Inspired by the recent/current LA fires, but also by reading recently of Floridians not being able to obtain affordable hurricane insurance. It seems undeniable that climate change is resulting in much more development being at risk of widespread natural disasters such as fire and hurricane damage. I read people saying how these recent fires were foreseeable for many years, and that evacuation routes were insufficient.
I sympathize with these peoples’ losses, but I wonder to what extent they ought to be assisted in rebuilding near where their homes were destroyed. Perhaps certain wildfire prone and coastal areas ought to simply be considered too risky for development. And if people choose to build in risky areas, they ought to bear the full risk, rather than expect insurance or government disaster relief to be available.
Rather than funds to rebuild, I suggest funds to relocate to somewhere that is less susceptible to such widespread disasters. I realize that this might make living in certain areas of California and Florida less affordable/appealing. But there are wide swaths of the US which are not nearly as prone to such widespread disasters.
Isn’t this already happening? I know that in at least some places in the Western US subject to wildfires insurance companies are refusing to insure homeowners and they are on their own in a natural disaster, and good luck trying to sell your house.
In terms of designating an area “too risky to develop”, cities and counties already can deny permits to developers if they want to, but with housing shortages throughout many parts of the US local government isn’t going to do anything to discourage building more houses.
And as far as using public money to pay to move someone from California or Florida to Iowa goes, I think that’s a non-starter.
Why? Should public (federal - CA can spend its money however it wants) money be spent to rebuild infrastructure - including improved evacuation routes?
I agree, and I also believe it is inevitable, so we may as well initiate the process now. Two retired colleagues in the Tampa area had just finished the extensive repairs necessitated by a hurricane when they were hit again this past summer. Back to square one, again. As the planet continues to warm and the ice melts and the storms become more frequent and violent, places are going to simply become unlivable in a practical sense.
At the very least, have the folk who choose to live there assume the entire risk.
The folk who merit the greatest sympathy IMO are the less well off, rather than the wealthy. Such as service industry workers. It is those sorts of folk for whom I would support relocation subsidies. Or subsidize secure housing in relatively not-vulnerable locations, rather than forcing them to live further away in riskier areas.
I think it’s a non-starter because few people who choose to live in California of Florida will want to move somewhere else. They live there for a reason. It’s either because they grew up there, or because that’s where their good paying job is, or they moved there because they wanted to live someplace with good year-round weather. Good luck convincing/forcing them to move somewhere else in the country when it’s the last thing in the world they would want to do.
Everyone should have the option to the pool their resources with others who have similar risks.
And this is mostly what we have. The problem is that the motivations of for-profit insurance do not align well with public policy. Hence the continual tension between California’s regulators and the insurance industry.
State governments should have standing policies to buy out home and business owners who do not want to rebuild in high-risk areas. The state can then manage the lots as defensible greenspace.
Leave it up to the people to decide what to do after they choose to sell.
Since it is our (collective) policies that have caused the conditions that have made natural disasters happen more frequently, we all have a responsibility to help the people affected.
Speaking as one who has worked for local government for decades, I can tell you it has never played a role in any community I’ve ever worked in. If such a thing did occur you’d be reading about it on the front page of the newspaper.
I would distinguish between people building in canyons that have fires every 4-5 years and fire trucks can’t get up there, then they are shocked that their house burned down vs. people in, let’s say, Altadena where there are no expectations that they will lose everything due to a brush fire.
And also since Dinsdale seems to think that everyone who lost their home is wealthy and can just move and build elsewhere with no need of financial help ( ) that Altadena is a typical middle-upper-middle class suburb full of people likely in the same class as Dinsdale himself.
I am sure if Dinsdale’s entire town burned to the ground and he lost everything he ever owned, he would have no problem rebuilding with no help.
But there must’ve been at least SOME expectation of danger. If not, insurance companies would not have been cancelling policies. And folk would’t be saying how they’ve complained for years about inadequate evacuation routes.
Those 100-year events sure seem to be coming around more quickly than once a century…
And I don’t want to pick on SoCal. I suspect in upcoming years it will quickly become apparent that many locations are riskier and more costly to live in than previously thought. Hell, I say the same about folk rebuilding along the Mississippi after being flooded out. Me, I’ll stay in my boring flatland location next to a huge lake, from which I can drive/fly out to visit beaches/mountains/forests…
Might want to check the OP - or any of my posts, and point out where I expressed anything of the sort. Was it where I suggested folk be assisted in relocating to safer areas? Or where I clarified that my greatest sympathy was for the less well off?
Express whatever opinions you wish. But please do not attribute ideas to me that I did not express - and which are, in fact, contrary to what I posted.
Anybody who’s interested can play around with this. It’s the FEMA National Risk Index
The National Risk Index is a dataset and online tool to help illustrate the U.S communities most at risk for natural hazards. The Index leverages available source data for 18 natural hazards, social vulnerability, and community resilience to develop a baseline relative risk measurement for each U.S county and Census tract.
That’s why I said “at least in some places in the Western US”. I was thinking of Montana, where I currently live. There are areas where there are reoccurring wildfires and homeowners can no longer get fire insurance for their homes. They can rebuild their house or business after a wildfire, but they have to become self-insured at that point.
