Hacker Neue

Preferences
ndileas parent
I feel strongly that we should save every human life it's possible to save during disasters. Fema is pretty great at that.

However, that doesn't neccesarily imply that there should be flows of money available to rebuild in vulnerable locations. Insurance becoming unavailable or unaffordable is probably the best signal available that someplace is a bad place to live. If you can't afford the price or the risk ... There are lots of other places in the world.

cogman10
This assumes you are moving into an area fresh. But what about someone that's been there, potentially for generations?

It's one thing to say "don't buy beach front property in the Florida everglades" but what do you do with the millions who already own such property?

This came up with hurricane Katrina and Louisiana. Multigenerational communities were completely obliterated. I really don't find "the market said you should move" to be a compelling response.

Legend2440
It’s not the market saying that, it’s the climate. The market is just communicating it to you.

These places are no longer safely inhabitable due to rising ocean levels. People are going to have to be relocated one way or another.

roenxi
Well; some solution has to be found. There are probably options other than relocation - look at Venice. But the market is signalling how much money should be diverted into finding solutions and whether it is cost-effective to do so rather than just moving.

And I have no sympathy towards the "been there for generations" argument. The circumstances of your grandma just can't be a reason for what people do in the present - it s too unfair.

Retric
Venice is an interesting example because most of the population moved off the island for obvious logistical issues. However, tourists love interesting places so the islands have not been fully abandoned. What’s telling is it’s not the kind of model that really scale as the more common it gets the less interesting it becomes.

Chicago is a more scalable model, as both raising the city and moving existing housing worked quite well. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raising_of_Chicago

dredmorbius
For another Chicago example, there's the Tunnel and Reservoir Plan, a/k/a TARP (not to be confused with the 2008 Global Financial Crisis project with the same initialism).

The Chicago TARP was commissioned in the 1970s and won't be completed until 2029. It's cost > $3 billion to date.

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tunnel_and_Reservoir_Plan>

potato3732842
A huge part of the problem is government putting its thumb on the scale and preventing the sort of cheap low quality development that makes sense in areas where it's a given that nature will flatten everything every 50yr or whatever.

Florida existed this way for 100 yr. You have lots that had a house built in 1850, wiped out in 1900, rebuilt, wiped out in 1950, replaced with a double wide, wiped out in 2000, and then the owner gets told "sorry, build a multi million dollar house on stilts with windows rated to stop a flying patio chair and a roof you could dangle the house from or F-off"

I understand that there's a desire to stop sketchy interests from billing off "disposable" construction as "this will resist a hurricane and is prob good for 100yr" and pocketing the difference before vanishing (especially among the HN crowd because they're demographics who usually get left holding the bag) but it's not economically tenable to force communities to construct above their means either by law or by proxy with provisions written into insurance and lending requirements.

Those parts of New Orleans that never bounced back are just the denser more vertical versions of those poor Florida communities. There just isn't the money there. And while you can potentially cover this with state and federal programs (e.g. FEMA), it seems like in practice they don't quite bridge the gap.

autoexec
> preventing the sort of cheap low quality development that makes sense in areas where it's a given that nature will flatten everything every 50yr or whatever.

What kind of low quality development makes sense when you know it's only going to be washed away into the ocean at some random point within the next 50 years? Who is going to live in a place like that? What happens to them when they lose everything?

shkkmo
I have some sympathy. Those communities are valuable and should be saved where possible. However, it also doesn't make sense to keep rebuiling the same high risk locations, especially when all indications are rhat the risk is increasing.

The millions that own beach front property should accept the value of their land will decrease as it becomes harder to insure. If they don't want to lose equity, sell it sooner than later.

ndileas OP
Well, "compelling" isn't a good organizational principle. I'm not saying we should evict grandma at the first hint of insurance prices rising. There could absolutely be compensation for property, negotiated buyouts and moving costs, or other good policies.

For better or worse, markets are the clearest signals we have in a hugely messy world. That shouldn't prevent us from doing the best thing available, but the world is not inherently fair and safe, and it's not possible for it to be perfectly fair and safe with our current technology and psychology.

dylan604
After Harvey was the first time I remember hearing about FEMA doing buyouts of property in susceptible locations just so they don't have to continue to pay each time weather moves in. A lot of times, families in these situations cannot sell because no buyer will want to purchase such disaster prone property. This government buyout at least gives the families a fighting chance to move.
db48x
Helene would make your point more forcefully since the bulk of the damage it caused happened in the Appalachian mountains more than 200 miles inland from the ocean.
kiba
It's becoming a hard bargain from a governmental point of view as well.
BeFlatXIII
Does Florida have multigenerational communities?
bregma
Not white people, no. But people have been living there for at least 20,000 years so more than likely multiple generations.
yawgmoth
Oldest city in America is in Florida
codingdave
The Hopi might argue a different spot:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oraibi,_Arizona

wombatpm
St. Augustine

Built by the Spanish in 1565 and continuously occupied since then.

dns_snek
What is the average person supposed to do if their insurance stops covering their home after decades of ownership? Just saying "there are lots of other places in the world" ignores the reality where their only major asset has become close to worthless through no fault of their own, which makes it impossible to relocate without going bankrupt.

Should the government assist or are you of the opinion that it's just bad luck that they need to deal with on their own?

Personally I think the most rational option would be for the government to build non-profit apartment complexes across the country, but localized in areas that are projected to be safe for 100+ years where affected families could be relocated. I don't think they should be pumping money into rebuilding homes in the exact same vulnerable location though - I don't know if that's happening or not.

ndileas OP
I think this is a classic case for government intervention; buyouts back to state or federal land seems practical and just to me. And the government typically does intervene to help people, just not in the most optimal way IMO; there are stories of people whose homes have been rebuilt multiple times in vulnerable spots. I don't have a clear notion of how common of an issue that is, but I think the natural human tendency to pick a spot and defend it at all costs is shortsighted and leads to tragedy and high costs all around. And then a surprising fraction of people defend ignoring a reliable signal that something has to give... either building practices, or locations, or something else.
potato3732842
Even if you ignore the asset value the "just move" opinion is still almost pure ignorance.

Normal people who've "put down roots" incur a HUGE cost when they move away from all that. Lives become optimized, you establish relationships with businesses. You make friends and engage in mutually beneficial favor trading. Ripping all that away is probably on the order of a 15-30% reduction in real income depending on the individuals in question.

autoexec
Yeah, it's going to suck for a huge number of people who are displaced due to climate change, but "just move" is the increasingly going to be the only option that they have.

People who are able to move out of areas that are projected to be hit hardest by climate change should consider moving away sooner rather than later to manage that transition more on their own terms.

Globally, we're looking at billions of climate refugees needing to move somewhere and some of them will be displaced Americans. It's not going to be optimized for anybody and even people who don't have to move will be impacted by the influx of people coming into their cities.

autoexec
> Personally I think the most rational option would be for the government to build non-profit apartment complexes across the country, but localized in areas that are projected to be safe for 100+ years

I agree, we should be building up infrastructure and housing in those areas to provide places for climate refugees both for those in the US who are forced to move and to house the millions we'll need to bring in from outside of the US. As far as I can tell we're just ignoring that the massive wave of migration due to climate change has already started and we're not doing anything to prepare.

This item has no comments currently.