• Soup@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    234
    ·
    2 months ago

    Also that argument is dead on arrival because they expect you and businesses and the entire city to pack up and leave as if it would cost nothing. They also have literally said “just sell your house and move” but like TO WHO?! Who would buy that house if it’s in such a fucked area?!

    If anyone ever says “just move” you know they have zero concept of the word “community” or “moving costs” or “nuance”. They just don’t want to address the cause of the problem because they’re, at best, cowards.

    • NABDad@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      43
      ·
      2 months ago

      They also have literally said “just sell your house and move” but like TO WHO?! Who would buy that house if it’s in such a fucked area?!

      You have to sell the story that the area is a conservative utopia where people can live free of wokeness.

      Then the conservative refugees from the satanic, communist areas will flock to you to buy your land.

    • brucethemoose@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      30
      ·
      edit-2
      2 months ago

      If its our area (Flordia coast)… that’s not a problem.

      Buyers don’t care. They don’t know squat about flooding or hurricanes, they just come in from out of state and get dazzled by the realtor and the weather and everything and buy.

      Our housing market was so crazy houses were being auctioned left and right. Market value just keeps going up, even on the coast.

      TL;DR if the area is superficially attractive enough, home buyers are idiots. I realize this is probably not the case in Georgia mountains, but it his here, and its enabling a vicious cycle where builders keep building homes in obvious flood zones, where they absolutely shouldn’t.

      • psivchaz@reddthat.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        14
        ·
        2 months ago

        That doesn’t fix the problem, it just changes who has the problem. Though I’ll admit that idiots buying bad stuff from other idiots in a cycle until eventually one idiot gets their life totally ruined feels a little on the nose.

      • ChexMax@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        2 months ago

        Not exactly. My coworker has been trying to sell his waterfront home for over a year. He keeps having to rehab it after flooding from storms and then right back on the market. No luck. Starting October 13th or something you have to start disclosing floods when selling, also.

      • limelight79@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        2 months ago

        I was talking to some friends last weekend, and one of them said that they had previously owned a house on the Outer Banks of North Carolina. I said, “I love the Outer Banks, love visiting it, but I would never buy real estate there.” He said, “Yeah, it took a couple years for us to figure that out.”

        Of course, the islands are basically giant sandbars, and there’s the sea level rise issue. But I hadn’t considered that the environment is just that much harder on houses - roofs need to be replaced more often, wood rots more quickly, and so on - and that’s not even including a hurricane coming through. When the kind kicks up, which happens pretty regularly there, the house is getting sandblasted. The maintenance costs are much higher compared to an inland house, and I assume insurance is much higher, and so on.

        They rented it out to vacationers to help offset that cost, but they found that they weren’t breaking even - they have to charge competitive rates to get customers, but those rates weren’t covering all of the major upcoming expenses.

        But, there’s still a market for houses there. I imagine the recent images in the news of houses collapsing into the water have to be having an effect, but the bottom doesn’t seem to be falling out like you’d think.

        • brucethemoose@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          edit-2
          2 months ago

          No kidding, even inland salt is a menace. That + sand destroys stuff outside.

          Florida has the added bonus of being a swampy jungle, which you don’t really understand until you try to live there. Your landscaping, weeds, anything that grows, grows like crazy. Your pets will get all sorts of infections and parasites from the ground, even with all the pesticide they spray through sheer necessity. Mosquitos are even bigger than in Texas, and they never leave. And I saw a big alligator tear up our neighbor’s porch trying to run/hide from us, in a very suburban area.

    • ChonkyOwlbear@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      2 months ago

      The problem is a town was built where there should not be one. Flood plains WILL flood. Rebuilding is pointless. It will just be destroyed again. At some point we have to cut our losses.

      • CatoblepasOP
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        40
        ·
        2 months ago

        “A” town didn’t flood, there’s wreckage across the entire southeast. It’s not because people in the south are too stupid to know where to build, it’s because climate change is making hurricanes stronger further inland, resulting in century and thousand year floods happening.

        • bashbeerbash@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          12
          ·
          edit-2
          2 months ago

          A drought in south america has caused out of control wildfires that dumped 210 megatons of CO2 in the atmosphere, this year alone.

          That’s just from wildfires in one continent. Now add it to all the CO2 produced in one year.

          The runaway effects are becoming more evident and unfortunately people will have to finally give up on huge swaths of land or be killed. Save the planet, hang a CEO

          • LustyArgonian@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            edit-2
            2 months ago

            We should have started building sanctuary cities a decade ago. Unfortunately the wealthy in the world are choosing a Noah’s Ark model for climate change because they delusionally think they will survive this. So yeah, billions will die because that’s what leadership has wanted. They don’t want them to move to better areas. They straight up want “God” to kill them.

        • theneverfox@pawb.social
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          2 months ago

          It’s both - yes, places are getting hit with types and scales of natural disasters they could not have anticipated, but they’re also rebuilding in places that will get hit hardest when they do it again

          Consider the idea of a 100 year standard - you’re building to the level where it won’t hold up to the storm of a lifetime. Let alone the fact that storms keep getting worse… It boggles my mind

          • OpenStars@discuss.online
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            2 months ago

            Poor people live where they can afford to, however they can. In trailer parks, in a tent, in a log cabin, however they can. Even knowing that someplace is likely to flood again, someone will choose to live there. For someone who has a minimum wage job, no savings, and with most houses costing a significant fraction of a million dollars, they don’t have the choice to live in a floating sky castle or 20,000 leagues under the sea or on a moon colony, so they’ll choose to live even somewhere where life is difficult.

            Agreed though that people should not pay the full asking price for such a place, as if it would not flood, that is… probably happening, but not wise at all.

        • ChonkyOwlbear@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          2 months ago

          And those type of floods will only increase in frequency. This is the new normal. People will need to move if they don’t want to be rebuilding every couple years.

          • CatoblepasOP
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            16
            ·
            2 months ago

            Move where? Are you suggesting we just abandon everywhere within hundreds of miles of the coast? People living hundreds of miles inland and not in a flood plain are affected by this as well. Look at an elevation map of North Carolina, and then tell me which side you think would be safer to be on: the side with mountains, or the low lying side by the ocean?

            Because it was the western part of NC that got fucking wrecked. Suggesting that people should have foreseen this as inevitable when they chose to be born into communities that have been in the same place for literally hundreds of years without experiencing floods on this level is unrealistic, as is expecting people to just up and move with money they may not have to places where they have no community.

            Expecting that we can just offload the price of climate disasters on those affected by going “oh well you should have just lived somewhere else” isn’t just inhumane, it’s ostrich head in sand behavior. Your community isn’t safe from climate change, either. You better hope people haven’t run out of empathy by the time you or your family need help.

            • bamfic@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              7
              ·
              2 months ago

              Hah and abandon NYC, Boston, DC, SF, LA, Sydney, plus entire countries like Holland, the UK, India with its billion people, etc? This is madness. There is nowhere safe to go and the numbers of people to be displaced are staggering

            • OpenStars@discuss.online
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              2 months ago

              “One rule for thee, another for me” is indeed a not great proposition. Unfortunately, NC voted for Trump that did so much to cause that quoted thought to flourish, and also to harm the climate further e.g. withdrawing from the Paris Climate Accord.

              Democrats were the ones who have historically offered aid to those affected by massive natural disasters, and Republicans are the ones who claim that such aid should not be offered, except ofc when it happens in their own area (e.g. Chris Christy advocating for rich people:s second, beach homes in NJ vs. his earlier thoughts when it was poor people in New Orleans that lost everything).

              So let’s hope that NC wakes up to facts, as opposed to e.g. voting for Trump a third time in a row, and thereby further deepening this hole that we are digging ourselves into.

              Politics matters, as in literally life and death.

      • Soup@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        12
        ·
        2 months ago

        On top of what the other person said people still need to live in those places. It is actually crazy to say that the entire south-eastern seaboard of the United States should just be permanently evacuated wholesale. We could slow, or even stop, a lot of this by just admitting that climate change is real and doing something about it and it would be a helluva lot cheaper than turning several states in ghost towns.

        • OpenStars@discuss.online
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          2 months ago

          During the pandemic, Trump dragged his feet in developing a response to it - leaked conversations mentioned how individual #1 liked the fact that it was primarily affecting highly liberal areas such as NYC and LA, while leaving conservative strongholds such as Idaho and Utah alone, and had asked about delaying the federal response a bit so as to let the people in the former stew in it a bit more, for his political advantage.

          Also I note that that same individual #1 was in charge of nationwide disaster recovery efforts - even going so far as to take the binders of ready-made plans and throw them into the garbage.

          So this whole “it is not the job of the government to use its tax collected revenue to take care of We The People” is very much by design. i.e. not merely a factual matter but a political one, in having to choose between deeper tax breaks for the wealthy vs. preparedness. And Individual #1 made that choice, in conjunction with Congress, that now applies to us all.

          In fact, the former swing state turned Republican stronghold NC is one of the very reasons why climate change is hitting us so strong and fast, unprepared and seemingly even unawares.

          Perhaps “admitting that climate change is real and doing something about it” is something that NC will now change its mind about, so that the federal government can do differently?

          But I somewhat doubt it. It is very hard to help someone who seems dead set against being helped, nor allowing the rest of us to help ourselves as well (see e.g. medically necessary abortions).

        • ChonkyOwlbear@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          2 months ago

          I’m not saying to abandon the whole southeast, but something in the range of 15 million US homes are built in flood plains. A large portion of these are in Texas and Florida. It is absolute madness to keep building and rebuilding in these areas.

          Even if we drop global CO² emissions to zero tomorrow, it will take more than a century to even begin to see trends reverse. In the mean time lowland areas will continue to flood over and over.

          • Bytemeister@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            2 months ago

            Well dang. If only we knew about this back in the 70s, we’d have some time to focus on green energy, increasing efficiency, reducing excess, and building homes/communities that could withstand the changing climate.

    • wreckedcarzz@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      2 months ago

      I mean, you’re the one who bought it currently, just find an equal or dumber person like yourself, bam. Simple. At its core, this is basically how all products are sold.

      • Soup@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        11
        ·
        2 months ago

        You’ve completely missed the point about community, eh? And you know people don’t get to pick where they’re born or where their extended family lives, right? So they get born into these places and get locked down for whatever reason and can’t leave. Certainly they can’t all leave in one perfect unit all at the same time.

        Also that’s not how all products are sold, holy shit. Maybe certain drop shippers, sure, but that’s not how it works.

        • Know_not_Scotty_does@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          12
          ·
          2 months ago

          I can tell you the other thing people do as they grow up and that is develop their own views. Growing up in Texas, I didn’t realize anything was wrong or out of the ordinary politically/ideologivally. My parents had their views which initially became my views since that was what was normal in my family and community

          Getting older and more mature, I realized I didn’t agree with my state or parents but I also didn’t have the option to pack up and leave. By the time I was able to sustain myself and build a life, I had already gotten a job, a relationship, and wanted to start building my own family. Doing that meant staying where I was since my in-laws were in the same city and my spouse didn’t want to be away from them.

          Even if on paper to some people it is as easy as just sell your house and leave there are complicating factors. I don’t want my kids to have to deal with hurricanes, power grid failures, intolerance of others, and everything else Texas has to “offer” but at the same time, its not so easy to just bail and start again.

          • rhandyrhoads@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            2 months ago

            Can’t really escape the power grid failures, but as far as hurricanes and intolerance go, there’s always Austin.

            • OpenStars@discuss.online
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              2 months ago

              Not really - I am not there but from what I hear it has become overrun with a flood of people flocking towards it seeking the liberal utopia that it sold itself as (and legit was, and most likely still is) but the people there (surrounding it I guess) don’t really want to make way yet still control things like what streets and bike paths are constructed etc.

              So not everyone who wants to move there can really fit - there’s only so much space in it.

            • Know_not_Scotty_does@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              2 months ago

              The problem is that they have really ramped up enshitifying the public school system in the last few years. It was never great but either its gotten a lot worse or I have become much more aware of it in the last few years.

              The power grid stuff is probably the easiest to fix with a solar setup but I don’t know that I want to spend that money in a state I don’t want to stay in longer term.

        • 474D@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          2 months ago

          Dude it’s just moving, it’s not that hard. People do it multiple times in their lives. Relax.

      • aesthelete@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        2 months ago

        At its core, this is basically how all products are sold.

        Imagine being so neck deep in the scam economy that you don’t even remember that products that aren’t scams exist.

      • brbposting@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        2 months ago

        That’s funny and I’m sure you know this but for purposes of discussion -

        Think about a couple common examples:

        I would pay like a thousand dollars not to wash clothes by hand for a few years.

        You see washing machines are like $500-$1000, you buy, you’re happy.

        I’d pay five bucks to have a sweet dark tasting liquid in my mouth and not be as tired.

        Cha-ching, Starbucks makes a sale.

        So even rational consumers often make purchases when their expected utility/satisfaction exceeds the monetary cost.

    • Kalysta@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      2 months ago

      We’re rapidly hitting a point where the government is going to have to buy their house to get people to leave florida thanks to climate change.

      Insurers won’t even insure houses there anymore.