[bdangubic]

> 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)

[fsckboy]

>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

[tardedmeme]

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.

[AnimalMuppet]

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.

[bdangubic]

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)?

[LargeWu]

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.

[wat10000]

Is it unethical to lie in order to sell something? Yes, yes it is.

This sort of puffery is relatively minor and is thus not tremendously unethical, but it is unethical.

[bdangubic]

> Is it unethical to lie in order to sell something?

what exactly is a lie in this context specifically I wonder?

[wat10000]

> “up and coming area” which never upped and never came

Is this so difficult that you can't even detect your own lie specifically constructed as an example of it?

[bdangubic]

I would not put this on my listing, what are you smoking mate?! (I own a condo in brightwood park in northwest dc, been sketchy since 2008 when I bought it, you need an address? lol)

[AnimalMuppet]

In your scenario, "up and coming" is specifically a lie.

[bdangubic]

no one really lied to me, most certainly not the seller. blame my wife for that one :)