Generally I agree, and we’ve known this for a long time but people stay in denial. It’s the same thing in Miami.
Unfortunately though, the solution isn’t that easy.
For one, if you own property there, you’re basically either caught holding a bag with life changing amounts of money lost, or trying to pass it off to another sucker which just feels unethical.
For two, families and communities make it hard for people. Many rely on their friends and family as support systems. Elderly for example, may only have their family taking care of them and their poker night friends are the only ones they have left - if they go somewhere, that system becomes fragmented and people get left behind. Maybe you are the main caretaker of an elderly relative, so you can’t leave them behind, but if they follow you then they lose the rest of their network.
I’m sure there are tons of other reasons but just knowing there’s an imminent threat at some vague point in the future is sometimes not enough for people to willingly go through all of the suffering that I mentioned above, and more that I’m not metioning
Systemically, the problem is that there needs to be a last person, and yet people leaving expect market value for their homes which normally happens by selling to the next person. The last person can currently only get the money if a disaster strikes and insurance pays out. To do it ahead of schedule, insurance would have to pay out sooner, which means there would have to be some kind of government intervention to make it happen.
Maybe the state could make it so the last person is someone who has no plans to ever leave, such as an elderly retiree. It could work like this.
• The state identifies neighborhoods that will need to be abandoned in a few decades and puts them in a program to turn them into retirement communities. A person who owns a home in such an area can sell it normally if they want to anyone who will buy.
• If an elderly retired person is interested in a property in that area they have the option of instead of buying it themselves from the seller having the state buy the property, and they then pay the state. The state gets title to the property and the retiree gets the right to live in it until they die.
• If the retired person wants to leave before they die (or has to leave because they can no longer live on their own or the time has finally come that the property must be abandoned), they are offered free room and board for life at a state managed assisted living community.
• If they left for a reason other than that the property has to be abandoned the state opens it up to another retired elderly person on the same terms. The new person pays what a similar property in a place not under threat would sell for, and they are now set for housing for the rest of their life as long as they stay there or transfer to state managed assistant living.
• To further make these properties attractive to elderly retirees the residents should not have to pay property taxes and utility rates should be capped. Maybe also toss in a free shuttle service to minimize the need for cars so people don't have to leave just because they are no longer able to drive safely.
I think GP might be using "state" in the common international English definition, e.g. state in the sense of "sovereign state" or "city-state", not "US state". I would agree with you though that any US government actually implementing the idea today is hard to imagine, but I can easily imagine that after 2 other cities suffer a climate-related disaster first, then there will be the political will to bring a program like this to life. It's a creative policy idea, I love the thought that was put into this.
Louisiana is just the state with a major city closest to the point of it having to be abandoned. There will be more that follow in other states, such as Florida.
> The last person can currently only get the money if a disaster strikes and insurance pays out.
Usually there is no insurance.
The insurance industry, for all of its other faults, is one of the few left that still deals in reality instead of vibes so they aren't going to give you affordable insurance against floods/hurricanes/etc in these areas with any real coverage.
They aren't going to give you affordable insurance even in places that don't generally get hit by floods/hurricanes/etc.
I have a house in Louisiana (up "north") - outside of a couple tornados every few years, and the heavy rains of a hurricane every few years, it is a fairly "safe" place. Never been a claim against the property, or any immediate neighbors. We aren't in a floodplain of any sort, and are on top of a hill that is around 120 feet above the closest creek.
My premium has gone up 250% over the last 3 years (after being steady for a decade). Shopping around, they are even higher. I think they are finally starting to catch up with where they needed to be for years, but I can't help but feel I'm offsetting the people "down south" with their more expensive property that is literally underwater.
> I can't help but feel I'm offsetting the people "down south" with their more expensive property that is literally underwater.
I am not sure about Louisiana, but you very well may be.
State insurance commissions sometimes promulgate onerous regulations that effectively require cost shifting. For example, if it's profitable to keep operating in a state overall, but you can't raise premiums or drop policies for the riskiest properties, then you just raise premiums across the board and let the less-risky subsidize the unprofitable policies.
And rising reinsurance premiums mean that everybody pays more to account for increasing risks and costs in the insurers' portfolios, which may be concentrated in riskier areas far from your own property.
> For one, if you own property there, you’re basically either caught holding a bag with life changing amounts of money lost, or trying to pass it off to another sucker which just feels unethical.
every day you wait this gets worse and I am not sure what is unethical about selling a home. many people have to move (e.g. for work) but if it would put you mind at ease (ethically speaking) you can put a disclaimer on the listing. of course you also have an entire political party followers who believe all this is a hoax so you can put that on the listing too /s (last sentence)
>if you own property there, you’re basically either caught holding a bag with life changing amounts of money lost
but notice people can gain life changing amounts of money by lucking into real estate that soars, but there's no sense of injustice.
if you allow people to take risks and reap the benefits, but shield them from loss, you end up with a subprime mortgage crisis all over again.
if people wanted to be protected from loss they should have to sign up on the front end to risk pool with other people who want to be protected from loss, and together they can protect each other by limiting gains jointly
The people who gain money are mostly gamblers but the people who lose money are mostly people who just wanted a place to live without going bankrupt over it.
Yeah. There's a market. If there are enough buyers for the market to function normally, then there are enough people trying to get in that one more house won't make much difference.
I mean, yes, in your seller's disclosures you should tell the truth, including about the flood risk. If people want to take that, eyes wide open, I'm not sure what's unethical about selling to them.
Also why just flood risk? Is it unethical for me to sell my Condo which is in “up and coming area” which never upped and never came and has a very high crime rate (with/without disclaimer)? My friend lives in another area where schools are as bad as it gets, she is looking to move now, unethical to sell that too (with/without disclaimer)?
The difference is that schools, crime, etc., are all what they are right now. It's there, it's verifiable. Anybody buying in has access to the full information. They can walk around the neighborhood and see for themselves.
The flooding and inevitable destruction of the city is decades away. It's still abstract. Some people might even think it is preventable.
I don't think it's unethical to sell. People have their own motivations. Maybe a buyer just wants it for 5 years, who knows. Probably the risk will get baked into market price. What does need to happen though is the federal government needs to step up, because they're the only ones who can, and guarantee they will buy it for a certain percentage of appraised market value. I would imagine that percentage will decline over time until they declare the city a total loss, after which your property is declared worthless. If they do this now, they can make it possible for people to leave with some semblance of dignity and mitigate hardships.
This is decent advice on an individual level. Despite the fact that you probably can't sell your doomed house for a lot due to the current situation, planning a move is probably a good idea for those who can afford it.
But it's not really a solution on a population level. For one, if everyone sold their house because it'll soon be underwater, who'd they sell their house to? Aquaman? For two, a lot of people just won't be able to afford an expense like that. A large portion of the US lives paycheck to paycheck, and it's not easy to "just save up" a few hundred thousand when that means giving up on basic necessities.
And how exactly will someone do that. Many of the people living in the impacted area are below the poverty line and living paycheck to paycheck at best. How are they supposed to put together funds to relocate. Especially if their property is worth nothing. The minority of people privileged enough to be able to relocate will do that. The majority are stuck.
The “majority” of people aren’t so poor they can’t move over the multi-decade timescale this article is talking about. This country has a huge level of internal migration. 17 million Americans move every year.
Why do people have these blinders where they can’t view any issue except from the perspective of the minority of people who don’t have any resources? Why are so many people moving to places like Florida that are threatened by climate change?
>Why do people have these blinders where they can’t view any issue except from the perspective of the minority of people who don’t have any resources
I believe its because these people are young and repeating what they hear or they are old but have lived an insulated life and assume that people really cannot handle any upset in their life.
It’s not about being unable to view the issue except from that one perspective. It’s about having an aversion to mass suffering, and recognizing that this group will be subject to it.
You’re basically saying, why are you so worried about all of these people who will have their lives destroyed when there are a bunch of other people who will be totally fine? I hope that when it’s put that way, you can see how ridiculous it is.
No, it's an emotional obsession with small percentages of the population that makes it impossible to discuss realistic solutions to problems that affect everyone.
New Orleans is going to be underwater. That problem won't just affect poor people, it will affect everyone. So the first order of business is to encourage anyone who can do so to leave New Orleans to go somewhere that isn't underwater. That's the policy that's going to avoid the greatest amount of harm to the greatest number of people at the lowest cost.
What is there to discuss? If you have the ability to move away, then you move away, done.
We aren't discussing this particular group because we're a too emotional to think straight. We're discussing this group because it's the one that will bear the brunt of the suffering and it's the one where there isn't an obvious "just let them figure it out and it'll be fine" solution.
You’re both undervaluing and overvaluing collective action at the same time. We know from experience with people in disaster-prone areas that the majority aren’t going to do that. They’re going to stay, and when the disaster comes, it will be a huge problem and they’ll demand the Army Corps of Engineers performs some miracle to help them.
> it's an emotional obsession with small percentages of the population
Ah, right: it's a small percentage of the population, so we should just let them die, "and decrease the surplus population", right?
This kind of callousness is one of the biggest problem with the tech industry today. We learned to think in numbers, and some of us never learned to think about the people behind those numbers.
Yes, there are some kinds of problem where you really have to think about the numbers, and not the people, because if you try to save everyone you will end up saving no one.
This is not one of those.
The people who can move now, without financial hardship, get to make their own choices about when and whether to get out. The people we, as a society, should be thinking about are the people who cannot get out—either without financial ruination, or at all—because they are the ones we as a society must help.
Tragically, given the state of America today, we aren't likely to help them. And many of them are likely to die, whether by drowning when the next Hurricane Katrina inundates New Orleans, or by slow starvation and disease when they and everyone else in their community and support network are left homeless.
> The people who can move now, without financial hardship, get to make their own choices about when and whether to get out. The people we, as a society, should be thinking about are the people who cannot get out—either without financial ruination, or at all—because they are the ones we as a society must help.
This is exactly the problematic thinking I’m talking about. Your obsession with using society to help those whose problems are the most intractable leads you to conclude to majority should be left “to make their own choices.”
But the most effective use of social action is helping the majority. They can benefit from social organization and their problems are tractable. Here, leaving the majority to its own devices is going to cause the most damage in the long run. Society should push them to make good choices and relocate in an orderly manner while there’s time.
You're demonstrating the point I'm afraid. Rather than think of anything which can help 90%, you obsess on calling the people who want to save 90% of the people evil instead of thinking of anything to reduce the 10% further.
But that ignores the mass suffering that pushing people to move will prevent?
It’s not
why are you so worried about all of these people who will have their lives destroyed when there are a bunch of other people who will be totally fine
It’s
Why aren’t you worried about everyone having their life destroyed, if we can encourage people to move it may be challenging for them but it will save their lives.
Because, friend, a lot of people believe climate change is a lib conspiracy theory.
And people bring it up because a lot of folks in New Orleans couldn't afford to flee Katrina and 700 people died. It was kind of an enormous humanitarian disaster. If we don't talk about it, nothing will happen to stop it.
We should have a one-time buyout for flood zones: pay someone enough to buy a median home somewhere similar and turn the land into a nature preserve (let mangroves return to protect Florida coast, etc.). Put a cap on it so we’re not buying new mansions for a few rich people with beach houses but otherwise keep it simple so people aren’t impoverished into becoming a drain on society.
I have no expectation that we’ll be willing to invest in our neighbors, though.
I thought the government should have done this for all the beach houses that were destroyed by hurricane Sandy. Buy people out and prevent a house from being built there ever again.
Agreed, building on a flood plain is incredibly stupid. The city of East Grand Forks demolished all of the buildings in the flood plain portion of town after the 1997 Red River floods and turned it into a park. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greater_Grand_Forks_Greenway
so, you're talking not about renters but about homeowners, and you're saying housing prices are up everywhere else except they are down in New Orleans? I'm not from NOLA so I'm not going to bone up on prices, but I do doubt what you are saying holds water.
For less and less, presumably? Or is the housing situation so bad that prices rise even when the area will soon be underwater?
It doesn't even matter, really.
Suppose one person follows the sage advice of the HN glibertarians, sells his house and moves out. Good for him. But does this solve the problem? No, because now there's someone else there. Possibly a more desperate, poorer person. They can't all follow your advice, no more than they can all be best in their high school class, run the fastest in the marathon, or being on the winning side of a prediction market bet.
Yes but I feel a lot less bad for the person who sells there house and moves now than the person moving in. Basically what I was trying to show is that the option is still available and people are choosing not to take it so can we really act like they're all trapped in this situation.
Either this is ragebait or you're arrogant. Congrats on being a super smart hard worker or whatever you're so proud of. More interested in shitting on people to feel superior than understanding where they're at.
What an incredibly out of touch post. This gives off "let them eat cakes" classic. Do you realize how expensive is it to move out of your home? I won't write a laundry list of items here, since you either know all of them already or will dismiss outright with the same attitude. I do want to say is that social darwinism is not something to be proud about.
If someone sells their house in an area soon to be underwater, will you buy it? If not you, who? Aquaman? (Apologies to HBomberMan).
The reason people don't move is that for the time being, they're much, much better off than if they move. Especially if they start moving in large numbers.
Unfortunately though, the solution isn’t that easy.
For one, if you own property there, you’re basically either caught holding a bag with life changing amounts of money lost, or trying to pass it off to another sucker which just feels unethical.
For two, families and communities make it hard for people. Many rely on their friends and family as support systems. Elderly for example, may only have their family taking care of them and their poker night friends are the only ones they have left - if they go somewhere, that system becomes fragmented and people get left behind. Maybe you are the main caretaker of an elderly relative, so you can’t leave them behind, but if they follow you then they lose the rest of their network.
I’m sure there are tons of other reasons but just knowing there’s an imminent threat at some vague point in the future is sometimes not enough for people to willingly go through all of the suffering that I mentioned above, and more that I’m not metioning