Hacker News Reader

Comment by codyb | Hacker News Reader

There's also the fact that if we don't subsidize places where natural disasters occur millions of people are going to start moving rather quickly.

Everywhere's a disaster zone now, we need to account for that, do our best to warn people, and do our best to help people get back to it. This is true here, and around the globe.

Mass migrations are _destabilizing_. It's not crony capitalism, it's common sense for stability.

And there are certainly places that are absolutely irredeemable and shouldn't have insurance. But this idea that letting people whose homes are destroyed in natural disasters need to be hung out to dry won't be worse than helping them get back onto their feet both for them and most likely for you is a bit odd.

View on HN

There is a middle ground though.

If a specific area floods very frequently, it seems silly to keep bailing it out.

At some point we have to cut our losses and face reality and just stop investing there.

Agreed, and the regular insurance companies figured out the solution a long time ago: raise premiums until their expected value exceeds the payouts over the average duration of this type of policy.

And most of the places that have major recurring flooding issues are hyper local (for now at least). We're talking neighborhoods or parts of neighborhoods, not full cities (yet). The number of affected properties is relatively small, but they make up a large portion of overall claims. Stop covering those locations (even if it's a coordinated buyout program of sorts) and the problem sorts itself out...

Edit: and then install retaining infrastructure in place of those houses and you stop future issues too for neighbors

>The number of affected properties is relatively small, but they make up a large portion of overall claims.

Specifically, 1% of properties make up 25% of all claims.

Yea... but... wouldn't the Fort Myers area count as part of the middle ground that's fine? They don't get hit hard consistently.

Should we say that NYC should be abandoned cause Sandy hit 10 years ago and another might hit again one day?

And also I actually said in my post "there are areas we shouldn't".

Ft. Myers has been hit a few times, but you're right - it's not constant. But Florida in general gets hit pretty hard every year - it's just that it happens to different parts of Florida. The Keys get battered every few years, so does Miami, so does Tampa. Even Orlando is not safe.

However, Ft Myers is different from NYC in that sea level rises affect South Florida a hell of a lot more than Manhattan. A 10 foot sea level rise would only affect a small (but definitely not insignificant) part of Manhattan. That same rise would render all of Florida's coastlines (on both sides) uninhabitable. See link below:

https://coast.noaa.gov/slr/

NYC doesn't get hit anywhere close to as often as Florida's coasts do. It's not even comparable.

The insurers are leaving Florida in droves because their risk assessment teams understand that sea level rises and climate change is a significant financial risk to their operations in Florida, no matter how much Governor DeSantis wants to pretend otherwise.

It makes zero sense to insure areas that are going to be uninhabitable in our lifetimes, much less spend billions rebuilding them time and time again.

Disclaimer: I live in South Florida.

Are you sure it's due to risk assessment for climate change and not the huge amount of fraud and litigation? I've heard that something like 80% of all homeowners insurance lawsuits have been from Florida despite only having 9% of claims. When I looked into the issue that was the driving cause I found, it would be good to read some info about the climate change assessment making it into their decision to pull out.

Disclaimer: Also in South Florida

I'm sure it's a mix of both. Yes, there's a ton of home insurance lawsuits here, and yes, the amount of fraud here is mind-boggling.

However, the rapid rise in sea level and the fact that the state legislature is bound by law to not discuss it at all is also a factor. South Florida's coasts will be uninhabitable within 50 years, and if I'm an insurer, that's also on my mind.

Incorrect. Florida is currently undergoing a massive effort to identify resiliency options across the state. There are lots of efforts in the state at the city, county, and state level to address this.

Source?

Also, the efforts that I've seen are sub-par at best. Miami wants to build barrier islands that are a few feet above sea level in order to create a basin-type barrier around Brickell (the financial district where Ken Griffin is building a tower). Those are still in the early stages of bureaucratic hell and won't likely be built until it's way too late.

> floods very frequently [...] keep bailing it out

pun intended?

Nope, I didn't even know that meaning of "bailing out", TIL :)

Mass migrations are _destabilizing_.

Then do it over a period of time. Reduce it to zero over, say, thirty years.

I'll believe it when there's an income-based phase-out, exceptions for multiple homeowners, and tapering with a firm expiration date built into the legislation.

Just because something superficially resembles a good idea, doesn't make it a good idea. See also: corn subsidies.

What about people with 2nd homes? Why just flood insurance?

> Mass migrations are _destabilizing_. It's not crony capitalism, it's common sense for stability.

Insanity is not stability.

It's one thing to maintain some status quo (e.g., a small town / neighborhood is already established). It's another to encourage and reward bad decisions.

There's no reasonable justification for maintaining a pattern that is destined to fail. Again and again and again.

Is this what we considered smart and effective government?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com