728
Thousands of Los Angeles homeowners were dropped by their insurers before the Palisades Fire
(www.cbsnews.com)
Perhaps the most interesting part of the article:
this post was submitted on 11 Jan 2025
728 points (98.5% liked)
News
23968 readers
6441 users here now
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.
Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
7. No duplicate posts.
If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners.
The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
The cost of insurance needs to equal the risk though.
If a house is going to get burned down every year, who pays to re-build it?
It isn't practical to expect everyone to move out of florida, but climate change is impractical.
Thats why i pointed at building codes. Require building that will survive the threat. Then people will have to pay more for them which discourages people from building in those areas at least.
Maybe. That doesn't really help all of the existing buildings though.
No it doesn't. Those people need to be essentially bailed out if/when their house is destroyed. Most of them had no idea what they were getting into when they bought it. And we bail out companies, so why not people. But that buy out should be to buy the land for a reasonable price, or if they want to rebuild, they will have to sink extra money of thier own into meeting the requirements of new buildings for that area. In some areas they may want to incentivize rebuilding to the new standard, in some they wouldn't. Insurance as it is now, only pays to rebuild such that it can burn down again. So even raising the price on that doesn't solve the problem. It will just end up with the cost of insurance being wrapped into the mortgage eventually.
The houses are worth a whole lot less money given the risks of extreme weather and fire.
This was entirely predictable. It's been well publicised for decades.
Bailing out companies is obviously not the same as bailing out people.
I'm not really sure it's as easy as "building to a new standard". For suburbs prone to inundation it may be that there's little that can be done on the residential property itself.
I think the core of this issue is money. It's going to cost a lot of it for people to live in these risky areas.
In my view, living in those places should not be subsidised by everyone else. That means everyone else's insurance premiums should bear the cost of those heightened risks. If someone wants to build a house to a higher building standard in order to have it insured then so be it.
So your answer is that the average person in socal should just be put in finacial ruin if a fire burns down their house. If insurance is super expensive they won't be able to sell it, because no one could afford the insurance. They can't afford it either, but can't move without selling it. Once thier house does burn down, and they have no where to live, they won't be able to work, and will eventually be poor enough for welfare and such. So we will be paying for them anyway. But at least your way they are destitue.
And it is easy to say it was predictable after it happened. I don't think anyone predicted this level of devastation in LA. Fires in the surrounding hills sure. But not through dense residential areas like that.
And given the motivation, engineers can build a house that can withstand just about anything.
That's not my answer at all.
These houses will be more difficult to insure and less desirable and worth less as a result. Not worth nil, just worth significantly less.
Engineers can build amazing things, but most people probably don't want to pay for a submersible house or a fire proof house.
Yes lots of people will lose a lot of money. Climate change is going to be a rough ride.
They are worth nil if no one will buy them. And if the insurance will be significantly more, who would buy it? The owners would probably still owe money on the mortgage if they managed to sell it, which many couldn't afford. Banks would probably refuse to loan to people buying those houses further reducing who might buy it, which further reduces the value. So people won't be able to sell them making them effectively worth nil.
And in your scenario, those lots of people losing money... why should they be average citizens. They didn't cause climate change. That was the oil and manufacturing industry who knew decades ago what they were doing. And instead of try to come up with solutions, produced propaganda to hide the facts and discredit anyone who tried to point it out. Maybe they should be the ones to lose a lot of money. They sure made and continue to make more than enough to buy those houses outright.
I honestly find it odd that you keep referring to my comments as my scenario as though this is some weirdo conspiracy I've dreamed up. In my opinion, your solution is impracticable. Sure, you should assist those adversely effected by climate change, but paying to rebuild their houses to be flood and fire proof is an absurd notion.
Yes private citizens are going to lose a lot of money and experience a lot of hardship as a result of climate change. It's well established science that many areas will experience more severe weather. There are very likely to be severe water shortages, and extensive famine.
You are right of course that corporations should bear the responsibility and the cost but given the political landscape in 2025 that's just not going to happen. Populations the world over are sliding to the right, electing governments who will reduce regulations and support further concentration of wealth.
Your reading into my choice of the word scenario too much. I just needed a word for the line of events that occur as a result of your plan.
Over the years, I have seen a fair number of articles about patterns found when looking at the houses that don't burn down when a wild fire passes through. California apparently has some regulations and even does inspections for plant placement around houses in high risk zones. Oregon will do a free assessment and if you qualify, give you a small tax credit for making improvements to refuce your risk. These though are just the cheapest things that can be implemented. Expanding that into construction standards is what I think the best plan is.
And while I agree with your assessment of the political climate, the supreme court recently allowed Hawaii to sue some companies essentially for the effects of climate change. I was surprised by this, but that means at least states could sue to pay for programs to buyout homeowners.