is too bad. If the flooding affects the house, it will be covered if flood insurance was in place. If the land slumps away, the house will probably not be covered as this coverage is not readily available and is typically specifically excluded on homeowner's policies.
https://www.architecturaldigest.com/story/three-multimillion-dollar-homes-on-a-cliff-appear-at-risk-of-falling-into-the-ocean
-
Keep in mind that property tax rates are also tied to the cost of housing.
A 1% rate on a $1.5M SF Bay Area shack is similar to a 3% rate on a $500k medium sized house in a lower COL area.
That’s why I think it always makes sense to look at it on a per-capita basis when talking about public policy implications.
I agree for public policy especially in the near term. However it's an important consideration of personal policy for some, akin to thoughts around LCOL expatFire (some people might not realize they have to leave Thailand if it grows to MCOL). Part of the fragility of coastal cities to think about is what happens if a climate disaster/market repricing turns that 1.5 million dollar home into a 500k home (or less, it's a shack!) and the 500k home into a million or 1.5 million dollar home. Many states have similar property tax setups to CA too, so rates are much higher, forever, the later you buy. Hopefully the Midwest states would accordingly drop the tax rate if values balloon but who knows. For people who are in their forever home just know what that entails in the long run as far as neighbors, services, etc. as an area transitions from HCOL to lower. Property tax is admittedly more of a sticker shock napkin math thing, a hook to get people to think about how sticker price isn't everything and it's possible you lose a million dollars in equity so think through that scenario at least once.
None of this matters for most individuals. For leanfire types with a low interest mortgage on a property with low relative structural value in a risky area, they'll need to be ready to be flexible especially if home equity is an important safety measure in their plans.
Housing is way more complicated than income but if anyone is thinking the status quo can never change, here is a chart I just googled for and didn't fact check.
(https://economistwritingeveryday.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/03/image-8.png?w=1024)
-
Indeed, the very basis for home insurance is that the land on which the house is standing will not disappear! Clearly this will have to be revisited in the future.
At some point the land might be depreciated even if it stays stable. What is a lot worth if regulations prevent the building of houses there? What's it worth if any house you build will be uninsurable? Would a $200k lot become a $100k lot if the insurance bill for a typical house there rose from $4k per year to $18k per year?
In economic terms it should depreciate. In cultural terms, our world produces a lot of YOLO people who are willing to work very long hours to have a house near the beach someday, so money keeps getting flung at these sandbar houses.
When we look back in time at how housing was affordably priced during the 1970s and 1980s, we realize it was high mortgage rates keeping prices down. Insurance costs might have a similar effect.
I'm not exactly on a sandbar as much as conquina reef rock plus sand.
The answer is all the new houses would look like they do in the keys. Concrete pillars, drive under parking, engineered to withstand 150+mph winds and 15ft of storm surge that just passes underneath the house. This is a problem that gets resolved by money. Can everyone afford to live at the beach? No.
-
I would think higher taxes lose out. A houses costs what it costs to build. Anything beyond that and the value is the land, which you don't insure. That's why quarter acre empty lots in Boulder County are 400-500k.
It's quite the gamification for a FIREd person to think about the cost structures you end up weighing when considering where to live. Health insurance premiums, property taxes, home insurance, utilities, and electric make up the bulk of one's fixed costs. That's just the money side.
Not really true about it costs what it costs to build. https://todayshomeowner.com/home-finances/guides/cost-of-building-a-home-by-state/
The average cost of building a 2,100-square-foot home in the U.S. is $332,376, or $158 per square foot.
Building the same 2,100-square-foot home varies by more than $140,000 across states.
That's almost a 50% variance in cost to build!
It's based on local cost of labor and materials, yes. What I meant was all the value beyond what it costs to build a house is in the land. If it cost 500k to build the structure but demand in the area makes it a $1 million property, the other 500k value is in the land, and you'll see vacant lots selling for that much. It doesn't mean the structure is worth more than the cost to build because of demand.
This is most notable with oceanfront property. A $1.5 million house may cost 500k to build, meaning the lot is worth $1 million. If erosion on a barrier island eats enough of the lot that a house cannot be rebuilt, the owner is out $1 million. You cannot insure the value of the land and the insurance company will not pay you for that loss. This is an unfortunate situation playing out in WNC right now where riverfront homes had the earth eaten from under them. Those lots no longer exist. The government will not let those people rebuild. They'll get paid the value of their house as a total loss but that's just the structure. Whatever value was in the land just evaporated with no way to recover it.
This has been happening in coastal Calif at several places with the land slowly (over years) shifting and falling into the ocean and houses becoming uninhabitable. While many of these places are now multi-million dollar homes (now reduced to zero dollar homes and land) most of the people are elderly original owners who bought small houses in decades ago and don't have the finances to move. One area in SoCal called Portugese Bend had 200 or so small houses built there in the 1950s and owned by working class people are now being evacuated with no insurance to cover the costs since the houses have little value compared to the land - and now the land has zero value.
https://www.cnn.com/2024/09/09/us/rancho-palos-verdes-california-landslide/index.html
Also here in Calif land is at a premium and in many cases small older homes on 8,000 SF lots or less are bought for a million bucks by investors, completely torn down then rebuilt as mckansions that sell for $2.5 million or more. This happened to me. Sold my own original condition (but cute) 1950s 1000 SF house on an 8000 SF lot for a huge amount and UT was torn down and rebuilt into a giant 5000 SF 2 story house plus 1200 SF ADU.
-
Indeed, the very basis for home insurance is that the land on which the house is standing will not disappear! Clearly this will have to be revisited in the future.
At some point the land might be depreciated even if it stays stable. What is a lot worth if regulations prevent the building of houses there? What's it worth if any house you build will be uninsurable? Would a $200k lot become a $100k lot if the insurance bill for a typical house there rose from $4k per year to $18k per year?
In economic terms it should depreciate. In cultural terms, our world produces a lot of YOLO people who are willing to work very long hours to have a house near the beach someday, so money keeps getting flung at these sandbar houses.
When we look back in time at how housing was affordably priced during the 1970s and 1980s, we realize it was high mortgage rates keeping prices down. Insurance costs might have a similar effect.
The land value is what changes the most, up or down. That same 500k structure on a mainland lot might only be 750k total for the property rather than 1.5 million. It will almost always be the land value changing based on the demand because it costs what it costs to build a house (per location). It's possible that demand could be so poor that a property won't even sell for the cost of building a house. That's the equivalent of breaking the buck in a mutual fund and all home building will stop.
Another example of this is what has taken place in Wilmington over the last 5 years. It used to be a small market. No national builders built here. So the value of land was lower and small builders built a fairly decent product, even for builder grade stuff. Now that Southeast NC is the new Florida, all the national builders are pouring in. Small builders can't compete with their supply chain logistics which means they can't build a structure as inexpensively as the big builders. So the big builders are able to offer more money for the lots and build a house for the same price. The big downside is they build shittier homes. So all the locals here lose out because the quality of home at X price point has gone down while the cost of land has gone up.
-
Indeed, the very basis for home insurance is that the land on which the house is standing will not disappear! Clearly this will have to be revisited in the future.
At some point the land might be depreciated even if it stays stable. What is a lot worth if regulations prevent the building of houses there? What's it worth if any house you build will be uninsurable? Would a $200k lot become a $100k lot if the insurance bill for a typical house there rose from $4k per year to $18k per year?
In economic terms it should depreciate. In cultural terms, our world produces a lot of YOLO people who are willing to work very long hours to have a house near the beach someday, so money keeps getting flung at these sandbar houses.
When we look back in time at how housing was affordably priced during the 1970s and 1980s, we realize it was high mortgage rates keeping prices down. Insurance costs might have a similar effect.
I'm not exactly on a sandbar as much as conquina reef rock plus sand.
The answer is all the new houses would look like they do in the keys. Concrete pillars, drive under parking, engineered to withstand 150+mph winds and 15ft of storm surge that just passes underneath the house. This is a problem that gets resolved by money. Can everyone afford to live at the beach? No.
The part that is hard to assess now is how desirable these places remain with more frequent storms. For a long time a lot of Florida residents felt the risk was worth it to endure bad storms every few years and could-lose-your-house storm once a lifetime. Will the calculus be the same if the once in a lifetime storms are now every few years?
I have family with a second home on Sanibel. They didn’t have any major damage to their home from Ian, but it was still a huge amount of work to get their property cleaned up. If they are hit hard again I can imagine them deciding it’s just not worth it, even if the house itself is fine.
In the end, I think that’s probably the best possible scenario: people willingly choosing to leave because of a sense that more frequent storms causes overall quality of life to go down.
-
It's based on local cost of labor and materials, yes. What I meant was all the value beyond what it costs to build a house is in the land. If it cost 500k to build the structure but demand in the area makes it a $1 million property, the other 500k value is in the land, and you'll see vacant lots selling for that much. It doesn't mean the structure is worth more than the cost to build because of demand.
This is most notable with oceanfront property. A $1.5 million house may cost 500k to build, meaning the lot is worth $1 million. If erosion on a barrier island eats enough of the lot that a house cannot be rebuilt, the owner is out $1 million. You cannot insure the value of the land and the insurance company will not pay you for that loss. This is an unfortunate situation playing out in WNC right now where riverfront homes had the earth eaten from under them. Those lots no longer exist. The government will not let those people rebuild. They'll get paid the value of their house as a total loss but that's just the structure. Whatever value was in the land just evaporated with no way to recover it.
Indeed, the very basis for home insurance is that the land on which the house is standing will not disappear! Clearly this will have to be revisited in the future.
Its not just Florida - 12 years after Sandy hit us in NJ, there are still people building houses on delicate barrier islands on the Atlantic coast.
This article (https://e360.yale.edu/features/for_vulnerable_barrier_islands_a_rush_to_rebuild_on_us_coast) is from 9 years ago
Along the New Jersey and New York coasts after Hurricane Sandy, down the shores of Virginia and North Carolina following major storms, and across the Gulf of Mexico coast in the wake of recent hurricanes, rebuilding has taken place on dozens of vulnerable barrier islands. Not only does this recurring reconstruction place billions of dollars of property at risk, but it often means the construction of hugely expensive flood protection and storm-control projects that can harm coastal ecosystems.
Setting aside climate change....this is the fundamental problem. If people continue to want homes in high risk areas......and insurance companies underprice risk or unfairly spread it over a broader base that is outside of the high risk area......and mortgage companies don't require substantial insurance coverage and continue providing mortgages in these areas.......and it is all backstopped by the federal government. Especially coastal barrier islands....."BARRIER ISLANDS".
Although in NJ since Sandy it has become common for older homes to get raised, as in elevated above the flood level, because of the cost of insurance and while expensive it is usually recouped in 2-3 years afterward as a result of the insurance differential.
And said houses in these high risk areas, not just Florida, have exploded in size and cost.....anything newer is not a 900 sf bungalow.
And I get the desire to live in these high risk areas, they tend to be beautiful and full of nature/outdoor awesomeness but it shouldn't be subsidized by the government or insured people in lower risk areas, but there really is no other way.
Indeed, the very basis for home insurance is that the land on which the house is standing will not disappear! Clearly this will have to be revisited in the future.
At some point the land might be depreciated even if it stays stable. What is a lot worth if regulations prevent the building of houses there? What's it worth if any house you build will be uninsurable? Would a $200k lot become a $100k lot if the insurance bill for a typical house there rose from $4k per year to $18k per year?
In economic terms it should depreciate. In cultural terms, our world produces a lot of YOLO people who are willing to work very long hours to have a house near the beach someday, so money keeps getting flung at these sandbar houses.
When we look back in time at how housing was affordably priced during the 1970s and 1980s, we realize it was high mortgage rates keeping prices down. Insurance costs might have a similar effect.
I'm not exactly on a sandbar as much as conquina reef rock plus sand.
The answer is all the new houses would look like they do in the keys. Concrete pillars, drive under parking, engineered to withstand 150+mph winds and 15ft of storm surge that just passes underneath the house. This is a problem that gets resolved by money. Can everyone afford to live at the beach? No.
I do wonder if this is failing of local regulations at least for new builds..
-
Relevant, though anecdotal, blog post:
https://wolfstreet.com/2024/10/08/florida-housing-market-buckles-listing-prices-sag-to-30-month-low-but-are-still-way-too-high-inventory-piles-up-institutional-investors-turn-into-net-sellers/ (https://wolfstreet.com/2024/10/08/florida-housing-market-buckles-listing-prices-sag-to-30-month-low-but-are-still-way-too-high-inventory-piles-up-institutional-investors-turn-into-net-sellers/)
The answer is all the new houses would look like they do in the keys. Concrete pillars, drive under parking, engineered to withstand 150+mph winds and 15ft of storm surge that just passes underneath the house. This is a problem that gets resolved by money. Can everyone afford to live at the beach? No.
Can't argue with that! I've been advocating more concrete-centric and elevated construction in storm-prone areas near sea level for a while. But, yes, this costs more, and not everyone can afford to live in the sort of house this climate calls for.
Something about our cultural values drives us to buy the 3,000sf box made of OSB sitting on sand instead of building more durably - like a 1,500sf box made of double-walled concrete. It's the same instinct that leads us to roof our homes with 25-year asphalt shingles that will require replacement after a good hailstorm instead of paying maybe 50-75% more to install a roof that can last 100 years, like copper, slate, concrete, or tile. It's also why many of the least reliable cars (looking at you, Jeep) are bestsellers. It's why WalMart ran the old department stores out of business, and it's why we off-shored manufacturing to China.
Quality, durability, and even safety mean less to us than cheapness, scale, and superficial conspicuous consumption. How else can we explain the McMansion with its styrofoam walls, built to have multiple unoccupied bedrooms, at a cost that could have created something beautiful that would have been a better fit for the family buying it. A McMansion on the beach is what everyone appears to want right now, and being able to qualify for a loan is as much a matter of luck as the house lasting 30 years. It's a combo of natural and financial precarity we seem to strive for.
In terms of demographics, the residents of Florida cannot shift toward elevated homes because they cannot climb stairs. But this only reinforces the craziness of living in a way where one must evacuate often or else risk death in houses that cannot withstand the storms. Imagine the luxury of being stuck in traffic while trying to escape from Milton in one's mid-70s or 80s and then the car runs out of gas. It's a recipe for mass casualties.
-
I’ve always thought states should set their building codes based on a lowest TCOE basis.
Measure the cost of improved survivability amortized over a 30 year mortgage versus the change in home insurance pricing. If the increased durability results in a lower TCOE when factoring in insurance, make that part of code.
The same could be done for energy efficiency requirements. Measure the change in monthly mortgage payments versus the expected impact to energy bills.
-
@NorCal Yes, that would be the common sense way to approach it. Very small increases in initial costs can lead to substantial decreases in maintenance and operation costs that easily pay for themselves in short period of time, like five or ten years. After that it is money in the bank. Most houses last for many decades so the savings are enormous. The problem is the building industry hates it, so the codes don't follow. Most homeowners aren't making buying decisions on energy efficiency or 10 year maintenance costs. They want an affordable house in a good neighborhood with curb appeal.
-
Indeed, the very basis for home insurance is that the land on which the house is standing will not disappear! Clearly this will have to be revisited in the future.
Property insurance protects the building and doesn't care what happens to the land. If the land is affected by flooding, that is too bad. If the flooding affects the house, it will be covered if flood insurance was in place. If the land slumps away, the house will probably not be covered as this coverage is not readily available and is typically specifically excluded on homeowner's policies.
https://www.architecturaldigest.com/story/three-multimillion-dollar-homes-on-a-cliff-appear-at-risk-of-falling-into-the-ocean
Another angle I've been thinking about is that only some portion of homes in the NC mountains were actually damaged and a smaller number had their whole homesite washed away. However, undamaged homes may not have power for weeks and water or a road to access them for months. And earlier post mentioned hike-in houses. Helene exposed that some parcels may have to deal with these impacts on an increased frequency.
-
@NorCal Yes, that would be the common sense way to approach it. Very small increases in initial costs can lead to substantial decreases in maintenance and operation costs that easily pay for themselves in short period of time, like five or ten years. After that it is money in the bank. Most houses last for many decades so the savings are enormous. The problem is the building industry hates it, so the codes don't follow. Most homeowners aren't making buying decisions on energy efficiency or 10 year maintenance costs. They want an affordable house in a good neighborhood with curb appeal.
No disagreement. I really just get frustrated when all the objections to better building are “BUT WHAT ABOUT THE COSTS!!!!!” when most of these things actually involve a lower TCOE.
I mostly focus on energy efficiency, as that’s incredibly cheap to add during initial construction and has major operating cost and broader social benefits.
But the same applies to insurance. My current pet peeve is roofing in Colorado. Hail storms mean homeowners are replacing roofs with insurance every 5-10 years. Largely because there’s no requirement to use impact resistant shingles. Builders are just using the cheapest they can find. The price delta on impact resistant shingles is so small that the better reputed roofing companies offer them as a free or nearly free upgrade.
-
@NorCal Yes, that would be the common sense way to approach it. Very small increases in initial costs can lead to substantial decreases in maintenance and operation costs that easily pay for themselves in short period of time, like five or ten years. After that it is money in the bank. Most houses last for many decades so the savings are enormous. The problem is the building industry hates it, so the codes don't follow. Most homeowners aren't making buying decisions on energy efficiency or 10 year maintenance costs. They want an affordable house in a good neighborhood with curb appeal.
No disagreement. I really just get frustrated when all the objections to better building are “BUT WHAT ABOUT THE COSTS!!!!!” when most of these things actually involve a lower TCOE.
I mostly focus on energy efficiency, as that’s incredibly cheap to add during initial construction and has major operating cost and broader social benefits.
But the same applies to insurance. My current pet peeve is roofing in Colorado. Hail storms mean homeowners are replacing roofs with insurance every 5-10 years. Largely because there’s no requirement to use impact resistant shingles. Builders are just using the cheapest they can find. The price delta on impact resistant shingles is so small that the better reputed roofing companies offer them as a free or nearly free upgrade.
Metal roofs should be code. There's no reason to put a shingle roof on a house that I can think of.
-
@AnotherEngineer good point.
I also question the "luxury" of living in a place where 3 week power outages and washed out roads are the norm. That has never been Western NC, but it is all of Florida, much of Louisiana, and much of the Texas coast.
@NorCal I agree. As a whole society, we are vigorously pursuing tiny benefits or tiny cost savings that make no economic sense in the longer run. Regarding your roofing observation - why can't we have the sort of tile/slate/ceramic roofing that is common in Europe? The costs (https://www.roofcalc.org/metric-roofing-calculator-uk-europe/) are not that obscenely higher for materials that last 4x as long, are strong enough to resist a routine hailstorm, and which might save hundreds of dollars per year in insurance costs*.
And Americans are gravitating toward building houses even more cheaply and disposably. Today I learned that some tract home builders are using a literal cardboard material as exterior sheathing (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=leAWPZzaWL4) to save a few dollars per sheet. If anyone is under the illusion that building codes are designed to protect us, tell me more about how your cardboard house is going to work in 25 years.
*A possible explanation for why we don't build more durably is that U.S. insurance companies are bad actuaries. For example, if I had a tile roof instead of asphalt, it would actually increase my premiums because the replacement cost is higher, and they might disregard the much lower odds of replacement due to a hail or wind storm. Perhaps there are not enough houses with various types of roofing for them to accurately calculate risk, so they just anchor on the asphalt numbers? IDK.
Metal roofs should be code. There's no reason to put a shingle roof on a house that I can think of.
My house has a steep roof pitch. It is sketchy to walk/crawl across with asphalt shingles so metal would be deadly when it comes time to inspect or do maintenance.
-
Metal roofs should be code. There's no reason to put a shingle roof on a house that I can think of.
My house has a steep roof pitch. It is sketchy to walk/crawl across with asphalt shingles so metal would be deadly when it comes time to inspect or do maintenance.
If your roof has a steep pitch when doing roofing/inspection the guy should be using a harness regardless of material, shouldn't they?
-
*A possible explanation for why we don't build more durably is that U.S. insurance companies are bad actuaries. For example, if I had a tile roof instead of asphalt, it would actually increase my premiums because the replacement cost is higher, and they might disregard the much lower odds of replacement due to a hail or wind storm. Perhaps there are not enough houses with various types of roofing for them to accurately calculate risk, so they just anchor on the asphalt numbers? IDK.
They may have bad actuaries or they may not have updated the data sets that likely suggest probabilities of things like this have increased and magnitude (partly due to storm sizes but also due to house sizes/cost to rebuild) has certainly increased. Another issue is that if there haven't been any major events for an extended period of time then insurance companies are flush (temporarily) and start lowering premiums to compete for market share. And then when SHTF they ask the regulators for increases who say no or cap it because the increase aren't fully substantiated or would be way to large....its kind of a game.
In theory if there was a 100-year event that would cost $100,000 then the insurer should have $100k set aside and take in $1,000 in premiums annually....obviously very simplistic. In practice its more like they have $25k on hand and no event for last 50 years so cut premiums to $500 and then next year SHTF.
-
@AnotherEngineer good point.
I also question the "luxury" of living in a place where 3 week power outages and washed out roads are the norm. That has never been Western NC, but it is all of Florida, much of Louisiana, and much of the Texas coast.
@NorCal I agree. As a whole society, we are vigorously pursuing tiny benefits or tiny cost savings that make no economic sense in the longer run. Regarding your roofing observation - why can't we have the sort of tile/slate/ceramic roofing that is common in Europe? The costs (https://www.roofcalc.org/metric-roofing-calculator-uk-europe/) are not that obscenely higher for materials that last 4x as long, are strong enough to resist a routine hailstorm, and which might save hundreds of dollars per year in insurance costs*.
And Americans are gravitating toward building houses even more cheaply and disposably. Today I learned that some tract home builders are using a literal cardboard material as exterior sheathing (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=leAWPZzaWL4) to save a few dollars per sheet. If anyone is under the illusion that building codes are designed to protect us, tell me more about how your cardboard house is going to work in 25 years.
*A possible explanation for why we don't build more durably is that U.S. insurance companies are bad actuaries. For example, if I had a tile roof instead of asphalt, it would actually increase my premiums because the replacement cost is higher, and they might disregard the much lower odds of replacement due to a hail or wind storm. Perhaps there are not enough houses with various types of roofing for them to accurately calculate risk, so they just anchor on the asphalt numbers? IDK.
Metal roofs should be code. There's no reason to put a shingle roof on a house that I can think of.
My house has a steep roof pitch. It is sketchy to walk/crawl across with asphalt shingles so metal would be deadly when it comes time to inspect or do maintenance.
I think insurance companies have incredibly good actuaries. They’re just not focused on long term cost/benefit analysis. Just that they have an insurance product that is appropriately priced for risk.
I would love for building codes to factor in the long term cost-benefit analysis. I don’t know where it would come out. I know there is a world of difference between builder grade shingles and class 4 impact resistant shingles with minimal cost difference.
I asked my roofer about going with a metal roof, and he said it would be roughly 3x the cost because of moderately complex roof geometry. Although that was likely just his go-away answer. I didn’t care enough to get multiple quotes for it. Assuming a metal roof is 2x-3x a class 4 shingle, I doubt it would pencil out.
This highlights the problem more than anything. Us random internet speculators can guesstimate at the cost/benefit analysis, but it’s challenging to figure out without a spreadsheet, cost assumptions, and cost of capital assumptions. This math should fundamentally be done by those writing the building codes. I would also say people on this forum have an above-average education and above-average capabilities at financial math. Most consumers are not equipped to make informed decisions.
As for the cardboard trim pieces, my house has some of those as exterior trim and window trim. It’s absolute crap, although it lasted longer than you’d expect. I replaced my first few pieces of it this year, and the house is 15 years old. I see some other pieces that will need to be replaced over the next few years.
-
@AnotherEngineer good point.
I also question the "luxury" of living in a place where 3 week power outages and washed out roads are the norm. That has never been Western NC, but it is all of Florida, much of Louisiana, and much of the Texas coast.
@NorCal I agree. As a whole society, we are vigorously pursuing tiny benefits or tiny cost savings that make no economic sense in the longer run. Regarding your roofing observation - why can't we have the sort of tile/slate/ceramic roofing that is common in Europe? The costs (https://www.roofcalc.org/metric-roofing-calculator-uk-europe/) are not that obscenely higher for materials that last 4x as long, are strong enough to resist a routine hailstorm, and which might save hundreds of dollars per year in insurance costs*.
And Americans are gravitating toward building houses even more cheaply and disposably. Today I learned that some tract home builders are using a literal cardboard material as exterior sheathing (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=leAWPZzaWL4) to save a few dollars per sheet. If anyone is under the illusion that building codes are designed to protect us, tell me more about how your cardboard house is going to work in 25 years.
*A possible explanation for why we don't build more durably is that U.S. insurance companies are bad actuaries. For example, if I had a tile roof instead of asphalt, it would actually increase my premiums because the replacement cost is higher, and they might disregard the much lower odds of replacement due to a hail or wind storm. Perhaps there are not enough houses with various types of roofing for them to accurately calculate risk, so they just anchor on the asphalt numbers? IDK.
As a commercial real estate appraiser, I didn't look too hard at the type of construction and materials used. The market would demand a discount if the roof needed $250k of work to repair or replace it. But it's unlikely most buyers are going to pay up because the building has a higher quality 80 mil TPO roof compared to a standard 45 or 60 mil thick roof. The former may have a 25-year life while the latter has a 15-year life. Same with the difference between all wood construction versus lightweight metal frame construction. Most buyers cared about the location and utility of the property - or how much income it would generate. Construction cost and quality were a distant third place consideration.
We used a cost manual that basically had a cost per square foot, linear foot, etc. for various types of buildings and site improvements with adjustments for regional variations. I.e. a roof in Alaska needs to be able to hold a couple of feet of snow and have more insulation compared to one in southern California. I doubt insurance companies are that much more sophisticated when it comes to evaluating hundreds of thousands of properties to insure. They probably use a couple of input variables, and a system spits out a number.
Maybe there's a market opportunity there to offer cheaper insurance for properties that have higher quality construction or are better situated and less likely to be damaged or destroyed.
-
I have worked as an expert in litigation where I have seen both people yelling and screaming about hazard zoning because it hurts their property value and also suing the government for letting them build where a landslide can occur. There are a range of possible geohazards ranging from nuisance to property damage to potential fatalities. Regardless of if it is catastrophic landslides or flood plain maps, the agencies are damned if they do and damned if they don't. How well that needle is threaded varies a lot by area. These types of information feed into how construction must be completed in those areas. People are much more averse to what is perceived as a short term loss versus a long term gain. A short term loss in property value could save their life, or a total uninsurable loss on their home. A perceived loss in dollar value as paying more per square foot could make a house that is more comfortable to live in 15 years down the road.
Add to that the simple fact that the overwhelming majority of real estate agents shepherding home buyers through this major financial decision know fuck-all about anything does not bring these issues to the fore. I bought a house in an area with plenty of geohazards and found both that I had to do a lot of my own due diligence to figure out the risks, and that there was a huge amount of oblivion about them. The real estate industry does not benefit from having a higher level of scrutiny on these issues even though property purchase and sale is a natural time for understanding these risks and long term liabilities. I should add that, in my experience, commercial real estate is only very maginally better prepared than residential.
As a devil's advocate, we also need to consider the recurrence interval of events versus the cost to build for them. If a structure typcially lasts 100 years or less, does it make sense to build for a 500 year event? Over the long haul, the building will be built and replaced 5 times before the design scenario actually occurs. Obviously, this also depends on the impacts causing an entire community to disappear versus a house here and there occassionally disappearing.
-
A good but depressing podcast on the topic
https://www.thisamericanlife.org/762/apocalypse-creep
-
Zillow will now show climate risk data on home listings
https://wapo.st/3Yj5ESe
-
I have worked as an expert in litigation where I have seen both people yelling and screaming about hazard zoning because it hurts their property value and also suing the government for letting them build where a landslide can occur. There are a range of possible geohazards ranging from nuisance to property damage to potential fatalities. Regardless of if it is catastrophic landslides or flood plain maps, the agencies are damned if they do and damned if they don't. How well that needle is threaded varies a lot by area. These types of information feed into how construction must be completed in those areas. People are much more averse to what is perceived as a short term loss versus a long term gain. A short term loss in property value could save their life, or a total uninsurable loss on their home. A perceived loss in dollar value as paying more per square foot could make a house that is more comfortable to live in 15 years down the road.
Add to that the simple fact that the overwhelming majority of real estate agents shepherding home buyers through this major financial decision know fuck-all about anything does not bring these issues to the fore. I bought a house in an area with plenty of geohazards and found both that I had to do a lot of my own due diligence to figure out the risks, and that there was a huge amount of oblivion about them. The real estate industry does not benefit from having a higher level of scrutiny on these issues even though property purchase and sale is a natural time for understanding these risks and long term liabilities. I should add that, in my experience, commercial real estate is only very maginally better prepared than residential.
As a devil's advocate, we also need to consider the recurrence interval of events versus the cost to build for them. If a structure typcially lasts 100 years or less, does it make sense to build for a 500 year event? Over the long haul, the building will be built and replaced 5 times before the design scenario actually occurs. Obviously, this also depends on the impacts causing an entire community to disappear versus a house here and there occassionally disappearing.
My step-dad is a retired civil engineer that did water mitigation restoration for planned communities that built in areas that are low and tend to collect water. He didn't talk about work very much, but apparently he spoke about it enough that i never bought a house with water problems in which I was unaware.
When I bought my house in Fort Myers, FL, I picked a house on a lot that was raised to the max in 2012. Newer construction houses are higher than me now, but at the time, I went as high as I could. I also made sure that I was far enough from the gulf that there was zero risk fo storm surge. The only part that sucks is that I feel like my insurance is higher than it should be because I'm subsidizing the cost of houses on lower elevation lots closer to the gulf.
-
I just updated my insurance with my impact-resistant shingle information in Colorado.
Going from a 14 year old builder-grade roof to a brand-new roof with class 4 impact resistant shingles took my insurance premium from $515 per month to $230 per month. I don't know how much was roof age vs shingle type, but there's no reason class 4 shingles shouldn't be minimum code here.
-
I just updated my insurance with my impact-resistant shingle information in Colorado.
Going from a 14 year old builder-grade roof to a brand-new roof with class 4 impact resistant shingles took my insurance premium from $515 per month to $230 per month. I don't know how much was roof age vs shingle type, but there's no reason class 4 shingles shouldn't be minimum code here.
Probably close to half age and half quality. I hope you have quite a house as that is a lot of insurance since typical annual rates are 0.5% of rebuild cost (unless you are in FL or CA). We have a 15 year old roof (not class 4), surrounded by PNW fir trees, and our rate is around 0.1%. I would love to get the insurance rate lower but hoping to eke another 10 years out of the roof if we can.
-
Probably close to half age and half quality. I hope you have quite a house as that is a lot of insurance since typical annual rates are 0.5% of rebuild cost (unless you are in FL or CA). We have a 15 year old roof (not class 4), surrounded by PNW fir trees, and our rate is around 0.1%. I would love to get the insurance rate lower but hoping to eke another 10 years out of the roof if we can.
Wow. 0.1% and room to improve?
I thought I had a good deal at a little less than .2%, but that involves a very high (2%) deductible. My roof is slate. I'm not sure whether that reduces insurance costs for being long-lasting or increases them for being expensive to repair. I love the way slate looks, though, and I give it bonus points for the fact that the roof's lifespan should be substantially longer than my own. I like things that are BIFL.
-
I thought I had a good deal at a little less than .2%, but that involves a very high (2%) deductible. My roof is slate. I'm not sure whether that reduces insurance costs for being long-lasting or increases them for being expensive to repair. I love the way slate looks, though, and I give it bonus points for the fact that the roof's lifespan should be substantially longer than my own. I like things that are BIFL.
High deductibles are a great thing and I often wish they would go higher, like 10%. I really just want insurance for catastrophic events like most of the house being destroyed by fire.
-
After 3 hurricanes in 2 years, Fort Myers Beach residents wonder if it’s time to let go (https://www.washingtonpost.com/weather/2024/10/13/hurricane-milton-fort-myers-beach-ian-helene-recovery/)
It's crazy how much people are willing to go through for the beach life. Repeatedly rebuilding, recovering, cleaning up storm damage, dead friends, pouring their life savings into trying to make it work on the hope things get better.
-
High deductibles are a great thing and I often wish they would go higher, like 10%. I really just want insurance for catastrophic events like most of the house being destroyed by fire.
High deductibles make sense for me. The ability to have high deductible insurance is one more example of how being on the road to FI allows you to save money.
That said, if a 10% deductible were available, I probably wouldn't take it. One of the factors that determines how much money I keep in an emergency fund is what I might have to pay in deductibles. I am comfortable keeping $16k for deductibles in my emergency fund (the 2% deductible of my $800k policy). I would not be comfortable keeping $80k for deductibles. I think I can conservatively assume that over the long term I can earn 5% more on invested money than I earn from my emergency acct money market funds. 5% of the $64k difference is $3200 per year, which is larger than my annual insurance bill. Obviously, this is something of a self inflicted wound and wouldn't apply to someone who is comfortable with drawing from investment accounts in an emergency.
-
This article about climate increased landslide rusk in Alaska hits on all the themes discussed above.
https://www.nytimes.com/2024/10/21/climate/landslide-risk-alaska-maps.html?smid=nytcore-android-share
-
A lot of Floridians got a massive wake up call with inland flooding from Hurricane Milton.
Less than 1% of inland properties have flood insurance. Many people had their inland homes flooded, even when designated in a non-flood zone. Wind-borne flooding isn't covered under hurricane coverage.
For less than $500 annually, I purchase it from NFIP: https://www.floodsmart.gov/flood-insurance-provider
However, I am very skeptical that my fellow Floridians will purchase such a policy.
Time bomb - definitely. No longer hidden. 'Murica's Johnson - that's just the way it is.
-
After 3 hurricanes in 2 years, Fort Myers Beach residents wonder if it’s time to let go (https://www.washingtonpost.com/weather/2024/10/13/hurricane-milton-fort-myers-beach-ian-helene-recovery/)
It's crazy how much people are willing to go through for the beach life. Repeatedly rebuilding, recovering, cleaning up storm damage, dead friends, pouring their life savings into trying to make it work on the hope things get better.
I hear they do it for the relaxation.
-
Well we have another big wildfire (Mountain Fire) here in SoCal in the Ventura mountains. Over 20,000 acres and about 140 homes destroyed and more damaged. And what's everyone talking about? Yep insurance being dropped after the 1 year moratorium to not allow insurance companies to do that. That and global warming (hottest year on record ever apparently) and the new administrations desire to penalize CA financially for not having better FIRE management in place - especially wanting more privatization of forest management and firefighting via contractors, and less reduction in climate control mitigation. Oh well. When the Big One hits (or the oceans rise) we'll sink into the sea and all the fires will be put out at once. Win-win?
https://www.reuters.com/business/environment/2024-will-be-worlds-hottest-record-eu-scientists-say-2024-11-07/#:~:text=BRUSSELS%2C%20Nov%207%20(Reuters),(C3S)%20said%20on%20Thursday.
-
Well we have another big wildfire (Mountain Fire) here in SoCal in the Ventura mountains. Over 20,000 acres and about 140 homes destroyed and more damaged. And what's everyone talking about? Yep insurance being dropped after the 1 year moratorium to not allow insurance companies to do that. That and global warming (hottest year on record ever apparently) and the new administrations desire to penalize CA financially for not having better FIRE management in place - especially wanting more privatization of forest management and firefighting via contractors, and less reduction in climate control mitigation. Oh well. When the Big One hits (or the oceans rise) we'll sink into the sea and all the fires will be put out at once. Win-win?
https://www.reuters.com/business/environment/2024-will-be-worlds-hottest-record-eu-scientists-say-2024-11-07/#:~:text=BRUSSELS%2C%20Nov%207%20(Reuters),(C3S)%20said%20on%20Thursday.
Those Santa Ana winds are scary
-
Maybe if Illinois returned Santa Anna's leg to Mexico his ghost would stop with those pesky revenge winds. Climate change, schlimate mange! Nothing a little wishful/mystical thinking can't solve!
-
It'll be fascinating to watch how this all plays out.
As insurance rates skyrocket, the ones who can (the wealthy who own their homes) will self-insure. The ones who can't will either take a yearly hit to their standard of living, over the rate of inflation and wage growth, or sell and move. The seller will take an equity hit because the buyers will price the house lower. House equity is the largest savings most people in the US have so there will be less down payment when the seller buys their new place.
This could drive people to less affected areas. The Great Lake states maybe? Fewer natural disasters and plenty of water there. Or people in affected areas buy smaller and better built homes and continue to live along the coast or in a WUI.
Meanwhile, those who stay, either because of no mortgage or they can afford the ever-increasing premiums, might see their taxes increase to cover the cost of hurricane clean ups.
Or, possibly, the cost is spread out nationwide to subsidize those who continue to make stupid decisions about the location of their stick built houses.
-
It'll be fascinating to watch how this all plays out.
As insurance rates skyrocket, the ones who can (the wealthy who own their homes) will self-insure. The ones who can't will either take a yearly hit to their standard of living, over the rate of inflation and wage growth, or sell and move. The seller will take an equity hit because the buyers will price the house lower. House equity is the largest savings most people in the US have so there will be less down payment when the seller buys their new place.
...
I think in Florida, even those who can't afford to self-insure are opting to do so as they can't afford insurance.
-
It'll be fascinating to watch how this all plays out.
As insurance rates skyrocket, the ones who can (the wealthy who own their homes) will self-insure. The ones who can't will either take a yearly hit to their standard of living, over the rate of inflation and wage growth, or sell and move. The seller will take an equity hit because the buyers will price the house lower. House equity is the largest savings most people in the US have so there will be less down payment when the seller buys their new place.
...
I think in Florida, even those who can't afford to self-insure are opting to do so as they can't afford insurance.
Good point. There are plenty of (often older) people with paid off houses that are living dangerously.
-
After 3 hurricanes in 2 years, Fort Myers Beach residents wonder if it’s time to let go (https://www.washingtonpost.com/weather/2024/10/13/hurricane-milton-fort-myers-beach-ian-helene-recovery/)
It's crazy how much people are willing to go through for the beach life. Repeatedly rebuilding, recovering, cleaning up storm damage, dead friends, pouring their life savings into trying to make it work on the hope things get better.
I hear they do it for the relaxation.
I amounted to a few days of inconvenience for us. No power, run a generator, fix up a fence.
Meanwhile I'm about to head to the beach with 80 degree weather on November 8th
-
After 3 hurricanes in 2 years, Fort Myers Beach residents wonder if it’s time to let go (https://www.washingtonpost.com/weather/2024/10/13/hurricane-milton-fort-myers-beach-ian-helene-recovery/)
It's crazy how much people are willing to go through for the beach life. Repeatedly rebuilding, recovering, cleaning up storm damage, dead friends, pouring their life savings into trying to make it work on the hope things get better.
I hear they do it for the relaxation.
I amounted to a few days of inconvenience for us. No power, run a generator, fix up a fence.
Meanwhile I'm about to head to the beach with 80 degree weather on November 8th
I'm sincerely glad for your situation. But if you experienced the level of trauma those in this article have would you continue to stick it out for 80 degree days in November?
-
Well we have another big wildfire (Mountain Fire) here in SoCal in the Ventura mountains. Over 20,000 acres and about 140 homes destroyed and more damaged. And what's everyone talking about? Yep insurance being dropped after the 1 year moratorium to not allow insurance companies to do that. That and global warming (hottest year on record ever apparently) and the new administrations desire to penalize CA financially for not having better FIRE management in place - especially wanting more privatization of forest management and firefighting via contractors, and less reduction in climate control mitigation. Oh well. When the Big One hits (or the oceans rise) we'll sink into the sea and all the fires will be put out at once. Win-win?
https://www.reuters.com/business/environment/2024-will-be-worlds-hottest-record-eu-scientists-say-2024-11-07/#:~:text=BRUSSELS%2C%20Nov%207%20(Reuters),(C3S)%20said%20on%20Thursday (https://www.reuters.com/business/environment/2024-will-be-worlds-hottest-record-eu-scientists-say-2024-11-07/#:~:text=BRUSSELS%2C%20Nov%207%20(Reuters),(C3S)%20said%20on%20Thursday).
Ventura is such a wonderful city and place to live. I hate to see it burning. How close to the ocean will the flames get?
-
Well we have another big wildfire (Mountain Fire) here in SoCal in the Ventura mountains. Over 20,000 acres and about 140 homes destroyed and more damaged. And what's everyone talking about? Yep insurance being dropped after the 1 year moratorium to not allow insurance companies to do that. That and global warming (hottest year on record ever apparently) and the new administrations desire to penalize CA financially for not having better FIRE management in place - especially wanting more privatization of forest management and firefighting via contractors, and less reduction in climate control mitigation. Oh well. When the Big One hits (or the oceans rise) we'll sink into the sea and all the fires will be put out at once. Win-win?
https://www.reuters.com/business/environment/2024-will-be-worlds-hottest-record-eu-scientists-say-2024-11-07/#:~:text=BRUSSELS%2C%20Nov%207%20(Reuters),(C3S)%20said%20on%20Thursday (https://www.reuters.com/business/environment/2024-will-be-worlds-hottest-record-eu-scientists-say-2024-11-07/#:~:text=BRUSSELS%2C%20Nov%207%20(Reuters),(C3S)%20said%20on%20Thursday).
Ventura is such a wonderful city and place to live. I hate to see it burning. How close to the ocean will the flames get?
I like Ventura too - although like most Calif beach communities it's both expensive and has lots of issues with drugs and homelessness. Fortunately it didn't go that far west and stayed east of the 101. It's only about 30% contained and wiped out about 200 houses in the Camarillo area before the winds died down and the fog came it. The Santa Ana winds seem to come year round now but Sept to Dec is pretty common. 100 mph gusts and dry weather in some areas will mean more big burns in the future (and no insurance coverage maybe). I'm surprised NY, NJ and the northeast coast is having big fires now. What's up with that? Long drought maybe? I've lived in several east coastal states and it was always so lush and green I can't imagine big wild fires there.
-
Well we have another big wildfire (Mountain Fire) here in SoCal in the Ventura mountains. Over 20,000 acres and about 140 homes destroyed and more damaged. And what's everyone talking about? Yep insurance being dropped after the 1 year moratorium to not allow insurance companies to do that. That and global warming (hottest year on record ever apparently) and the new administrations desire to penalize CA financially for not having better FIRE management in place - especially wanting more privatization of forest management and firefighting via contractors, and less reduction in climate control mitigation. Oh well. When the Big One hits (or the oceans rise) we'll sink into the sea and all the fires will be put out at once. Win-win?
https://www.reuters.com/business/environment/2024-will-be-worlds-hottest-record-eu-scientists-say-2024-11-07/#:~:text=BRUSSELS%2C%20Nov%207%20(Reuters),(C3S)%20said%20on%20Thursday (https://www.reuters.com/business/environment/2024-will-be-worlds-hottest-record-eu-scientists-say-2024-11-07/#:~:text=BRUSSELS%2C%20Nov%207%20(Reuters),(C3S)%20said%20on%20Thursday).
Ventura is such a wonderful city and place to live. I hate to see it burning. How close to the ocean will the flames get?
I like Ventura too - although like most Calif beach communities it's both expensive and has lots of issues with drugs and homelessness. Fortunately it didn't go that far west and stayed east of the 101. It's only about 30% contained and wiped out about 200 houses in the Camarillo area before the winds died down and the fog came it. The Santa Ana winds seem to come year round now but Sept to Dec is pretty common. 100 mph gusts and dry weather in some areas will mean more big burns in the future (and no insurance coverage maybe). I'm surprised NY, NJ and the northeast coast is having big fires now. What's up with that? Long drought maybe? I've lived in several east coastal states and it was always so lush and green I can't imagine big wild fires there.
Can't speak for the north east, but the midwest is having drought problems. I'm 2 years now with functional or official drought. Hoping things change, I don't want to lose the big trees and its hard to keep them watered.
-
Bringing this back from the dead to mention the Santa Ana winds driving widlfire and loss of property (and hopefully not life) in souther California right now.
-
On the other side, Alico (ticker:ALCO) is closing up its citrus operations in Florida. The recent hurricanes weakened trees that were already in bad shape from greening disease. Florida's orange yield will be 33% lower than last year.
We "conclude that growing citrus is no longer economically viable for us in Florida."
-
Bringing this back from the dead to mention the Santa Ana winds driving widlfire and loss of property (and hopefully not life) in souther California right now.
Yeah ithere is s pretty bad fire in Pacific Pallisades and mandatory evacuations. A.bunch of cars (mostly luxury cars and Teslas because it's a wealthy area) were abandoned by people on the highway because they couldn't get out so left their cars and went on foot. A bulldozer had to smoosh all the cars together to reopen the road. Not as bad where I live but suppose to crank up tomorrow and Thursday everywhere so I expect there will be more fires around. Hasn't been any rain to speak of in the last 12 month's and super dry out. They said this is expected to be the worse wind event in over a decade.
ETA now there is a new fire in Altadena and they're getting or are expected to get 80 to 100 mph wind gusts tonight and tomorrow. Im in the 55 mph wind zone.
-
Now they have mandatory evacuations for parts of Santa Monica. The other fire is headed downslope towards Pasadena.
-
Now they have mandatory evacuations for parts of Santa Monica. The other fire is headed downslope towards Pasadena.
I see rising insurance premiums for celebrities, but I reckon they can afford it.
-
Now they have mandatory evacuations for parts of Santa Monica. The other fire is headed downslope towards Pasadena.
I see rising insurance premiums for celebrities, but I reckon they can afford it.
The higher the cost, the more "exclusive" it is to live there. If the impossibility of getting insurance keeps the poors out, these locations will be highly sought after. That's basically the socioeconomic strategy of the whole state of California.
-
Now they have mandatory evacuations for parts of Santa Monica. The other fire is headed downslope towards Pasadena.
I see rising insurance premiums for celebrities, but I reckon they can afford it.
The higher the cost, the more "exclusive" it is to live there. If the impossibility of getting insurance keeps the poors out, these locations will be highly sought after. That's basically the socioeconomic strategy of the whole state of California.
100% fact!
And people seem to forget it's a desert and like other areas with fire risks the hiatorically policies of putting out fires instead of.letting them burn as nature intends only amplified the risks and magnitude of the fires.
But this isn't really a coastal thing.
-
An awful situation for sure in Pacific Palisades.
I was watching coverage last night and part of this clip was funny - if you remember the 80's you might agree. ~40 seconds in Steve gives his name and the reporter doesn't know who he is until someone in the studio clues him in:
https://ktla.com/entertainment/actor-steve-guttenberg-helping-fire-crews-by-moving-cars-near-pacific-palisades-brush-fire/
-
Now they have mandatory evacuations for parts of Santa Monica. The other fire is headed downslope towards Pasadena.
I see rising insurance premiums for celebrities, but I reckon they can afford it.
The higher the cost, the more "exclusive" it is to live there. If the impossibility of getting insurance keeps the poors out, these locations will be highly sought after. That's basically the socioeconomic strategy of the whole state of California.
True and of course the very wealthy people who own very expensive homes in Pacific Pallisades, Malibu and Santa Monica can afford the high cost of insurance - assuming this (now 4 wildfires here) doesn't mean more insurers will leave the state and then the poorer home owners will suffer. So far the Pacific Pallisades fire has destroyed around 1000 homes - many large multimillion dollar places, and the fire around Pasadena/Altadena is destroying a large number of "regular people's" modest homes. The insurance fall out will be bad. Winds are still howling thru my hood but nothing like in LA.
-
UGH now there's a 4th wildfire. It's in the Hollywood Hills which is fairly populated - and many expensive homes. JP Morgan said said Insurance price for expected claims (mostly personal property not businesses) at over $10 BILLON! They said that would be "manageable". That's the estimate for just the Pallisades fire. Others say over $50 billion. Time for another insurance hike for everyone.
-
The video footage of the SoCal destruction looks just like Maui in 2023. Same issues: dry brush, high winds, and now running out of water in some places.
I wish everyone there the best.
Related: Frontline/PBS just aired a one-hour special on the Maui fire. Excellent reporting as usual. Pinpointed several causes, including the lack of coordination and communication with the utility company and within the responders agencies.
Some main roads were blocked due to downed power lines, only to find out later that the utility company had shut off power and it would have been safe to drive.
The sirens were not used because the local emergency manager said they were mainly used for tsunami warnings, and the thought was that people hearing the sirens would head inland into the path of the fire vs. going to the ocean.
-
The video footage of the SoCal destruction looks just like Maui in 2023. Same issues: dry brush, high winds, and now running out of water in some places.
I wish everyone there the best.
Related: Frontline/PBS just aired a one-hour special on the Maui fire. Excellent reporting as usual. Pinpointed several causes, including the lack of coordination and communication with the utility company and within the responders agencies.
Some main roads were blocked due to downed power lines, only to find out later that the utility company had shut off power and it would have been safe to drive.
The sirens were not used because the local emergency manager said they were mainly used for tsunami warnings, and the thought was that people hearing the sirens would head inland into the path of the fire vs. going to the ocean.
It does look a lot like the Maui fires except that there are separate multiple fires fairly far from each other and a shortage of firefighters and equiptment to cover all the different fires . The winds are down now in my coastal area but you can see a huge amount of smoke out there. I usually go for a run early in the morning but not today.
-
The video footage of the SoCal destruction looks just like Maui in 2023. Same issues: dry brush, high winds, and now running out of water in some places.
I wish everyone there the best.
Related: Frontline/PBS just aired a one-hour special on the Maui fire. Excellent reporting as usual. Pinpointed several causes, including the lack of coordination and communication with the utility company and within the responders agencies.
Some main roads were blocked due to downed power lines, only to find out later that the utility company had shut off power and it would have been safe to drive.
The sirens were not used because the local emergency manager said they were mainly used for tsunami warnings, and the thought was that people hearing the sirens would head inland into the path of the fire vs. going to the ocean.
It does look a lot like the Maui fires except that there are separate multiple fires fairly far from each other and a shortage of firefighters and equiptment to cover all the different fires . The winds are down now in my coastal area but you can see a huge amount of smoke out there. I usually go for a run early in the morning but not today.
Clear and sunny blue skies here today but there are red flag warnings all around more inland and north.
And another fire started today near Calabasas.
-
Some context from a fire scientist / emeritus professor at ASU:
"The astonishing thing is not that Los Angeles burns but that so much of its development has enhanced rather than blunted the threat from fire. For decades a preference for exposed-wood structures, including shake-shingle roofing, ensured that houses were maximally primed to burn. Public forests and parks meant quasi-natural landscapes would not pave over the fire threat by converting brushlands to brick and concrete; rather, new development carried the problem into fresh lands. Suburbs pushed up slopes, over alluvial fans, and against regrowing fuels. It was as though the city's fringe had taken on the properties of its celebrated chaparral. It promoted fire, it burned, it regrew.
The unholy mingling of built and natural landscapes guaranteed that fire protection was compromised in its very constitution. Cities want no fire; many countrysides need fire, and if mild fires are suppressed, the unburned fuel encourages monsters. If every urban fire that is put out is a problem solved, many wildland fires put out are problems put off. Urban fire services are ineffective in wildlands, and wildland fire brigades are helpless within the city; the two fire services have almost nothing in common except that both have been asked to stand between the hammer of flaming winds and the anvil of urban life and counter the blows."
https://www.stephenpyne.com/blog/posts/45668
When are we going to declare areas in the wildland-fire interface uninhabitable?
-
Some context from a fire scientist / emeritus professor at ASU:
"The astonishing thing is not that Los Angeles burns but that so much of its development has enhanced rather than blunted the threat from fire. For decades a preference for exposed-wood structures, including shake-shingle roofing, ensured that houses were maximally primed to burn. Public forests and parks meant quasi-natural landscapes would not pave over the fire threat by converting brushlands to brick and concrete; rather, new development carried the problem into fresh lands. Suburbs pushed up slopes, over alluvial fans, and against regrowing fuels. It was as though the city's fringe had taken on the properties of its celebrated chaparral. It promoted fire, it burned, it regrew.
The unholy mingling of built and natural landscapes guaranteed that fire protection was compromised in its very constitution. Cities want no fire; many countrysides need fire, and if mild fires are suppressed, the unburned fuel encourages monsters. If every urban fire that is put out is a problem solved, many wildland fires put out are problems put off. Urban fire services are ineffective in wildlands, and wildland fire brigades are helpless within the city; the two fire services have almost nothing in common except that both have been asked to stand between the hammer of flaming winds and the anvil of urban life and counter the blows."
https://www.stephenpyne.com/blog/posts/45668
When are we going to declare areas in the wildland-fire interface uninhabitable?
probably never unfortunately. People here in SoCal want their houses and so move out of flatter more dense areas to relatively inexpensive little tract homes in the foothills like in Altadena. Rich people want their houses too but bigger and with more land around so off into the hillsides and dry barren wild-ish lands they go. They've lost thousands of homes in Altadena, many owned by working class people, and thousands more in wealthy coastal towns like Pacific Pallisades and Malibu. Last I heard Altadena lost 4,000 to 6,ooo homes and businesses and the coasts well over a thousand. So maybe there will be 10s of thousands by the end of it. The wealthy will just rebuild and the poor home owners of all the little tract homes clustered together will just rebuild too because no one want to live closer to DTLA in a tiny condo. And then, once we get some rain, there will be the big mudslides.
-
The video footage of the SoCal destruction looks just like Maui in 2023. Same issues: dry brush, high winds, and now running out of water in some places.
I wish everyone there the best.
Related: Frontline/PBS just aired a one-hour special on the Maui fire. Excellent reporting as usual. Pinpointed several causes, including the lack of coordination and communication with the utility company and within the responders agencies.
Some main roads were blocked due to downed power lines, only to find out later that the utility company had shut off power and it would have been safe to drive.
The sirens were not used because the local emergency manager said they were mainly used for tsunami warnings, and the thought was that people hearing the sirens would head inland into the path of the fire vs. going to the ocean.
It does look a lot like the Maui fires except that there are separate multiple fires fairly far from each other and a shortage of firefighters and equiptment to cover all the different fires . The winds are down now in my coastal area but you can see a huge amount of smoke out there. I usually go for a run early in the morning but not today.
Clear and sunny blue skies here today but there are red flag warnings all around more inland and north.
And another fire started today near Calabasas.
VSame here but we rode our bikes to the beach to see the spectacular smoke enhanced sunset and now my throat feels kind of raw. So guess there's still bad air quality even if it seems clear
-
I'm not even shocked anymore. Yes, it's tragic and I feel bad for everyone impacted by this. Yet also frustrated that we keep watching the same movie on repeat. Building in drought-prone fire-adapted ecosystems evolved to burn, in dense vegetation, on mountains with a known history of high down-slope winds. Why is this surprising to anyone?
Current estimate is over 10,000 structures burned, at a loss of around $150 billion.
Whatever the fires don't destroy the subsequent debris flows will finish off, things like roads and other infrastructure.
There's very real concern that the FAIR insurance plan will reach its breaking point.
I've read that Pacific Palisades is more-or-less destroyed. Local governments should refuse building permits for such areas. People should take their insurance payouts and move somewhere more reasonable. Turn it into public mountain biking/hiking trails.
As discussed already in this thread, no city or area is immune to natural disasters. But our current patterns of building into the WUI and along the coast (esp. in hurricane country) are completely absurd. I guess the lesson repeats as necessary.
-
I'm not even shocked anymore. Yes, it's tragic and I feel bad for everyone impacted by this. Yet also frustrated that we keep watching the same movie on repeat. Building in drought-prone fire-adapted ecosystems evolved to burn, in dense vegetation, on mountains with a known history of high down-slope winds. Why is this surprising to anyone?
Current estimate is over 10,000 structures burned, at a loss of around $150 billion.
Whatever the fires don't destroy the subsequent debris flows will finish off, things like roads and other infrastructure.
There's very real concern that the FAIR insurance plan will reach its breaking point.
I've read that Pacific Palisades is more-or-less destroyed. Local governments should refuse building permits for such areas. People should take their insurance payouts and move somewhere more reasonable. Turn it into public mountain biking/hiking trails.
As discussed already in this thread, no city or area is immune to natural disasters. But our current patterns of building into the WUI and along the coast (esp. in hurricane country) are completely absurd. I guess the lesson repeats as necessary.
It’s well established that the oil & gas companies knew that climate change was real over 50 years ago. In fact, a lot of the original climate science originated from within Exxon and the American Petroleum Institute. Then these companies spent the last 50+ years lying about it in order to avoid responsibility.
In the mean time, the science of climate attribution has come a long ways. It is possible to quantify how much more likely events like this are because of climate change, and how much different companies have contributed to the problem.
I’d like to see California and other western states set up a program to backstop property insurance, funded by the oil and gas companies that made it happen.
I don’t think this will ever happen, but it would be the most fair outcome. Everyone’s insurance rates are going through the roof, and we know exactly which companies caused it. Why shouldn’t they pay?
-
Current estimate is over 10,000 structures burned, at a loss of around $150 billion.
I've seen this same number in the news as well, but cannot wrap my head around it. Insurance pays for the value of the structure, not the entire property. Since most of the value of a home there seems to be the land, that shouldn't be included in these damage estimates. Let's say the average house costs $1 million to rebuild (I think this should be a conservatively high number), that would place total insurance payout at $10 billion. How do these estimates of loss come up 15x higher than that?
-
I'm not even shocked anymore. Yes, it's tragic and I feel bad for everyone impacted by this. Yet also frustrated that we keep watching the same movie on repeat. Building in drought-prone fire-adapted ecosystems evolved to burn, in dense vegetation, on mountains with a known history of high down-slope winds. Why is this surprising to anyone?
Current estimate is over 10,000 structures burned, at a loss of around $150 billion.
Whatever the fires don't destroy the subsequent debris flows will finish off, things like roads and other infrastructure.
There's very real concern that the FAIR insurance plan will reach its breaking point.
I've read that Pacific Palisades is more-or-less destroyed. Local governments should refuse building permits for such areas. People should take their insurance payouts and move somewhere more reasonable. Turn it into public mountain biking/hiking trails.
As discussed already in this thread, no city or area is immune to natural disasters. But our current patterns of building into the WUI and along the coast (esp. in hurricane country) are completely absurd. I guess the lesson repeats as necessary.
It’s well established that the oil & gas companies knew that climate change was real over 50 years ago. In fact, a lot of the original climate science originated from within Exxon and the American Petroleum Institute. Then these companies spent the last 50+ years lying about it in order to avoid responsibility.
In the mean time, the science of climate attribution has come a long ways. It is possible to quantify how much more likely events like this are because of climate change, and how much different companies have contributed to the problem.
I’d like to see California and other western states set up a program to backstop property insurance, funded by the oil and gas companies that made it happen.
I don’t think this will ever happen, but it would be the most fair outcome. Everyone’s insurance rates are going through the roof, and we know exactly which companies caused it. Why shouldn’t they pay?
It's worth a try. But even if successful, a one-time settlement isn't going to cover the ongoing costs of climate change. Maybe the funds could be used to help cover the cost of resettling people to lower risk areas.
-
Current estimate is over 10,000 structures burned, at a loss of around $150 billion.
I've seen this same number in the news as well, but cannot wrap my head around it. Insurance pays for the value of the structure, not the entire property. Since most of the value of a home there seems to be the land, that shouldn't be included in these damage estimates. Let's say the average house costs $1 million to rebuild (I think this should be a conservatively high number), that would place total insurance payout at $10 billion. How do these estimates of loss come up 15x higher than that?
Yeah, good point, and I don't know. Maybe this is a wildly inflated figure, or perhaps the cost to rebuild is a lot higher than the structure itself (cleanup, rebuilding water systems, etc.).
-
I'm not even shocked anymore. Yes, it's tragic and I feel bad for everyone impacted by this. Yet also frustrated that we keep watching the same movie on repeat. Building in drought-prone fire-adapted ecosystems evolved to burn, in dense vegetation, on mountains with a known history of high down-slope winds. Why is this surprising to anyone?
Current estimate is over 10,000 structures burned, at a loss of around $150 billion.
Whatever the fires don't destroy the subsequent debris flows will finish off, things like roads and other infrastructure.
There's very real concern that the FAIR insurance plan will reach its breaking point.
I've read that Pacific Palisades is more-or-less destroyed. Local governments should refuse building permits for such areas. People should take their insurance payouts and move somewhere more reasonable. Turn it into public mountain biking/hiking trails.
As discussed already in this thread, no city or area is immune to natural disasters. But our current patterns of building into the WUI and along the coast (esp. in hurricane country) are completely absurd. I guess the lesson repeats as necessary.
It’s well established that the oil & gas companies knew that climate change was real over 50 years ago. In fact, a lot of the original climate science originated from within Exxon and the American Petroleum Institute. Then these companies spent the last 50+ years lying about it in order to avoid responsibility.
In the mean time, the science of climate attribution has come a long ways. It is possible to quantify how much more likely events like this are because of climate change, and how much different companies have contributed to the problem.
I’d like to see California and other western states set up a program to backstop property insurance, funded by the oil and gas companies that made it happen.
I don’t think this will ever happen, but it would be the most fair outcome. Everyone’s insurance rates are going through the roof, and we know exactly which companies caused it. Why shouldn’t they pay?
It's worth a try. But even if successful, a one-time settlement isn't going to cover the ongoing costs of climate change. Maybe the funds could be used to help cover the cost of resettling people to lower risk areas.
Many states already are suing the oil & gas companies over climate change. I don’t know how likely they are to succeed. I don’t think any of the lawsuits are insurance related though.
I just ask myself why states are relying on the courts and multi-year (if not multi-decade) litigation when they could simply use their taxing or regulatory authority.
-
I'm not even shocked anymore. Yes, it's tragic and I feel bad for everyone impacted by this. Yet also frustrated that we keep watching the same movie on repeat. Building in drought-prone fire-adapted ecosystems evolved to burn, in dense vegetation, on mountains with a known history of high down-slope winds. Why is this surprising to anyone?
Current estimate is over 10,000 structures burned, at a loss of around $150 billion.
Whatever the fires don't destroy the subsequent debris flows will finish off, things like roads and other infrastructure.
There's very real concern that the FAIR insurance plan will reach its breaking point.
I've read that Pacific Palisades is more-or-less destroyed. Local governments should refuse building permits for such areas. People should take their insurance payouts and move somewhere more reasonable. Turn it into public mountain biking/hiking trails.
As discussed already in this thread, no city or area is immune to natural disasters. But our current patterns of building into the WUI and along the coast (esp. in hurricane country) are completely absurd. I guess the lesson repeats as necessary.
I've read that home insurance companies started pulling out of insuring Palisades only a few months ago: that should have been a warning to the inhabitants of the level of risk they were under, but non-one seems to have seen it that way, or done anything about it.
I suppose they might insure rebuilding against fire until the brush regrows and becomes dangerous again, and perhaps require concrete walls and roofs rather than timber frames and shingles? But I can't imagine any insurance company in the area will want to insure against the inevitable mudslides next time it rains heavily.
-
I'm not even shocked anymore. Yes, it's tragic and I feel bad for everyone impacted by this. Yet also frustrated that we keep watching the same movie on repeat. Building in drought-prone fire-adapted ecosystems evolved to burn, in dense vegetation, on mountains with a known history of high down-slope winds. Why is this surprising to anyone?
Current estimate is over 10,000 structures burned, at a loss of around $150 billion.
Whatever the fires don't destroy the subsequent debris flows will finish off, things like roads and other infrastructure.
There's very real concern that the FAIR insurance plan will reach its breaking point.
I've read that Pacific Palisades is more-or-less destroyed. Local governments should refuse building permits for such areas. People should take their insurance payouts and move somewhere more reasonable. Turn it into public mountain biking/hiking trails.
As discussed already in this thread, no city or area is immune to natural disasters. But our current patterns of building into the WUI and along the coast (esp. in hurricane country) are completely absurd. I guess the lesson repeats as necessary.
It’s well established that the oil & gas companies knew that climate change was real over 50 years ago. In fact, a lot of the original climate science originated from within Exxon and the American Petroleum Institute. Then these companies spent the last 50+ years lying about it in order to avoid responsibility.
In the mean time, the science of climate attribution has come a long ways. It is possible to quantify how much more likely events like this are because of climate change, and how much different companies have contributed to the problem.
I’d like to see California and other western states set up a program to backstop property insurance, funded by the oil and gas companies that made it happen.
I don’t think this will ever happen, but it would be the most fair outcome. Everyone’s insurance rates are going through the roof, and we know exactly which companies caused it. Why shouldn’t they pay?
It's worth a try. But even if successful, a one-time settlement isn't going to cover the ongoing costs of climate change. Maybe the funds could be used to help cover the cost of resettling people to lower risk areas.
Many states already are suing the oil & gas companies over climate change. I don’t know how likely they are to succeed. I don’t think any of the lawsuits are insurance related though.
I just ask myself why states are relying on the courts and multi-year (if not multi-decade) litigation when they could simply use their taxing or regulatory authority.
The oil and gas companies are just the suppliers, it's us the general public that are the users. The oil and gas companies don't even need to push their products any more, we are all addicted and keep filling up our gas tanks even knowing that we are killing the planet, and eventually most of humanity, by doing so.
I saw in a news report some footage of Palisades before the fire, presenting it as a sort of paradise. All I saw was the endless parade of cars passing by on Sunset and the PCH, burning the fuels that will make coastal California uninhabitable at some point in the future, and in some places maybe already have.
-
Current estimate is over 10,000 structures burned, at a loss of around $150 billion.
I've seen this same number in the news as well, but cannot wrap my head around it. Insurance pays for the value of the structure, not the entire property. Since most of the value of a home there seems to be the land, that shouldn't be included in these damage estimates. Let's say the average house costs $1 million to rebuild (I think this should be a conservatively high number), that would place total insurance payout at $10 billion. How do these estimates of loss come up 15x higher than that?
Yeah, good point, and I don't know. Maybe this is a wildly inflated figure, or perhaps the cost to rebuild is a lot higher than the structure itself (cleanup, rebuilding water systems, etc.).
My insurer insists our home would cost 4X what we paid for it (12 months ago) to rebuild. I can't wrap my head around that and don't like the premiums but an estimate from another insurer was signficantly higher.
-
I'm not even shocked anymore. Yes, it's tragic and I feel bad for everyone impacted by this. Yet also frustrated that we keep watching the same movie on repeat. Building in drought-prone fire-adapted ecosystems evolved to burn, in dense vegetation, on mountains with a known history of high down-slope winds. Why is this surprising to anyone?
Current estimate is over 10,000 structures burned, at a loss of around $150 billion.
Whatever the fires don't destroy the subsequent debris flows will finish off, things like roads and other infrastructure.
There's very real concern that the FAIR insurance plan will reach its breaking point.
I've read that Pacific Palisades is more-or-less destroyed. Local governments should refuse building permits for such areas. People should take their insurance payouts and move somewhere more reasonable. Turn it into public mountain biking/hiking trails.
As discussed already in this thread, no city or area is immune to natural disasters. But our current patterns of building into the WUI and along the coast (esp. in hurricane country) are completely absurd. I guess the lesson repeats as necessary.
I've read that home insurance companies started pulling out of insuring Palisades only a few months ago: that should have been a warning to the inhabitants of the level of risk they were under, but non-one seems to have seen it that way, or done anything about it.
I suppose they might insure rebuilding against fire until the brush regrows and becomes dangerous again, and perhaps require concrete walls and roofs rather than timber frames and shingles? But I can't imagine any insurance company in the area will want to insure against the inevitable mudslides next time it rains heavily.
You really can't get insurance against mud slides - it is not available except maybe Lloyds of London.
New construction in LA will almost certainly be more fire resistant, particularly roof and exterior wall materials. Homes will need a 5-10 foot perimeter free of shrubbery, trees and wooden fences. Decks need to be fire-proof. Attics need cinder-screens.
-
I'm not even shocked anymore. Yes, it's tragic and I feel bad for everyone impacted by this. Yet also frustrated that we keep watching the same movie on repeat. Building in drought-prone fire-adapted ecosystems evolved to burn, in dense vegetation, on mountains with a known history of high down-slope winds. Why is this surprising to anyone?
Current estimate is over 10,000 structures burned, at a loss of around $150 billion.
Whatever the fires don't destroy the subsequent debris flows will finish off, things like roads and other infrastructure.
There's very real concern that the FAIR insurance plan will reach its breaking point.
I've read that Pacific Palisades is more-or-less destroyed. Local governments should refuse building permits for such areas. People should take their insurance payouts and move somewhere more reasonable. Turn it into public mountain biking/hiking trails.
As discussed already in this thread, no city or area is immune to natural disasters. But our current patterns of building into the WUI and along the coast (esp. in hurricane country) are completely absurd. I guess the lesson repeats as necessary.
It’s well established that the oil & gas companies knew that climate change was real over 50 years ago. In fact, a lot of the original climate science originated from within Exxon and the American Petroleum Institute. Then these companies spent the last 50+ years lying about it in order to avoid responsibility.
In the mean time, the science of climate attribution has come a long ways. It is possible to quantify how much more likely events like this are because of climate change, and how much different companies have contributed to the problem.
I’d like to see California and other western states set up a program to backstop property insurance, funded by the oil and gas companies that made it happen.
I don’t think this will ever happen, but it would be the most fair outcome. Everyone’s insurance rates are going through the roof, and we know exactly which companies caused it. Why shouldn’t they pay?
It's worth a try. But even if successful, a one-time settlement isn't going to cover the ongoing costs of climate change. Maybe the funds could be used to help cover the cost of resettling people to lower risk areas.
Many states already are suing the oil & gas companies over climate change. I don’t know how likely they are to succeed. I don’t think any of the lawsuits are insurance related though.
I just ask myself why states are relying on the courts and multi-year (if not multi-decade) litigation when they could simply use their taxing or regulatory authority.
The oil and gas companies are just the suppliers, it's us the general public that are the users. The oil and gas companies don't even need to push their products any more, we are all addicted and keep filling up our gas tanks even knowing that we are killing the planet, and eventually most of humanity, by doing so.
I saw in a news report some footage of Palisades before the fire, presenting it as a sort of paradise. All I saw was the endless parade of cars passing by on Sunset and the PCH, burning the fuels that will make coastal California uninhabitable at some point in the future, and in some places maybe already have.
If the desire is to reduce consumption of oil and gas, it should be heavily taxed. $10/gallon gasoline, diesel and jet fuel. $10/mmcf gas for your furnace, water heater, dryer and stove. Severely curb driving, air travel and shipping. Anything with plastic in it would need to triple or more in price to discourage people. The resulting inflation would be crushing but perhaps curb consumption.
-
I'm not even shocked anymore. Yes, it's tragic and I feel bad for everyone impacted by this. Yet also frustrated that we keep watching the same movie on repeat. Building in drought-prone fire-adapted ecosystems evolved to burn, in dense vegetation, on mountains with a known history of high down-slope winds. Why is this surprising to anyone?
Current estimate is over 10,000 structures burned, at a loss of around $150 billion.
Whatever the fires don't destroy the subsequent debris flows will finish off, things like roads and other infrastructure.
There's very real concern that the FAIR insurance plan will reach its breaking point.
I've read that Pacific Palisades is more-or-less destroyed. Local governments should refuse building permits for such areas. People should take their insurance payouts and move somewhere more reasonable. Turn it into public mountain biking/hiking trails.
As discussed already in this thread, no city or area is immune to natural disasters. But our current patterns of building into the WUI and along the coast (esp. in hurricane country) are completely absurd. I guess the lesson repeats as necessary.
It’s well established that the oil & gas companies knew that climate change was real over 50 years ago. In fact, a lot of the original climate science originated from within Exxon and the American Petroleum Institute. Then these companies spent the last 50+ years lying about it in order to avoid responsibility.
In the mean time, the science of climate attribution has come a long ways. It is possible to quantify how much more likely events like this are because of climate change, and how much different companies have contributed to the problem.
I’d like to see California and other western states set up a program to backstop property insurance, funded by the oil and gas companies that made it happen.
I don’t think this will ever happen, but it would be the most fair outcome. Everyone’s insurance rates are going through the roof, and we know exactly which companies caused it. Why shouldn’t they pay?
It's worth a try. But even if successful, a one-time settlement isn't going to cover the ongoing costs of climate change. Maybe the funds could be used to help cover the cost of resettling people to lower risk areas.
Many states already are suing the oil & gas companies over climate change. I don’t know how likely they are to succeed. I don’t think any of the lawsuits are insurance related though.
I just ask myself why states are relying on the courts and multi-year (if not multi-decade) litigation when they could simply use their taxing or regulatory authority.
The oil and gas companies are just the suppliers, it's us the general public that are the users. The oil and gas companies don't even need to push their products any more, we are all addicted and keep filling up our gas tanks even knowing that we are killing the planet, and eventually most of humanity, by doing so.
I saw in a news report some footage of Palisades before the fire, presenting it as a sort of paradise. All I saw was the endless parade of cars passing by on Sunset and the PCH, burning the fuels that will make coastal California uninhabitable at some point in the future, and in some places maybe already have.
I have no dispute with the idea that individual consumers need to make massive changes. I know I sometimes come off as a preachy environmentalist in these forums encouraging people to do exactly that.
My belief in financial consequences for suppliers doesn’t come from the idea that we should ignore consumer responsibility. It comes from the industry running a multi-decade and massively expensive public deception campaign designed to prevent us from doing anything about climate change.
The industry could have come out 40 YEARS ago and said “uh, we have a problem”. We could have gotten in front of it back then by investing in alternatives. They chose to lie to the public instead. The majority of emissions in our atmosphere have happened in the last 20 years. Even small changes to emissions growth trajectories in the 80’s or 90’s would have dramatically reduced the climate impacts we’re feeling today.
-
I'm not even shocked anymore. Yes, it's tragic and I feel bad for everyone impacted by this. Yet also frustrated that we keep watching the same movie on repeat. Building in drought-prone fire-adapted ecosystems evolved to burn, in dense vegetation, on mountains with a known history of high down-slope winds. Why is this surprising to anyone?
Current estimate is over 10,000 structures burned, at a loss of around $150 billion.
Whatever the fires don't destroy the subsequent debris flows will finish off, things like roads and other infrastructure.
There's very real concern that the FAIR insurance plan will reach its breaking point.
I've read that Pacific Palisades is more-or-less destroyed. Local governments should refuse building permits for such areas. People should take their insurance payouts and move somewhere more reasonable. Turn it into public mountain biking/hiking trails.
As discussed already in this thread, no city or area is immune to natural disasters. But our current patterns of building into the WUI and along the coast (esp. in hurricane country) are completely absurd. I guess the lesson repeats as necessary.
It’s well established that the oil & gas companies knew that climate change was real over 50 years ago. In fact, a lot of the original climate science originated from within Exxon and the American Petroleum Institute. Then these companies spent the last 50+ years lying about it in order to avoid responsibility.
In the mean time, the science of climate attribution has come a long ways. It is possible to quantify how much more likely events like this are because of climate change, and how much different companies have contributed to the problem.
I’d like to see California and other western states set up a program to backstop property insurance, funded by the oil and gas companies that made it happen.
I don’t think this will ever happen, but it would be the most fair outcome. Everyone’s insurance rates are going through the roof, and we know exactly which companies caused it. Why shouldn’t they pay?
It's worth a try. But even if successful, a one-time settlement isn't going to cover the ongoing costs of climate change. Maybe the funds could be used to help cover the cost of resettling people to lower risk areas.
Many states already are suing the oil & gas companies over climate change. I don’t know how likely they are to succeed. I don’t think any of the lawsuits are insurance related though.
I just ask myself why states are relying on the courts and multi-year (if not multi-decade) litigation when they could simply use their taxing or regulatory authority.
The oil and gas companies are just the suppliers, it's us the general public that are the users. The oil and gas companies don't even need to push their products any more, we are all addicted and keep filling up our gas tanks even knowing that we are killing the planet, and eventually most of humanity, by doing so.
I saw in a news report some footage of Palisades before the fire, presenting it as a sort of paradise. All I saw was the endless parade of cars passing by on Sunset and the PCH, burning the fuels that will make coastal California uninhabitable at some point in the future, and in some places maybe already have.
I have no dispute with the idea that individual consumers need to make massive changes. I know I sometimes come off as a preachy environmentalist in these forums encouraging people to do exactly that.
My belief in financial consequences for suppliers doesn’t come from the idea that we should ignore consumer responsibility. It comes from the industry running a multi-decade and massively expensive public deception campaign designed to prevent us from doing anything about climate change.
The industry could have come out 40 YEARS ago and said “uh, we have a problem”. We could have gotten in front of it back then by investing in alternatives. They chose to lie to the public instead. The majority of emissions in our atmosphere have happened in the last 20 years. Even small changes to emissions growth trajectories in the 80’s or 90’s would have dramatically reduced the climate impacts we’re feeling today.
Oil and gas companies are the reason that climate change deniers exist at all. They were astroturfed in by O&G, are now a permanent part of any dialogue regarding the climate change mitigation, and have been an insurmountable force in political opposition to change. Their lobbying talking points have entirely taken over the current governing political party in the US, and the likely next governing political party in Canada.
While I agree that individuals certainly play some part in this story, the impact of deliberate actions taken by oil and gas companies cannot be understated and shouldn't be underplayed.
-
Some context from a fire scientist / emeritus professor at ASU:
"The astonishing thing is not that Los Angeles burns but that so much of its development has enhanced rather than blunted the threat from fire. For decades a preference for exposed-wood structures, including shake-shingle roofing, ensured that houses were maximally primed to burn. Public forests and parks meant quasi-natural landscapes would not pave over the fire threat by converting brushlands to brick and concrete; rather, new development carried the problem into fresh lands. Suburbs pushed up slopes, over alluvial fans, and against regrowing fuels. It was as though the city's fringe had taken on the properties of its celebrated chaparral. It promoted fire, it burned, it regrew.
The unholy mingling of built and natural landscapes guaranteed that fire protection was compromised in its very constitution. Cities want no fire; many countrysides need fire, and if mild fires are suppressed, the unburned fuel encourages monsters. If every urban fire that is put out is a problem solved, many wildland fires put out are problems put off. Urban fire services are ineffective in wildlands, and wildland fire brigades are helpless within the city; the two fire services have almost nothing in common except that both have been asked to stand between the hammer of flaming winds and the anvil of urban life and counter the blows."
https://www.stephenpyne.com/blog/posts/45668
When are we going to declare areas in the wildland-fire interface uninhabitable?
probably never unfortunately. People here in SoCal want their houses and so move out of flatter more dense areas to relatively inexpensive little tract homes in the foothills like in Altadena. Rich people want their houses too but bigger and with more land around so off into the hillsides and dry barren wild-ish lands they go. They've lost thousands of homes in Altadena, many owned by working class people, and thousands more in wealthy coastal towns like Pacific Pallisades and Malibu. Last I heard Altadena lost 4,000 to 6,ooo homes and businesses and the coasts well over a thousand. So maybe there will be 10s of thousands by the end of it. The wealthy will just rebuild and the poor home owners of all the little tract homes clustered together will just rebuild too because no one want to live closer to DTLA in a tiny condo. And then, once we get some rain, there will be the big mudslides.
Altadena ain't cheap. The cheapest listing I saw there was $850k.
-
I'm not even shocked anymore. Yes, it's tragic and I feel bad for everyone impacted by this. Yet also frustrated that we keep watching the same movie on repeat. Building in drought-prone fire-adapted ecosystems evolved to burn, in dense vegetation, on mountains with a known history of high down-slope winds. Why is this surprising to anyone?
Current estimate is over 10,000 structures burned, at a loss of around $150 billion.
Whatever the fires don't destroy the subsequent debris flows will finish off, things like roads and other infrastructure.
There's very real concern that the FAIR insurance plan will reach its breaking point.
I've read that Pacific Palisades is more-or-less destroyed. Local governments should refuse building permits for such areas. People should take their insurance payouts and move somewhere more reasonable. Turn it into public mountain biking/hiking trails.
As discussed already in this thread, no city or area is immune to natural disasters. But our current patterns of building into the WUI and along the coast (esp. in hurricane country) are completely absurd. I guess the lesson repeats as necessary.
Where exactly could they build? There's nowhere left to bulld anywhere near there.
-
I'm not even shocked anymore. Yes, it's tragic and I feel bad for everyone impacted by this. Yet also frustrated that we keep watching the same movie on repeat. Building in drought-prone fire-adapted ecosystems evolved to burn, in dense vegetation, on mountains with a known history of high down-slope winds. Why is this surprising to anyone?
Current estimate is over 10,000 structures burned, at a loss of around $150 billion.
Whatever the fires don't destroy the subsequent debris flows will finish off, things like roads and other infrastructure.
There's very real concern that the FAIR insurance plan will reach its breaking point.
I've read that Pacific Palisades is more-or-less destroyed. Local governments should refuse building permits for such areas. People should take their insurance payouts and move somewhere more reasonable. Turn it into public mountain biking/hiking trails.
As discussed already in this thread, no city or area is immune to natural disasters. But our current patterns of building into the WUI and along the coast (esp. in hurricane country) are completely absurd. I guess the lesson repeats as necessary.
Where exactly could they build? There's nowhere left to bulld anywhere near there.
You build up. Urban infill. An old/dated single family home gets replaced with a four plex. Larger lots get apartments.
-
Current estimate is over 10,000 structures burned, at a loss of around $150 billion.
I've seen this same number in the news as well, but cannot wrap my head around it. Insurance pays for the value of the structure, not the entire property. Since most of the value of a home there seems to be the land, that shouldn't be included in these damage estimates. Let's say the average house costs $1 million to rebuild (I think this should be a conservatively high number), that would place total insurance payout at $10 billion. How do these estimates of loss come up 15x higher than that?
Yeah, good point, and I don't know. Maybe this is a wildly inflated figure, or perhaps the cost to rebuild is a lot higher than the structure itself (cleanup, rebuilding water systems, etc.).
My insurer insists our home would cost 4X what we paid for it (12 months ago) to rebuild. I can't wrap my head around that and don't like the premiums but an estimate from another insurer was signficantly higher.
I think I might have found the answer---- It sounds like total losses, which include enconomic, are being used for the $150 billion estimate. Actual insurance payout sounds like it is expected to be $20 billion, based on an announcement by JP Morgan.
-
I wonder if anyone saw the LA fire soon after it started and then shorted the insurance companies before today's drop?
-
Current estimate is over 10,000 structures burned, at a loss of around $150 billion.
I've seen this same number in the news as well, but cannot wrap my head around it. Insurance pays for the value of the structure, not the entire property. Since most of the value of a home there seems to be the land, that shouldn't be included in these damage estimates. Let's say the average house costs $1 million to rebuild (I think this should be a conservatively high number), that would place total insurance payout at $10 billion. How do these estimates of loss come up 15x higher than that?
The contents of the home would go a long way toward bumping up those totals. A $15m home in PP likely had a closet full of 5-figure handbags and Prada throw pillows and Limited Edition Rolex's (or whatever it is the wealthy wear in their wrists.) Then there's the five six-figure cars that burned in the garage.
-
It costs a lot when fire destroys parts of a city. 400 houses were destroyed by fire in my city of 300,000 people a bit over 20 years ago. It took a year of dump trucks removing the debris every day (I think our government paid for this). The fires destroyed infrastructure, including electricity (sub stations, poles and wires), water (our dams had ash in them, making the water unfit for human consumption), and sewage. Life was pretty difficult, even for the people whose property wasn’t affected, for most of the following year. We also needed a lot of people to come in to fix things, and no housing for them.
Then there’s all the repairs needed for structures that were still standing.
-
Current estimate is over 10,000 structures burned, at a loss of around $150 billion.
I've seen this same number in the news as well, but cannot wrap my head around it. Insurance pays for the value of the structure, not the entire property. Since most of the value of a home there seems to be the land, that shouldn't be included in these damage estimates. Let's say the average house costs $1 million to rebuild (I think this should be a conservatively high number), that would place total insurance payout at $10 billion. How do these estimates of loss come up 15x higher than that?
The contents of the home would go a long way toward bumping up those totals. A $15m home in PP likely had a closet full of 5-figure handbags and Prada throw pillows and Limited Edition Rolex's (or whatever it is the wealthy wear in their wrists.) Then there's the five six-figure cars that burned in the garage.
I saw that $150B number. I also saw a much more sober number (in comparison) where an analyst bumped their estimate from $10B to $20B based on the fires progression. Those are still massive numbers, but much more believable.
-
Current estimate is over 10,000 structures burned, at a loss of around $150 billion.
I've seen this same number in the news as well, but cannot wrap my head around it. Insurance pays for the value of the structure, not the entire property. Since most of the value of a home there seems to be the land, that shouldn't be included in these damage estimates. Let's say the average house costs $1 million to rebuild (I think this should be a conservatively high number), that would place total insurance payout at $10 billion. How do these estimates of loss come up 15x higher than that?
The contents of the home would go a long way toward bumping up those totals. A $15m home in PP likely had a closet full of 5-figure handbags and Prada throw pillows and Limited Edition Rolex's (or whatever it is the wealthy wear in their wrists.) Then there's the five six-figure cars that burned in the garage.
I saw that $150B number. I also saw a much more sober number (in comparison) where an analyst bumped their estimate from $10B to $20B based on the fires progression. Those are still massive numbers, but much more believable.
I had written an updated posting between the one quoted and now. JP Morgan is the group giving the $20 billion estimate for insurance payouts (I think total insurance loss), which I assume covers the Prada handbags contained within those homes, and probably all those cars. I had read elsewhere there might be $60 billion in economic losses, which then means another $70 billion towards everything else. I had read the average home value in Pacific Palisades was about $3.5 million (not sure what portion of that is land value) and Easton was around $1.5 million.
-
I'd imagine a lot of the houses in the Pacific Palisades have rebuild costs far in excess of $1M. After the Tubbs fire in 2017 burned down the neighborhood I grew up in ( a mere 5,000 structures in all), there were a lot of things I had not really thought about. House fires leave a nasty, contaminated mess behind. The Army Corps of Engineers came through neighborhoods en masse with excavators removing foundations (fire had rendered them weak and destroyed), and the uppoer part of the soil that was full of dioxins, furans and other fun stuff. They made truly giant piles of concrete that have slowly been getting recycled into new roadways, etc. This takes time, even with the efficiencies that come with collective action like that, and must be done before rebuilding can start. The local planning department developed an expedited permit approval process for existing plans that met code. Our 2,000 sf ranch house was likely to be around 750k to rebuild circa 2019, and the Pacific Palisades houses were quite a bit nicer and in a higher COL area. It was maybe 7ish years before all of the various insurance and lawsuits associated with that fire were settled and we were able to sell the lot. There are carrying costs with not being able to do much with an asset until then. One upshot is that the new owners appear to have been finally breaking ground around thansgiving this year. Aside from just building a new box on a lot, the whole character of the neighborhood is different. The majority of trees are simply gone and the aesthetic is frankly pretty ugly now. I am not sure how this impacts property values given how much of the area was impacted. This will play out in PP over the coming years, as well. The massive reduction in housing stock led to a lot of people leaving the area and the homeless population ballooned. My dad was fortunate enough to live in a trailer in my brother's front yard for a couple of years until buying a house. The people at the lower end of the economic spectrum will be hit the hardest, as per usual.
I don't see any silver lining in this and hope that things get under control and damage to people and property is minimized as much as possible. I also hope that the area has lessons learned for the next time this happens... and there will be a next time and time after that.
-
$20B or whatever is a ton of $$, but where do 10,000 families go to ride out the very long period of restoration in an area that is already starved of housing. Not to mention all the construction labor that will have to come in from other areas...where will they be houses.
$20B+ sounds like a lot but is still less than hurricane Milton that hit Florida last year and way less than the $200B that Katrina cost in 2005 ($330B in today's $).
I think a big difference as eluded too above is that when hurricanes hit they don't necessarily destroy entire structures and areas. Sure they are flooded and roofs are gone, but foundations, walls and overall structure generally is workable so restoration is a bit easier.
Also, how many of the 10k houses are actually under insured for cost to replace due to inflation and possibly for enhanced building codes that may be good for long term but will certainly cost more. There were still a lot of "tear down" homes where the land was most of the value.
No doubt vultures will be circling as the land/areas will still be highly sought after.
-
Some context from a fire scientist / emeritus professor at ASU:
"The astonishing thing is not that Los Angeles burns but that so much of its development has enhanced rather than blunted the threat from fire. For decades a preference for exposed-wood structures, including shake-shingle roofing, ensured that houses were maximally primed to burn. Public forests and parks meant quasi-natural landscapes would not pave over the fire threat by converting brushlands to brick and concrete; rather, new development carried the problem into fresh lands. Suburbs pushed up slopes, over alluvial fans, and against regrowing fuels. It was as though the city's fringe had taken on the properties of its celebrated chaparral. It promoted fire, it burned, it regrew.
The unholy mingling of built and natural landscapes guaranteed that fire protection was compromised in its very constitution. Cities want no fire; many countrysides need fire, and if mild fires are suppressed, the unburned fuel encourages monsters. If every urban fire that is put out is a problem solved, many wildland fires put out are problems put off. Urban fire services are ineffective in wildlands, and wildland fire brigades are helpless within the city; the two fire services have almost nothing in common except that both have been asked to stand between the hammer of flaming winds and the anvil of urban life and counter the blows."
https://www.stephenpyne.com/blog/posts/45668
When are we going to declare areas in the wildland-fire interface uninhabitable?
probably never unfortunately. People here in SoCal want their houses and so move out of flatter more dense areas to relatively inexpensive little tract homes in the foothills like in Altadena. Rich people want their houses too but bigger and with more land around so off into the hillsides and dry barren wild-ish lands they go. They've lost thousands of homes in Altadena, many owned by working class people, and thousands more in wealthy coastal towns like Pacific Pallisades and Malibu. Last I heard Altadena lost 4,000 to 6,ooo homes and businesses and the coasts well over a thousand. So maybe there will be 10s of thousands by the end of it. The wealthy will just rebuild and the poor home owners of all the little tract homes clustered together will just rebuild too because no one want to live closer to DTLA in a tiny condo. And then, once we get some rain, there will be the big mudslides.
Altadena ain't cheap. The cheapest listing I saw there was $850k.
Not cheap by most of the US standards but cheap by LA standards. While watching the houses burn there they were mostly in working class area of 1000 SF foot older tract homes and many of the business were immigrant owned. Compared to Pacfic Pallisades giant hillside mcmansions of 10,000 SF luxury homes worth millions.
And that's compared to the"average" houses I've been looking at in Huntington - 1200 SF or less 1960s tract homes several miles from the beach - which go for around $1.5 million. It's crazy here. I do wonder if these fires (now 6 of them and some still growing) will cause housing prices to increase or decrease?
-
@spartana this will cause prices to increase in the near term. I doubt there are 10k houses on the market nearby.
-
@spartana this will cause prices to increase in the near term. I doubt there are 10k houses on the market nearby.
That's what I figured too. Too many places lost and rebuilding, if even possible, will take a l9ng l9ng time. Plus the fires are still moving and now it Looks like the Pallisades fire is encroaching on THE 405 and May potentially cross it into the very populated areas.
-
They now have mandatory evacuation orders for Brentwood (near by Getty Center etc too). More very very wealthy homes may go and next stop is Beverly Hills. And now Encino, Tarzana and some off/on ramps to the 405 and 101. Westwood, West LA and a ton of other populated metro area LA is nearby. Getting scary.
-
They now have mandatory evacuation orders for Brentwood (near by Getty Center etc too). More very very wealthy homes may go and next stop is Beverly Hills. And now Encino, Tarzana and some off/on ramps to the 405 and 101. Westwood, West LA and a ton of other populated metro area LA is nearby. Getting scary.
The Palisades fire doesn't appear to have hit any new structures on the north or east, but it'll all depend on the winds! Yikes.
KABC hasn't gone to commercial in at least 3 hours.
-
A friend's mom lost her home in the palisades fire last week. Just posted a thread to ask advices for LA fire insurance settlement: https://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/welcome-to-the-forum/advice-for-la-fire-insurance-settlement/
Any help will be deeply appreciated as it's really overwhelming for my friend. Thank you so much!
-
Many states already are suing the oil & gas companies over climate change. I don’t know how likely they are to succeed. I don’t think any of the lawsuits are insurance related though.
I just ask myself why states are relying on the courts and multi-year (if not multi-decade) litigation when they could simply use their taxing or regulatory authority.
As a tort lawyer, the idea of suing a company for climate change seems to me to be fanciful...there are so many hurdles in terms of the duty of care and remoteness. In Australia there's even been climate litigation directed at the federal government for doing specific things within its powers (like approving new coal mines or something...I can't remember) and failing its duty to future generations...it's all a bit wild. I must say this is not why I studied tort law!
-
Many states already are suing the oil & gas companies over climate change. I don’t know how likely they are to succeed. I don’t think any of the lawsuits are insurance related though.
I just ask myself why states are relying on the courts and multi-year (if not multi-decade) litigation when they could simply use their taxing or regulatory authority.
As a tort lawyer, the idea of suing a company for climate change seems to me to be fanciful...there are so many hurdles in terms of the duty of care and remoteness. In Australia there's even been climate litigation directed at the federal government for doing specific things within its powers (like approving new coal mines or something...I can't remember) and failing its duty to future generations...it's all a bit wild. I must say this is not why I studied tort law!
Such suits have been filed in a couple dozen jurisdictions (states, counties). I'm not aware that any have made meaningful progress but you never know these days with American judges and juries.
https://zerocarbon-analytics.org/archives/energy/latest-trends-in-climate-litigation-against-fossil-fuel-companies#:~:text=The%20oil%20companies%20are%20being,(Climate%20Integrity%2C%202024).
I'm not clear what the goal is as it is a little to late to reverse the damage of the last 50 years. Shutting down oil and gas production now would be fairly disruptive to the world economy in terms of transportation and use of plastics.
-
Many states already are suing the oil & gas companies over climate change. I don’t know how likely they are to succeed. I don’t think any of the lawsuits are insurance related though.
I just ask myself why states are relying on the courts and multi-year (if not multi-decade) litigation when they could simply use their taxing or regulatory authority.
As a tort lawyer, the idea of suing a company for climate change seems to me to be fanciful...there are so many hurdles in terms of the duty of care and remoteness. In Australia there's even been climate litigation directed at the federal government for doing specific things within its powers (like approving new coal mines or something...I can't remember) and failing its duty to future generations...it's all a bit wild. I must say this is not why I studied tort law!
I’ll leave opinions on how likely these suits are to succeed to the lawyers. I’ve heard opinions that range from unlikely to highly likely.
I mostly hear the lawsuits being compared to the litigation against big tobacco companies. It’s probably an imperfect metaphor, but still somewhat relevant. They seem to hinge upon a few key pieces:
1. Did these companies know the harm their products were causing and hide it? The answer is a resounding yes here.
2. Can specific levels of emissions be attributed to each company? The answer is yes for the big companies. There are records of oil and gas production going back to the Standard Oil days.
3. Can the damages from these disasters be directly attributed to climate change? The answer is maybe. The science has gotten pretty good on climate attribution. Scientists can quantify how much more likely certain weather conditions are compared to pre-industrial data, and how much more powerful storms statistically are. However, I list this as a “maybe”, because if there’s one thing the O&G companies are good at, it’s casting doubt on science.
https://www.npr.org/2023/01/12/1148376084/exxon-climate-predictions-were-accurate-decades-ago-still-it-sowed-doubt (https://www.npr.org/2023/01/12/1148376084/exxon-climate-predictions-were-accurate-decades-ago-still-it-sowed-doubt)
I also just read about laws in NY and Vermont that are using their taxing authority to fund climate programs. So it is possible at the state level.
https://www.governor.ny.gov/news/governor-hochul-signs-landmark-legislation-creating-new-climate-superfund (https://www.governor.ny.gov/news/governor-hochul-signs-landmark-legislation-creating-new-climate-superfund)
-
They now have mandatory evacuation orders for Brentwood (near by Getty Center etc too). More very very wealthy homes may go and next stop is Beverly Hills. And now Encino, Tarzana and some off/on ramps to the 405 and 101. Westwood, West LA and a ton of other populated metro area LA is nearby. Getting scary.
The Palisades fire doesn't appear to have hit any new structures on the north or east, but it'll all depend on the winds! Yikes.
KABC hasn't gone to commercial in at least 3 hours.
Winds have been howling again this morning, at least in OC, but some 70 plus mph winds in LA county. So things might get bad again. I guess they expect them to last until Weds night. But the 24/7 news coverage has died down now.
-
Many states already are suing the oil & gas companies over climate change. I don’t know how likely they are to succeed. I don’t think any of the lawsuits are insurance related though.
I just ask myself why states are relying on the courts and multi-year (if not multi-decade) litigation when they could simply use their taxing or regulatory authority.
As a tort lawyer, the idea of suing a company for climate change seems to me to be fanciful...there are so many hurdles in terms of the duty of care and remoteness. In Australia there's even been climate litigation directed at the federal government for doing specific things within its powers (like approving new coal mines or something...I can't remember) and failing its duty to future generations...it's all a bit wild. I must say this is not why I studied tort law!
I’ll leave opinions on how likely these suits are to succeed to the lawyers. I’ve heard opinions that range from unlikely to highly likely.
I mostly hear the lawsuits being compared to the litigation against big tobacco companies. It’s probably an imperfect metaphor, but still somewhat relevant. They seem to hinge upon a few key pieces:
1. Did these companies know the harm their products were causing and hide it? The answer is a resounding yes here.
2. Can specific levels of emissions be attributed to each company? The answer is yes for the big companies. There are records of oil and gas production going back to the Standard Oil days.
3. Can the damages from these disasters be directly attributed to climate change? The answer is maybe. The science has gotten pretty good on climate attribution. Scientists can quantify how much more likely certain weather conditions are compared to pre-industrial data, and how much more powerful storms statistically are. However, I list this as a “maybe”, because if there’s one thing the O&G companies are good at, it’s casting doubt on science.
https://www.npr.org/2023/01/12/1148376084/exxon-climate-predictions-were-accurate-decades-ago-still-it-sowed-doubt (https://www.npr.org/2023/01/12/1148376084/exxon-climate-predictions-were-accurate-decades-ago-still-it-sowed-doubt)
I also just read about laws in NY and Vermont that are using their taxing authority to fund climate programs. So it is possible at the state level.
https://www.governor.ny.gov/news/governor-hochul-signs-landmark-legislation-creating-new-climate-superfund (https://www.governor.ny.gov/news/governor-hochul-signs-landmark-legislation-creating-new-climate-superfund)
Isn't it curious how our concept of liability in no way falls upon the consumers of fossil fuels who actually burn the stuff or create the demand that causes there to be corporations? I.e. it couldn't be that each of us who fill up our oversized cars and go driving around for shopping or entertainment had a hand in the destruction of an American city, right?
The obvious projection and hand-washing among people who care is part of why so many people don't take climate change seriously.
-
Isn't it curious how our concept of liability in no way falls upon the consumers of fossil fuels who actually burn the stuff or create the demand that causes there to be corporations? I.e. it couldn't be that each of us who fill up our oversized cars and go driving around for shopping or entertainment had a hand in the destruction of an American city, right?
The obvious projection and hand-washing among people who care is part of why so many people don't take climate change seriously.
I think that this is more pragmatism than anything else.
We know now that telling a large group of people that they all have to pull together and do their part to help with climate change results in zero measurable beneficial action. There are a lot of reasons why this is the case:
- It directly conflicts with the (much better funded) advertising messages that they receive hundreds of times a day.
- There is no accountability and thus no individual level repercussions for failing to do so, while there is economic, social, and personal benefit in not carrying through.
- In many cases the information is not available for a consumer to make a sound climate choice. If you want to buy a pair of pants, it's very, very, very hard to figure out exactly what the environmental impact of the pair of pants you see on the rack is. Even going home and doing hours of research online . . . it's nigh impossible to determine if one pair of pants is better than the other environmentally. Many companies also participate in extensive greenwashing to further muddy the waters.
- In many cases there is no sound choice to be made. It is not possible to buy an environmentally friendly cell phone. Full stop.
- Individuals are poor, and most are incapable of paying the liability costs of their actions post hoc.
Shifting blame to a focus on individuals is a long standing tactic of the oil and gas industry. Perhaps the most obvious instance of this was British Petroleum's creation of the 'Carbon Footprint' in the early 2000s, but it has been going on long before as well. Collective action is necessary to address climate change. Starting with the companies who have become rich by selling the worst carbon polluting stuff is not a perfect solution by any means, but seems like a logical place to start.
-
Isn't it curious how our concept of liability in no way falls upon the consumers of fossil fuels who actually burn the stuff or create the demand that causes there to be corporations? I.e. it couldn't be that each of us who fill up our oversized cars and go driving around for shopping or entertainment had a hand in the destruction of an American city, right?
The obvious projection and hand-washing among people who care is part of why so many people don't take climate change seriously.
I think that this is more pragmatism than anything else.
We know now that telling a large group of people that they all have to pull together and do their part to help with climate change results in zero measurable beneficial action. There are a lot of reasons why this is the case:
- It directly conflicts with the (much better funded) advertising messages that they receive hundreds of times a day.
- There is no accountability and thus no individual level repercussions for failing to do so, while there is economic, social, and personal benefit in not carrying through.
- In many cases the information is not available for a consumer to make a sound climate choice. If you want to buy a pair of pants, it's very, very, very hard to figure out exactly what the environmental impact of the pair of pants you see on the rack is. Even going home and doing hours of research online . . . it's nigh impossible to determine if one pair of pants is better than the other environmentally. Many companies also participate in extensive greenwashing to further muddy the waters.
- In many cases there is no sound choice to be made. It is not possible to buy an environmentally friendly cell phone. Full stop.
- Individuals are poor, and most are incapable of paying the liability costs of their actions post hoc.
Shifting blame to a focus on individuals is a long standing tactic of the oil and gas industry. Perhaps the most obvious instance of this was British Petroleum's creation of the 'Carbon Footprint' in the early 2000s, but it has been going on long before as well. Collective action is necessary to address climate change. Starting with the companies who have become rich by selling the worst carbon polluting stuff is not a perfect solution by any means, but seems like a logical place to start.
Raising the sales tax on fossil fuels to reduce demand and compensate for losses would be a very pragmatic step, and also in line with economic theory. However, it's politically impossible. Consumers won't tolerate it - including the same consumers who are concerned about climate change. Better to shift the blame to the corporations who sold you what you decided to buy (the SUV plus 1,000 gallons of gasoline per year).
-
Isn't it curious how our concept of liability in no way falls upon the consumers of fossil fuels who actually burn the stuff or create the demand that causes there to be corporations? I.e. it couldn't be that each of us who fill up our oversized cars and go driving around for shopping or entertainment had a hand in the destruction of an American city, right?
The obvious projection and hand-washing among people who care is part of why so many people don't take climate change seriously.
I think that this is more pragmatism than anything else.
We know now that telling a large group of people that they all have to pull together and do their part to help with climate change results in zero measurable beneficial action. There are a lot of reasons why this is the case:
- It directly conflicts with the (much better funded) advertising messages that they receive hundreds of times a day.
- There is no accountability and thus no individual level repercussions for failing to do so, while there is economic, social, and personal benefit in not carrying through.
- In many cases the information is not available for a consumer to make a sound climate choice. If you want to buy a pair of pants, it's very, very, very hard to figure out exactly what the environmental impact of the pair of pants you see on the rack is. Even going home and doing hours of research online . . . it's nigh impossible to determine if one pair of pants is better than the other environmentally. Many companies also participate in extensive greenwashing to further muddy the waters.
- In many cases there is no sound choice to be made. It is not possible to buy an environmentally friendly cell phone. Full stop.
- Individuals are poor, and most are incapable of paying the liability costs of their actions post hoc.
Shifting blame to a focus on individuals is a long standing tactic of the oil and gas industry. Perhaps the most obvious instance of this was British Petroleum's creation of the 'Carbon Footprint' in the early 2000s, but it has been going on long before as well. Collective action is necessary to address climate change. Starting with the companies who have become rich by selling the worst carbon polluting stuff is not a perfect solution by any means, but seems like a logical place to start.
Raising the sales tax on fossil fuels to reduce demand and compensate for losses would be a very pragmatic step, and also in line with economic theory. However, it's politically impossible. Consumers won't tolerate it - including the same consumers who are concerned about climate change. Better to shift the blame to the corporations who sold you what you decided to buy (the SUV plus 1,000 gallons of gasoline per year).
Blame the automakers? And shipbuilders? And airplane manufacturers?
-
Blame the plants and animals that died millions of years ago....they are the true villains as if not for them there would be no fossil fuels!
The issue isn't necessarily with fossil fuels, it is with how efficiently they are consumed and captured - neither of which have been maximized.
As for CA fires and rebuilding, buildings can likely be rebuilt with increased fire resiliency but if not mandated by insurance companies or local regulation will individuals actually be willing to absorb the increased costs? Can they even afford it if they wanted to?
After the coastal areas of NJ were devastated by Hurricane Sandy the cost of flood/wind insurance was astronomical and most a choice to pay for flood insurance (if they wanted it) or raise their houses above the flood levels, the cost of which was about 2x the annual flood premium (two year pay back while costly is a no brainer).
As for rebuilding.....yup, everthing was rebuilt bigger, better and more expensive than ever, I suspect the same will happen in CA within a few years. And when the next super hurricane hits NJ all the headlines will read "Costliest ever on record!" It's not always or entirely due to climate change....when the population increases in high risk areas and the homes go from 900sf salt boxes to 3-4 story 4,000sf homes - then yeah its going to cost more.
-
My ex sister in law bought a nice house in one of the canyons above Malibu about five years ago; I was shocked.
I asked her if she was worried about fires? She said that her little canyon road had never had a fire. But I told her I thought it was only a matter of time.
Looks like I was right, unfortunately.
Luckily she sold it two years ago!
Every time there's a big CA fire I imagine a contingent of people saying "fuck it! Let's move to the rainy Oregon Coast!"
-
Isn't it curious how our concept of liability in no way falls upon the consumers of fossil fuels who actually burn the stuff or create the demand that causes there to be corporations? I.e. it couldn't be that each of us who fill up our oversized cars and go driving around for shopping or entertainment had a hand in the destruction of an American city, right?
The obvious projection and hand-washing among people who care is part of why so many people don't take climate change seriously.
I think that this is more pragmatism than anything else.
We know now that telling a large group of people that they all have to pull together and do their part to help with climate change results in zero measurable beneficial action. There are a lot of reasons why this is the case:
- It directly conflicts with the (much better funded) advertising messages that they receive hundreds of times a day.
- There is no accountability and thus no individual level repercussions for failing to do so, while there is economic, social, and personal benefit in not carrying through.
- In many cases the information is not available for a consumer to make a sound climate choice. If you want to buy a pair of pants, it's very, very, very hard to figure out exactly what the environmental impact of the pair of pants you see on the rack is. Even going home and doing hours of research online . . . it's nigh impossible to determine if one pair of pants is better than the other environmentally. Many companies also participate in extensive greenwashing to further muddy the waters.
- In many cases there is no sound choice to be made. It is not possible to buy an environmentally friendly cell phone. Full stop.
- Individuals are poor, and most are incapable of paying the liability costs of their actions post hoc.
Shifting blame to a focus on individuals is a long standing tactic of the oil and gas industry. Perhaps the most obvious instance of this was British Petroleum's creation of the 'Carbon Footprint' in the early 2000s, but it has been going on long before as well. Collective action is necessary to address climate change. Starting with the companies who have become rich by selling the worst carbon polluting stuff is not a perfect solution by any means, but seems like a logical place to start.
Raising the sales tax on fossil fuels to reduce demand and compensate for losses would be a very pragmatic step, and also in line with economic theory. However, it's politically impossible. Consumers won't tolerate it - including the same consumers who are concerned about climate change. Better to shift the blame to the corporations who sold you what you decided to buy (the SUV plus 1,000 gallons of gasoline per year).
A tax on fossil fuels makes lots of sense. As you mentioned though, it's politically impossible because it's too easy a target. In Canada, the Liberals implemented a carbon tax that's revenue neutral . . . the proceeds are split up and returned to citizens equally, so if you use more carbon you pay more and if you use less you actually get money back. Didn't matter, massively unpopular. And 'axe the tax' has become a rallying cry for our Conservative party . . . and a message heavily funded/backed by our oil and gas companies.
-
Isn't it curious how our concept of liability in no way falls upon the consumers of fossil fuels who actually burn the stuff or create the demand that causes there to be corporations? I.e. it couldn't be that each of us who fill up our oversized cars and go driving around for shopping or entertainment had a hand in the destruction of an American city, right?
The obvious projection and hand-washing among people who care is part of why so many people don't take climate change seriously.
I think that this is more pragmatism than anything else.
We know now that telling a large group of people that they all have to pull together and do their part to help with climate change results in zero measurable beneficial action. There are a lot of reasons why this is the case:
- It directly conflicts with the (much better funded) advertising messages that they receive hundreds of times a day.
- There is no accountability and thus no individual level repercussions for failing to do so, while there is economic, social, and personal benefit in not carrying through.
- In many cases the information is not available for a consumer to make a sound climate choice. If you want to buy a pair of pants, it's very, very, very hard to figure out exactly what the environmental impact of the pair of pants you see on the rack is. Even going home and doing hours of research online . . . it's nigh impossible to determine if one pair of pants is better than the other environmentally. Many companies also participate in extensive greenwashing to further muddy the waters.
- In many cases there is no sound choice to be made. It is not possible to buy an environmentally friendly cell phone. Full stop.
- Individuals are poor, and most are incapable of paying the liability costs of their actions post hoc.
Shifting blame to a focus on individuals is a long standing tactic of the oil and gas industry. Perhaps the most obvious instance of this was British Petroleum's creation of the 'Carbon Footprint' in the early 2000s, but it has been going on long before as well. Collective action is necessary to address climate change. Starting with the companies who have become rich by selling the worst carbon polluting stuff is not a perfect solution by any means, but seems like a logical place to start.
Raising the sales tax on fossil fuels to reduce demand and compensate for losses would be a very pragmatic step, and also in line with economic theory. However, it's politically impossible. Consumers won't tolerate it - including the same consumers who are concerned about climate change. Better to shift the blame to the corporations who sold you what you decided to buy (the SUV plus 1,000 gallons of gasoline per year).
I would be more than happy to see the cost of fuel triple. Likewise the cost of all similar consumption. But as you say, most consumers will bitch and moan. It would be nice to see energy bills follow an exponential curve- it might cost $10 to use x kW of power, then $100 to use 2x and $1000 to use 3x. But again, people bitch and moan. The solutions to climate change are right in front of us.
-
Isn't it curious how our concept of liability in no way falls upon the consumers of fossil fuels who actually burn the stuff or create the demand that causes there to be corporations? I.e. it couldn't be that each of us who fill up our oversized cars and go driving around for shopping or entertainment had a hand in the destruction of an American city, right?
The obvious projection and hand-washing among people who care is part of why so many people don't take climate change seriously.
I think that this is more pragmatism than anything else.
We know now that telling a large group of people that they all have to pull together and do their part to help with climate change results in zero measurable beneficial action. There are a lot of reasons why this is the case:
- It directly conflicts with the (much better funded) advertising messages that they receive hundreds of times a day.
- There is no accountability and thus no individual level repercussions for failing to do so, while there is economic, social, and personal benefit in not carrying through.
- In many cases the information is not available for a consumer to make a sound climate choice. If you want to buy a pair of pants, it's very, very, very hard to figure out exactly what the environmental impact of the pair of pants you see on the rack is. Even going home and doing hours of research online . . . it's nigh impossible to determine if one pair of pants is better than the other environmentally. Many companies also participate in extensive greenwashing to further muddy the waters.
- In many cases there is no sound choice to be made. It is not possible to buy an environmentally friendly cell phone. Full stop.
- Individuals are poor, and most are incapable of paying the liability costs of their actions post hoc.
Shifting blame to a focus on individuals is a long standing tactic of the oil and gas industry. Perhaps the most obvious instance of this was British Petroleum's creation of the 'Carbon Footprint' in the early 2000s, but it has been going on long before as well. Collective action is necessary to address climate change. Starting with the companies who have become rich by selling the worst carbon polluting stuff is not a perfect solution by any means, but seems like a logical place to start.
Raising the sales tax on fossil fuels to reduce demand and compensate for losses would be a very pragmatic step, and also in line with economic theory. However, it's politically impossible. Consumers won't tolerate it - including the same consumers who are concerned about climate change. Better to shift the blame to the corporations who sold you what you decided to buy (the SUV plus 1,000 gallons of gasoline per year).
I would be more than happy to see the cost of fuel triple. Likewise the cost of all similar consumption. But as you say, most consumers will bitch and moan. It would be nice to see energy bills follow an exponential curve- it might cost $10 to use x kW of power, then $100 to use 2x and $1000 to use 3x. But again, people bitch and moan. The solutions to climate change are right in front of us.
I think if we wanted conservation, we would make utility bills fully usage dependent. You use more, you pay more. You use less, you pay less. No fixed charges - just roll them into the rest of the pricing.
Right now, fixed costs on my electricity bill outweigh usage costs by a factor of about 2:1. With some difficult sacrifice I could probably cut our electricity usage in half . . . but it would keep our bills at more than 80% of their current price. So how do I sell that effort to my family or other people?
-
The news last night said there were 8 different fires. It really makes you wonder if some of them aren’t arson. As Spartana mentioned there’s many homes of regular people that were destroyed.
4 years ago I bought a condo right in town in Reno thinking I was fairly safe from fires. This summer we had record winds and low humidity and a fire started close to town that they couldn’t control. It was near very expensive homes but also expected to head my way. People were evacuated just a few miles from me.
Luckily the winds shifted and took the fire up the mountain where there weren’t any structures to burn. The day after it started we were still at risk so I cancelled all my plans in case I had to evacuate with my dogs. I wasn’t taking the risk of not being able to get back to them.
-
@Cassie 's non-coastal story makes me think about how cities have relocated over time.
Originally they were built along rivers and harbors, because there was no inland transportation infrastructure. Rivers can flood and harbors are vulnerable to hurricanes, but people knew this and generally and *with exceptions* picked high ground next to the water or low ground next to the mountains as the locations for their settlements. Certainly some cities still flooded but back in those days people did not desire to live right on the beaches or up in the windy mountains that are covered with flammable scrub brush.
Yes, New Orleans is one of America's first cities, and was built on low ground because military factors were more important than flood resistance. Other old harbor cities built at low elevation include Savanah GA and Tampa FL - and land subsidence has been a factor with all 3 of these. But given the choice, early settlers always picked the highest ground in the harbor area and expanded in a direction away from the water.
But America's old-school cities such as Boston, Indianapolis, St. Louis, Chicago, Detroit, Buffalo, Atlanta, Memphis, Cleveland, etc. are not places you ever hear about natural disasters. That's because the people who settled these places - all near a river or harbor - generally cared about flooding and fire risks.
Now everyone seems to want to live near the beach or in the mountains - places considered relatively undesirable a hundred and fifty years ago. Part of this is the vacation industry selling us on the idea that these places are fun. Another part is the economy's detachment from agriculture, and thus our ability to live on agriculturally unproductive land. A third component is Americans' desire to flee the crime and dysfunction of other Americans, which only seems to have became a factor in the mid-20th century.
The introduction and continued improvement of work-from-home technology has over the past 5 years and over the next 15 years will change the calculus. You no longer need to pay extraordinary amounts to live in an elite location or suffer a long commute to escape inner-city crime and dysfunction. In a small midwestern town far away from predictable fires and hurricanes, you can earn a large salary, own your own home, and maybe even achieve FIRE. When this becomes more attractive than the traffic jams of LA or the hurricane-prone beaches of Florida, then the pendulum will swing the other direction.
-
Reno is not in the mountains. It’s in a valley surrounded by mountains. I spent half my life in Wisconsin a hour from Chicago. The Midwest has it’s own weather problems such as occasional tornados, bad thunderstorms and snow storms that are dangerous to drive in. People get injured and die all the time in weather related accidents. I have also lived in upstate New York and Texas and Kansas. All of them have weather related problems.
Nothing like driving around after a tornado and all that is left is the bathroom toilet that was in the basement. I told my kids to always go there during a tornado. We were sleeping through tornados so bought a weather radio that would come on and wake us up. We put all the kids bedrooms in the basement so they were safer. It was a new house so had a ladder in every room down there so escaping was easy during a fire. Kansas and Texas were my least favorite places to live because of tornados. We clocked a lot of basement time.
-
Reno is not in the mountains. It’s in a valley surrounded by mountains. I spent half my life in Wisconsin a hour from Chicago. The Midwest has it’s own weather problems such as occasional tornados, bad thunderstorms and snow storms that are dangerous to drive in. People get injured and die all the time in weather related accidents. I have also lived in upstate New York and Texas and Kansas. All of them have weather related problems.
Nothing like driving around after a tornado and all that is left is the bathroom toilet that was in the basement. I told my kids to always go there during a tornado. We were sleeping through tornados so bought a weather radio that would come on and wake us up. We put all the kids bedrooms in the basement so they were safer. It was a new house so had a ladder in every room down there so escaping was easy during a fire. Kansas and Texas were my least favorite places to live because of tornados. We clocked a lot of basement time.
I would take a tornado or snow storm over a 100 mph fire storm every time.
-
Reno is not in the mountains. It’s in a valley surrounded by mountains. I spent half my life in Wisconsin a hour from Chicago. The Midwest has it’s own weather problems such as occasional tornados, bad thunderstorms and snow storms that are dangerous to drive in. People get injured and die all the time in weather related accidents. I have also lived in upstate New York and Texas and Kansas. All of them have weather related problems.
Nothing like driving around after a tornado and all that is left is the bathroom toilet that was in the basement. I told my kids to always go there during a tornado. We were sleeping through tornados so bought a weather radio that would come on and wake us up. We put all the kids bedrooms in the basement so they were safer. It was a new house so had a ladder in every room down there so escaping was easy during a fire. Kansas and Texas were my least favorite places to live because of tornados. We clocked a lot of basement time.
I would take a tornado or snow storm over a 100 mph fire storm every time.
I live in an inner suburb of New York City in New Jersey. My wife will be retiring soon and we considered many alternative locations to retire but ultimately the risks were not worth it. So we have decided to stay where we are.
t's not that there are no risks - chance of extreme rain events is increasing and summer heat will become progressively worse every year. Also we pay more in property taxes than to most of you. However we found the alternatives to be much worse and, anyway, the winters have become noticeably milder in the thirty years we have lived in the area.
-
I've read that Pacific Palisades is more-or-less destroyed. Local governments should refuse building permits for such areas. People should take their insurance payouts and move somewhere more reasonable. Turn it into public mountain biking/hiking trails.
Unfortunately those local governments rely on those expensive housing areas for their income. I just watched a local new broadcast from that area where they interviewed the property tax assessor and he noted:
#1) Yes, you still have to pay your property tax if your house just burned down
#2) Yes, you can fill out forms to apply for relief from the tax. But that relief is only for the tax on the structure itself, not the land.
#3) He noted the tax assessor considers about 2/3 of the assessed value as being the value of the land and not the building, and they do not plan to change that . . . so see #1.
While I personally love the idea of turning the destroyed areas into public lands, the governments will allow redevelopment so they can maintain the tax revenue.
“It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it.” -Upton Sinclair
-
Reno is not in the mountains. It’s in a valley surrounded by mountains. I spent half my life in Wisconsin a hour from Chicago. The Midwest has it’s own weather problems such as occasional tornados, bad thunderstorms and snow storms that are dangerous to drive in. People get injured and die all the time in weather related accidents. I have also lived in upstate New York and Texas and Kansas. All of them have weather related problems.
Nothing like driving around after a tornado and all that is left is the bathroom toilet that was in the basement. I told my kids to always go there during a tornado. We were sleeping through tornados so bought a weather radio that would come on and wake us up. We put all the kids bedrooms in the basement so they were safer. It was a new house so had a ladder in every room down there so escaping was easy during a fire. Kansas and Texas were my least favorite places to live because of tornados. We clocked a lot of basement time.
I would take a tornado or snow storm over a 100 mph fire storm every time.
I live in an inner suburb of New York City in New Jersey. My wife will be retiring soon and we considered many alternative locations to retire but ultimately the risks were not worth it. So we have decided to stay where we are.
t's not that there are no risks - chance of extreme rain events is increasing and summer heat will become progressively worse every year. Also we pay more in property taxes than to most of you. However we found the alternatives to be much worse and, anyway, the winters have become noticeably milder in the thirty years we have lived in the area.
We live in the same area. Five years ago, I was convinced that we would move upon retirement to a more affordable (and potentially warmer) area. We've since decided that the relatively low risk of catastrophic weather events, excellent healthcare, and community of friends and family outweigh the atrocious property taxes... We also plan to stay put albeit in a smaller home after the kids have flown the coup.
-
I've read that Pacific Palisades is more-or-less destroyed. Local governments should refuse building permits for such areas. People should take their insurance payouts and move somewhere more reasonable. Turn it into public mountain biking/hiking trails.
Unfortunately those local governments rely on those expensive housing areas for their income. I just watched a local new broadcast from that area where they interviewed the property tax assessor and he noted:
#1) Yes, you still have to pay your property tax if your house just burned down
#2) Yes, you can fill out forms to apply for relief from the tax. But that relief is only for the tax on the structure itself, not the land.
#3) He noted the tax assessor considers about 2/3 of the assessed value as being the value of the land and not the building, and they do not plan to change that . . . so see #1.
While I personally love the idea of turning the destroyed areas into public lands, the governments will allow redevelopment so they can maintain the tax revenue.
“It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it.” -Upton Sinclair
The city and state plan to fast track permitting and rebuilding. Insurers will not pay for upgrades to make structures fire resistant so the state is trying to figure out how to help.
-
I live in a small 100 year old house in Ventura, and have been watching the fires closely, and housing some Fire refugees here.
We intentionally bought a house that is up the hill about a mile from the ocean, but down the hill from the super expensive areas that are higher fire risk because they are in the WUI. Ventura also has earthquake faults running through it, and barrancas (dry rivers with flood risk), so we bought as far away from those as possible.
Why did we decide to buy in Ventura, with its risks?
Well, we are both still working in jobs that require us to be in Los Angeles fairly often. Ventura is about 1.5 to 2 hours drive away. Just tolerable. There’s also a train into downtown LA, which we occasionally can use (if a meeting is in Downtown Los Angeles and in the middle of the day, so the train times work).
Like many of the outer areas of the LA metro sprawl, Ventura is significantly less expensive than most parts of LA. Still HCOLA, but much more tolerable as the house prices are lower.
Our daughter (only child) and son in law live in LA. So do most of our friends (though lately, as they retire, several have moved to lower COLAs). Being near to our kid and her husband is probably our most important priority.
Our doctors are in LA. Given that both DH and I have had serious health issues, now resolved for the time being, that continuity of care is important.
We have renovated our house to upgrade wiring, added solar and a battery, done foundation, drainage, and earthquake retrofitting work, and are working on improving the fire safety of the landscaping. All of this is expensive! And time consuming. None of the work (other than the landscaping) can be seen. (Our goal is to fully transition our cars to electric cars soon, but so far that has been prohibitively expensive.) So I understand first hand why people who need to work in LA or other big cities don’t just do all the necessary work to minimize all their risks.
The theory of insurance is that everyone pays a little bit to cover the few who have a disaster occur. I’m happy every year I pay insurance but don’t have to make a claim. But with the higher risks of wildfires, floods, hurricanes and the like, and the higher costs to rebuild in HCOLAs, I think it is likely that insurance rates will continue to go up. Unfortunately, the citizenry of the USA has just voted in an Administration that has no interest whatsoever in taking prophylactic measures to reduce the risks of climate change across the country.
-
Maybe a program of state funded loans, like second mortgages, to rebuild using more fore safe materials would help the fire victims to do so.
-
This isn't new...
Design for Disaster, 1961 (https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=yj0rfeF5GbA)
"This 1962 documentary film produced by the Los Angeles Fire Department, describes the historic Bel Air / Brentwood wildfire that started on November 5, 1961 in the Bel Air community of Los Angeles. Over the course of three days, the wind-driven fire destroyed 484 homes, damaged 190 others, and burned over 16,000 acres. Amazingly, there was no loss of life attributable to the blaze.
The then $30 million disaster led to new laws in the City of Los Angeles to eliminate wood shingle roofs, and to clear dry brush away from homes. The film is narrated by actor William Conrad."
-
One of the major takeaways I had after the Marshall fire is the importance of getting rid of wood fences. Fences are the easiest path for fire to spread house-to-house within a neighborhood.
-
...
I've read that home insurance companies started pulling out of insuring Palisades only a few months ago: that should have been a warning to the inhabitants of the level of risk they were under, but non-one seems to have seen it that way, or done anything about it.
I suppose they might insure rebuilding against fire until the brush regrows and becomes dangerous again, and perhaps require concrete walls and roofs rather than timber frames and shingles? But I can't imagine any insurance company in the area will want to insure against the inevitable mudslides next time it rains heavily.
The Pallisades mudslides have already started, even ahead of the rains. I guess the water from the firefighting is to blame...
https://www.nbclosangeles.com/news/california-wildfires/pacific-palisades-house-wildfire-landslide/3606713/
-
...
I've read that home insurance companies started pulling out of insuring Palisades only a few months ago: that should have been a warning to the inhabitants of the level of risk they were under, but non-one seems to have seen it that way, or done anything about it.
I suppose they might insure rebuilding against fire until the brush regrows and becomes dangerous again, and perhaps require concrete walls and roofs rather than timber frames and shingles? But I can't imagine any insurance company in the area will want to insure against the inevitable mudslides next time it rains heavily.
The Pallisades mudslides have already started, even ahead of the rains. I guess the water from the firefighting is to blame...
https://www.nbclosangeles.com/news/california-wildfires/pacific-palisades-house-wildfire-landslide/3606713/
The bummer is that insurance usually doesn't cover landslides but of course would have paid out if the house had burned. So will the owners sue the fire dept for causing the landslide?
-
...
I've read that home insurance companies started pulling out of insuring Palisades only a few months ago: that should have been a warning to the inhabitants of the level of risk they were under, but non-one seems to have seen it that way, or done anything about it.
I suppose they might insure rebuilding against fire until the brush regrows and becomes dangerous again, and perhaps require concrete walls and roofs rather than timber frames and shingles? But I can't imagine any insurance company in the area will want to insure against the inevitable mudslides next time it rains heavily.
The Pallisades mudslides have already started, even ahead of the rains. I guess the water from the firefighting is to blame...
https://www.nbclosangeles.com/news/california-wildfires/pacific-palisades-house-wildfire-landslide/3606713/ (https://www.nbclosangeles.com/news/california-wildfires/pacific-palisades-house-wildfire-landslide/3606713/)
The bummer is that insurance usually doesn't cover landslides but of course would have paid out if the house had burned. So will the owners sue the fire dept for causing the landslide?
Quite often insurance will cover a claim related to a covered risk. So if a fire, which is covered, was the reason for the water which caused the landslide, it could be covered. Depends on the policy. Otherwise, I'm sure some slick LA lawyer would argue too much water was used and caused the mudslide.
-
It looks like Colorado is setting up an insurer of last resort like other states.
Unlike CA and FL, they at least seem to be thinking about insurance in the right way. They want to be sure premiums reflect risk, and those mitigating risks receive credit for it. We'll see how much of this makes it into actual policy though.
https://coloradosun.com/2025/01/20/fire-mitigation-homeowners-insurance-premiums/ (https://coloradosun.com/2025/01/20/fire-mitigation-homeowners-insurance-premiums/)
-
Interesting blog post analyzing different factors to try and explain why homeowner's insurance is rising
https://www.construction-physics.com/p/why-is-homeowners-insurance-getting
Interestingly a major factor is an increase in water damage (accidental discharge, freezing pipes, sprinkler failures, NOT floods). Maybe we're running more plumbing through our houses for more bathrooms? Maybe our plumbing practices have become sloppier leading to more failures? (speculation mine)
The second major factor the author identifies is an increase in wind and hail damage.
-
Interesting blog post analyzing different factors to try and explain why homeowner's insurance is rising
https://www.construction-physics.com/p/why-is-homeowners-insurance-getting
Interestingly a major factor is an increase in water damage (accidental discharge, freezing pipes, sprinkler failures, NOT floods). Maybe we're running more plumbing through our houses for more bathrooms? Maybe our plumbing practices have become sloppier leading to more failures? (speculation mine)
The second major factor the author identifies is an increase in wind and hail damage.
You're correct on both of your plumbing observations. Flexible piping (aka Pex) is much easier to install and is better performing in cold weather and less likely to rupture in a freeze. But plumbers install piping in ways that would not have been done "in the old days".
It's always been risky to run piping in an exterior north facing wall unless it (the piping) was well insulated, but now I see it done all the time, because the Pex performs better and so people believe it won't break (and it *probably* won't).
The hail thing is also scam related. There are unscrupulous roofing companies that will *inspect* your roof post hail storm and declare it a total loss and bill the insurance company for a complete replacement. Nice work if you can get it, I guess.
-
Interesting blog post analyzing different factors to try and explain why homeowner's insurance is rising
https://www.construction-physics.com/p/why-is-homeowners-insurance-getting
Interestingly a major factor is an increase in water damage (accidental discharge, freezing pipes, sprinkler failures, NOT floods). Maybe we're running more plumbing through our houses for more bathrooms? Maybe our plumbing practices have become sloppier leading to more failures? (speculation mine)
The second major factor the author identifies is an increase in wind and hail damage.
You're correct on both of your plumbing observations. Flexible piping (aka Pex) is much easier to install and is better performing in cold weather and less likely to rupture in a freeze. But plumbers install piping in ways that would not have been done "in the old days".
It's always been risky to run piping in an exterior north facing wall unless it (the piping) was well insulated, but now I see it done all the time, because the Pex performs better and so people believe it won't break (and it *probably* won't).
The hail thing is also scam related. There are unscrupulous roofing companies that will *inspect* your roof post hail storm and declare it a total loss and bill the insurance company for a complete replacement. Nice work if you can get it, I guess.
Hail is a legit thing. We had at least one, (if not multiple) hail storms that caused over a billion in damage last year. They didn’t get heavily reported on. Roughly half the roofs in my neighborhood had to be replaced from hail damage last year. Many cars got hit as well. This was golf-ball sized hail.
Many insurance companies in CO are now simply no longer covering hail, or putting massive deductibles on it.
There are changes that should be made to reduce the need for claims. That doesn’t mean it should be dismissed as a scam. Insurance adjusters have very specific thresholds for what they consider a covered roof claim.
-
Interesting blog post analyzing different factors to try and explain why homeowner's insurance is rising
https://www.construction-physics.com/p/why-is-homeowners-insurance-getting
Interestingly a major factor is an increase in water damage (accidental discharge, freezing pipes, sprinkler failures, NOT floods). Maybe we're running more plumbing through our houses for more bathrooms? Maybe our plumbing practices have become sloppier leading to more failures? (speculation mine)
The second major factor the author identifies is an increase in wind and hail damage.
You're correct on both of your plumbing observations. Flexible piping (aka Pex) is much easier to install and is better performing in cold weather and less likely to rupture in a freeze. But plumbers install piping in ways that would not have been done "in the old days".
It's always been risky to run piping in an exterior north facing wall unless it (the piping) was well insulated, but now I see it done all the time, because the Pex performs better and so people believe it won't break (and it *probably* won't).
The hail thing is also scam related. There are unscrupulous roofing companies that will *inspect* your roof post hail storm and declare it a total loss and bill the insurance company for a complete replacement. Nice work if you can get it, I guess.
Hail is a legit thing. We had at least one, (if not multiple) hail storms that caused over a billion in damage last year. They didn’t get heavily reported on. Roughly half the roofs in my neighborhood had to be replaced from hail damage last year. Many cars got hit as well. This was golf-ball sized hail.
Many insurance companies in CO are now simply no longer covering hail, or putting massive deductibles on it.
There are changes that should be made to reduce the need for claims. That doesn’t mean it should be dismissed as a scam. Insurance adjusters have very specific thresholds for what they consider a covered roof claim.
Sure, there's definitely legit damage claims, but there are also *other* claims that are less so; hence the term scam.
-
Interesting blog post analyzing different factors to try and explain why homeowner's insurance is rising
https://www.construction-physics.com/p/why-is-homeowners-insurance-getting
Interestingly a major factor is an increase in water damage (accidental discharge, freezing pipes, sprinkler failures, NOT floods). Maybe we're running more plumbing through our houses for more bathrooms? Maybe our plumbing practices have become sloppier leading to more failures? (speculation mine)
The second major factor the author identifies is an increase in wind and hail damage.
You're correct on both of your plumbing observations. Flexible piping (aka Pex) is much easier to install and is better performing in cold weather and less likely to rupture in a freeze. But plumbers install piping in ways that would not have been done "in the old days".
It's always been risky to run piping in an exterior north facing wall unless it (the piping) was well insulated, but now I see it done all the time, because the Pex performs better and so people believe it won't break (and it *probably* won't).
The hail thing is also scam related. There are unscrupulous roofing companies that will *inspect* your roof post hail storm and declare it a total loss and bill the insurance company for a complete replacement. Nice work if you can get it, I guess.
Hail is a legit thing. We had at least one, (if not multiple) hail storms that caused over a billion in damage last year. They didn’t get heavily reported on. Roughly half the roofs in my neighborhood had to be replaced from hail damage last year. Many cars got hit as well. This was golf-ball sized hail.
Many insurance companies in CO are now simply no longer covering hail, or putting massive deductibles on it.
There are changes that should be made to reduce the need for claims. That doesn’t mean it should be dismissed as a scam. Insurance adjusters have very specific thresholds for what they consider a covered roof claim.
Sure, there's definitely legit damage claims, but there are also *other* claims that are less so; hence the term scam.
I’m not saying scam claims don’t happen, but what in your mind separates a scam claim from a legit one?
Insurance adjusters don’t seem to be inclined to approve nonsense in my limited experience with the process.
-
Interesting blog post analyzing different factors to try and explain why homeowner's insurance is rising
https://www.construction-physics.com/p/why-is-homeowners-insurance-getting
Interestingly a major factor is an increase in water damage (accidental discharge, freezing pipes, sprinkler failures, NOT floods). Maybe we're running more plumbing through our houses for more bathrooms? Maybe our plumbing practices have become sloppier leading to more failures? (speculation mine)
The second major factor the author identifies is an increase in wind and hail damage.
You're correct on both of your plumbing observations. Flexible piping (aka Pex) is much easier to install and is better performing in cold weather and less likely to rupture in a freeze. But plumbers install piping in ways that would not have been done "in the old days".
It's always been risky to run piping in an exterior north facing wall unless it (the piping) was well insulated, but now I see it done all the time, because the Pex performs better and so people believe it won't break (and it *probably* won't).
The hail thing is also scam related. There are unscrupulous roofing companies that will *inspect* your roof post hail storm and declare it a total loss and bill the insurance company for a complete replacement. Nice work if you can get it, I guess.
We have PEX and love it. Uninterrupted runs from each faucet to the distribution manifold in the utility room ( in other words, no plumbing joints at all ).
And it seems to be holding up well. We have been in our home since 1999 and absolutely no plumbing issues ( and we are in the frozen northern midwest ).
-
Interesting blog post analyzing different factors to try and explain why homeowner's insurance is rising
https://www.construction-physics.com/p/why-is-homeowners-insurance-getting
Interestingly a major factor is an increase in water damage (accidental discharge, freezing pipes, sprinkler failures, NOT floods). Maybe we're running more plumbing through our houses for more bathrooms? Maybe our plumbing practices have become sloppier leading to more failures? (speculation mine)
The second major factor the author identifies is an increase in wind and hail damage.
You're correct on both of your plumbing observations. Flexible piping (aka Pex) is much easier to install and is better performing in cold weather and less likely to rupture in a freeze. But plumbers install piping in ways that would not have been done "in the old days".
It's always been risky to run piping in an exterior north facing wall unless it (the piping) was well insulated, but now I see it done all the time, because the Pex performs better and so people believe it won't break (and it *probably* won't).
The hail thing is also scam related. There are unscrupulous roofing companies that will *inspect* your roof post hail storm and declare it a total loss and bill the insurance company for a complete replacement. Nice work if you can get it, I guess.
We have PEX and love it. Uninterrupted runs from each faucet to the distribution manifold in the utility room ( in other words, no plumbing joints at all ).
And it seems to be holding up well. We have been in our home since 1999 and absolutely no plumbing issues ( and we are in the frozen northern midwest ).
On the other hand, the emerging research about microplastics and what they do to human bodies could make PEX and our plastic food containers the asbestos/lead paint of the future. As recently as a couple of decades ago it was rare to put our clorinated, flourinated, mineral-containing drinking water in plastic, so we absolutely don't know the effects yet.
Also, while it's easy to find 50-80 year old copper and cast iron pipes that are still in service, it seems rarer to find plastic objects that are even 30 years old that haven't become brittle or started to crumble. The product may be convenient, freeze resistant, and inexpensive today, but we'll have to see if it lasts more than 2 generations.
IDK if these concerns would justify spending more on a new house's plumbing, but it's certainly no slam dunk decision. Plastic could be the hidden time bomb everywhere if for example microplastics are proven to be endocrine disruptors or carcinogens in the next 15 years.
-
Interesting blog post analyzing different factors to try and explain why homeowner's insurance is rising
https://www.construction-physics.com/p/why-is-homeowners-insurance-getting
Interestingly a major factor is an increase in water damage (accidental discharge, freezing pipes, sprinkler failures, NOT floods). Maybe we're running more plumbing through our houses for more bathrooms? Maybe our plumbing practices have become sloppier leading to more failures? (speculation mine)
The second major factor the author identifies is an increase in wind and hail damage.
You're correct on both of your plumbing observations. Flexible piping (aka Pex) is much easier to install and is better performing in cold weather and less likely to rupture in a freeze. But plumbers install piping in ways that would not have been done "in the old days".
It's always been risky to run piping in an exterior north facing wall unless it (the piping) was well insulated, but now I see it done all the time, because the Pex performs better and so people believe it won't break (and it *probably* won't).
The hail thing is also scam related. There are unscrupulous roofing companies that will *inspect* your roof post hail storm and declare it a total loss and bill the insurance company for a complete replacement. Nice work if you can get it, I guess.
We have PEX and love it. Uninterrupted runs from each faucet to the distribution manifold in the utility room ( in other words, no plumbing joints at all ).
And it seems to be holding up well. We have been in our home since 1999 and absolutely no plumbing issues ( and we are in the frozen northern midwest ).
On the other hand, the emerging research about microplastics and what they do to human bodies could make PEX and our plastic food containers the asbestos/lead paint of the future. As recently as a couple of decades ago it was rare to put our clorinated, flourinated, mineral-containing drinking water in plastic, so we absolutely don't know the effects yet.
Also, while it's easy to find 50-80 year old copper and cast iron pipes that are still in service, it seems rarer to find plastic objects that are even 30 years old that haven't become brittle or started to crumble. The product may be convenient, freeze resistant, and inexpensive today, but we'll have to see if it lasts more than 2 generations.
IDK if these concerns would justify spending more on a new house's plumbing, but it's certainly no slam dunk decision. Plastic could be the hidden time bomb everywhere if for example microplastics are proven to be endocrine disruptors or carcinogens in the next 15 years.
Fair point. However, I'd be more worried about what is in the city water supply, plastic bottled water, etc...
Because of this, we do run our drinking water through a reverse osmosis system. Works great!
-
Interesting blog post analyzing different factors to try and explain why homeowner's insurance is rising
https://www.construction-physics.com/p/why-is-homeowners-insurance-getting
Interestingly a major factor is an increase in water damage (accidental discharge, freezing pipes, sprinkler failures, NOT floods). Maybe we're running more plumbing through our houses for more bathrooms? Maybe our plumbing practices have become sloppier leading to more failures? (speculation mine)
The second major factor the author identifies is an increase in wind and hail damage.
You're correct on both of your plumbing observations. Flexible piping (aka Pex) is much easier to install and is better performing in cold weather and less likely to rupture in a freeze. But plumbers install piping in ways that would not have been done "in the old days".
It's always been risky to run piping in an exterior north facing wall unless it (the piping) was well insulated, but now I see it done all the time, because the Pex performs better and so people believe it won't break (and it *probably* won't).
The hail thing is also scam related. There are unscrupulous roofing companies that will *inspect* your roof post hail storm and declare it a total loss and bill the insurance company for a complete replacement. Nice work if you can get it, I guess.
We have PEX and love it. Uninterrupted runs from each faucet to the distribution manifold in the utility room ( in other words, no plumbing joints at all ).
And it seems to be holding up well. We have been in our home since 1999 and absolutely no plumbing issues ( and we are in the frozen northern midwest ).
On the other hand, the emerging research about microplastics and what they do to human bodies could make PEX and our plastic food containers the asbestos/lead paint of the future. As recently as a couple of decades ago it was rare to put our clorinated, flourinated, mineral-containing drinking water in plastic, so we absolutely don't know the effects yet.
Also, while it's easy to find 50-80 year old copper and cast iron pipes that are still in service, it seems rarer to find plastic objects that are even 30 years old that haven't become brittle or started to crumble. The product may be convenient, freeze resistant, and inexpensive today, but we'll have to see if it lasts more than 2 generations.
IDK if these concerns would justify spending more on a new house's plumbing, but it's certainly no slam dunk decision. Plastic could be the hidden time bomb everywhere if for example microplastics are proven to be endocrine disruptors or carcinogens in the next 15 years.
Fair point. However, I'd be more worried about what is in the city water supply, plastic bottled water, etc...
Because of this, we do run our drinking water through a reverse osmosis system. Works great!
Yeah, I know it's being sold as safe but given the number of things we've been discovering about chemical leaching over the past twenty years, I am uneasy about running all my drinking water through additional plastic before I take a swig of it.
Stuff like this:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0043135414006289 (https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0043135414006289)
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7915131/ (https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7915131/)
makes me leery.
Not that I can do anything about the city choosing to use plastic piping.
-
Interesting blog post analyzing different factors to try and explain why homeowner's insurance is rising
https://www.construction-physics.com/p/why-is-homeowners-insurance-getting
Interestingly a major factor is an increase in water damage (accidental discharge, freezing pipes, sprinkler failures, NOT floods). Maybe we're running more plumbing through our houses for more bathrooms? Maybe our plumbing practices have become sloppier leading to more failures? (speculation mine)
The second major factor the author identifies is an increase in wind and hail damage.
You're correct on both of your plumbing observations. Flexible piping (aka Pex) is much easier to install and is better performing in cold weather and less likely to rupture in a freeze. But plumbers install piping in ways that would not have been done "in the old days".
It's always been risky to run piping in an exterior north facing wall unless it (the piping) was well insulated, but now I see it done all the time, because the Pex performs better and so people believe it won't break (and it *probably* won't).
The hail thing is also scam related. There are unscrupulous roofing companies that will *inspect* your roof post hail storm and declare it a total loss and bill the insurance company for a complete replacement. Nice work if you can get it, I guess.
We have PEX and love it. Uninterrupted runs from each faucet to the distribution manifold in the utility room ( in other words, no plumbing joints at all ).
And it seems to be holding up well. We have been in our home since 1999 and absolutely no plumbing issues ( and we are in the frozen northern midwest ).
On the other hand, the emerging research about microplastics and what they do to human bodies could make PEX and our plastic food containers the asbestos/lead paint of the future. As recently as a couple of decades ago it was rare to put our clorinated, flourinated, mineral-containing drinking water in plastic, so we absolutely don't know the effects yet.
Also, while it's easy to find 50-80 year old copper and cast iron pipes that are still in service, it seems rarer to find plastic objects that are even 30 years old that haven't become brittle or started to crumble. The product may be convenient, freeze resistant, and inexpensive today, but we'll have to see if it lasts more than 2 generations.
IDK if these concerns would justify spending more on a new house's plumbing, but it's certainly no slam dunk decision. Plastic could be the hidden time bomb everywhere if for example microplastics are proven to be endocrine disruptors or carcinogens in the next 15 years.
Fair point. However, I'd be more worried about what is in the city water supply, plastic bottled water, etc...
Because of this, we do run our drinking water through a reverse osmosis system. Works great!
Yeah, I know it's being sold as safe but given the number of things we've been discovering about chemical leaching over the past twenty years, I am uneasy about running all my drinking water through additional plastic before I take a swig of it.
Stuff like this:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0043135414006289 (https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0043135414006289)
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7915131/ (https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7915131/)
makes me leery.
Not that I can do anything about the city choosing to use plastic piping.
Yeah I know.
The "best" solution would likely be a distillation unit with a stainless steel tank. Those are quite expensive though and I doubt the average consumer would ever go for that.
For now, we are going with reverse osmosis..and have been for quite a while. Not a perfect solution...but good enough for us.
-
Interesting blog post analyzing different factors to try and explain why homeowner's insurance is rising
https://www.construction-physics.com/p/why-is-homeowners-insurance-getting
Interestingly a major factor is an increase in water damage (accidental discharge, freezing pipes, sprinkler failures, NOT floods). Maybe we're running more plumbing through our houses for more bathrooms? Maybe our plumbing practices have become sloppier leading to more failures? (speculation mine)
The second major factor the author identifies is an increase in wind and hail damage.
You're correct on both of your plumbing observations. Flexible piping (aka Pex) is much easier to install and is better performing in cold weather and less likely to rupture in a freeze. But plumbers install piping in ways that would not have been done "in the old days".
It's always been risky to run piping in an exterior north facing wall unless it (the piping) was well insulated, but now I see it done all the time, because the Pex performs better and so people believe it won't break (and it *probably* won't).
The hail thing is also scam related. There are unscrupulous roofing companies that will *inspect* your roof post hail storm and declare it a total loss and bill the insurance company for a complete replacement. Nice work if you can get it, I guess.
We have PEX and love it. Uninterrupted runs from each faucet to the distribution manifold in the utility room ( in other words, no plumbing joints at all ).
And it seems to be holding up well. We have been in our home since 1999 and absolutely no plumbing issues ( and we are in the frozen northern midwest ).
On the other hand, the emerging research about microplastics and what they do to human bodies could make PEX and our plastic food containers the asbestos/lead paint of the future. As recently as a couple of decades ago it was rare to put our clorinated, flourinated, mineral-containing drinking water in plastic, so we absolutely don't know the effects yet.
Also, while it's easy to find 50-80 year old copper and cast iron pipes that are still in service, it seems rarer to find plastic objects that are even 30 years old that haven't become brittle or started to crumble. The product may be convenient, freeze resistant, and inexpensive today, but we'll have to see if it lasts more than 2 generations.
IDK if these concerns would justify spending more on a new house's plumbing, but it's certainly no slam dunk decision. Plastic could be the hidden time bomb everywhere if for example microplastics are proven to be endocrine disruptors or carcinogens in the next 15 years.
Fair point. However, I'd be more worried about what is in the city water supply, plastic bottled water, etc...
Because of this, we do run our drinking water through a reverse osmosis system. Works great!
Yeah, I know it's being sold as safe but given the number of things we've been discovering about chemical leaching over the past twenty years, I am uneasy about running all my drinking water through additional plastic before I take a swig of it.
Stuff like this:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0043135414006289 (https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0043135414006289)
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7915131/ (https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7915131/)
makes me leery.
Not that I can do anything about the city choosing to use plastic piping.
Yeah I know.
The "best" solution would likely be a distillation unit with a stainless steel tank. Those are quite expensive though and I doubt the average consumer would ever go for that.
For now, we are going with reverse osmosis..and have been for quite a while. Not a perfect solution...but good enough for us.
Copper plumbing is arguably the best or least controversial solution, IMO. The problem is it costs so much.
-
Honestly, for that vast majority of things, a whole house carbon filter under your sink is cost effective, easy and will sorb the vast majority of organic contaminants. If you have elevated metals or other inorganic constituents, then RO can be useful. The downside of RO is that it wastes a lot of water, is more expensive, and leaves you with water with water with no dissolved minerals. Distillation is energy intensive, complicated and also leaves you with water with no mineral content. Super pure water is not that great to drink because it can throw off your mineral balance when drunk in sufficient quantity.
-
Interesting blog post analyzing different factors to try and explain why homeowner's insurance is rising
https://www.construction-physics.com/p/why-is-homeowners-insurance-getting
Interestingly a major factor is an increase in water damage (accidental discharge, freezing pipes, sprinkler failures, NOT floods). Maybe we're running more plumbing through our houses for more bathrooms? Maybe our plumbing practices have become sloppier leading to more failures? (speculation mine)
The second major factor the author identifies is an increase in wind and hail damage.
You're correct on both of your plumbing observations. Flexible piping (aka Pex) is much easier to install and is better performing in cold weather and less likely to rupture in a freeze. But plumbers install piping in ways that would not have been done "in the old days".
It's always been risky to run piping in an exterior north facing wall unless it (the piping) was well insulated, but now I see it done all the time, because the Pex performs better and so people believe it won't break (and it *probably* won't).
The hail thing is also scam related. There are unscrupulous roofing companies that will *inspect* your roof post hail storm and declare it a total loss and bill the insurance company for a complete replacement. Nice work if you can get it, I guess.
Hail is a legit thing. We had at least one, (if not multiple) hail storms that caused over a billion in damage last year. They didn’t get heavily reported on. Roughly half the roofs in my neighborhood had to be replaced from hail damage last year. Many cars got hit as well. This was golf-ball sized hail.
Many insurance companies in CO are now simply no longer covering hail, or putting massive deductibles on it.
There are changes that should be made to reduce the need for claims. That doesn’t mean it should be dismissed as a scam. Insurance adjusters have very specific thresholds for what they consider a covered roof claim.
Sure, there's definitely legit damage claims, but there are also *other* claims that are less so; hence the term scam.
I’m not saying scam claims don’t happen, but what in your mind separates a scam claim from a legit one?
Insurance adjusters don’t seem to be inclined to approve nonsense in my limited experience with the process.
Sorry, I don't have links for you, but you can probably find them if you want.
The basics are that unethical roofing contractors will "inspect" roofs after hail storms and find (or even cause) enough damage to convince the homeowners to file a claim for the roof replacement.
The contractors take over at this point. They sue the insurer if they don't cover the claim, and the insurers often end up settling, because it's cheaper than a court fight.
I imagine the homeowner is pleased because they got a whole new roof (Insurance is supposed to "make you whole"), but it has to drive up rates for everyone else if done in bulk.
-
Interesting blog post analyzing different factors to try and explain why homeowner's insurance is rising
https://www.construction-physics.com/p/why-is-homeowners-insurance-getting
Interestingly a major factor is an increase in water damage (accidental discharge, freezing pipes, sprinkler failures, NOT floods). Maybe we're running more plumbing through our houses for more bathrooms? Maybe our plumbing practices have become sloppier leading to more failures? (speculation mine)
The second major factor the author identifies is an increase in wind and hail damage.
You're correct on both of your plumbing observations. Flexible piping (aka Pex) is much easier to install and is better performing in cold weather and less likely to rupture in a freeze. But plumbers install piping in ways that would not have been done "in the old days".
It's always been risky to run piping in an exterior north facing wall unless it (the piping) was well insulated, but now I see it done all the time, because the Pex performs better and so people believe it won't break (and it *probably* won't).
The hail thing is also scam related. There are unscrupulous roofing companies that will *inspect* your roof post hail storm and declare it a total loss and bill the insurance company for a complete replacement. Nice work if you can get it, I guess.
Hail is a legit thing. We had at least one, (if not multiple) hail storms that caused over a billion in damage last year. They didn’t get heavily reported on. Roughly half the roofs in my neighborhood had to be replaced from hail damage last year. Many cars got hit as well. This was golf-ball sized hail.
Many insurance companies in CO are now simply no longer covering hail, or putting massive deductibles on it.
There are changes that should be made to reduce the need for claims. That doesn’t mean it should be dismissed as a scam. Insurance adjusters have very specific thresholds for what they consider a covered roof claim.
Sure, there's definitely legit damage claims, but there are also *other* claims that are less so; hence the term scam.
I’m not saying scam claims don’t happen, but what in your mind separates a scam claim from a legit one?
Insurance adjusters don’t seem to be inclined to approve nonsense in my limited experience with the process.
Sorry, I don't have links for you, but you can probably find them if you want.
The basics are that unethical roofing contractors will "inspect" roofs after hail storms and find (or even cause) enough damage to convince the homeowners to file a claim for the roof replacement.
The contractors take over at this point. They sue the insurer if they don't cover the claim, and the insurers often end up settling, because it's cheaper than a court fight.
I imagine the homeowner is pleased because they got a whole new roof (Insurance is supposed to "make you whole"), but it has to drive up rates for everyone else if done in bulk.
I agree 100% with @sonofsven on fraud being common. My sister in Florida tells me that after every hurricane contractors come to every house with even minor roof damage and basically promise the homeowner a whole new roof. The contractor gets a big job as opposed to a small one and the homeowner gets a whole new roof as opposed to just a repaired old roof. The only immediate loser is the insurance company, but in the long term, everyone pays inflated rates. Apparently, plenty of people are happy to play along with the contractor.
-
Florida insurance was collapsing due to roofing fraud, even before the hurricanes. No surprise.
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/roofing-scams-florida-property-insurance-hurricane-rcna29649
-
Interesting blog post analyzing different factors to try and explain why homeowner's insurance is rising
https://www.construction-physics.com/p/why-is-homeowners-insurance-getting
Interestingly a major factor is an increase in water damage (accidental discharge, freezing pipes, sprinkler failures, NOT floods). Maybe we're running more plumbing through our houses for more bathrooms? Maybe our plumbing practices have become sloppier leading to more failures? (speculation mine)
The second major factor the author identifies is an increase in wind and hail damage.
You're correct on both of your plumbing observations. Flexible piping (aka Pex) is much easier to install and is better performing in cold weather and less likely to rupture in a freeze. But plumbers install piping in ways that would not have been done "in the old days".
It's always been risky to run piping in an exterior north facing wall unless it (the piping) was well insulated, but now I see it done all the time, because the Pex performs better and so people believe it won't break (and it *probably* won't).
The hail thing is also scam related. There are unscrupulous roofing companies that will *inspect* your roof post hail storm and declare it a total loss and bill the insurance company for a complete replacement. Nice work if you can get it, I guess.
Hail is a legit thing. We had at least one, (if not multiple) hail storms that caused over a billion in damage last year. They didn’t get heavily reported on. Roughly half the roofs in my neighborhood had to be replaced from hail damage last year. Many cars got hit as well. This was golf-ball sized hail.
Many insurance companies in CO are now simply no longer covering hail, or putting massive deductibles on it.
There are changes that should be made to reduce the need for claims. That doesn’t mean it should be dismissed as a scam. Insurance adjusters have very specific thresholds for what they consider a covered roof claim.
Sure, there's definitely legit damage claims, but there are also *other* claims that are less so; hence the term scam.
I’m not saying scam claims don’t happen, but what in your mind separates a scam claim from a legit one?
Insurance adjusters don’t seem to be inclined to approve nonsense in my limited experience with the process.
Sorry, I don't have links for you, but you can probably find them if you want.
The basics are that unethical roofing contractors will "inspect" roofs after hail storms and find (or even cause) enough damage to convince the homeowners to file a claim for the roof replacement.
The contractors take over at this point. They sue the insurer if they don't cover the claim, and the insurers often end up settling, because it's cheaper than a court fight.
I imagine the homeowner is pleased because they got a whole new roof (Insurance is supposed to "make you whole"), but it has to drive up rates for everyone else if done in bulk.
I agree 100% with @sonofsven on fraud being common. My sister in Florida tells me that after every hurricane contractors come to every house with even minor roof damage and basically promise the homeowner a whole new roof. The contractor gets a big job as opposed to a small one and the homeowner gets a whole new roof as opposed to just a repaired old roof. The only immediate loser is the insurance company, but in the long term, everyone pays inflated rates. Apparently, plenty of people are happy to play along with the contractor.
I have heard of this, but don't live anywhere near Florida.
Isn't this related to flaws in insurance law specifically related to Florida and not something that impacts all states?
My prior comments were specifically talking about hail claims, and my context is claims in Colorado. I've never heard of these types of lawsuits in Colorado.
-
Interesting blog post analyzing different factors to try and explain why homeowner's insurance is rising
https://www.construction-physics.com/p/why-is-homeowners-insurance-getting
Interestingly a major factor is an increase in water damage (accidental discharge, freezing pipes, sprinkler failures, NOT floods). Maybe we're running more plumbing through our houses for more bathrooms? Maybe our plumbing practices have become sloppier leading to more failures? (speculation mine)
The second major factor the author identifies is an increase in wind and hail damage.
You're correct on both of your plumbing observations. Flexible piping (aka Pex) is much easier to install and is better performing in cold weather and less likely to rupture in a freeze. But plumbers install piping in ways that would not have been done "in the old days".
It's always been risky to run piping in an exterior north facing wall unless it (the piping) was well insulated, but now I see it done all the time, because the Pex performs better and so people believe it won't break (and it *probably* won't).
The hail thing is also scam related. There are unscrupulous roofing companies that will *inspect* your roof post hail storm and declare it a total loss and bill the insurance company for a complete replacement. Nice work if you can get it, I guess.
Hail is a legit thing. We had at least one, (if not multiple) hail storms that caused over a billion in damage last year. They didn’t get heavily reported on. Roughly half the roofs in my neighborhood had to be replaced from hail damage last year. Many cars got hit as well. This was golf-ball sized hail.
Many insurance companies in CO are now simply no longer covering hail, or putting massive deductibles on it.
There are changes that should be made to reduce the need for claims. That doesn’t mean it should be dismissed as a scam. Insurance adjusters have very specific thresholds for what they consider a covered roof claim.
Sure, there's definitely legit damage claims, but there are also *other* claims that are less so; hence the term scam.
I’m not saying scam claims don’t happen, but what in your mind separates a scam claim from a legit one?
Insurance adjusters don’t seem to be inclined to approve nonsense in my limited experience with the process.
Sorry, I don't have links for you, but you can probably find them if you want.
The basics are that unethical roofing contractors will "inspect" roofs after hail storms and find (or even cause) enough damage to convince the homeowners to file a claim for the roof replacement.
The contractors take over at this point. They sue the insurer if they don't cover the claim, and the insurers often end up settling, because it's cheaper than a court fight.
I imagine the homeowner is pleased because they got a whole new roof (Insurance is supposed to "make you whole"), but it has to drive up rates for everyone else if done in bulk.
I agree 100% with @sonofsven on fraud being common. My sister in Florida tells me that after every hurricane contractors come to every house with even minor roof damage and basically promise the homeowner a whole new roof. The contractor gets a big job as opposed to a small one and the homeowner gets a whole new roof as opposed to just a repaired old roof. The only immediate loser is the insurance company, but in the long term, everyone pays inflated rates. Apparently, plenty of people are happy to play along with the contractor.
I have heard of this, but don't live anywhere near Florida.
Isn't this related to flaws in insurance law specifically related to Florida and not something that impacts all states?
My prior comments were specifically talking about hail claims, and my context is claims in Colorado. I've never heard of these types of lawsuits in Colorado.
I don't live in Colorado, and I think you are right that the insurance situation isn't perfectly analogous to Florida, but a simple google search turns up a lot of articles about roofing scams. A lot of cases seem to scam the homeowner, but there's discussion of ripping off insurance companies by causing intentional damage or working in collusion with insurance agents for referrals. My guess is that homeowners insurance is like car and medical insurance, where some people are happy to make inflated claims for their own benefit. Insurance companies are happy to let other customers pay for the cost of this abuse, at least up to a point.
-
Another study, another warning (https://news.yahoo.com/news/climate-risk-trillion-dollar-bite-123853238.html)about increasing insurance premiums. This one is specific enough to list cities that are in danger of abandonment.
The study itself is at https://assets.riskfactor.com/media/The%2012th%20National%20Risk%20Assessment.pdf.
Americans will likely continue to flock to many of the areas that face the most peril, as local amenities and favorable economic conditions outweigh the mounting costs of climate risk.
-
In other news, the California FAIR insurance program has announced it needs $1 billion from homeowners and insurers to pay claims from the LA fires. So everyone in CA will be contributing to rebuild homes in the Palisades and Malibu (and Altadena but that's not so hard to swallow). I wonder how low and moderate income folks far from LA feel about that and what local and state politicians will have to say. Right after the fires some FAIR official said in an interview they had enough funds to pay claims. I have a hunch the final ask will end up being more than 1B but time will tell...
https://calmatters.org/economy/2025/02/homeowners-insurance-costs-rising-in-california-fair-plan/
-
In other news, the California FAIR insurance program has announced it needs $1 billion from homeowners and insurers to pay claims from the LA fires. So everyone in CA will be contributing to rebuild homes in the Palisades and Malibu (and Altadena but that's not so hard to swallow). I wonder how low and moderate income folks far from LA feel about that and what local and state politicians will have to say. Right after the fires some FAIR official said in an interview they had enough funds to pay claims. I have a hunch the final ask will end up being more than 1B but time will tell...
https://calmatters.org/economy/2025/02/homeowners-insurance-costs-rising-in-california-fair-plan/ (https://calmatters.org/economy/2025/02/homeowners-insurance-costs-rising-in-california-fair-plan/)
Shared risk is the basis of insurance. We can’t ring fence everyone!
-
In other news, the California FAIR insurance program has announced it needs $1 billion from homeowners and insurers to pay claims from the LA fires. So everyone in CA will be contributing to rebuild homes in the Palisades and Malibu (and Altadena but that's not so hard to swallow). I wonder how low and moderate income folks far from LA feel about that and what local and state politicians will have to say. Right after the fires some FAIR official said in an interview they had enough funds to pay claims. I have a hunch the final ask will end up being more than 1B but time will tell...
https://calmatters.org/economy/2025/02/homeowners-insurance-costs-rising-in-california-fair-plan/ (https://calmatters.org/economy/2025/02/homeowners-insurance-costs-rising-in-california-fair-plan/)
Shared risk is the basis of insurance. We can’t ring fence everyone!
Shared risk within the same risk profile is the basis of insurance. Drivers with poor driving records (at-fault accidents, DUIs, etc.) pay more for insurance because they're in a higher risk class. This is also why auto insurance rates vary by location and vehicle. Seagoing vessels pay different rates depending on the shipping lane and season. Insurance isn't designed to shift costs from high- to low-risk, its purpose is to even out the cost of rare events within a substantially similar risk pool. Risk models are constantly adapting to change and get updated with new information. As we learn more about the effects of climate change, it's very clear that places like Pacific Palisades, Malibu, and Paradise are at very different fire risk levels compared to downtown LA and other urban cores.
-
In other news, the California FAIR insurance program has announced it needs $1 billion from homeowners and insurers to pay claims from the LA fires. So everyone in CA will be contributing to rebuild homes in the Palisades and Malibu (and Altadena but that's not so hard to swallow). I wonder how low and moderate income folks far from LA feel about that and what local and state politicians will have to say. Right after the fires some FAIR official said in an interview they had enough funds to pay claims. I have a hunch the final ask will end up being more than 1B but time will tell...
https://calmatters.org/economy/2025/02/homeowners-insurance-costs-rising-in-california-fair-plan/ (https://calmatters.org/economy/2025/02/homeowners-insurance-costs-rising-in-california-fair-plan/)
Shared risk is the basis of insurance. We can’t ring fence everyone!
Shared risk within the same risk profile is the basis of insurance. Drivers with poor driving records (at-fault accidents, DUIs, etc.) pay more for insurance because they're in a higher risk class. This is also why auto insurance rates vary by location and vehicle. Seagoing vessels pay different rates depending on the shipping lane and season. Insurance isn't designed to shift costs from high- to low-risk, its purpose is to even out the cost of rare events within a substantially similar risk pool. Risk models are constantly adapting to change and get updated with new information. As we learn more about the effects of climate change, it's very clear that places like Pacific Palisades, Malibu, and Paradise are at very different fire risk levels compared to downtown LA and other urban cores.
People in higher risk areas definitely pay more for insurance but it is sold by the same companies insuring the rest of us so when the company has losses in one state, premiums in another state make up the difference.
-
In other news, the California FAIR insurance program has announced it needs $1 billion from homeowners and insurers to pay claims from the LA fires. So everyone in CA will be contributing to rebuild homes in the Palisades and Malibu (and Altadena but that's not so hard to swallow). I wonder how low and moderate income folks far from LA feel about that and what local and state politicians will have to say. Right after the fires some FAIR official said in an interview they had enough funds to pay claims. I have a hunch the final ask will end up being more than 1B but time will tell...
https://calmatters.org/economy/2025/02/homeowners-insurance-costs-rising-in-california-fair-plan/ (https://calmatters.org/economy/2025/02/homeowners-insurance-costs-rising-in-california-fair-plan/)
Shared risk is the basis of insurance. We can’t ring fence everyone!
Shared risk within the same risk profile is the basis of insurance. Drivers with poor driving records (at-fault accidents, DUIs, etc.) pay more for insurance because they're in a higher risk class. This is also why auto insurance rates vary by location and vehicle. Seagoing vessels pay different rates depending on the shipping lane and season. Insurance isn't designed to shift costs from high- to low-risk, its purpose is to even out the cost of rare events within a substantially similar risk pool. Risk models are constantly adapting to change and get updated with new information. As we learn more about the effects of climate change, it's very clear that places like Pacific Palisades, Malibu, and Paradise are at very different fire risk levels compared to downtown LA and other urban cores.
People in higher risk areas definitely pay more for insurance but it is sold by the same companies insuring the rest of us so when the company has losses in one state, premiums in another state make up the difference.
And that is where the role of government comes into play but typically fails. Insurance regulators shouldn't be allowing across the board increases or essentially forcing insurance companies to leave the state - they should be auditing and reviewing insurance companies risk assumptions and premiums, but that may make certainly areas unaffordable or uninsurable and not fair to everyone.
But hey, they instead just create a government insurance that has no oversight or experience and well there you go.
-
In other news, the California FAIR insurance program has announced it needs $1 billion from homeowners and insurers to pay claims from the LA fires. So everyone in CA will be contributing to rebuild homes in the Palisades and Malibu (and Altadena but that's not so hard to swallow). I wonder how low and moderate income folks far from LA feel about that and what local and state politicians will have to say. Right after the fires some FAIR official said in an interview they had enough funds to pay claims. I have a hunch the final ask will end up being more than 1B but time will tell...
https://calmatters.org/economy/2025/02/homeowners-insurance-costs-rising-in-california-fair-plan/ (https://calmatters.org/economy/2025/02/homeowners-insurance-costs-rising-in-california-fair-plan/)
Shared risk is the basis of insurance. We can’t ring fence everyone!
Shared risk within the same risk profile is the basis of insurance. Drivers with poor driving records (at-fault accidents, DUIs, etc.) pay more for insurance because they're in a higher risk class. This is also why auto insurance rates vary by location and vehicle. Seagoing vessels pay different rates depending on the shipping lane and season. Insurance isn't designed to shift costs from high- to low-risk, its purpose is to even out the cost of rare events within a substantially similar risk pool. Risk models are constantly adapting to change and get updated with new information. As we learn more about the effects of climate change, it's very clear that places like Pacific Palisades, Malibu, and Paradise are at very different fire risk levels compared to downtown LA and other urban cores.
People in higher risk areas definitely pay more for insurance but it is sold by the same companies insuring the rest of us so when the company has losses in one state, premiums in another state make up the difference.
There is no economic law of profits such that a loss in one area is automatically recouped elsewhere. In my state (Idaho) there are no controls on rate increases, but there's a thriving market of providers competing for policies. My current insurance is State Farm and yet I pay substantially less than I did in California. Companies are not price setters (in the sense economics uses this term)... if a company attempts to raise rates higher to make up for losses in CA then a competitor quickly undercuts them.
-
Insurance is state regulated anyway. Rates in Kansas can't increase to cover losses in California or Florida (correct me if I'm wrong).
----------
Momentum is gathering:
“If you fast-forward 10 or 15 years, there are going to be regions of the country where you can’t get a mortgage,” [Powell] said during his semiannual testimony to Congress, noting that banks and insurance companies have been pulling out of coastal and fire-prone areas they deem too high risk.
This will be a sea change. A lot of people use their home equity as their main savings account.
-
Insurance is state regulated anyway. Rates in Kansas can't increase to cover losses in California or Florida (correct me if I'm wrong).
----------
Momentum is gathering:
“If you fast-forward 10 or 15 years, there are going to be regions of the country where you can’t get a mortgage,” [Powell] said during his semiannual testimony to Congress, noting that banks and insurance companies have been pulling out of coastal and fire-prone areas they deem too high risk.
This will be a sea change. A lot of people use their home equity as their main savings account.
It feels somewhat arbitrary that you can't ask someone in Kansas to pay more due to the risk (or losses) from CA wildfires, but you can ask someone in San Francisco to pay more for that reason. Or ask people in Chico and Bakersfield (where the average income is about $33k/year), or other low-income areas to pay for the risk that the Kardashians have by living where they do, or the cost of rebuilding Paris Hilton's mansion. I know the entire system of insurance is spreading out the risk pool, but that doesn't seem fair or reasonable. Charge Ms. Hilton 10x what she was paying before, rather than charging her and the mechanic in Bakersfield 2x.
Also, I am yet again glad we sold our CA rental last summer (and it fell out of escrow once due to problem with the buyers getting reasonable insurance, and the buyers that did end up closing struggled a bit with insurance, too).
-
I'm still house hunting in coastal SoCal but with the potential for more insurance companies not issuing or renewing new policies, as well as another huge rate increase for homeowners insurance likely to be approved, it might mean it will be impossible to get insurance even in a non-fire prone non-flood prone area. Might have to rethink buying verses renting - although rents have increased wildly since the PP and Altadena fires. Quotes I've gotten have been lowish but fear that we couldn't get a policy at all or could get dumped is an issue.
-
JPow was right to note the risk of market illiquidity in “time bomb” areas. What happens to home prices when no buyers can obtain a mortgage because they cannot get insurance? Seems like a recipe for a “fire sale” that could gain momentum. Price declines could lead to much higher foreclosure rates, which could ignite other hidden time bombs: derivatives based on mortgage backed securities. People have already been relying on 3% to 5% down payments for years, so there’s not much of an equity buffer before it makes sense to walk away. This is how we get a 2007-2008 scenario again.
-
Insurance is state regulated anyway. Rates in Kansas can't increase to cover losses in California or Florida (correct me if I'm wrong).
----------
Momentum is gathering:
“If you fast-forward 10 or 15 years, there are going to be regions of the country where you can’t get a mortgage,” [Powell] said during his semiannual testimony to Congress, noting that banks and insurance companies have been pulling out of coastal and fire-prone areas they deem too high risk.
This will be a sea change. A lot of people use their home equity as their main savings account.
State Farm can not ask for a rate increase in Kansas to cover out of state costs, but they will ask for increases in all states (giving other reasons) as they are a national insurer. As long as they make a profit in aggregate they are happy. The end result is Kansas profits will subsidize losses elsewhere.
-
Insurance is state regulated anyway. Rates in Kansas can't increase to cover losses in California or Florida (correct me if I'm wrong).
----------
Momentum is gathering:
“If you fast-forward 10 or 15 years, there are going to be regions of the country where you can’t get a mortgage,” [Powell] said during his semiannual testimony to Congress, noting that banks and insurance companies have been pulling out of coastal and fire-prone areas they deem too high risk.
This will be a sea change. A lot of people use their home equity as their main savings account.
State Farm can not ask for a rate increase in Kansas to cover out of state costs, but they will ask for increases in all states (giving other reasons) as they are a national insurer. As long as they make a profit in aggregate they are happy. The end result is Kansas profits will subsidize losses elsewhere.
That's not how companies think about pricing. A for profit company is always going to charge as much as they think the market will bear. As far as I can tell, California is the only state that requires insurers to seek approval before increasing rates. So if State Farm has been leaving money on the table in Kansas then they're a very poorly run business.
If an insurance company is loosing money in California because they cannot charge enough to cover their losses, then the expected response is for them to leave the state. Which is exactly what's been happening.
-
Insurance is state regulated anyway. Rates in Kansas can't increase to cover losses in California or Florida (correct me if I'm wrong).
----------
Momentum is gathering:
“If you fast-forward 10 or 15 years, there are going to be regions of the country where you can’t get a mortgage,” [Powell] said during his semiannual testimony to Congress, noting that banks and insurance companies have been pulling out of coastal and fire-prone areas they deem too high risk.
This will be a sea change. A lot of people use their home equity as their main savings account.
State Farm can not ask for a rate increase in Kansas to cover out of state costs, but they will ask for increases in all states (giving other reasons) as they are a national insurer. As long as they make a profit in aggregate they are happy. The end result is Kansas profits will subsidize losses elsewhere.
That's not how companies think about pricing. A for profit company is always going to charge as much as they think the market will bear. As far as I can tell, California is the only state that requires insurers to seek approval before increasing rates. So if State Farm has been leaving money on the table in Kansas then they're a very poorly run business.
If an insurance company is loosing money in California because they cannot charge enough to cover their losses, then the expected response is for them to leave the state. Which is exactly what's been happening.
All 50 states have an insurance commissioner and most or all have a scheme for approving rate increases.
-
Insurance is state regulated anyway. Rates in Kansas can't increase to cover losses in California or Florida (correct me if I'm wrong).
----------
Momentum is gathering:
“If you fast-forward 10 or 15 years, there are going to be regions of the country where you can’t get a mortgage,” [Powell] said during his semiannual testimony to Congress, noting that banks and insurance companies have been pulling out of coastal and fire-prone areas they deem too high risk.
This will be a sea change. A lot of people use their home equity as their main savings account.
State Farm can not ask for a rate increase in Kansas to cover out of state costs, but they will ask for increases in all states (giving other reasons) as they are a national insurer. As long as they make a profit in aggregate they are happy. The end result is Kansas profits will subsidize losses elsewhere.
That's not how companies think about pricing. A for profit company is always going to charge as much as they think the market will bear. As far as I can tell, California is the only state that requires insurers to seek approval before increasing rates. So if State Farm has been leaving money on the table in Kansas then they're a very poorly run business.
If an insurance company is loosing money in California because they cannot charge enough to cover their losses, then the expected response is for them to leave the state. Which is exactly what's been happening.
All 50 states have an insurance commissioner and most or all have a scheme for approving rate increases.
Yes, but how this actually works in practice is complicated. Some states operate under a "file and use" system, with the potential for scrutiny by the insurance commissioner after the fact. In many states insurance companies can easily increase rates as long as they aren't doing anything excessive or abusive. Whereas in California it was, until recently, very difficult to get increases approved. In states with "file and use" and other oversight, I find it hard to believe commissioners would turn a blind eye to rate increase above what's necessary for the local market in order to cover losses in CA.
-
In other news, the California FAIR insurance program has announced it needs $1 billion from homeowners and insurers to pay claims from the LA fires. So everyone in CA will be contributing to rebuild homes in the Palisades and Malibu (and Altadena but that's not so hard to swallow). I wonder how low and moderate income folks far from LA feel about that and what local and state politicians will have to say. Right after the fires some FAIR official said in an interview they had enough funds to pay claims. I have a hunch the final ask will end up being more than 1B but time will tell...
https://calmatters.org/economy/2025/02/homeowners-insurance-costs-rising-in-california-fair-plan/
I'm not in CA but it's really interesting how the state deals with home insurance
- does not allow private insurers the freedom to charge rates based on risk
- when insurance is not available in high risk areas, the state provides the insurance but does not price rates appropriately
- when the state doesn't have enough to pay claims after a disaster, private insurance is forced to come up with funds to cover those claims
- rates go up statewide even for policies in low risk areas
another article with more detail
https://www.axios.com/2025/02/12/la-wildfire-losses-fair-plan
a couple highlights
Assuming every insurer requested and received such approval, and based on estimates of around 8 million homeowners' insurance policies in force in the state, the impact would be a little more than $60 per policyholder.
What they're saying: "With peak fire season still ahead, the urgent need for reforms to stabilize California's insurance market and protect consumer access to coverage now and in the future has never been greater," the American Property Casualty Insurance Association said in a statement.
Yes, but: Despite such recommendations, in the early days of the reconstruction, the state's been moving toward less restrictive codes, not more, to accelerate rebuilding.
-
I have State Farm as my insurer (just have a non-car owners policy currently) and he has Geico on his truck. We put in a cash offer on a place with it being contingent of getting insurance. State Farm quote me about $1500/year which seems reasonable to me and said they are still writing new policies for that area but I keep reading how they might pull out of the state or cancel policies so not sure. I know one couple who has State Farm and had a pipe break and major flooding and needed an expensive renovation that took 3 months (with them living in an airbnb paid for by State Farm). Once everything was completed and they moved back in State Farm cancelled their policy and they haven't been able to get a new one yet. And this was before the big fires. It's scary to contemplate.
-
State Farm has been pretty reliable in CA so far. If they bail on you, just have a local independent search for you. That seems to work well. I don’t know anyone who has not been able to find coverage.
-
State Farm has been pretty reliable in CA so far. If they bail on you, just have a local independent search for you. That seems to work well. I don’t know anyone who has not been able to find coverage.
That's good to know. They were my former HO insurance as well as umbrella, earthquake and car insurer and I've never had a problem so will likely go with them if they'll write a new policy - which it seems they will. $1500/year is a lot more than I paid before but it's a bit newer house but small and much of the value is in the land rather then the building.
-
People in higher risk areas definitely pay more for insurance but it is sold by the same companies insuring the rest of us so when the company has losses in one state, premiums in another state make up the difference.
Only indirectly. Insurance is regulated individually by the states, so the risk pool is typically (or maybe always) limited to one state.
-
Some interesting polling data coming out on this, looks like this is starting to affect housing markets: American Homeowners Thinking Twice About Moving to California, Florida (https://www.newsweek.com/american-homeowners-thinking-twice-about-moving-california-florida-2077067)
Nearly half of all U.S. homeowners (48 percent) said they would avoid buying a home in states at high risk of natural disasters. California, Florida and Louisiana were the top three states that homeowners would avoid.
Coincidentally, they are also the ones that have faced a spike in home insurance premiums over the past five years—showing the importance that the cost and availability of home insurance can have for homeowners.
-
Some interesting polling data coming out on this, looks like this is starting to affect housing markets: American Homeowners Thinking Twice About Moving to California, Florida (https://www.newsweek.com/american-homeowners-thinking-twice-about-moving-california-florida-2077067)
Nearly half of all U.S. homeowners (48 percent) said they would avoid buying a home in states at high risk of natural disasters. California, Florida and Louisiana were the top three states that homeowners would avoid.
Coincidentally, they are also the ones that have faced a spike in home insurance premiums over the past five years—showing the importance that the cost and availability of home insurance can have for homeowners.
It is funny how the risk itself doesn't limit anybody moving to those states, but the cost to manage the risk keeps people away.
-
Some interesting polling data coming out on this, looks like this is starting to affect housing markets: American Homeowners Thinking Twice About Moving to California, Florida (https://www.newsweek.com/american-homeowners-thinking-twice-about-moving-california-florida-2077067)
Nearly half of all U.S. homeowners (48 percent) said they would avoid buying a home in states at high risk of natural disasters. California, Florida and Louisiana were the top three states that homeowners would avoid.
Coincidentally, they are also the ones that have faced a spike in home insurance premiums over the past five years—showing the importance that the cost and availability of home insurance can have for homeowners.
It is funny how the risk itself doesn't limit anybody moving to those states, but the cost to manage the risk keeps people away.
Kinda like how tobacco taxes reduce consumption among people who know tobacco causes cancer. I guess we live for the sake of bargain shopping.
-
Fun to see this thread pop back up, I just paid my $1,296 flood insurance premium for my property. 500ft from the ocean but in Flood Zone X
"📦 Penske Truck Rental: Top Moving Destinations (2024)
Penske ranks its top destinations by analyzing one-way truck rental data. In 2024, the top 10 cities were:
Penske
Houston, Texas (No. 1 for four consecutive years)
Atlanta, Georgia
San Antonio, Texas
Dallas, Texas
Orlando, Florida
Charlotte, North Carolina
Las Vegas, Nevada
Chicago, Illinois (Returning – last ranked in 2021)
Austin, Texas
Tampa, Florida"
Houston, Orlando, and Tampa all have hurricane issues yet continue to be in the top 10 of inbound moving destinations.
-
Fun to see this thread pop back up, I just paid my $1,296 flood insurance premium for my property. 500ft from the ocean but in Flood Zone X
"📦 Penske Truck Rental: Top Moving Destinations (2024)
Penske ranks its top destinations by analyzing one-way truck rental data. In 2024, the top 10 cities were:
Penske
Houston, Texas (No. 1 for four consecutive years)
Atlanta, Georgia
San Antonio, Texas
Dallas, Texas
Orlando, Florida
Charlotte, North Carolina
Las Vegas, Nevada
Chicago, Illinois (Returning – last ranked in 2021)
Austin, Texas
Tampa, Florida"
Houston, Orlando, and Tampa all have hurricane issues yet continue to be in the top 10 of inbound moving destinations.
All but 3 cities have no state income tax. Not sure why people are willingly moving to Chicago. Atlanta and Charlotte supposedly are/were cheap growing cities and have a lot of jobs?
I definitely hesitate to buy in CA, especially coastal CA, not just expensive homeowners insurance but also expensive homes with high interest rates. It would take a massive chunk out of my portfolio to drop cash on a property. It's gotta be at least 15-20 years worth of rent just to get a small condo in the least desirable parts of the region, which seems insane. Hopefully it will make $$$ sense to own somewhere someday again as my place is a bit smaller than I'd like.
-
Literally sinking real estate in Florida: https://youtu.be/ntIQcplE1GE?si=tOCN8gmvGqgOc6h2
-
@tj re: Chicago. It's still the third largest city in the nation and attracts tens of thousands of Big10 graduates a year to start their career. Not everyone is willing to move more than a few hours away from family and all the metro areas near Chicago are a fraction of it's size. I worked with a southern guy who played Baseball at Notre Dame and the lightbulb went he was explaining where all his classmates migrated to. That made the lightbulb go off.
It takes generations to destory the flywheel that is the hub of the upper midwest (even if the City government is trying as hard as they can to do so)
-
I've only ever been there as a tourist but IMO Chicago is a great town. I could totally see living there.
-
Chicago has issues yes, but so do all the big cities. Just because it has winter isn't a good enough reason to paint the entire region as terrible. And please don't say "crime" and "guns" and whatever else - there are similar problems everywhere.
I'll be interested to see what the top destinations are in 2025.
-
Chicago has issues yes, but so do all the big cities. Just because it has winter isn't a good enough reason to paint the entire region as terrible. And please don't say "crime" and "guns" and whatever else - there are similar problems everywhere.
I'll be interested to see what the top destinations are in 2025.
I have a friend that retired in Chicago and loves it. He considers it as a place with similar amenities to New York or San Francisco, yet with significantly cheaper housing.
I briefly visited and enjoyed the city. I only know it as a tourist, but it's on my list of cities to consider moving to once the kids are out of the house.
I have heard the great lakes area called a "climate haven" compared with places like California or Florida, but I don't know whether that's based on anything more than the lack of hurricanes and fires.
-
Chicago is a gem of a walkable, livable, affordable city with excellent public transportation, endless culture and great neighborhoods. It has been a draw for young adults across the midwest for decades and will continue be one for anyone who desires to escape rural living.
-
Chicago has issues yes, but so do all the big cities. Just because it has winter isn't a good enough reason to paint the entire region as terrible. And please don't say "crime" and "guns" and whatever else - there are similar problems everywhere.
I'll be interested to see what the top destinations are in 2025.
I have a friend that retired in Chicago and loves it. He considers it as a place with similar amenities to New York or San Francisco, yet with significantly cheaper housing.
I briefly visited and enjoyed the city. I only know it as a tourist, but it's on my list of cities to consider moving to once the kids are out of the house.
I have heard the great lakes area called a "climate haven" compared with places like California or Florida, but I don't know whether that's based on anything more than the lack of hurricanes and fires.
Yes this and what everyone else said about how fantastic Chicago is. It is hands down on my top 3 best cities in the US. I've not lived there just visited, but I have a couple of friends who live there full time. I've visited the city a fair amount, restaurants, Wrigley Stadium, arts, culture, music, that cheese and caramel popcorn they do so good, people are nice, the city is set up in a logical fashion, lot's of interesting things going on, I thought the public transport was good etc.
-
Ultimately climate change is interesting because some locations will be heavily impacted and other locations will get off relatively lightly. It's a bit similar to Covid in that regard. Some demographics were very vulnerable and others had much less risk.