Re:Hurricane Ian damages in Southeast estimated at $100B to ...
by jjeaff on Friday September 30, 2022 @02:24PM
(#33038639)
Private insurers will not cover homes in coastal areas that flood frequently. It is simply not financially viable. Many beach properties have subsidized government insurance.
Re:Hurricane Ian damages in Southeast estimated at $100B to ...
by treeman79 on Friday September 30, 2022 @03:45PM
(#33039819)
This is what needs to stop.
If government provides cheap insurance. The building on coast is a great idea.
Geraldo Rivera did a special on it many years ago. He lost his house. Didn’t cost him a dime. Was planning on rebuilding due to cheap insurance. Which he seemed to find ridiculous.
Re:Hurricane Ian damages in Southeast estimated at $100B to ...
by bcrosby95 on Friday September 30, 2022 @02:12PM
(#33038488)
These regions can do what California did. Insurance companies left the market in response to the Northridge earthquake, so the state provides a very high deductible earthquake insurance.
Re:Hurricane Ian damages in Southeast estimated at $100B to ...
by thebradbain on Friday September 30, 2022 @02:22PM
(#33038609)
Yet fire and earthquake damage are not generally covered by FEMA in California in most cases (I would expect the Big One, when it happens, to be, but based on the big stink that Trump raised to the applause of certain states, like Florida, about cutting back wildfire prevention/disaster funds to CA in 2019, who knows) and economically that state is much more important than Florida.
And thus California has very-high deductible insurance coverage in areas that are especially susceptible to such disasters, because it IS an inevitable risk that such an event will happen. Florida should do the same, as their "catastrophic disaster" is annual.
Under "2 and done", do you restore critical port infrastructure to dunes if they get destroyed by a hurricane twice? Port infrastructure can't exist on its own, it needs a community behind it which needs schools, parks, houses, etc.
This is a problem that the insurance industry will need figure out so they can price risk to the area that's wiped out, the way the home is constructed, etc.
In my mind the debate is how FEMA subsidies will distort the insurance markets. Perhaps they could serve as a "2 and done" re-re-insurance provider?
A great counterpoint to this argument is that an insurance oligopoly might "price gouge" after a big event like Ian, which could kill the community that's needed to support the vital port infrastructure. Ultimately if FEMA subsidies were removed from the picture, shipping costs would increase to price in the risk of hurricanes for the area. Either way we're all paying for it somehow.