America's coastal cities are a hidden time bomb

[Dancin'Dog]

“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.

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.

[AnotherEngineer]

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.

[ChpBstrd]

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.

[AnotherEngineer]

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.

[GilesMM]

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.

[farmecologist]

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.

[deborah]

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.

[NorCal]

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.

[Telecaster]

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/

[GilesMM]

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.

[spartana]

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.

[Villanelle]

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.) 

[ChpBstrd]

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.

[GuitarStv]

There are some serious environmental implications to the idea of building all our houses out of concrete.

[Dancin'Dog]

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. 

[GuitarStv]

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 . . .

[ChpBstrd]

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.

[Blackeagle]

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.

[FINate]

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.

[GuitarStv]

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  )

[ChpBstrd]

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.

[Dancin'Dog]

I’ve been dreaming of moving into an expensive tiny apartment in a crowded city, so I can reduce my infrastructure footprint.

[FINate]

Here's an interesting video from Not Just Bikes about how dense urban areas subsidize suburbia. 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, 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.

[MoseyingAlong]

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.

[spartana]

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.

[bacchi]

And on the infrastructure side, the county doesn't have the funds to keep repairing washed out roads, 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.

[tj]

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

[FINate]

And on the infrastructure side, the county doesn't have the funds to keep repairing washed out roads, 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.

[MrGreen]

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.

[tj]

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'.

[chasesfish]

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.

[spartana]

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/

[Villanelle]

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/

[Glenstache]

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.

[tj]

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/

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.

[tj]

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

[ChpBstrd]

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/

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.

[tj]

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/

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.

[Villanelle]

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/

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. 

[spartana]

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/

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.

[tj]

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/

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.

[spartana]

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.

[Villanelle]

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. 

[FINate]

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/

[spartana]

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.

[spartana]

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.

[clarkfan1979]

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. 
   

[AccidentialMustache]

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.

[FINate]

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.

[NorCal]

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.