Its not so much where you build as how you build. I come from Bermuda and all our houses are built to withstand hurricanes. As we get hit by them. Every year. They are all limestone or reinforced concrete and low lying to avoid strong winds. Power lines are underground and buildings have their own water tanks. Low and behold hurricanes are an annoyance not a catastrophe like in america where they build with cheap materials and high buildings. Plus they build in flood zones. Its like building in an earthquake zone. You build buildings with the understanding that they need to withstand earthquakes. For hurricanes however they seem to just build them and expect the fall out to be normal. Its bizarre.
254
That would be the smart thing to do. But this is America, so you know we aren’t going to do that.
36
There should be no subsidized flood insurance for flood/hurricane prone areas. Period. If a commercial insurer won't cover you, then that is a good sign you shouldn't build or buy a house there. If a commercial insurer will cover you, but you can't afford the insurance, that is also a sign you shouldn't build or buy there.
If, OTOH, we do keep subsidized insurance for those who already own houses in flood prone areas, federal disaster payouts should be one time only and conditional on NOT rebuilding there, instead requiring residents to use the money to relocate to an area that is not in a danger zone.
280
@CF I understand that Florida now self-insures a lot of coastal property because private insurers, understandably, pulled out. If Florida goes bankrupt because of this, the Feds must not bail them out.
36
@CF - Yes no flood insurance for flood prone areas like Ohio.
https://www.wunderground.com/cat6/biggest-flood-20-years-hits-ohio-river
http://www.ohiohistorycentral.org/w/1959_Ohio_Statewide_Flood
7
Once again, privatize the gains and advantages and socialize the losses. We abhor socialism until we need everyone else to help pay for the repairs and rebuilding of the private estates.
271
@Taoshum. Yep, and the biggest Republicans usually are the first looking for a government hand up. But when the poor need it, it is called a hand out
43
Why are we subsidizing this insurance? Seems like a perfect opportunity for the free market to set rates and for customers to make rational decisions about where to live.
309
The real estate business has great lobbyists.
111
@Dan
How it really works: other people need the discipline of the "free market" but I need the protection of the nanny state when my interests are at stake.
218
@Dan The government is subsidizing flood insurance because private industry (justifiably) usually refuses to issue policies at a reasonable price. There are people who have been flooded out and then rebuilt multiple times.
I'm not prepared to tell people that they need to pull up stakes and move away from everything they've ever known, but I'm not seeing many other solutions either. We might have to start looking at relocating whole communities.
27
Building a home in harms way is stupid and there is no cure for stupid. If you want to live on a beach, OK, but don't come to FEMA to rebuild your million dollar house.
Same goes for building a house in a flood plane along a river.
16
A dramatic article title. Inadvertently misleading. The possibilities are endless. Human and nonhuman ones. Consider: personally unaccountable elected and selected policymakers at all levels. All around. The ongoing enabled operation of influential agendaed individuals and systems. Choosing to be willfully blind, deaf, indifferent and ignorant of generalizable facts;choosing“goulashed” fictions, fantasies and “ alt-facts.”
Being unaware. Choosing not to look and see.
Choosing not to be adequately attentive; not to listen and hear.
Not discerning the difference between knowing- information, and understanding;types, levels and qualities.
Not “weighing״ the ever-present, interacting POTENTIAL and actual impacts of realities’ dimensions: uncertainties. Unpredictabilities. Randomness. Lack of total control notwithstanding one’s efforts. Timely or not. By oneself as well as with others.
Not making efforts to learn from outcomes.
Instead of considering each failure as an opportunity to “ fail better,” choosing to be “ failure blind.”
This article was about dynamic, complex, multidimensional,nonlinear ranges of realities and not about complicated, unidimensional,linear either/or binaries,as presented!
4
Google the term “Disaster Capitalism.”
5
Don't tell this to trump and his cult, but supports this opinion.
1
Point we'll made for this article. The map animation however is sloppy and not very informative. I only say this because I make maps for a living and a well made map graphic is a great way to convey information to the readers.
8
Florida is a Ponzi scheme, where tomorrow’s growth pays for today’s needs, and real estate is the largest employer.
We know how those end.......
5
This is an extremely logical point. But logical as it maybe, humans have proved themselves to be utterly illogical. Consistently. Another example would be Christchurch NZ. Built along a fault line. Or the floods in QLD Australia that the whole country ended up paying a levy for. Even when they choose not to live there for various environmental disaster reasons. The interesting thing about these three places, is country QLD can in part be blamed for the re election of the Trump Wannabes Party. The man running that can be best described as Trump and Pence's love child. Christchurch is a big reason the National/Fasists ran NZ for 10 plus yrs. And Florida? Well I have read about their love affair with the right wing fascist buffoon running that side of the world. If I was the pious religious type, one may say they are acts of God trying to teach those populations a lesson in humanity.
3
Seems to me a Nor’Easter with 18” of snow is a much greater disruption to our lives that a bit of rain and wind passing by. Oh, but the media hype!! Now that’s on a whole different level.
And oh by the way, those plies of snow and sheets of ice stick around a really long time. Let’s see, weeks of car accidents, slips, trips, falls, and clearing snow? I’ll take a 2 hour blow any day
1
Greed.
9
Is climate change real? Ask your insurance agent!
8
It’s the state that doesn’t believe in climate change. Their stupidity is rewarded each year; and WE have to pay for it.
14
Climate change is a hoax, racism doesn’t exist, more guns are the solution.
When the leaders of of the Republican Party keep spewing this subterfuge any surprise their mouth breathing base revolts when science and facts are brought to the conversation.
Just curious, doesn’t the party of God care what kind of world they will leave to their grand children?
9
Nature?
We don't need no stinking Nature!
4
As to why we build in fragile areas, prone to natural disasters; and worse, pay with our taxes (via government) for reconstruction exactly in that same place, escapes comprehension; it's a waste of resources...if not a tribute to our stupidity. Do you think I'm being harsh? Just wait for the next natural disaster (no if but when!), as dictated by our complacency in not taking measures to protect 'mother Earth', especially by ignoring, by choice, climate change, Trumpian style.
8
Because the collective "we" is stupid and stubborn and voted for Trump. This is not rocket science.
4
What needs to happen is that banks and mortgage companies need to require non-subsidized flood insurance to give loan in those areas. If people can't get loans, sales will stall, and builders won't build in the path of floods and storm surges.
Another fix is that FEMA money should not be awarded to rebuild on a flood zone. Yes, we will 'help out' a disaster-struck homeowner. Once. And only if they rebuild on higher ground. The payoff, and the relocation, include a catch - the abandoned property cannot be used to build housing in the future. Why should we taxpayers fund rebuilding (sometimes multiple times!) on flood plains and in low wetlands? If you really want to live in those areas, -you- must bear all the risk yourself... it's only common sense.
If I seem unsympathetic, perhaps some of the money being spent rebuilding flooded houses repeatedly could be directed to California, where a serious shortage of housing has driven prices to absurd heights.
And yes, if I could ever possibly buy, you bet I'd have 'earthquake insurance'... if I were so lucky as to be able to buy, around here, my entire worth would be tied up in that house. No way I'd leave that unprotected - quake insurance cost would just be part of the basic 'can I afford to do this' decision. If I can't afford it with the quake insurance, I can't afford it.
f -you- can't afford it with the flood insurance, then -you- can't afford to live there ('on the shore', 'at the water's edge', 'on the river') can you?
6
Obviously many people want to live near the ocean. Why do people live near the San Andreas fault? Why do they live below sea level in New Orleans? Why do they live in areas prone to wild fires? Why do they live in the tornado prone Oklahoma City metropolitan area? People are hoard to explain and everyone has to live somewhere.
I suggest remembering that as bad as some of these hureicanes have been, a) they’re getting worse, and b) we’ve dodged most of the major bullets.
Sooner or later, one of these new high-pop zones is gonna win the trifecta, hit the jackpot, catch the golden BB. My guess is, it’ll be storm surge and flooding that does it—it’s an easy guess—and then, the old death and injury rates are gonna look like a walk in the park. Not to mention the property damage.
Oh, well. People ain’t gonna listen, any more than every Californian is ever gonna set up an earthquake kit, or people in Tornado Alley are gonna harden their homes and electrical grids, or farmers on flood plains are gonna move.
I wonder if we’ll get off the dime, after we get big time hit by the Big One? It’s hard to imagine, given that neither Sandy Hook nor Las Vegas nor Parkland moved the needle.
5
From MY point of view, if you cross the street blindfolded in front of a moving bus, you get what you deserve -- so do those who dare mother nature. Just like Icarus they will lose.
FULL financial accountability for loss in such situations should be borne personally by these risk-takers. I do not want to pay increased insurance premiums due to their stupidity nor do I wish to tell their survivors that they have perished in a "natural disaster".
As CLIMATE CHANGE progresses, more and more MILLIONS will be vulnerable. Help the poor who have nowhere else to go; the rich and educated should know better. No whining accepted.
7
I totally agree but paradise has a price to pay.
2
"population growth" is the problem and has been since 1800. ALL social/economic problems are derived from overpopulation.
8
I used to live in Florida from the mid 80’s until early 2000’s. I recently went back to Florida for almost a year - for FEMA and recovery from Hurricane Irma. I was shocked at how many more high rises line the beach in Miami. The water levels in all the water ways are at least 25 percent higher. Florida thinks it can handle the obvious perils by putting a band aide on the result and keep building. Unfortunately for them Mother Nature doesn’t care how much money you throw at this problem it is only going to get worse. Time for a big wake up call. It’s time for a moratorium on new construction in South Florida.
4
Amen
Stop subsidizing this
Also stop subsidizing farmers and oil companies
4
It could be building codes, it could be politics, or it could be knowing you'l be bailed out by insurance.
The bottom line in my mind is that people love living near the water. They want to spend their free time there, so the closer they are to a beach or a river or a lake, the happier they are.
No matter how many more homes were built on the NJ shore after Hurricane Sandy, you couldn't pay me to live there and worry about the next storm. So Florida? No, never.
1
People are obnoxiously optimistic and then expect the rest of us to pay for their foolish behavior.
5
That which you tax, you get less of.
That which you subsidize, you get more of.
Until governments stop using taxpayer money to subsidize (beachfront homes in the path of hurricanes/reckless Wall Street bankers/smokers who eat 4,000 calories of fast food every day) you will get more of them.
6
People can’t accept the fact that living on the water is dangerous and stupid. Stop insuring these properties they’ll leave.
4
We humans have a sense of entitlement if wealthy enough to live with an ocean view.
Past generations prior to industrialization put up with coastal communities as free slaves and servants and poor or Fisher villages. The smart rich folk built mansions a safe distance away.
We are stupid.
2
They can afford million-dollar-plus condos in hurricane alley because taxpayers will foot the flood insurance.
Coastal elites -- and freeloaders, to boot.
They must be the ones those MAGA-hatted salt-of-the-earth types are always railing against, right?
3
You left out the asphalt disaster that occurred in Houston and will also occur in Florida. More asphalt replacing grassland means the water has no where to do....
Unfortunately, all the lessons are lost post storm when rebuilding starts. I wonder how the huge high rises on the beach in th Ft. Lauderdale sections of FL will fare.... Time that the taxpayers did not subsidize the rich who own many of the coastal properties directly or indirectly via the National Flood Insurance program. Time the poor stopped subsidizing the rich!!!Period.
1
Excuse me, I've been a life-long Florida conservationist. Forgive me for being blunt, there are too many naive Yankees down here doing too much ignorant stuff, not to mention foreign investors with no love lost for natural Florida. You can forget about government, developers, or anyone else doing any better. The Seminoles got environmental exceptions to build their new Hard Rock Hotel, Casino, Resort in the shape of a giant electric guitar. When the "unconquered" surrender to Babylon, you know the war is over. Hunker down and be ready to camp for a month!
1
29
Florida
electoral
college votes.
Nothing changes.
5
Ticks me off that Michigan has to pay into the National Flood Insurance Program to rebuild houses in stupid places. Detroit has room, has a nice river, and is going to be more livable than Florida as the planet heats up. Now if we can just get public transportation going here...
3
Well um yeah. Wonderful line - how we "create our own catastrophes" - as when poets say "when it scans it's TRUE - if it alliterates it "true" -sounds! the primal KaKa how we love our own kaka - o well as Fb says - it's complicated
We continue to build in places prone to great storms and big disasters becaue that's what humankind has always done. The Hanging Gardens of Babylon, the Colossus of Rhodes, the Library at Alexandria, all destroyed in pre-Columbian times. And now the Burj Kjalifa, the new World Trade Tower (a Singleton), the Calatrava subway ceiling at Ground Zero.
Manhattan, overbuilt to a fare-the-well.
Here in West Palm Beach, overpopulated up the yingyang, we 're awaiting nature's wrath in Cat 3 Hurricane Dorian, or just disintegration and flooding of our peninsular coasts by climate change. The nature of humankind is to build great monuments which disappear in recorded history. Except for the Pyramids and a few other man-made landmarks that remind us of times gone by and forgotten.
While we're at it, why don't we have an insurance program to give people a new place to live when they become unemployed or homeless? Oh that's right - Americans only give money to people who already have a lot.
4
I live in the boring Midwest. Catastrophes rarely occur here. We don’t suck up vast amounts of federal dollars to rebuild. I’m tired of my taxes going to people who build million dollar houses along the coast, knowing they are in chronic harms way. If they can’t afford the loss out of their own pockets, then they can’t afford to build there. Or they can buy private insurance like everyone else, if it’s available.
4
Tie situation is a bit different, but living in Rochester, I'm reading about property owners along the Lake Ontario shoreline who complain about its rising waters. The outflow from the lake can be partly controlled at a dam on the St. Lawrence, but such control is minimal compared with that of rainfall in the entire great lakes watershed. So what do these folks do (with the encouragement of Governor Cuomo)? They go for a lawsuit against the International Joint Commission that controls the outflow, arrogantly ignoring that Mother Nature has the last laugh, regardless of how the IJC balances the interests of residents and businesses along the shores of Lake Ontario, of the St. Lawrence River (think Montreal) example, and of shipping companies.
Let's face it, we are part of nature, but increasingly try to dominate or resist her. Mother Nature shows who is boss, as she changes our climate in response to our pumping greenhouse gases into the atmosphere.
19:30 EDT, 8/30
2
Everyone wants to know beforehand.
What cannot be known is the human response.
Will elderly and the poor hurt the most?
Almost assuredly..................
We love to live beside the sea....
the beautiful sea............the breast of the planet earth.
Geez Stephen! Data? Science? History? C'mon, look at my view!
1
Building in these areas will continue as long as insurance companies insure them. Here in California we've had devastating wild fires the past few years, like the "Camp Fire" in Paradise, Ca. Now insurance companies are refusing to insure properties in high risk fire zones...
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/wildfires-california-homeowners-insurance-hard-to-find-due-to-magnitude-of-massive-wildfires/
2
Hurricane Dorian going hit Florida like a freight train the my mother nature on men. But will Pres. Donald Trump fund FEMA my guess will go to the wall and not to the people Florida all FEMA go on vacation courtesy of Pres. Donald Trump people will be playing golf at Trump's resort never mind the Florida there's no money for homes and businesses watch us play out we learn our lesson before with Republican presidents the remember Katrina how hundreds, Puerto Rico, Sandy and now Florida a zebra can changes stripes nor can the Republican Party. So Floridians you voted for the Republicans and now soil weep. Will Pres. Donald Trump go down to Florida and throw paper towels, and after he leaves gives his tweet of hate.
My guess true. My prayers are for the people Florida and this time may be FEMA will come to the aid , true I hope so. But we know how Republican can handle natural disaster.
Greed will always overcome logic!!
1
Perhaps because the government picks up the bill? Take a look at the idiotic beach replenishment programs around the country
1
Every time I go to South Florida, I see more and more spanking new high rises, stunning and expensive. And I always have the same thought, doesn't anyone down here follow the news?
1
Sounds like most NYT readers want to make every state like Florida where natural disasters occur a “No Live Zone”. So why do some of the same people and the media want the US federal government to rebuild Puerto Rico and demonstrate outrage when the government was not responsive to the failed infrastructure that Hurricane Maria basically completely destroyed?
1
It's not just Florida. I have a friend in West Alton, MO, a low-lying area next the Mississippi River that floods on a regular basis. She told me many of her neighbors actually COUNT on the flood insurance checks, like some sort of bizarre windfall. And we, the taxpayers, keep paying them again and again and again.
2
"Unfortunately, we continue to construct our own disasters. " Like ho New York is on an Island that most are reclaimed land that was brought about from trash dumpage. What happen when a less powerful Hurricane hit you? Before you start judging other areas, which have much experience on handling it, perhaps you need to do an article where New York City has overbuilt and perhaps need to put a stop on development because of that danger?
1
Heads I win, tails you lose. The old tongue-in-cheek flip of the coin wherein moral hazard / risk is thrust upon the commonwealth rather than the homeowner who is certainly making an improbable investment bet. Uncle Sam plays the greater fool who’ll bail out the ‘victims’.
1
From a policy standpoint, the US has always been overly influenced by private property rights and accordingly in funding responses to natural disasters as opposed to spending far less money in preparing for them. The evidence of a changing climate (both natural variation and human-exacerbated) is irrefutable — both mitigation (lowering our carbon footprint in all sectors) AND adaptation (moving to higher ground, inland, etc.) is necessary. It’s not one or the other—both. It’s irresponsible for a society to allow continued rebuilding along barrier islands, and places prone to frequent life and property-threatening storms and other disasters (I include here building in certain locations in fire-prone western states) without taking into account changing and increasing risks. This entire country, whether the Northeast (Superstorm Sandy), southeastern and Gulf states (hurricanes), the Plains states (tornados), or the Far West (fire, earthquakes, and one day, another volcanic eruption), needs to do a wholesale analysis of land use policies and regulations, and use more of taxpayers dollars to help relocate people in especially vulnerable areas. Many people will balk—it’s their property after all — but in the facing of rising seas, and increasingly natural risks/disasters, we can’t keep our heads buried in the sand.
2
Florida is an outlaw state by its continued development along vulnerable coastal areas despite the clear science that sea level rise is accelerating and maximum storm strength has been increasing.
There's just one narrow road leading out of the Keys and when people finally get scared of the strong hurricane rolling ashore that road will turn into a parking lot.
It is time we started to think about getting people out these coastal areas.
15
Should we say the same thing about Oakland, a city on a fault line? I’m considering leaving Miami, not because of this hurricane but because of climate risks generally over the next few decades. Should you consider leaving Oakland because of earthquake risk?
11
@VS
I already did, I live in Sonora now. But the climate changes coming will be dramatic. No place will be safe.
15
@VS I live in Oakland and have no plans to move. The biggest thing is, I like a whole lot of people here. There are lots of other nice things about where I live.
I've been aware of the earthquake risk for 50+ years. When the big one hits, it will be a big disaster. Most of us will be miserable, but most of us won't die in it. I suppose the deaths and damages will be something like Hurricane Katrina in New Orleans. For survivors, drinking water will be the most urgent need. I keep some jugs of water on hand -- some of those jugs are pretty sturdy & I suppose I can dig them out of the debris. Also some canned food.
I rent an apt in a 1920's building. A few years ago, my landlord decided to fix the building's foundations and strengthen walls in the basement. I'm very glad he did. If someone can afford to EITHER strengthen a building, OR get insurance, the strengthening is usually the better deal.
The problem is not building in areas that are prone to be hit by a hurricane with some probability within the span of 10 years or 20 years. The problem is building with the right materials. For all the stupidity that Trump has said about Puerto Rico and Hurricane Maria I want to remind the continental US of something: Maria was a Category 4 hurricane that crossed thru PR (This has only happened once in 100 years in PR). It was a disaster with 3000 deaths. A lot of those deaths occurred in the aftermath of the hurricane because of lack of electricity for several months; the elderly and the sick suffered the most consequences. In San Juan and other cities, where most dwellings are built with reinforced concrete, there was not much damage to houses or apartments. People that constructed with wooden and zinc roofs, in some instances illegal additions, saw parts of their houses blown away. I lived for 30 years in PR and in those 30 years experienced 3 big hurricanes affecting the electricity for several days, but I never saw that my low-middle class family home suffered any damage. Because it was built with reinforced concrete as most houses in cities across the Island. In Miami , as in most of the US (and my apt in NYC) houses are built with wooden studs and walls are of gypsum board with exterior covered with some artificial material. That is the problem. If a hurricane category 4 would enter Florida or NYC, the architectural devastation would be 20 times what happened in PR.
5
"Why do we continue to build in places prone to big storms and other disasters?"
Money.
3
Why do we continue to build in places prone to big storms and other disasters?
money.
5
Big money, the big life and big growth do not often coincide with intelligence and foresight.
Florida has folly, crisis and opportunity cost written all over it. Welcome to the future state of Atlantis.
4
Rebuilding after a hurricane, along the coast from southwest Texas up through Virginia, is shown over a few years to be a waste of money. The rest of the country pays for the foolishness of some who cannot believe they will be affected by a hurricane. Prayer is not going to save you, folks, move your home to inland. This is going to be terribly expensive for the country.
5
Sure. Ban people from moving to Florida and developers from building there. Sounds very doable. Let me know when you get that passed.
3
Using evacuation as the "cure" for danger from hurricanes which hit Florida has become obsolete--if it ever was useful. There is literally no where to go from Florida when a Hurricane the size of Dorian is aiming at Florida.
As too many people learned from Irma, guessing whether Alabama or Georgia would be out of range for winds, water (rain or river) and tornadoes leads to traffic jams. There is no where within Florida to escape a storm as large as Dorian. Many times within the last 20+ years, I have watched people move to what they think will be "higher ground" or "away from the coast" only to have storms follow them after hours of sitting in traffic. Gas stations---soon to be electric re-charging stations--run out of gas. Many people cannot afford either the gas or the hotel/motel costs of evacuation. The roads to evacuate are not sufficient for the population.
It would be smarter to build strong structures to be used as shelters when hurricanes are predicted. People without cars could be transported; people with special needs could be identified and kept in a suitable place. When we as a society allow schools, hospitals, government buildings and city "recreation centers" to be built that do not meet standards for shelters, we are wasting taxpayer money.
Our homes can be strengthened as well with roofing secured, windows installed to meet standards and other improvements that are known now to prevent damage.
7
Wow, is it 1990? Don't we already know this? Was this a freshman student report? And isn't it about half as long as it needs to be? I'm befuddled.
4
Many of these responses are anecdotal. It's the business of Insurance companies, the weather service and the military to use data and statistics to analyze risk. It's not that we don't know what to do. It's that developers and others profiting suppress the facts. And legislators and regulators don't have the guts to take needed action. Risk mitigation needs to be multi-pronged: limit insurance in the riskiest locations AND put in place regulations on building up to certain standards coupled with other regulations, such as keeping brush and vegetation a certain distance from homes. We could be moving in a reasonable direction.
26
Dr. Strader;
I live on 7 major Earthquakes fault lines in the San Francisco Bay Area and just 1.2 km from the notorious Hayward fault. In all honesty I would *love* too move, however moving anywhere in the Bay Area is akin to renting an air conditioned dog house for $3700. plus utilities per month for starters. Maybe a future article could deal with the complicated human psychological dynamics at play out here. Maybe they are not that far apart?
15
The answer to this one is pretty simple. Insurers calculate the risk and charge residents for it. As long as the cost of insurance is manageable, not many are going to move away from where they want to live.
14
Bring to an end federal involvement in flood and storm insurance, and much of the problem will be solved. To do that fairly, 1) immediately stop the federal government providing insurance for new construction and development, and 2) pay one time only for damage on existing properties and then suspend federally-backed insurance upon that disaster occurring. If private parties want to build or re-build, own or insure in disaster-prone areas, let them do so at private risk. Right now, despite the high cost of flood insurance, average Americans are subsidizing wasteful, environmentally destructive development that benefits only a few (including builders and some local governments) selfish entities.
67
Oceanfront developments are a mistake wherever they are built. But as far as living in Florida vs the North East, I would argue that living in Florida is easier, safer, and more energy efficient than living in the North. Once every two years you have to put up hurricane shutters. That takes as much time as cleaning up from a single snowfall up North, which is a weekly affair in the winter. The summer temps are just as hot in the North as the summer temps in Florida, whereas it is much colder in the North in the winter. A Floridian spends a little more cooling their houses in the summer and far less heating them in the winter, compared to the North. Thus average utility bills are far lower in Florida than in the North. Someone in Florida has a much lower carbon footprint than someone living in the North. Florida taxes are lower also. We should ban development up North. Living in Florida is better for the environment, easier on the back than cleaning up after snowstorms, and more environmentally friendly, because we have lower carbon footprints.
8
@E Karp The hot summer temperatures in the northern US are usually not as long-lasting as in the southern US, since cold fronts sweep through the Midwest and Northeast occasionally. These cold fronts do not reach the Southern Plains and the Southeast with much frequency in the summer.
7
I taught a course called Natural Disasters at Central Lakes College in Brainerd, Minnesota. As part of the final exam, the students chose anyplace in the world where they wanted to live, then described the natural hazards and natural benefits of living there. Obviously, Florida experiences tropical cyclones, while California has earthquakes, mudslides, and occasional drought. Here in Minnesota, there are tornadoes in the summer and extreme cold in winter.
As another person commented, no place is immune to natural hazards.
20
I understand why developers build in disaster prone areas. Developers ply local town councils/municipalities to approve zoning changes no reasonable person would approve. The land is cheap and the cost of buying politicians is just another line item.
Developers buy down the insurance so the initial sale goes thru. Hapless buyers purchase the properties, suffer damage, and stick FEMA with the cost of cleanup and flood mitigation for the future.
Bottom line? Taxpayers subsidize these ill-advised projects long after the developers are gone with their loot.
It's not just Florida. In AZ, they continue to build in the Phoenix/Tucson area which has known water shortages. High priced rezoning lawyers plead cases with an illusory water supply known as 100 year water supply.
It's all fiction because AZ is in constant overdraft of water but developers make their profits and the buck is passed onto the taxpayers.
The article's author should have interviewed developer Trump.
40
Dr. Strader thank you for writing this much-needed piece of wisdom.
I simply don't understand why people keep on building with a front view of hurricane season... I don't.
Especially in Florida as you quoted, I saw the drainage system and levees to drain the sea (constantly) in Miami.
We will be standing in knee-deep water not very far in the future in Charleston, Miami, etc as climate changes keep apace.
I recall in 2017 there were pictures of a standalone house that handled the battering of the hurricane somewhere in Florida... concrete, iron, and brick structure with deep foundations.
12
@Ash. The lone house standing was in the Florida Panhandle after Hurricane Michael in 2017. The owner apparently lived on site during the building of the house and ensured that every detail was as planned. The extra cost was actually reasonable compared to other houses built at the same time. For some reason the building codes which should have been adopted after Andrew hit Homestead, Florida have over time been weakened and as a result there has been more damage. Large McMansions built mostly of wood with multiple stories are not suitable for hurricane prone areas. As they built in Homestead, many long-time Florida residents predicted the damage.
Living in Florida safely can be done--by smart people--- when technology is used properly and the existing climate is considered.
8
I don’t care where you live, there isn’t a spot in this earth that isn’t prone to some kind of disaster. You can move away from the hurricane prone areas, but then you get earthquakes, mudslides, volcanoes, tornadoes, floods, wildfires, avalanches, you name it. About the best we can do is try to build buildings that can take whatever disaster an area is prone to without too much damage. Safety is an illusion.
16
@Smilodon
Excellent, spot-on comment, Smilodon!
I live in Guangdong province in China, which is a very typhoon prone place. Instead of flimsy, stick frame houses with wooden roofs, virtually all the buildings here are multi story concrete monoliths. I've ridden out some severe category 3 and 4 storms here. There is some flooding, and the worst aftermath was no electricity or running water for 3 days. You can live in hurricane prone places, but smart construction is the key.
30
I'm not accusing the author of blaming the victims, although that was my initial impression. Maybe it's because every change in the forecast track over the past week has seemed to end up with Dorian making landfall in my little town, which compared to the Palm Beaches is neither heavily populated nor "overbuilt" -- the town founders had the foresight to limit condos to four stories. I live 8 miles from the coast in an are not prone to flooding.
Has the weather in Villanova, PA inspired any great literature? Because hurricanes in this region sure have and I can think of a few. "Their Eyes Were Watching God" is a fictionalized account of the 1928 Okeechobee Hurricane, estimated as a 135 mph category 5 which caused the levee to breach. The characters are black agricultural workers, descendents of the slaves brought to the Americas on the same trade winds from which hurricanes originate.
Also, the Hispanic population of FL is about 25% ranking the state surprisingly only about 5th or 6th among other mostly former Spanish possessions. I think Jesmyn Ward's National Book Award winner is Katrina-related and in Omar el Akkad's novel about climate change and the second American Civil War, Florida is no more, it's underwater.
I suspect that 40 percent of hurricanes that make landfall in the U.S. hit Puerto Rico or one of the Caribbean nations first but as you say, we're a bigger bull's eye.
2
While I do not disagree with Strader's point that millions of people move to flood prone areas, he -- like so many other articles and columns -- fail to mention that global warming is primarily a product of overpopulation which drives over-consumption, including over-building in these flood prone areas.
18
I was born and raised on the Texas Gulf Coast. Since my parents continued to live there once I'd moved away, I was in perpetual dread of every projected hurricane. Though no place is absolutely safe from acts of nature, I am so glad to no longer have either people or property facing the enhanced coastal threat of global warming.
6
Have you ever seen the painting Calm Sea by Gustave Courbet (1866) at the National Gallery of Art in Washington DC? While I am sure he based it on a view of the ocean or Mediterranean in France, I see that often here in Florida. People live near the water because the water means something to them. In Florida, Massachusetts, Michigan, or Oregon.
Last I checked, Florida pays way more in federal income taxes than it gets back, including FEMA and flood insurance payments.
4
Insurance is not intended to cover intentional acts of loss. That is why only the government provides flood insurance in these areas. Private insurance would go broke.
Paying more in taxes is a benefit of affluence. It's not a savings account or an excuse to lose money simply because you paid more in taxes. The notion that people shouldn't move out of harm's way until they take out as much money as they pay in taxes is even more nonsense. Though it is a clear example of wasteful government spending.
I recently home lots in Florida being sold on line for $5,000. Advertised as a great place to build a home. When I did a satellite search, they were in subdivisions that had been wiped off the map by a hurricane.
In my opinion that's fraud.
There are reasons generally associated with weather that cause populations to remain low. Unfortunately if you can foist the cost on someone else, then why shouldn't you live in tornado alley, or a hurricane prone part of the coast, or build a coastal city below sea level?
Because it's wrong.
If you want to live in danger, then you've got no excuse when it shows up and wipes you out. Society should not ignore your personal peril, but the economic loss should be yours to bare.
21
@John
https://www.businessinsider.com/federal-taxes-federal-services-difference-by-state-2019-1#tennessee-42
Florida does not, according to this report, appear to pay more than it takes in. Very few states do (which makes sense given the budget deficits).
Mike
12
Please tell me where you think everyone should live. I would like to know where this safe place is that isn’t prone to one kind of disaster or another.
1
Professor Strader's piece on the continued building and re-building by all of us in storm prone areas epitomizes the lack of common sense is so much of our setting of public policy.
Like the old adage from Einstein - Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.
5
We just need to build houses that can withstand hurricanes. It can be done. Yes it costs more, but cheaper than losing everything & rebuilding repeatedly.
5
@Common Sense
Oh my the "Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results" cliché. Yes. It's basically the story of humanity. We are currently working on re-doing a version of 1920s/30s Germany.
6
People will stop building in hurricane prone areas when the government and insurers stop giving them money to rebuild in those areas.
25
What I'm realizing from news reports about Hurricane Dorian is what I wish I was hearing from our weather prognosticators, namely, that we have a new sheriff in town, a new normal people when it comes to 'weather' forecasting, and it ain't what your grandparents experienced.
To cut to the chase, it's apparent the initial, ho-hum attitude that Dorian would remain a weak system, barely becoming a Cat 1, if even that, was based on 'dated' Computer Models, models no longer in sync with where we stand today.
The amounts of greenhouse gases in our atmosphere are gamechangers and have the ability to kick these out-dated computer models to the side.
Man's carelessness with the 'environment', specifically concerning our delinquent use of fossil fuels, has put teeth into 'mother nature' like we've not seen before. But we are beginning to realize how dire things have beocome lately.
And what is really frightening is imagining those individuals too poor or infirm, or just too old and alone to be able to head inland away from Dorian, and how they're wondering, in case of an immense storm surge, how to get someone to cut holes in their antic roofs to climb out of so they don't drown.
Our new normal is not looking very pretty and to put a cherry on top of this sad state of affairs,we have an administration keen on loosening the regulations governing the most lethal greenhouse gas of all, Methane.
30
Maybe he will believe in global warming when the sea swallows Mar-a-Largo.
"Why do we continue to build in places prone to big storms and other disasters?" Because such places are magnificent beyond measure in both grand and subtle ways. That question is like asking why people love the beach. Is it logical? Probably not. Is it human? Undeniably yes, oh yes.
13
@Mary R
And significantly the people who move there and live there don't pay the full cost of their choice. A large amount of disaster recovery is footed by the tax payer so part of the cost is borne by the nation at large.
If the cost of living was priced correctly fewer people would move/live there.
23
My late parents were “snowbirds” having grown up in Buffalo and NYC, then raising me in CT, developed a hatred for winter - which was rarely really dangerous, apart from the ice storms from time to time. As soon as they had the means they bought a place in West Palm and were there 5-6 months, tax advantage not a main thought. Feeling luxurious and within a short drive of the ocean. It was in a fussy gated neighborhood (fines if you didn’t plant enough flowers or left anything in your driveway more than a few hours). Anxiety prone, storms would throw them into a mad panic - from my standpoint way more stressful than your basic snow day. I love sunshine too but when mom passed away (dad had already) we sold that place in minutes, and at a loss. I’d asked why they didn’t buy more in the middle of the state - as my in-laws did - and the answer was a hand wave and “that’s not for us.” My wife asked if we’d ever consider Florida, and I said sure, carefully looking at elevations and water management plans in the community.
13
Have to agree, watching weather channel spotlight water gliders used to provide information about upcoming storms to better prepare those on land. They envision100s used to collect data. We continue believing technology will conquer Mother Nature. We spend millions upon millions for weather tracking, storm preparedness, and millions in repairs to damaged property along the shore. Time to give up the status of private ownership of beach front property.
6
New York City is a good example of this phenomenon.
7
Almost 7 years after Superstorm Sandy, many Long Islanders have forgotten the trauma, horror and cost of rebuilding after tidal surge wreaked its havoc in so many communities. As this article so cogently poins out, the focus is on rebuilding, and people just don't want to admit that the next storm could well be around the corner. I believe the delusion is rooted in real estate. Property values would plummet if low lying communities really understood the risk of tidal surge flooding. The "hundred year flood plain" term adds to confusion. It implies a flood every 100 years which is misleading. Correctly interpreted, the term means that over the course of a 30 year mortgage, your home as 25% chance of flooding. (And these numbers reflect data that is ten years old.).
My husband and I rebuilt after Sandy. Four years later, we realized we were living in constant fear of the next big storm. We put our house on the market after our streets flooded during a blizzard in January of 2016. We have much more peace of mind living at 68 feet above sea level. We beg people we know not to buy a gorgeous house that's in the floodplain (because it was completely redone after Sandy). But sometimes the temptation is too great. Articles, such as this one, that present the facts so clearly and offer effective solutions to the risks homeowners face need to be front page news.
24
Easy solution: starting "today" any property gets FEMA help only ONCE. Second time is tough luck.
36
To be fair about this, where in America is the place that doesn't have floods, hurricanes, wildfires, tornadoes, blizzards, killing heat, earthquakes, etc? Where do we build that is safe?
12
@sjs: Plenty of places in the US have low to moderate occurrences of all of the above.
I live in the mid-Atlantic, and problems are rare:
- Hurricane Isabel in 2003;
- a blizzard c. 1996, an ice storm in 1995, and Snowmageddon in 2010;
- hot, humid July and August every year.
That's it. A few difficult-but-manageable storms. My parents lived in their mid-Atlantic home for 51 years, and not once did a weather problem cause property damage or prompt an insurance claim. Likewise for my 12 cousins and sibs, ages 54 to 76, with a lifetime in or near DC, near Boston, and in Berkeley, CA: No truly catastrophic weather, no property damage, no insurance claims, ever.
So I repeat: Plenty of places in the US are not only significantly safer than FL but are overall pretty safe.
10
@sjs about 80% of the country doesn’t deal with these things.
1
California has giant earthquakes and wildfires.
That Google Earth image was unreadable. It said to see the growth, but it was unclear what you were looking at. All I saw was some flickering. Was there supposed to be a "before" and "after"?
4
@Northpamet It makes more sense with the years displayed at the bottom, as seen here: https://earthengine.google.com/timelapse/
You can navigate to an area of interest by typing in the search box and can also change the zoom level. Be sure to check out the expansion of Las Vegas and a meting glacier or seven.
2
Perhaps it’s what one might call the field of Hurricane streams syndrome—if you build it, they will come.
4
I was watching the news and it was just one replay of all the previous years. The same issues just new faces of the new politicians, the same gas stations running out of gas.
Andrew Yang, climate scientist told us what needed to be done years ago and people just refuse to listen.
This play needs to come to an end but that would mean we would elect politicians who think and listen
The planet is screaming at us why dont we listen?
13
During my two decades of residency in Pennsylvania, there were may trips to Delaware (to visit Bombay Hook National Wildlife Refuge) and the eastern shore of Virginia (to visit Chincoteague National Wildlife Refuge and Assateague National Seashore. Both are now headed for flooding by the rising Atlantic Ocean. In fact, all the big military bases in and around Norfolk, Va., a bit further south are doomed to be under wwater someday this century. And still, we build on Delmarva and in tidewater, Va.
8
I grew up near the coast in Georgia. The barrier islands then were sparsely inhabited. Not only did that reduce damage to property and threat to life when hurricanes came, it also maintained the islands in a semi-wild state for all to enjoy. You don't have to build on something to enjoy it.
43
There is no point in buying a house in the storm path. It’s not only huge wastage of money but also causes risk to human life. Purchase of a house is not like purchasing a TV or purchasing some window air conditioner. It’s mostly one time purchase involving huge amount of money whether own or borrowed. It’s not at all worth the risk.
4
Most people I know have their lives divided into two periods, before Katrina, and after. A conversation topic shortly after the Event was where could we move which would have no natural disasters? Granted. some locales are riskier than others, but recall that between Betsey in 1965 and Katrina was 40 years without widespread disaster. Personal history. family, employment, means more than logic, when it comes to choosing a place to live. Make a list of all the persons you know who consciously decided, after weighing the pros and cons in a widespread search, to move to their permanent home based mostly on lack of natural disasters. Short list, right? Bit if we don't get real serious real soon about climate change, moving and/or hiding won't be options.
19
I’m usually skeptical of reports like. Wherever you go there are drawbacks, and dealing with a hurricane or flood once every few years is arguably less worrisome than dealing year round with poisoned water, housing you can’t afford, bad schools, high unemployment, or high crime.
.
That said, I live near Houston and the Gulf Coast. My neighborhood flooded (but my house did not) during Harvey, and again in a freak rain storm last spring. I want a weekend house someday but I have NO desire to buy one closer to the coast. No, if I get a little weekender, it will be on a lake an hour or two inland from here. Someplace with fresh water and where the hurricanes have lost all their strength by the time they come through.
3
Our government subsidizes the behavior building in prone areas. Louisiana was largely a civil engineering project that was proactive with conquering nature and as a result was lower classes of people living in wetlands.
Similar as welfare policies encourage single mothers and a higher rate of reproduction.
8
We also keep building in places prone to fire, earthquakes, non-hurricane-related floods, and tornados. Lots of advice to not build/rebuild here or there, but not so many plans on where *to* build that will work better. (Out here we often see proposals that look good at first, only to prove harmful environmentally or impractical infrastructurally once the details are revealed.)
Methinks we need something of a national urban planning meeting.
10
Simple answer. We love to be near the oceans and are willing to take the risk. Cost/benefit analysis convinces is to build.
6
@ehillesum : That's OK as long as you do not expect more sane people to pay for rebuilding your house built on sinking sand.
1
Florida is our state most vulnerable to the ravages of climate change both in the present and the future. Until recently, their governor banned the use of the phrases climate change and global warming from state officers. They saw fit to make him their senator. They helped to elevate The Chosen One who has gutted all of our rather tepid attempts to combat global warming and has diverted money from FEMA to BUILD THAT WALL.They appear ready to re elect him. Florida will always be vulnerable to hurricanes but when the people of the state continue to vote for know nothing anti science bought and sold political hacks it is difficult to feel deeply for them. They are my fellow citizens, so on Tuesday I will be willing to send blood and money and paper towels, but very little sympathy. I will save that for the people of Grand Bahama which, if I read the current storm track properly might well cease to exist this weekend.
44
People should live with the consequences of their vote. Are we to subsidize people who vote against protecting the environment and who do not believe in government, sustainable growth, etc?
20
Not everyone in Florida voted for Trump.
Our country worships and rewards real estate developers and greed. Cities don’t do large scale cooperative planning. They do revenue and tax audits and hand out tax abatements to anyone who will build. And when we build somewhere that makes sense climate-wise, our government, national and local, builds for the wealthy as if they should be our first priority. Our govt tells middle income families to go to blazes. So why plan in dangerous locales - because our govt’s main interest is short term profit, period.
12
I get your anger but disagree. Governments don’t build, Builders build. Builders build because the government approves the building plan via permitting, zoning etc. Builders build for those who will pay for the building - usually the wealthier. Governments do provide abatements but at the same time, new buildings for the rich does expand the property base for assessment and tax levies. So, development does add to the local governments coffers via more taxable real estate in their jurisdiction. How they use that money is a whole other kettle of fish.
9
Builders build for the wealthy because that’s where they make the most money. They are in it for the cash. This is why it’s very hard to find starter homes that are reasonable.
5
@Suburban Cowboy, Builders buy governments. Come on! Of course they do. Look no further than our small town Neptune Beach, Fla. With strict building codes that were eroded behind our backs to allow a huge residential apt complex. We are fighting it. Check out our mayor's contributions and you will see the LLCs and shadow companies that bought her. Our little town of 7,000 residents is united, but boy do those LLCs have $$$ and they are ALL over Florida.
1
People began building in proximity to rivers and coastlines for commerce. Floods, and storms were recorded even then. Environmental Change is making those sites likely to be permanently flooded. Trump is making a very bad situation, a disaster.
16
"Why do we continue to build in places prone to big storms and other disasters?"
Because we know that when disaster comes, the sympathy of the populace and the deep tax lined pockets of the governemnt will bail us out.
If folks were on their own in these disaster prone areas, they'd suffer once, m-a-b-e-y twice, but then they'd move on.
Fires, hurricans, floods - Mother Nature will win everytime.
26
There must be good reasons why the federal government continues to underwrite flood insurance, local governments continue to grant building permits, builders keep building, and buyers keep buying in storm and flood-prone areas. The answers are probably not simple, but if government stopped providing flood insurance over a reasonably extended period so all other entities could plan rationally for the future, it would be a start. Is there a movement afoot to do something like that? I'll bet not. Everyone wants to do something about natural disaster planning and climate change until it has an impact on their own pocketbook, then, nothing doing.
16
The reason people build in areas subject to hurricanes is that our federal government protects them through taxpayer-subsidized flood insurance. Even those who don't have flood insurance get bailed out by the taxpayer.
The 1% get their nice beach houses complements of the US taxpayer. It's time to end flood insurance subsidies, and if we provide any aid, the recipients of that aid should be required to relocate. Turn the land into a park or forest.
33
@J. Waddell
The state of Florida has also stepped in to insuring coastal areas which private insurers deemed too risky.
But Florida doesn't have the money if a strong hurricane hits a heavily populated area.
7
Shouldn’t the homeowners have to pay market value for their flood insurance, taking into account the risk? If an area is supposed to be hit by a major storm every 50 years that causes damage to property at an amount of half its value, I would say the homeowners need to have insurance that reflects that risk. So in a $300,000 house, the insurance would need to be at a minimum amount of $150,000/50 years = $3,000 insurance management fees/risk, so maybe $5,000 a year. Yet they pay far less than that and instead rely on the taxpayers to bail them out if something happens. So the better question is - why would anyone elect NOT to build a house there, given that scenario?
18
Florida has probably grown faster than virtually all other major states because it has NO personal income tax. It has pleasant weather. It has cities. It is the gateway to Latin America and the Caribbean so it has attracted immigrants.It has a lower cost of living than the NY, NJ, NE so there is a net inflow of residents from there.
13
all well, and good.
But where do we propose 40% of NYS residents should live?
Long Island, geographically speaking, encompasses Brooklyn and Queens (yes, they are NYC boroughs, but part of the Long Island land mass).
And Florida? Should we just evacuate the state permanently?
Solutions, strategies, something that could be acted upon.
Other than simply stating the obvious (coastal areas flood with more frequency in the 21st century), what should be done?
6
You overstate the issue but do have a certain focus. Perhaps 20-30 percent of NYC , primarily comprised of southern portions of Brooklyn and Queens, edges of Staten Island and part of lower Manhattan are very much at storm and sea level rise risk. These areas are densely populated in some spots - Manhattan Lower East Side, Brooklyn in Gowanus, Coney Island, Canarsie, Flatlands and Queens in the Rockaways and Flushing. Both JFK and LaGuardia would be submerged. There are computer simulation models which demonstrate the effect in meter by meter increments.
6
@Suburban Cowboy
Overstate?
Do you have any idea of how populated Long Island is? The most populated island in the US.
If it were a state it would rank first in population density.
Give me a solution, I'm not about to move to Wisconsin, however beautiful it is.
They could go to California, Er, maybe not -earthquakes and wildfires. To the Midwest? Nope, Earthquakes & tornados. The Northwest? Earthquakes and volcanoes.
"Why do we continue to build in places prone to big storms and other disasters?"
The 1% make a huge profit off of them that's why. Insurance companies, developers in other words people like Trump.
20
@War Veteran - 1776 Airport Revolution
not just Trump many a Democrat millionaire/contributer as well... - the 1% os made up of all kinds... # Why little changes when the Democrats are in power....
It is really interesting that Andrew Yang's remarks in the last debate were seen by some as doomsdayish and not indicative of good climate policy when he said people need to move to higher ground. As this article points out, that is one of the best and easiest strategies we have to deal with the effects of climate change, especially given that we are only 15% of emissions, so even if we went carbon neutral immediately, the weather is still going to get worse. Obviously conservatives need to start recognizing that climate change is real and human caused, but liberals also must reconcile themselves with the fact that it is insufficient to implement progressive policies that reduce emissions, and we really do have to take steps to brace ourselves for more extreme weather.
11
Instead of just moving to higher ground, buy the real estate on higher ground. Create a financial groundswell via one’s portfolio.
4
When I turned 64 I found myself unemployed and tired of shoveling snow and paying tolls in Northern Virginia. I had bought a cheap but big townhouse 4 years earlier and treated it well. The housing bubble was going strong and when I had my house appraised I decided to sell fast and find a new place to spend the rest of my life. I looked at all the places that we had enjoyed as a young family, all on the water, they were affordable but they all had hurricane history. I ended up in Rome, GA in an 85 year old house with 14 hundred year old oaks on my property. It took six years for straight line winds to find me and throw two of those trees on my house. I was not hurt, the house had some damage but I had good insurance and I was lucky. My cat stayed hidden for two days.
It is possible that a tornado develops out of the hurricane heading this way and my house and I will find ourselves in the next county on Monday. It would beat sitting in a nursing home until I am 96.
15
I love your last line. Good luck!
3
@Karin Byars You should have stayed in Virginia. Sure tolls will increase but even at your age with global warming exponentially increasing there will be no more snow to shovel. Also I think that the heat would become unbearable in Georgia as global warming takes it toll. All the air conditioners you Southerners use do not help matters. At least in Maine it will take enough years for the heat to become unbearable for me. I will take shoveling snow any day over having it hot all year long .Believe me I have shoveled a lot of snow over the years. By the way beautiful summer this year in Maine not what I would call hot and I hate the heat.
I lived on the ocean and was directly hit by category 5 Charlie, (Ponce Inlet, just south of Daytona Beach). Barely a scratch. As I drove north after the storm, Daytona Beach, with older buildings was savaged. Building codes were dramatically improved in the ‘80’s, but existing building were grandfathered. After each severe storm, older buildings are destroyed, (which owners are happy about, because of insurance) and concrete building with triple pane hurricane windows replace them Flooding can’t be addressed by better materials, but better buildings on higher ground or elevated can survive hurricanes with insurable risk. Forcing existing buildings to be modified to hurricane standards, or leveled, is the answer.
4
@Jay
“Today, we’re struggling with 3 millimeters [0.1 inch] per year [of sea level rise],” says Robert DeConto at the University of Massachusetts-Amherst, co-author of one of the more sobering new studies. “We’re talking about centimeters per year. That’s really tough. At that point your engineering can’t keep up; you’re down to demolition and rebuilding.”
http://e360.yale.edu/feature/abrupt_sea_level_rise_realistic_greenland_antarctica/2990/
More important, why do we continue to bail out, at taxpayer expense, people who insist on continuing to live in these areas.
24
Does NYC, where you live, count as “one of those areas” after what happened with Sandy?
1
Florida as the US third most populous state is today by far the largest Electoral College swing state. What party in power would deny the monies needed to recover and rebuild ? The exact opposite of how Puerto Rico was treated since it has no weight whatsoever in national elections.
45
FEMA funds should be used to relocate people to safer ground. Every year neighborhoods are destroyed such as happened not that long ago in Houston and Eastern NC. Funds are doled out for rebuilding and repairs in the very same places. Many of these dangerous zones are home to the poor and minorities. Sea level rise deniers must think that a hurricane cant strike twice in the same place. I cannot believe that Miami just sits there thinking that walls can be built around the city. Poorer areas not to be included I imagine. Thus income inequality puts millions in danger zones such as the lower ninth ward in New Orleans. As to the wealthy on the coasts their high cost flood insurance will allow them to rebuild. One day those lots will be underwater permanently.
8
@Suzanne Wheat Houston used to have large areas that could absorb rain and flood waters but many of these have been filled in and developed (houses, businesses). Couple this with climate change . . .
8
I have a modest proposal. Wyoming seems like a nice place, and the number of people living there is one-fourth the number who live in Miami-Dade alone.
It has plenty of land and no real chance of natural disasters.
So, just give everyone in Southern Florida bus tickets and move 'em out. I don't see the downside.
10
@Andy, just bus tickets? Not sure Wyoming wants millions of homeless unemployed Floridians in their state. There's a little bit more involved than a bunch of bus tickets.
2
Andy, I have a feeling that Wyoming would see a downside. Besides, we'd have to change the meme to"a Wyoming man..."
3
I don’t think the people in Wyoming would like it.
Insurance is the answer. Typically politicians create state backed wind insurance pools to serve as a financial safety net for homes and businesses built in high risk coastal areas. Or worse, windpools that put private companies on the hook year after year.
Typically politicians cave into builders and developers and then pass laws or lobby insurance regulators to lower building standards for coastal properties.
In too many instances the free market - much less commonsense - is not allowed to work.
9
As a nation, I think we all need to come to an agreement that we don't build homes and cities below sea level. I know it sounds trite to say, "Hey, that's the second time a hurricane has flooded your home and business. You should probably move." I understand people have lives, jobs, families. But is the devastation worth it? I remember listening to NPR when Irma was making its way to the Keys and the messaging was get out-get out-get out. Fast forward to a few days after the storm when emergency services were having to be used to save people who had refused to leave. It's utter nonsense. There's plenty of beautiful land in this country, we are very lucky that way. Relocation incentives perhaps? That may be the only way to get people to leave.
17
Well, it won't go on much longer because soon insurers are going to stop writing flood insurance (or the premiums will be too expensive for most homeowners) and soon the local, state and federal governments will no longer serve as a back stop for recurring disasters which are now becoming a way of life.
38
@Steve they haven't already?
My question is are why do we continue to insure these buildings, and why do we risk lives to rescue people who refuse to evacuate from them?
39
@Factsarebitterthings. More important, why do local govts, like NY City & State, continue to bail out people who either don't have insurance or don't have enough insurance. Following storm Sandy NY State bought some Staten Island homes at pre-storm market values. Some homeowners expressed surprise at how much money they were offered.
4
@ellienyc
Bill de Blasio is famous for overpaying for property owned by friends? contributers?
Let's not forget that luxury apts. in Hudson Yards qualify for the 500K visas for foreigners! and real estate tax abatements... The subway there is deep underground.. Remember what happened at 34th St. with Sandy?? Yawn.
The US government needs to stop underwriter flood insurance. If people can just build over and over again on a coast or a flood plain, they should be willing to take on the risk without the taxpayer’s involvement. It just perpetuates the huge human and financial costs of these storms.
32
It is the climate change. The oceans get warmer than during the Cretaceous Period when it was really humid due to moisture not ozone depletion and dinosaurs roamed. Hurricane is nature's method to cool off the oceans. It gets worse and fierce as the Earth warms up. We do not want a Jupiter hurricane like that will last for hundred years on planet Earth.
6
Some years ago I was in Japan while a major hurricane hit Florida. I sat in a bar with the Japanese business people I was visiting watching the inevitable helicopter shots of devastated housing developments. One of the Japanese turned to me and asked “why you build houses with sticks?” I had no answer.
The Japanese also build in hurricane (typhoon) susceptible coastal areas, but they build with steel reinforced concrete.
So, why do we continue to build houses with sticks in hurricane country?
92
@Jay Hulbert
It’s cheap and developers who care nothing about safety or the lives of others have cozy relationships with politicians... nothing will change as long as the wheels are greased by generous campaign “donations”.
4
Exactly! We just need to build better houses suited for the area they are in. The initial expense would be more but it would pay off long term
2
@Jay Hulbert The Japanese made the same kind of error in a very big way. Can you say "Fukushima"?
Create our own hurricane catastrophes indeed. There is no competing with the ocean and the warm weather in South Florida, and I have noticed people around here being awfully kind and considerate toward one another the past couple of days as Dorian looms. But I've just retired from a great job which has kept me here for nearly twenty years and I'm relocating elsewhere. I can't imagine myself down the road being a vulnerable 80-year-old man in the face of a monster hurricane.
In a similar vein, I was listening to a Miami radio program this morning where two different young women phoned in asking for assistance. Both were single mothers of several children, with no way to shutter up their windows and protect their families and homes. The DJs invoked "the power of radio" to help these women out. I'm guessing it worked out fine for them. But these women and their children are as vulnerable in a way as I will be in a few more years.
18
If I remember correctly, Federally subsidized flood insurance REQUIRES people to rebuild IN THE SAME LOCATION in order to cover their loss, even though many would love to relocate and rebuild in a safer location.
How much sense does that make?
53
@Patricia
You are correct, and it also only reimburses homeowners to the extend that the rebuild is to a "replacement in kind" status, so that smart things to at least build some resilience to a similar future event are on the homeowner, for the most part.
A few years ago, Congress passed a law to insure that the flood insurance program "was priced to the free market" - when homeowners found out what that would do to their premiums, and got their lawyers and local politicians involved, the law was quickly and quietly amended.
The result is that more and more of our general appropriated funds will have to go to keep the national flood insurance program solvent, as risk from these storms increases, and that risk is mis-priced...add that to our $1T annual deficit and our children's credit cards....
14
I'm no expert at all on watermanagement but s Seen with Dutch eyes it is incomprehensible that people build houses on beaches just like that, no defence against the water at all except -sometimes-they are on stilts.
Also during the terrible flood after the hurricane in the Gulf of Mexico, I read about buildings,hospital and schools! even, in the flood planes of the rivers. By now we know better over here and have topped up important dikes inland and at the seashore but also the rivers get more space in case of flooding. The levees e.g. near New Orleans are far too low if you see them. For urban areas I understood that a 500 yrs. risk is used, in my area of the the Randstad ( most urbanised area in the Netherlands, Amsterdam, etc) it's 10.000 yrs. standard. for the seawalls, large rivers it's all different . Of course, your country is so much larger, the rivers wider, the hurricanes unbelievable forces and subsiding of large areas a big problem but it seems that the system of finances and education of the population about how to live with the water is not sufficient at all. For centuries there is a conglomerate of governmental/provincial/local systems in our country that makes sure the high costs of maintaining, controlling and developing science /methods concerning the whole water-defence system are being financed and organised.
48
I live in a area that was inundated under 11 ft of water during Katrina. Almost 20 years hence, most buildings were mucked out and repaired at the exact same elevation that was under 11 ft of water. Local politicians did their domestic to ensure that repaired houses we’re built at the same original elevation. I rebuilt my house 13 feet above the real base flood elevation. I now look down on most of my still-at-risk neighbors with Dorian bearing down on all of us. I’ve even provided for an extra 2 feet of “freeboard” just in case. You would have thought that the Corps of Engineers would have insisted on a safe margin but that margin was determined by local builders careless residents. The Corps is supposed to apply sound engineering practices instead of unsafe rebuilding principles. This is engineering malpractice at its worst.
17
The US could learn a lot from other countries, but it refuses to to so. “American Exceptionalism” don’t you know.
2
Two reasons:
most of the time these are idyllic places with plenty of warm weather, beach life etc
they can still get insured to cover most of the damage,
Take away the insurance and increase the number of hurricane or flooding hits and the picture will change. Will they move?
13
Florida property owners shouldn't worry. The redistributive, socialist government headed by Trump will provide financial assistance to rebuild and recover. After all, there's an election in 2020.
61
@Don But only because it's Florida. That wouldn't have been the case had the hurricane demolished PR and the Virgin Islands.
And he’ll toss in some paper towels leftover from PR while he’s at it.
@Don
...And Lauderdale might get clobbered. Would Trump accept assistance were his properties damaged? Of course.... he'd love having the feds bail him out.
Why do people build and populate places prone to hurricanes? Because when there isn't a hurricane, they are nice places to live.
Realistically, it is pretty hard to buy up the whole coast and coastal regions and move people inland. Increase the cost of insurance, only indemnify infrastructure through FEMA for flood zones, and let the cost of building and insuring regulate growth.
Of course, that will never happen because the whole economy of the region is tied to the great weather, and the desirability of the area. Pro-business lobbies will keep the socialized cost of privatized benefit in place.
14
@Cathy
It also doesn't help when people who live in those areas refuse to raise local taxes to put in place structures such as levees,walls,etc that would mitigate the damage.
24
@Cathy
Great weather?! If hurricanes and flooding are your idea of great weather I'll take the bad.
1
Living in the St. Louis area I can tell you it’s not if the levees break, it’s when. At best they just push the water downriver. You have enough water, somebody’s going to end up getting wet.
Well, Florida being a red state will get no criticism from Trump. Build on the coast and our GOP government will come to the rescue. California, on the other hand, being less supportive of Trump, will be criticized for being susceptible to fires that plague its mountain communities. Harsh words and admonishments will come even before the fires are out, followed by recommendations to rake leaves from the forest floor.
80
@gmansc
I noticed he didn't bawl them out like he did to PR. He also didn't tell them to be grateful to fema like he did PR. Gees I wonder why.
1
@gmansc. California and Puerto Rico! Neither of you are the “favored” list.
Why do we continue to build in places prone to big storms and other disasters?
Where else in America would one build?
When I lived in the midwest one had to fear tornadoes along with floods. Then I moved to Florida and it was hurricanes and tornadoes. Then I moved to L.A., S.F. and Seattle - major fault lines and I can look down the street at an active volcano. We just had two quakes last month. Hawaii - volcanoes. Alaska - earthquakes. Yellowstone? Supervolcano. New England? - hurricanes. The southeast? Hurricanes, tornadoes and flooding.
I guess we could all move to Boise and hope for the best.
14
@tom harrison There is a huge range of risk in the scenarios you describe. Building on the coast of Florida, below the level of storm surges, is obviously very different from building further inland in Florida.
26
The likelihood of certain natural disasters is much higher than others. Florida is statistically more prone than other regions of the us which are threatened by other types of disasters but much less frequently.
13
@tom harrison
Boise gets blizzards
1
Why do we socialize the cost of repeated rebuilding along our shoreline. Many in our country defend private health care insurance so why not private home and business insurance in these high risk flood areas. If there were no governmental subsidies then the cost burden would fall on the individuals that insist on living in these storm/flood prone areas and they would pay the price for doing so. Science shows us that barrier islands and sea shores protect us in the event of a storm and yet we build upon them.
I live in Seattle, earthquake country. Standard homeowners policies provide no earthquake coverage but one can obtain a separate earthquake policy depending upon home value, size, age and type of construction for about $1,600 to $8,00 a year. There is no subsidized Federal earthquake insurance unlike flood insurance. Most people do not carry earthquake insurance as a result of the high costs.
The other big issue is over population, an issue that no one seems to want to address in government so the "bull's eye effect" will only continue to grow.
I have to ask myself should I continue to take the earthquake risk but after 43 plus years here I know I don't want to live in Kansas.
47
If you lived in the Midwest there’d be tornados. And earthquakes. The New Madrid is overdue.
1
@Steve - Kansas is just as dangerous due to floods and tornadoes.
1
Why? Because the government spends billions paying people to rebuild in flood prone areas.
26
My tax dollars subsidize the insurance for these homes, yet I don’t get subsidized for far less frequent earthquakes. Funny that.
35
Population growth is, in part, driven by Florida’s low tax rates for higher income people. Their storm loses are subsidized through Federal taxes. Floridians are not paying a fair share. Stop subsidizing their losses. The State can raise relief funds through a better tax levy.
184
The answer is simple- the federal flood insurance program exists and it does not act like a real marketplace. Cancel the program tomorrow and development would not stop on the coasts but it would probably drop by 90% and values would drop precipitously in those areas- probably by 50%. But alas our free market GOP friends only believe in the free market selectively.
96
@Dan G
Very good last sentence... Values would drop to realistc levels. (Forget precipitous... and I'm not even a capitalist -- but I understand there is risk -- lots of it in real estate, stocks.. # Why the Fed needs to raise the interest rate.
Well, don't cry for Florida when they elect a man to the Senate who not only was a climate change denier as governor, but banned the words climate change from all state government reports. If you're in denial, it will take a major catastrophe for those who elected "Red Tide" Rick Scott and other climate skeptics to change their behavior. Perhaps, as perverse as it seems, Dorian will be the wake up call that Floridians need to stop denying and start accepting that Dorian is a symptom of the climate catastrophe that's upon us and vote out the Republican deniers and start working to save Florida before it disappears under the rising sea levels that global warming and melting glaciers are rapidly producing. It may already be too late to save Miami and much of south Florida, but if Florida doesn't start embracing and combating climate change it's the reality their children and grandchildren are facing.
119
People like to live in a warm climate. They like to see water. Many of these places have historically favored development over conservation, so zoning and other restrictions were less. And importantly, there are no disincentives to developing in these areas. Some locations have had multiple payouts from FEMA - these should be limited. People are in these places, and we aren't going to displace them. However as a tax payer I am tired of subsidizing people who chose to live in flood prone areas, and for the failures of local and state governments to adequately address the situation. Look at Houston - during the catastrophic floods there, it was revealed many of these developments were built in flood plains. We also have allowed our coast lines and barrier islands to be eroded and developed. Local officials often just look at short term revenue and not long term consequences. It's finally catching up with us.
105
@dairyfarmersdaughter
People have done the same thing along our major rivers such as the Miss. Then when it floods they scream for govt. aid.They even refuse to build dikes and levees in some places.
1
The article never asks the question why. Why do we continue to build in hurricane prone areas. Why do people not learn from history? Is it just greed by developers? More deeply, why do so many members of our society embrace ignorance? Why can they not see the connection between human development and the catastrophes we bring on ourselves? Why do they look for supernatural causes when the real and far more mundane causes are in plain sight?
While we debate the future of education in this country, perhaps we should reevaluate the importance of subjects like history, philosophy, and civics. Maybe if we better understood the reasons people make the same errors time and again, we wouldn't continue to do things like develop in hurricane prone areas.
27
I don’t know if basic common sense can be taught but there sure is a need for a course in critical thinking. Education is sadly lacking, I’m still amazed at how people will vote against their own best interests.
3
I agree. & their should be no FEMA or other government funds available for rebuilding in places prone to flooding. Money should be given to flood victims to replace their lost homes win safer area. This should go some way to alleviating the problem. As to why people continue to settle in flood or wildfire prone areas, in part, it is when they are rewarded tfor doing so. The other reason is that even if you 'know' intellectually, that climate change is going to cause more & more catastrophic weather events in the future, people tend not to think it will happen to them, even if it has already happened in the past. It's human nature.
12
Because we have short memories, and because the government subsidizes insurance.
37
The answer is that flood insurance should be a one-time payment. If your house is significantly damaged, the government pays you full pre-loss value and gets the property to keep vacant or to sell for farmland or other compatible use.
37
@John Graybeard Better to abolish such subsidies altogether. Living near the ocean is privilege and a risk (risk not only in terms of disaster, but in the sense of venture capitalism).
2
"People as well as governments at all levels must do a better job at preparing for hurricanes and mitigating the impacts."
Not a chance, as long as those people and developers are being bailed out by government "emergency" funding, insurance payouts that each of we insured -- regardless of threats to our properties -- pay; government-funded "restoration" projects, etc.
These disaster-vulnerable areas need to be abandoned, or, at the least, those people and businesses that choose to live there need to pay for their costly mistake.
Tired of paying for people who choose to live in flood, hurricane, and wildfire-prone areas.
Where's that American spirit of "rugged individualism?"
60
Econ 101
People do it , because it is subsidized
When I worked in California, my co-workers invariably answer to the question: Do you have earthquake insurance?
With no. The deductible is too high to take care of small quake damage - and in a big one the Government will bail us out.
The Government being other tax payers,
The solution is : If you want to build in flood, earthquake , hurricane zone, you must have full insurance.
If you are not willing or able to do that, live somewhere else. There are plenty of places to do so. E.g. Syracuse NY that could use people moving to it.
98
@Woof
Yep.... If the big one in California hits... the government will not pay for your losses. They WILL provide you loans to rebuild.. but you have to pay them back.
GET earthquake insurance. Yes.. it carries high deductibles because it is for coverage for serious or catastrophic loss.
As for Hurricanes in Florida, after Andrew.. there were a number of years when the big insurers refused to write policies in Florida. If another one hits like Andrew.. it will be harder and harder to get insurance on you home, and it will worse insurance as well.
It could be that insurance companies refusing to underwrite in Florida may be the factor that finally stalls all this dangerous construction.
20
Syracuse, NY cannot hold everyone who would have to move. Much of the West is prone to earthquakes, fires and volcanoes. They’d all have to move. Midwest? Earthquakes, floods & tornadoes. The Gulf & East coasts -everyone would have to move. Syracuse would get a bit full, don’t you think?
1
@Woof You guys have much too much snow!!
This issue has been hashed and rehashed for as long as developers built in areas subject to catastrophic weather events. Until Americans demand congressional action to stop the automatic rebuilding of private dwellings in these areas this conversation will continue.
If you’re wealthy enough to build a mansion on the beach you are most certainly wealth enough to pay your own insurance premium to cover all perils. Just as you’re required to do on your vehicle which conveys you to your property. Alternatively if one accepts government assistance to rebuild their beachfront property because of underinsuring or no insurance I think it’s appropriate for said property to be converted to public usage. Let’s see how far that idea goes!
56
@Michijim There won't be any congressional action any time soon, because zoning is a local matter and the local politicians are in the pockets of the developers.
I do think that public flood insurance should be encouraging people to move rather than rebuild. Even if people had to be paid more than their home is worth for them to agree to move to higher ground, it would still end up cheaper than rebuilding the same house multiple times.
Oh, and eligibility for the federal flood insurance should be means tested: millionaires can go buy their flood insurance on the open market or go live in one of their other houses.
18
I left Miami in 1997 and returned for a visit in 2007. I was shocked at the audacious, flagrant development, both sprawl and high rise. No matter that hurricane Andrew was devastating (mostly hit economically fragile areas). This development also included gentrification of Coconut Grove, South Beach, and Coral Gables, and South Miami.
I like the term expanding bulls-eye effect.
Populations in those areas will still whine and moan when they get damage from hurricanes.
All I here is the other side of the coin of hubris.
25
I grew up in a beach community known as Sea Gate in Brooklyn. We experienced the tail end of several hurricanes over the years but nothing compared to Sandy. People who live on Atlantic Avenue and the beach side streets are still rebuilding and the question is why? The way climate change is devastating our planet, another Sandy is inevitable. While I can understand the sentimental value of rebuilding, there is no logical value in doing so.
41
For some people it’s a matter of rolling the dice and taking their chances. What are the odds of getting another Sandy level event in the next 5, 10, 20 years? I think most people think that they can cheat the odds until it’s too late.
4
@IamnotaHurricane
Unfortunately, that mindset reflects the poor grasp of probability that many people have. The one-in-one-hundred-year storm doesn't necessarily occur once every 100 years. It could happen next year, and the next, and the next ...
9
Rebuilding would be fine if it was done right. We can build a hurricane resistant home.
1
During the debate about replacing the Affordable Care Act many felt put upon to pay for someone else's health care.
I don't begrudge such, even for lifestyle-caused diseases. I do, however, wonder why we allow people to rebuild in known major frequent flood or hurricane-prone areas. Sand gets brought in to replace that lost by erosion, only to disappear.
I suggest one payout only, unless the owner rebuilds in a safer area. It makes no sense to keep paying people to rebuild in known high risk areas. Do what Valmeyer, Illinois residents did in the flood of '93. Move.
152
This problem is going to resolve itself economically. Eventually, taxpayers from Michigan and Wisconsin are going to revolt from paying to constantly rebuild Florida. Same for people from Texas constantly paying for California's fires, and Californians constantly paying for Texan floods, and so on...
As climate change gets worse, it's going to eventually be every state and community for itself. At that point, we basically will no longer have a United States of America.
But we get what we deserve.
24
Flood insurance should cover only one property one time. After that, buy it on the market, or do without.
50
A new book published by Island Press will tell those who live or own property on American coasts all they need to know about the certainty of future catastrophes caused by storm surges and sea level rise: A New Coast by Jeffery Peterson.
Even those who live inland can’t afford to look away. This isn’t a case of perhaps but rather of how to weather the storm.
13
@Bluebeliever - Is this like the New Yorker article claiming that Seattle will be wiped out by a 100' tsunami in the Big One any day now? Because state geologists with PhD's have completely different ideas - as in not due for another 200 years and no tsunami hitting Seattle. But it made for a great article and now every year some one makes a movie about how all of Seattle is going to be wiped off the map and the Space Needle will wash away in the big wave.
1
@tom harrison -- "That will never happen."
Until the day it does.
We used to call this moving to the nuisance. Of course the old concept foreclosed one from complaining and accepting insurance payouts when the nuisance rose up to bite you or flood your home.
6
Building codes could be strengthened and expanded to make ordinary houses as well as institutional and commercial properties able to withstand Category 4 hurricans.
This would double the cost of the cheap construction which currently occurs in these wind and flood water areas surrounding Florida. But at the same time they would greatly diminish the cost of damage from the storms which have been accurately predicted to grow stronger from global warming?
This would save lives, avoid injuries, reduce insurance rates, and, as an added unrelated benefit, reduce the energy required to air condition these properties in the hurricane target areas.
Why don't commuities insist on these improvements to property and protection of human and animal life?
The residents are cheap. They moved to Floriday because they are cheap and they refuse to make reasonable precautions against what are inevitable storms. Insurance companies could help strengthen building codes by giving those who strengthen their homes lower rates and requiring all persons to have insurance or otherwise to not be given aid after storm damage.
Floridians expect bailouts again and again when they lose their ramshackle houses.
California, subject to huge earthquakes, has stringent, enforced building codes to build our homes strong enough for 1000 year earthquakes (such large earthquakes that they are likely to occur no more than one in a thousand years) This saves money, property, and lives.
31
@BSmith
Actually Florida has led the way with much tougher building codes since Andrew in the 90's. though I agree more could be done. And it wouldn't double the cost of the homes
Just as important, we need to stop subsidizing flood insurance in these areas,
23
Maybe they had to take the cheap way out because their incomes have not increased in the past several decades.
1
If the government can subsidize flood insurance, why not this? Wouldn’t helping people build homes that can withstand a category 4 hurricane be cheaper in the long run?
Carl Hiaasen says it best, Coastal Florida is nothing a category 5 hurricane won't fix. North Carolina is rapidly competing for second place. See Hurricane Florence.
68
How do we create our own catastrophes?
We keep voting against our own best interests is one way.
82
@CC. We have installed governments that make a policy of ignoring or even denying hard evidence and proven science.
28
I am still amazed at how people will vote against their own best interests. Total lack of common sense and critical thinking.
We continue to build in hazard prone areas because of political corruption and laundered money. I lived on Miami Beach during Hurricane Andrew. Afterward, the experts in civil engineering and municipal planning empathically insisted that increased density would be folly. Elected officials promptly ignored this guidance due to continued circulation of laundered money from the cocaine cowboy era and the appearance of gobs of Russian oligarch laundered money. Hence, Sunny Isles is now known as "Little Moscow". Though the entire barrier island was once home to tens of thousands of working and middle class families, it is now exclusively the residence of the well to do. The irony is that they pay less for federal flood insurance. despite having accessed it multiple times, than the working stiffs that can no longer afford to dwell there. Craven politicians, in bed with developers, can't resist the enhanced tax base no matter the obvious costs to the collective whole of taxpayers and the destruction of the irreplaceable environment.
246
@Mary Trimmer
We have learned to accept the fact that the wealthy regardless of the source of their money calls the shots. We little people are at fault since we are the ones that elect their enablers. Want change get rid of the GOP and have publicly funded elections.
39
@Steve It's called the "Golden Rule". Those who have the gold make the rules.
16
@Mary Trimmer It's always somebody else's fault isn't it? In this case shadowy groups of the mafia and foreign powers. What about the MILLIONS of people who watch hurricanes obliterate Florida, yet move there/build there anyway - expecting to be bailed out every year?
1
About 40 years ago, a friend of mine said we should not spend money on building retaining walls or subsidize people building in endangered zones, but rather provide encouragements to move to safer zones and tell them they will not be supported by government funding if they build in damage prone areas. he had it right back then. He also happened to be Commissioner of Medicaid for two large states. Ahead of his time....
119
Re the Expanding Bull’s-Eye Effect: It’s not simply how population magnitude and development are distributed across a given landscape. It’s that all that actually increases the severity of events. If we don’t stop population growth and ultimately decrease population, there’s really nothing we can do to avoid global environmental catastrophe.
17
The damage won't all be in actual property destroyed.
It will be in real estate values.
Eventually, insurance companies will refuse to cover properties in vulnerable locations and government agencies will no longer pay to rebuild there. Once that happens, the value of unprotected property will drop to adjust to the perceived risk of owning it. The owners will take a bath when they sell, if they can sell at all.
Of course, it's the perceived risk that counts. Expect the permanent submersion of parts of Miami Beach or maybe parts of New Orleans to frighten purchasers away.
25
@Dan Zerkle
The little bit of sea level rise we’ve seen to date has already caused a loss in value of coastal real estate measured in billions of dollars.
9
The cost to move the first village in the US due to climate change impacts is estimated to be $180 million for 600 people.
The US alone has 1,400 cities and towns threatened by sea level rise.
We’ve likely already destabilized around 6 meters of sea level rise equivalent of ice from the marine sectors of the West Antarctic and Greenland ice sheets, a large fraction of which could arrive within 100 years.
It is going to get expensive.
91
@Erik Frederiksen -- just wait until the sea level rise starts flooding cities. Watch taxes go up, and cities, counties, and states start clamoring for the federal government to build levees, dikes, and massive 'property protection' projects.
Some political ideologies can't be bothered to do anything to slow down climate change, that would be too costly and inconvenient (to their personal profits, usually). But wait until the costs start showing up...
"Privatize the profits, socialize the costs." will never be better proven that when Republicans start 'dealing with climate change's impacts' in 10, 20, or 50 years. "Who knew the oceans would rise so much? How could we have foreseen it?" is what we'll hear... "The science is unclear..." is the story now, but when the water comes, it will be "bail us out".
8
Exactly. The sea doesn’t care if people believe it will rise or not.
2
@Erik Frederiksen
Mother Natures revenge for polluting, over populating and abusing the planet.
1