The predicted path of the cone shifted, as they typically do. The storm is hundreds of miles across, and the area that failed to evacuate had been in the danger zone for flooding several days out. And it’s flooding that killed most of the dead.
Evacuation is expensive. But it’s not nearly as expensive as the other stuff being discussed in this thread. This was a failure of civic leaders to act appropriately.
It would have been practically impossible to evacuate the entire coast from Naples up to Tallahassee, especially given the storms changing trajectory.
Right- insurance coverage varies widely. What happens if someone is underinsured? Or if their coverage is wonky and covers some things, but not others?
Why shouldn’t that impact someone’s credit history? I mean, that IS the consequence for making stupid decisions w.r.t. insurance.
Should anyone who is underinsured have a ding on their credit history, or just those who suffered loss due to storms?
Underinsured is underinsured- it shouldn’t matter what brings that to light.
I mean, I don’t see why this is any different than someone carrying the legal minimum liability insurance and seriously injuring someone beyond that liability insurance’s coverage. Why should they get a pass and have someone else pay for it? And why shouldn’t that ding your credit history?
Similarly, if you live somewhere that can get hit by hurricanes and you don’t have sufficient coverage, why shouldn’t the fact that someone else has to pay damage your financial reputation?
But underinsured is fine as long as they don’t have an unfortunate incident that is beyond their control?
I’m not saying that. Underinsured is never good. But people can go a long time without adequate insurance if they never have to file a claim, i.e. never get in an accident or get hit by a hurricane.
Some people are under-insured because full insurance would be cost-prohibitive. Or perhaps full coverage for every possible contingency is simply not available (many, many policies carry similar exclusions).
Private industry got out of the flood insurance business because they couldn’t make it work. The current flood insurance program, with premiums constantly rising and exclusions, has been run at a loss from the moment it was created.
Clearly, what we’re doing is not working the way we would like it to.
Not necessarily stupid. Insurance companies compete on the basis of offering what appears to be adequate coverage for a given price. And achieve profitability by then denying a significant fraction of claims that are edge cases. Or that a “reasonable” person wold expect to be covered but are not.
The would-be buyer cannot possibly compete successfully with the deliberately misleading efforts of the policy legalese writers. It’s a fool’s errand to assign that task to Joe & Jane Citizen; you’re simply guaranteeing that most of them fail. I can almost guarantee that there is some peril you personally think you have coverage for today that you don’t really.
In my ideal world insurance would be very simple: if something happens, they pay. You have a single whole universe policy that covers you for every peril from dental to hurricane to disability to war. By law there is no such thing as an excluded event or a maximum payout.
The companies are free to set their rates based on your individual risk factors but are not free to compete on coverage or the appearance of coverage.
All-perils insurance would be vastly more expensive than what we collectively pay now. Probably 20% of a comfy-class person’s take-home pay and 40% of a poor person’s. But suddenly there would be no need for disaster relief, medical bankruptcy, etc.
And we’d have very clear price signals on ALL the risks we run, not just some of them.
No way in hell it’d work in a society as unequal as ours, but it’s a nice idea. Damn near everything wrong with the silo-ed insurance system we have today is directly proportional to how far off my nirvana state each silo operates.
I guess where I’m confused is at what point did it become the government’s responsibility or problem to either insulate people from misfortune, or to make them whole afterward?
That’s typically never been part of the mandate of government. I mean, they don’t owe anyone rebuilding money, cleanout money, and so forth. Nor is it their responsibility (and nor should it be) to bail out people whose insurance didn’t cover stuff, people who didn’t have insurance, or people who built homes/bought homes in specific areas known and/or expected to flood/have wildfires/etc… like say… in floodplains, or parts of California with high wildfire risk, etc…
Part of personal responsibility is knowing the risks where you live/are considering living, and being willing to accept those risks and the associated consequences when you live somewhere. That’s why we buy insurance- it’s part of being responsible. That’s also why uninsured motorists are so infuriating- despite whatever financial sob story they may have, they’re essentially not being responsible for the risks and consequences of driving, and are pushing them onto others. I kind of look at living in a flood plain or near a beach or whatever in a similar light- you had better have insurance that’s adequate (whatever that means), because it’s awfully shitty to foist off the consequences of your actions onto the government, your neighbors, or anyone else if you’ve made that decision.
Maybe the government should give relocation assistance to people who can’t afford to recover after a natural disaster? Like if you’re poor and live in a flood prone area, they can help you move. And prohibit more people moving in there for cheap rent without certain levels of insurance.
Or, anyone can move there without adequate insurance, but they absorb all the risk, and would be ineligible for government assistance after a disaster. That sounds harsh, but I think that’s where you are going (and I do not entirely disagree).
I mean, I think it would be kinda interesting to depopulate Florida, but is that what you guys are really wanting? That will be the effect.
Along with coasts, ports, rivers. I’d say that around half of the population of the country is living somewhere where they would not be able to afford to rebuild if the worst came along.
Yeah, I’m thinking about which states on the East coast and how far inland you have to go before hurricanes are no longer a threat.
Rinse and repeat for all the other natural threats.
Well, some of the maps of global warming future changes show no Florida left at all. A kind of de facto depopulation?
Florida disappearing nearly completely under the waves will happen at the soonest a few thousand years from now. We can all pay now to move everyone out in the next 10 - 40 years, or we can take our time on this one.
Which do you prefer?
I’m no expert on FLA geography, but are there some coastal areas that are in somewhat more imminent danger? If so, how much should be spent by whom to attempt to protect/rebuild such areas?
Yes, there are significant areas of FL that will be practically at sea level in 20 or 50 or at most 100 years. And yes, it’ll be a mighty clusterf*** dealing with it. But the same is true of coastal NYC NY, Boston MA, Norfolk VA, Charleston SC, and Galveston TX. To name just a few cities on flat terrain just above current sea level.
Some parts of FL will be in worse shape sooner than others. Anywhere on the Atlantic / gulf coast is at risk of hurricanes or equivalent storms, and the risk is increasing more up north than down south. Albeit from a low base up north versus a higher base down south. Heck, Nova Scotia just dealt with a severe hurricane.
The problem I have with ideas like “depopulate FL” is it’s really depopulate the US coast from the Canada/Maine border clockwise around to the Texas/Mexico border. Since that’s an evident non-starter, what do we do instead in all these places.
Well, like I’ve been trying to suggest, gradually move inland/uphill. Increase insurance rates for most at risk areas. Style government actions with goals other than to protect the riskiest private property. …
Everything I suggest for FLA holds true for the other locations you mention - tho FLA and the Gulf Coast and up thru the Mid-Atl have the additional risk of regular hurricanes. Just should be a very expensive place to live, with the burden solely upon those who choose to live/work there. Prioritize ESSENTIAL services, such as ports, with subsidized transport of workers who live elsewhere that is more protected.
Oh yeah - take major steps to curb CO2 emissions.
Oh, I agree completely. If we were rational beings, we’d do as I said upthread and require insurance to be full cost all hazards, no BS and no subsidies. Humanity, or at least the US public responds to only one incentive: money. So hit 'em the only place it hurts.
Once it costs $100K/yr to insure what was a $500K waterfront residence, people won’t live there. And once building cheap housing in swampland or floodplains will result in unsaleable property because of high insurance rates, builders will no longer build on the cheapest = most dangerous land.
The problem is how to stop the juggernaut of highly profitable coastal development and the corresponding vast herd of cold-country folks moving south in ever-increasing numbers. Just slowing the rate of growth will be a challenge, much less reversing it. Right now 1,000 people per day move to FL for their full-time home. Not everyone is coastal; some are well inland. But everyone is affected by what happens to the ever-growing population of coastal people.
You could stop there. Beach front property is a miniscule part of the problem.
Evacuation is not feasible for two reasons: disasters are not predictable; evacuation paths are insufficient. Hurricane Sally had come ashore and bypassed us to the west at midnight. But at 5:00 AM we had 2 feet of water in the house because it made a 90 degree turn to the east.
My daughter was in the attempted Houston evacuation. After 8 hours trying to get onto the evacuation route, she gave up and went home.
FEMA doesn’t bail you out. FEMA gives you a minimal amount for repair and you apply to the Small Business Administration for a low interest loan. If you qualify for the loan you are loaned the money. If you don’t, you may get some further assistance. FEMA gave me $17,750 and the insurance company gave me $210,000. Both against the same claim. After a year I got a letter from FEMA requesting the money be returned because the damage was insured. I figured that would be the deal so I hadn’t spent their money. In any case FEMA is not rebuilding expensive beach houses and homeowners are not getting rich off of FEMA funds. Government involvement is measured and appropriate.
Property values will only increase regardless of the climate and people won’t move. Property values on the Grand Canal in Venice are not cheap. People still live in the Netherlands. The same is true in Tampa, Ft. Lauderdale and Sanibel Island.