Perhaps the most interesting part of the article:

  • homura1650@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    6
    ·
    1 day ago

    The problem is that people cannot simply get out at scale. The homes themselves are not portable and represent a significant investment that most homeowners cannot afford to lose. An individual can sell, but that requires there being a buyer, so doesn’t actually solve the problem.

    What is needed here is a government funded relocation program. The government buys houses in eligible areas at market rate (locked in at the time the program starts, as market rate should collapse to 0). Then, the government does nothing, and saves money from not needing to subsidize the insurance market, and need needing to spend as much on disaster response and relief. Given that the disaster relief savings is largely born by the federal government, this program should receive federal funding as well.

    • lolcatnip@reddthat.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      11 hours ago

      In the US, voters have shown over and over that they don’t care if a lot of people become homeless. Why would you expect them to care about people who become homeless because of fires than they do about people who become homeless because of economic conditions?

    • michaelmrose@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      1 day ago

      So someone has say 2 million in real estate and 1.5 million in other Investements. They are at risk of losing some of that 3.5M while still counting themselves wealthy and the government who can’t afford to provide a whole laundry list of shit for normal people just hands them a few million to ensure their bad decisions don’t cost them anything.

      How about we don’t subsidize your insurance and if you suck up you just lose your money.

    • jfrnz@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      16
      ·
      1 day ago

      Why should my tax dollars be used to bail out someone who bought a multimillion dollar home in a high risk area? Why should home owners get all the profits from owning but get to skirt the risks?

      • Modern_medicine_isnt@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        1 day ago

        That’s an easy one. Because the government let this happen by not reigning in the corporate pollution it knew was happenig. All so the economy would grow and grow which is what gave you the money to pay those taxes. So the tax dollars you are giving the gov are the reason these people need to move.

        • kipo@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          14 hours ago

          I think relocation (and getting people comfortable with their tax dollars going towards it) would work better if the US states weren’t so ideologically divided.

          There is no way I want the average republican relocating to my state, let alone wanting to pay for such punishment.