Author Topic: America's coastal cities are a hidden time bomb (Read 52036 times)

AnotherEngineer · « **Reply #500 on:** October 10, 2024, 05:52:50 AM »

Quote from: GilesMM on October 09, 2024, 07:13:41 AM

Quote from: 2sk22 on October 09, 2024, 03:41:26 AM
Indeed, the very basis for home insurance is that the land on which the house is standing will not disappear! Clearly this will have to be revisited in the future.

Property insurance protects the building and doesn't care what happens to the land. If the land is affected by flooding, that is too bad. If the flooding affects the house, it will be covered if flood insurance was in place. If the land slumps away, the house will probably not be covered as this coverage is not readily available and is typically specifically excluded on homeowner's policies.

https://www.architecturaldigest.com/story/three-multimillion-dollar-homes-on-a-cliff-appear-at-risk-of-falling-into-the-ocean

Another angle I've been thinking about is that only some portion of homes in the NC mountains were actually damaged and a smaller number had their whole homesite washed away. However, undamaged homes may not have power for weeks and water or a road to access them for months. And earlier post mentioned hike-in houses. Helene exposed that some parcels may have to deal with these impacts on an increased frequency.

NorCal · « **Reply #501 on:** October 10, 2024, 06:32:04 AM »

Quote from: Telecaster on October 09, 2024, 09:36:06 PM

@NorCal Yes, that would be the common sense way to approach it. Very small increases in initial costs can lead to substantial decreases in maintenance and operation costs that easily pay for themselves in short period of time, like five or ten years. After that it is money in the bank. Most houses last for many decades so the savings are enormous. The problem is the building industry hates it, so the codes don't follow. Most homeowners aren't making buying decisions on energy efficiency or 10 year maintenance costs. They want an affordable house in a good neighborhood with curb appeal.

No disagreement. I really just get frustrated when all the objections to better building are “BUT WHAT ABOUT THE COSTS!!!!!” when most of these things actually involve a lower TCOE.

I mostly focus on energy efficiency, as that’s incredibly cheap to add during initial construction and has major operating cost and broader social benefits.

But the same applies to insurance. My current pet peeve is roofing in Colorado. Hail storms mean homeowners are replacing roofs with insurance every 5-10 years. Largely because there’s no requirement to use impact resistant shingles. Builders are just using the cheapest they can find. The price delta on impact resistant shingles is so small that the better reputed roofing companies offer them as a free or nearly free upgrade.

GuitarStv · « **Reply #502 on:** October 10, 2024, 07:09:47 AM »

Quote from: NorCal on October 10, 2024, 06:32:04 AM

Quote from: Telecaster on October 09, 2024, 09:36:06 PM
@NorCal Yes, that would be the common sense way to approach it. Very small increases in initial costs can lead to substantial decreases in maintenance and operation costs that easily pay for themselves in short period of time, like five or ten years. After that it is money in the bank. Most houses last for many decades so the savings are enormous. The problem is the building industry hates it, so the codes don't follow. Most homeowners aren't making buying decisions on energy efficiency or 10 year maintenance costs. They want an affordable house in a good neighborhood with curb appeal.

No disagreement. I really just get frustrated when all the objections to better building are “BUT WHAT ABOUT THE COSTS!!!!!” when most of these things actually involve a lower TCOE.

I mostly focus on energy efficiency, as that’s incredibly cheap to add during initial construction and has major operating cost and broader social benefits.

But the same applies to insurance. My current pet peeve is roofing in Colorado. Hail storms mean homeowners are replacing roofs with insurance every 5-10 years. Largely because there’s no requirement to use impact resistant shingles. Builders are just using the cheapest they can find. The price delta on impact resistant shingles is so small that the better reputed roofing companies offer them as a free or nearly free upgrade.

Metal roofs should be code. There's no reason to put a shingle roof on a house that I can think of.

ChpBstrd · « **Reply #503 on:** October 10, 2024, 07:25:22 AM »

@AnotherEngineer good point.
I also question the "luxury" of living in a place where 3 week power outages and washed out roads are the norm. That has never been Western NC, but it is all of Florida, much of Louisiana, and much of the Texas coast.

@NorCal I agree. As a whole society, we are vigorously pursuing tiny benefits or tiny cost savings that make no economic sense in the longer run. Regarding your roofing observation - why can't we have the sort of tile/slate/ceramic roofing that is common in Europe? The costs are not that obscenely higher for materials that last 4x as long, are strong enough to resist a routine hailstorm, and which might save hundreds of dollars per year in insurance costs*.

And Americans are gravitating toward building houses even more cheaply and disposably. Today I learned that some tract home builders are using a literal cardboard material as exterior sheathing to save a few dollars per sheet. If anyone is under the illusion that building codes are designed to protect us, tell me more about how your cardboard house is going to work in 25 years.

*A possible explanation for why we don't build more durably is that U.S. insurance companies are bad actuaries. For example, if I had a tile roof instead of asphalt, it would actually increase my premiums because the replacement cost is higher, and they might disregard the much lower odds of replacement due to a hail or wind storm. Perhaps there are not enough houses with various types of roofing for them to accurately calculate risk, so they just anchor on the asphalt numbers? IDK.

Quote from: GuitarStv on October 10, 2024, 07:09:47 AM

Metal roofs should be code. There's no reason to put a shingle roof on a house that I can think of.

My house has a steep roof pitch. It is sketchy to walk/crawl across with asphalt shingles so metal would be deadly when it comes time to inspect or do maintenance.

GuitarStv · « **Reply #504 on:** October 10, 2024, 09:04:19 AM »

Quote from: ChpBstrd on October 10, 2024, 07:25:22 AM

Quote from: GuitarStv on October 10, 2024, 07:09:47 AM
Metal roofs should be code. There's no reason to put a shingle roof on a house that I can think of.
My house has a steep roof pitch. It is sketchy to walk/crawl across with asphalt shingles so metal would be deadly when it comes time to inspect or do maintenance.

If your roof has a steep pitch when doing roofing/inspection the guy should be using a harness regardless of material, shouldn't they?

tooqk4u22 · « **Reply #505 on:** October 10, 2024, 09:27:33 AM »

Quote from: ChpBstrd on October 10, 2024, 07:25:22 AM

*A possible explanation for why we don't build more durably is that U.S. insurance companies are bad actuaries. For example, if I had a tile roof instead of asphalt, it would actually increase my premiums because the replacement cost is higher, and they might disregard the much lower odds of replacement due to a hail or wind storm. Perhaps there are not enough houses with various types of roofing for them to accurately calculate risk, so they just anchor on the asphalt numbers? IDK.

They may have bad actuaries or they may not have updated the data sets that likely suggest probabilities of things like this have increased and magnitude (partly due to storm sizes but also due to house sizes/cost to rebuild) has certainly increased. Another issue is that if there haven't been any major events for an extended period of time then insurance companies are flush (temporarily) and start lowering premiums to compete for market share. And then when SHTF they ask the regulators for increases who say no or cap it because the increase aren't fully substantiated or would be way to large....its kind of a game.

In theory if there was a 100-year event that would cost $100,000 then the insurer should have $100k set aside and take in $1,000 in premiums annually....obviously very simplistic. In practice its more like they have $25k on hand and no event for last 50 years so cut premiums to $500 and then next year SHTF.

NorCal · « **Reply #506 on:** October 10, 2024, 09:37:11 AM »

Quote from: ChpBstrd on October 10, 2024, 07:25:22 AM

@AnotherEngineer good point.
I also question the "luxury" of living in a place where 3 week power outages and washed out roads are the norm. That has never been Western NC, but it is all of Florida, much of Louisiana, and much of the Texas coast.

@NorCal I agree. As a whole society, we are vigorously pursuing tiny benefits or tiny cost savings that make no economic sense in the longer run. Regarding your roofing observation - why can't we have the sort of tile/slate/ceramic roofing that is common in Europe? The costs are not that obscenely higher for materials that last 4x as long, are strong enough to resist a routine hailstorm, and which might save hundreds of dollars per year in insurance costs*.

And Americans are gravitating toward building houses even more cheaply and disposably. Today I learned that some tract home builders are using a literal cardboard material as exterior sheathing to save a few dollars per sheet. If anyone is under the illusion that building codes are designed to protect us, tell me more about how your cardboard house is going to work in 25 years.

*A possible explanation for why we don't build more durably is that U.S. insurance companies are bad actuaries. For example, if I had a tile roof instead of asphalt, it would actually increase my premiums because the replacement cost is higher, and they might disregard the much lower odds of replacement due to a hail or wind storm. Perhaps there are not enough houses with various types of roofing for them to accurately calculate risk, so they just anchor on the asphalt numbers? IDK.

Quote from: GuitarStv on October 10, 2024, 07:09:47 AM
Metal roofs should be code. There's no reason to put a shingle roof on a house that I can think of.
My house has a steep roof pitch. It is sketchy to walk/crawl across with asphalt shingles so metal would be deadly when it comes time to inspect or do maintenance.

I think insurance companies have incredibly good actuaries. They’re just not focused on long term cost/benefit analysis. Just that they have an insurance product that is appropriately priced for risk.

I would love for building codes to factor in the long term cost-benefit analysis. I don’t know where it would come out. I know there is a world of difference between builder grade shingles and class 4 impact resistant shingles with minimal cost difference.

I asked my roofer about going with a metal roof, and he said it would be roughly 3x the cost because of moderately complex roof geometry. Although that was likely just his go-away answer. I didn’t care enough to get multiple quotes for it. Assuming a metal roof is 2x-3x a class 4 shingle, I doubt it would pencil out.

This highlights the problem more than anything. Us random internet speculators can guesstimate at the cost/benefit analysis, but it’s challenging to figure out without a spreadsheet, cost assumptions, and cost of capital assumptions. This math should fundamentally be done by those writing the building codes. I would also say people on this forum have an above-average education and above-average capabilities at financial math. Most consumers are not equipped to make informed decisions.

As for the cardboard trim pieces, my house has some of those as exterior trim and window trim. It’s absolute crap, although it lasted longer than you’d expect. I replaced my first few pieces of it this year, and the house is 15 years old. I see some other pieces that will need to be replaced over the next few years.

Michael in ABQ · « **Reply #507 on:** October 10, 2024, 09:46:23 AM »

Quote from: ChpBstrd on October 10, 2024, 07:25:22 AM

@AnotherEngineer good point.
I also question the "luxury" of living in a place where 3 week power outages and washed out roads are the norm. That has never been Western NC, but it is all of Florida, much of Louisiana, and much of the Texas coast.

@NorCal I agree. As a whole society, we are vigorously pursuing tiny benefits or tiny cost savings that make no economic sense in the longer run. Regarding your roofing observation - why can't we have the sort of tile/slate/ceramic roofing that is common in Europe? The costs are not that obscenely higher for materials that last 4x as long, are strong enough to resist a routine hailstorm, and which might save hundreds of dollars per year in insurance costs*.

And Americans are gravitating toward building houses even more cheaply and disposably. Today I learned that some tract home builders are using a literal cardboard material as exterior sheathing to save a few dollars per sheet. If anyone is under the illusion that building codes are designed to protect us, tell me more about how your cardboard house is going to work in 25 years.

*A possible explanation for why we don't build more durably is that U.S. insurance companies are bad actuaries. For example, if I had a tile roof instead of asphalt, it would actually increase my premiums because the replacement cost is higher, and they might disregard the much lower odds of replacement due to a hail or wind storm. Perhaps there are not enough houses with various types of roofing for them to accurately calculate risk, so they just anchor on the asphalt numbers? IDK.

As a commercial real estate appraiser, I didn't look too hard at the type of construction and materials used. The market would demand a discount if the roof needed $250k of work to repair or replace it. But it's unlikely most buyers are going to pay up because the building has a higher quality 80 mil TPO roof compared to a standard 45 or 60 mil thick roof. The former may have a 25-year life while the latter has a 15-year life. Same with the difference between all wood construction versus lightweight metal frame construction. Most buyers cared about the location and utility of the property - or how much income it would generate. Construction cost and quality were a distant third place consideration.

We used a cost manual that basically had a cost per square foot, linear foot, etc. for various types of buildings and site improvements with adjustments for regional variations. I.e. a roof in Alaska needs to be able to hold a couple of feet of snow and have more insulation compared to one in southern California. I doubt insurance companies are that much more sophisticated when it comes to evaluating hundreds of thousands of properties to insure. They probably use a couple of input variables, and a system spits out a number.

Maybe there's a market opportunity there to offer cheaper insurance for properties that have higher quality construction or are better situated and less likely to be damaged or destroyed.

Glenstache · « **Reply #508 on:** October 10, 2024, 10:44:05 AM »

I have worked as an expert in litigation where I have seen both people yelling and screaming about hazard zoning because it hurts their property value and also suing the government for letting them build where a landslide can occur. There are a range of possible geohazards ranging from nuisance to property damage to potential fatalities. Regardless of if it is catastrophic landslides or flood plain maps, the agencies are damned if they do and damned if they don't. How well that needle is threaded varies a lot by area. These types of information feed into how construction must be completed in those areas. People are much more averse to what is perceived as a short term loss versus a long term gain. A short term loss in property value could save their life, or a total uninsurable loss on their home. A perceived loss in dollar value as paying more per square foot could make a house that is more comfortable to live in 15 years down the road.

Add to that the simple fact that the overwhelming majority of real estate agents shepherding home buyers through this major financial decision know fuck-all about anything does not bring these issues to the fore. I bought a house in an area with plenty of geohazards and found both that I had to do a lot of my own due diligence to figure out the risks, and that there was a huge amount of oblivion about them. The real estate industry does not benefit from having a higher level of scrutiny on these issues even though property purchase and sale is a natural time for understanding these risks and long term liabilities. I should add that, in my experience, commercial real estate is only very maginally better prepared than residential.

As a devil's advocate, we also need to consider the recurrence interval of events versus the cost to build for them. If a structure typcially lasts 100 years or less, does it make sense to build for a 500 year event? Over the long haul, the building will be built and replaced 5 times before the design scenario actually occurs. Obviously, this also depends on the impacts causing an entire community to disappear versus a house here and there occassionally disappearing.

NorCal · « **Reply #509 on:** October 10, 2024, 03:21:43 PM »

A good but depressing podcast on the topic

https://www.thisamericanlife.org/762/apocalypse-creep

Blackeagle · « **Reply #510 on:** October 10, 2024, 08:51:07 PM »

Zillow will now show climate risk data on home listings

https://wapo.st/3Yj5ESe

clarkfan1979 · « **Reply #511 on:** October 11, 2024, 05:52:34 AM »

Quote from: Glenstache on October 10, 2024, 10:44:05 AM

I have worked as an expert in litigation where I have seen both people yelling and screaming about hazard zoning because it hurts their property value and also suing the government for letting them build where a landslide can occur. There are a range of possible geohazards ranging from nuisance to property damage to potential fatalities. Regardless of if it is catastrophic landslides or flood plain maps, the agencies are damned if they do and damned if they don't. How well that needle is threaded varies a lot by area. These types of information feed into how construction must be completed in those areas. People are much more averse to what is perceived as a short term loss versus a long term gain. A short term loss in property value could save their life, or a total uninsurable loss on their home. A perceived loss in dollar value as paying more per square foot could make a house that is more comfortable to live in 15 years down the road.

Add to that the simple fact that the overwhelming majority of real estate agents shepherding home buyers through this major financial decision know fuck-all about anything does not bring these issues to the fore. I bought a house in an area with plenty of geohazards and found both that I had to do a lot of my own due diligence to figure out the risks, and that there was a huge amount of oblivion about them. The real estate industry does not benefit from having a higher level of scrutiny on these issues even though property purchase and sale is a natural time for understanding these risks and long term liabilities. I should add that, in my experience, commercial real estate is only very maginally better prepared than residential.

As a devil's advocate, we also need to consider the recurrence interval of events versus the cost to build for them. If a structure typcially lasts 100 years or less, does it make sense to build for a 500 year event? Over the long haul, the building will be built and replaced 5 times before the design scenario actually occurs. Obviously, this also depends on the impacts causing an entire community to disappear versus a house here and there occassionally disappearing.

My step-dad is a retired civil engineer that did water mitigation restoration for planned communities that built in areas that are low and tend to collect water. He didn't talk about work very much, but apparently he spoke about it enough that i never bought a house with water problems in which I was unaware.

When I bought my house in Fort Myers, FL, I picked a house on a lot that was raised to the max in 2012. Newer construction houses are higher than me now, but at the time, I went as high as I could. I also made sure that I was far enough from the gulf that there was zero risk fo storm surge. The only part that sucks is that I feel like my insurance is higher than it should be because I'm subsidizing the cost of houses on lower elevation lots closer to the gulf.

NorCal · « **Reply #512 on:** October 13, 2024, 10:44:55 AM »

I just updated my insurance with my impact-resistant shingle information in Colorado.

Going from a 14 year old builder-grade roof to a brand-new roof with class 4 impact resistant shingles took my insurance premium from $515 per month to $230 per month. I don't know how much was roof age vs shingle type, but there's no reason class 4 shingles shouldn't be minimum code here.

GilesMM · « **Reply #513 on:** October 13, 2024, 11:28:56 AM »

Quote from: NorCal on October 13, 2024, 10:44:55 AM

I just updated my insurance with my impact-resistant shingle information in Colorado.

Going from a 14 year old builder-grade roof to a brand-new roof with class 4 impact resistant shingles took my insurance premium from $515 per month to $230 per month. I don't know how much was roof age vs shingle type, but there's no reason class 4 shingles shouldn't be minimum code here.

Probably close to half age and half quality. I hope you have quite a house as that is a lot of insurance since typical annual rates are 0.5% of rebuild cost (unless you are in FL or CA). We have a 15 year old roof (not class 4), surrounded by PNW fir trees, and our rate is around 0.1%. I would love to get the insurance rate lower but hoping to eke another 10 years out of the roof if we can.

ROF Expat · « **Reply #514 on:** October 13, 2024, 11:56:36 PM »

Quote from: GilesMM on October 13, 2024, 11:28:56 AM

Probably close to half age and half quality. I hope you have quite a house as that is a lot of insurance since typical annual rates are 0.5% of rebuild cost (unless you are in FL or CA). We have a 15 year old roof (not class 4), surrounded by PNW fir trees, and our rate is around 0.1%. I would love to get the insurance rate lower but hoping to eke another 10 years out of the roof if we can.

Wow. 0.1% and room to improve?

I thought I had a good deal at a little less than .2%, but that involves a very high (2%) deductible. My roof is slate. I'm not sure whether that reduces insurance costs for being long-lasting or increases them for being expensive to repair. I love the way slate looks, though, and I give it bonus points for the fact that the roof's lifespan should be substantially longer than my own. I like things that are BIFL.

GilesMM · « **Reply #515 on:** October 14, 2024, 05:37:53 AM »

Quote from: ROF Expat on October 13, 2024, 11:56:36 PM

I thought I had a good deal at a little less than .2%, but that involves a very high (2%) deductible. My roof is slate. I'm not sure whether that reduces insurance costs for being long-lasting or increases them for being expensive to repair. I love the way slate looks, though, and I give it bonus points for the fact that the roof's lifespan should be substantially longer than my own. I like things that are BIFL.

High deductibles are a great thing and I often wish they would go higher, like 10%. I really just want insurance for catastrophic events like most of the house being destroyed by fire.

FINate · « **Reply #516 on:** October 14, 2024, 06:44:30 AM »

After 3 hurricanes in 2 years, Fort Myers Beach residents wonder if it’s time to let go

It's crazy how much people are willing to go through for the beach life. Repeatedly rebuilding, recovering, cleaning up storm damage, dead friends, pouring their life savings into trying to make it work on the hope things get better.

ROF Expat · « **Reply #517 on:** October 14, 2024, 08:19:02 AM »

Quote from: GilesMM on October 14, 2024, 05:37:53 AM

High deductibles are a great thing and I often wish they would go higher, like 10%. I really just want insurance for catastrophic events like most of the house being destroyed by fire.

High deductibles make sense for me. The ability to have high deductible insurance is one more example of how being on the road to FI allows you to save money.

That said, if a 10% deductible were available, I probably wouldn't take it. One of the factors that determines how much money I keep in an emergency fund is what I might have to pay in deductibles. I am comfortable keeping $16k for deductibles in my emergency fund (the 2% deductible of my $800k policy). I would not be comfortable keeping $80k for deductibles. I think I can conservatively assume that over the long term I can earn 5% more on invested money than I earn from my emergency acct money market funds. 5% of the $64k difference is $3200 per year, which is larger than my annual insurance bill. Obviously, this is something of a self inflicted wound and wouldn't apply to someone who is comfortable with drawing from investment accounts in an emergency.

Glenstache · « **Reply #518 on:** October 21, 2024, 12:39:36 PM »

This article about climate increased landslide rusk in Alaska hits on all the themes discussed above.

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/10/21/climate/landslide-risk-alaska-maps.html?smid=nytcore-android-share

jinga nation · « **Reply #519 on:** November 05, 2024, 11:17:34 AM »

A lot of Floridians got a massive wake up call with inland flooding from Hurricane Milton.

Less than 1% of inland properties have flood insurance. Many people had their inland homes flooded, even when designated in a non-flood zone. Wind-borne flooding isn't covered under hurricane coverage.

For less than $500 annually, I purchase it from NFIP: https://www.floodsmart.gov/flood-insurance-provider

However, I am very skeptical that my fellow Floridians will purchase such a policy.

Time bomb - definitely. No longer hidden. 'Murica's Johnson - that's just the way it is.

ChpBstrd · « **Reply #520 on:** November 05, 2024, 11:40:07 AM »

Quote from: FINate on October 14, 2024, 06:44:30 AM

After 3 hurricanes in 2 years, Fort Myers Beach residents wonder if it’s time to let go

It's crazy how much people are willing to go through for the beach life. Repeatedly rebuilding, recovering, cleaning up storm damage, dead friends, pouring their life savings into trying to make it work on the hope things get better.

I hear they do it for the relaxation.

spartana · « **Reply #521 on:** November 08, 2024, 12:36:18 AM »

Well we have another big wildfire (Mountain Fire) here in SoCal in the Ventura mountains. Over 20,000 acres and about 140 homes destroyed and more damaged. And what's everyone talking about? Yep insurance being dropped after the 1 year moratorium to not allow insurance companies to do that. That and global warming (hottest year on record ever apparently) and the new administrations desire to penalize CA financially for not having better FIRE management in place - especially wanting more privatization of forest management and firefighting via contractors, and less reduction in climate control mitigation. Oh well. When the Big One hits (or the oceans rise) we'll sink into the sea and all the fires will be put out at once. Win-win?

https://www.reuters.com/business/environment/2024-will-be-worlds-hottest-record-eu-scientists-say-2024-11-07/#:~:text=BRUSSELS%2C%20Nov%207%20(Reuters),(C3S)%20said%20on%20Thursday.

FINate · « **Reply #522 on:** November 08, 2024, 08:02:38 AM »

Quote from: spartana on November 08, 2024, 12:36:18 AM

Well we have another big wildfire (Mountain Fire) here in SoCal in the Ventura mountains. Over 20,000 acres and about 140 homes destroyed and more damaged. And what's everyone talking about? Yep insurance being dropped after the 1 year moratorium to not allow insurance companies to do that. That and global warming (hottest year on record ever apparently) and the new administrations desire to penalize CA financially for not having better FIRE management in place - especially wanting more privatization of forest management and firefighting via contractors, and less reduction in climate control mitigation. Oh well. When the Big One hits (or the oceans rise) we'll sink into the sea and all the fires will be put out at once. Win-win?

https://www.reuters.com/business/environment/2024-will-be-worlds-hottest-record-eu-scientists-say-2024-11-07/#:~:text=BRUSSELS%2C%20Nov%207%20(Reuters),(C3S)%20said%20on%20Thursday.

Those Santa Ana winds are scary

Glenstache · « **Reply #523 on:** November 08, 2024, 09:52:53 AM »

Maybe if Illinois returned Santa Anna's leg to Mexico his ghost would stop with those pesky revenge winds. Climate change, schlimate mange! Nothing a little wishful/mystical thinking can't solve!

bacchi · « **Reply #524 on:** November 08, 2024, 10:03:37 AM »

It'll be fascinating to watch how this all plays out.

As insurance rates skyrocket, the ones who can (the wealthy who own their homes) will self-insure. The ones who can't will either take a yearly hit to their standard of living, over the rate of inflation and wage growth, or sell and move. The seller will take an equity hit because the buyers will price the house lower. House equity is the largest savings most people in the US have so there will be less down payment when the seller buys their new place.

This could drive people to less affected areas. The Great Lake states maybe? Fewer natural disasters and plenty of water there. Or people in affected areas buy smaller and better built homes and continue to live along the coast or in a WUI.

Meanwhile, those who stay, either because of no mortgage or they can afford the ever-increasing premiums, might see their taxes increase to cover the cost of hurricane clean ups.

Or, possibly, the cost is spread out nationwide to subsidize those who continue to make stupid decisions about the location of their stick built houses.

GilesMM · « **Reply #525 on:** November 08, 2024, 10:08:51 AM »

Quote from: bacchi on November 08, 2024, 10:03:37 AM

It'll be fascinating to watch how this all plays out.

As insurance rates skyrocket, the ones who can (the wealthy who own their homes) will self-insure. The ones who can't will either take a yearly hit to their standard of living, over the rate of inflation and wage growth, or sell and move. The seller will take an equity hit because the buyers will price the house lower. House equity is the largest savings most people in the US have so there will be less down payment when the seller buys their new place.
...

I think in Florida, even those who can't afford to self-insure are opting to do so as they can't afford insurance.

bacchi · « **Reply #526 on:** November 08, 2024, 10:16:13 AM »

Quote from: GilesMM on November 08, 2024, 10:08:51 AM

Quote from: bacchi on November 08, 2024, 10:03:37 AM
It'll be fascinating to watch how this all plays out.

As insurance rates skyrocket, the ones who can (the wealthy who own their homes) will self-insure. The ones who can't will either take a yearly hit to their standard of living, over the rate of inflation and wage growth, or sell and move. The seller will take an equity hit because the buyers will price the house lower. House equity is the largest savings most people in the US have so there will be less down payment when the seller buys their new place.
...

I think in Florida, even those who can't afford to self-insure are opting to do so as they can't afford insurance.

Good point. There are plenty of (often older) people with paid off houses that are living dangerously.

chasesfish · « **Reply #527 on:** November 08, 2024, 10:25:43 AM »

Quote from: ChpBstrd on November 05, 2024, 11:40:07 AM

Quote from: FINate on October 14, 2024, 06:44:30 AM
After 3 hurricanes in 2 years, Fort Myers Beach residents wonder if it’s time to let go

It's crazy how much people are willing to go through for the beach life. Repeatedly rebuilding, recovering, cleaning up storm damage, dead friends, pouring their life savings into trying to make it work on the hope things get better.
I hear they do it for the relaxation.

I amounted to a few days of inconvenience for us. No power, run a generator, fix up a fence.

Meanwhile I'm about to head to the beach with 80 degree weather on November 8th

FINate · « **Reply #528 on:** November 08, 2024, 10:51:08 AM »

Quote from: chasesfish on November 08, 2024, 10:25:43 AM

Quote from: ChpBstrd on November 05, 2024, 11:40:07 AM
Quote from: FINate on October 14, 2024, 06:44:30 AM
After 3 hurricanes in 2 years, Fort Myers Beach residents wonder if it’s time to let go

It's crazy how much people are willing to go through for the beach life. Repeatedly rebuilding, recovering, cleaning up storm damage, dead friends, pouring their life savings into trying to make it work on the hope things get better.
I hear they do it for the relaxation.

I amounted to a few days of inconvenience for us. No power, run a generator, fix up a fence.

Meanwhile I'm about to head to the beach with 80 degree weather on November 8th

I'm sincerely glad for your situation. But if you experienced the level of trauma those in this article have would you continue to stick it out for 80 degree days in November?

GilesMM · « **Reply #529 on:** November 09, 2024, 07:57:48 AM »

Quote from: spartana on November 08, 2024, 12:36:18 AM

Well we have another big wildfire (Mountain Fire) here in SoCal in the Ventura mountains. Over 20,000 acres and about 140 homes destroyed and more damaged. And what's everyone talking about? Yep insurance being dropped after the 1 year moratorium to not allow insurance companies to do that. That and global warming (hottest year on record ever apparently) and the new administrations desire to penalize CA financially for not having better FIRE management in place - especially wanting more privatization of forest management and firefighting via contractors, and less reduction in climate control mitigation. Oh well. When the Big One hits (or the oceans rise) we'll sink into the sea and all the fires will be put out at once. Win-win?

https://www.reuters.com/business/environment/2024-will-be-worlds-hottest-record-eu-scientists-say-2024-11-07/#:~:text=BRUSSELS%2C%20Nov%207%20(Reuters),(C3S)%20said%20on%20Thursday.

Ventura is such a wonderful city and place to live. I hate to see it burning. How close to the ocean will the flames get?

spartana · « **Reply #530 on:** November 11, 2024, 10:43:19 PM »

Quote from: GilesMM on November 09, 2024, 07:57:48 AM

Quote from: spartana on November 08, 2024, 12:36:18 AM
Well we have another big wildfire (Mountain Fire) here in SoCal in the Ventura mountains. Over 20,000 acres and about 140 homes destroyed and more damaged. And what's everyone talking about? Yep insurance being dropped after the 1 year moratorium to not allow insurance companies to do that. That and global warming (hottest year on record ever apparently) and the new administrations desire to penalize CA financially for not having better FIRE management in place - especially wanting more privatization of forest management and firefighting via contractors, and less reduction in climate control mitigation. Oh well. When the Big One hits (or the oceans rise) we'll sink into the sea and all the fires will be put out at once. Win-win?

https://www.reuters.com/business/environment/2024-will-be-worlds-hottest-record-eu-scientists-say-2024-11-07/#:~:text=BRUSSELS%2C%20Nov%207%20(Reuters),(C3S)%20said%20on%20Thursday.

Ventura is such a wonderful city and place to live. I hate to see it burning. How close to the ocean will the flames get?

I like Ventura too - although like most Calif beach communities it's both expensive and has lots of issues with drugs and homelessness. Fortunately it didn't go that far west and stayed east of the 101. It's only about 30% contained and wiped out about 200 houses in the Camarillo area before the winds died down and the fog came it. The Santa Ana winds seem to come year round now but Sept to Dec is pretty common. 100 mph gusts and dry weather in some areas will mean more big burns in the future (and no insurance coverage maybe). I'm surprised NY, NJ and the northeast coast is having big fires now. What's up with that? Long drought maybe? I've lived in several east coastal states and it was always so lush and green I can't imagine big wild fires there.

Sibley · « **Reply #531 on:** November 12, 2024, 05:28:13 PM »

Quote from: spartana on November 11, 2024, 10:43:19 PM

Quote from: GilesMM on November 09, 2024, 07:57:48 AM
Quote from: spartana on November 08, 2024, 12:36:18 AM
Well we have another big wildfire (Mountain Fire) here in SoCal in the Ventura mountains. Over 20,000 acres and about 140 homes destroyed and more damaged. And what's everyone talking about? Yep insurance being dropped after the 1 year moratorium to not allow insurance companies to do that. That and global warming (hottest year on record ever apparently) and the new administrations desire to penalize CA financially for not having better FIRE management in place - especially wanting more privatization of forest management and firefighting via contractors, and less reduction in climate control mitigation. Oh well. When the Big One hits (or the oceans rise) we'll sink into the sea and all the fires will be put out at once. Win-win?

https://www.reuters.com/business/environment/2024-will-be-worlds-hottest-record-eu-scientists-say-2024-11-07/#:~:text=BRUSSELS%2C%20Nov%207%20(Reuters),(C3S)%20said%20on%20Thursday.

Ventura is such a wonderful city and place to live. I hate to see it burning. How close to the ocean will the flames get?
I like Ventura too - although like most Calif beach communities it's both expensive and has lots of issues with drugs and homelessness. Fortunately it didn't go that far west and stayed east of the 101. It's only about 30% contained and wiped out about 200 houses in the Camarillo area before the winds died down and the fog came it. The Santa Ana winds seem to come year round now but Sept to Dec is pretty common. 100 mph gusts and dry weather in some areas will mean more big burns in the future (and no insurance coverage maybe). I'm surprised NY, NJ and the northeast coast is having big fires now. What's up with that? Long drought maybe? I've lived in several east coastal states and it was always so lush and green I can't imagine big wild fires there.

Can't speak for the north east, but the midwest is having drought problems. I'm 2 years now with functional or official drought. Hoping things change, I don't want to lose the big trees and its hard to keep them watered.

News:

Author Topic: America's coastal cities are a hidden time bomb (Read 52036 times)