High Prices Meet High Demand In Houston, ‘The Most Interesting Condo Market...

[JManc]

Originally Posted by 3rd&Brown

Why should the government intervene to fix something that isn’t broken? If your house is uninsurable, chances are you shouldn’t live where you live. Let Republican states fix the problem with their state governments.

It's not just "my" house but the entire states of Texas, Florida and increasingly California along with several other states and leave the politics in CE where it belongs. Not sure what planet you're on (not this one) but the insurance system is beyond broken.

[SIGSEGV]

I'm curious in what sense you think insurance is broken. Like the business model?

[JManc]

Originally Posted by SIGSEGV

I'm curious in what sense you think insurance is broken. Like the business model?

All of it because you have to have insurance if you have mortgage and if homeowners can't afford their insurance premiums, they are proper fucked. I'm fortunate enough to be able to pay it but there are a lot of people who aren't or won't be if they continue rise. The insurance companies themselves are taking a bath with increasing amount of claims and pulling out of markets because it's a profit driven industry. Similar to healthcare where it's also exceedingly expensive for coverage.

[3rd&Brown]

Originally Posted by JManc

It's not just "my" house but the entire states of Texas, Florida and increasingly California along with several other states and leave the politics in CE where it belongs. Not sure what planet you're on (not this one) but the insurance system is beyond broken.

So you mean tax payers in places with low risk should pay for tax payers who take on excessive risk?

Hate to break it to you...but people shouldn't live in places like Miami, Phoenix, etc etc. If it's the insurance market that needs to communicate that because politicians won't, then by all means.

For years we've been told these places are "low cost" and the rest of us should do more to mimic their economic policies. If by that you mean socialize the cost of risks, no thanks. You're welcome for the free ride you've had all these years. It's coming to an end.

[lio45]

Originally Posted by 3rd&Brown

If by that you mean socialize the cost of risks, no thanks.

I agree with that principle, but I'm not sure taking it to the full conclusion (abolishing all aid for anyone victim of any weather event) wouldn't be too cruel and libertarian.

And if we don't go to the full conclusion, then we have to draw a line somewhere, which is not going to be that easy.

Hurricane hits Miami, clearly no financial aid, you guys should've known better! You chose to live in Hurricane Alley!
Hurricane Sandy hits NYC... that's an unlikely event... still, you're on the coast, should've known better!
Some leftovers from a hurricane hit Philly and destroy a lot of stuff... ha, your problem, shouldn't have located your city so close to the ocean!

Vermont had epic flooding damage last July... many cities are located on rivers... should we all move to higher ground? If not, then socializing some of the risk is the only alternative, IMO.

[Bailey]

Originally Posted by JManc

I paid almost $7,000 on homeowners insurance on our house this year. It's insane and will be a major barrier for homeownership for young people and those of modest means. Unless the government intervenes and they probably should.

This is addition to rising property taxes but as for the high rise condo market here, the demand just isn't there compared to similarly sized cities . It's not like there's anything really interesting to look out at.

https://www.yahoo.com/finance/news/h...192257969.html

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by lio45

I agree with that principle, but I'm not sure taking it to the full conclusion (abolishing all aid for anyone victim of any weather event) wouldn't be too cruel and libertarian.

And if we don't go to the full conclusion, then we have to draw a line somewhere, which is not going to be that easy.

Hurricane hits Miami, clearly no financial aid, you guys should've known better! You chose to live in Hurricane Alley!
Hurricane Sandy hits NYC... that's an unlikely event... still, you're on the coast, should've known better!
Some leftovers from a hurricane hit Philly and destroy a lot of stuff... ha, your problem, shouldn't have located your city so close to the ocean!

Vermont had epic flooding damage last July... many cities are located on rivers... should we all move to higher ground? If not, then socializing some of the risk is the only alternative, IMO.

Well, Sandy was a 500-year storm and not an obvious risk of living in the New York region. And... This may not be obvious to people that don't live in the NY area, but Sandy fundamentally changed NYC and the NY metro area. NY and NJ have pumped an enormous amount of money into weather-proofing the region and rethinking development patterns. Of the events that have fundamentally changed this region in the past 70 years, Sandy is second only to 9/11. I don't get the sense that risky areas in the south are adjusting to weather patterns in the same way, even though they are at far greater risk.

[JManc]

Originally Posted by 3rd&Brown

So you mean tax payers in places with low risk should pay for tax payers who take on excessive risk?

Hate to break it to you...but people shouldn't live in places like Miami, Phoenix, etc etc. If it's the insurance market that needs to communicate that because politicians won't, then by all means.

For years we've been told these places are "low cost" and the rest of us should do more to mimic their economic policies. If by that you mean socialize the cost of risks, no thanks. You're welcome for the free ride you've had all these years. It's coming to an end.

I hate to break it to you...but they do and the federal/ state governments are not going to share your sophomoric view about half the country and tell tens of millions of people to get fucked.

Somehow your rant seems to be less about the practical issues of insurance viability in higher risk states and more about your personal disdain over red/ southern/ sunbelt states. I thought the forum largely grew out of this phase. Perhaps not...

[3rd&Brown]

Originally Posted by lio45

I agree with that principle, but I'm not sure taking it to the full conclusion (abolishing all aid for anyone victim of any weather event) wouldn't be too cruel and libertarian. .

Who said that? BTW, plenty of Republican politicians regularly vote against aid for liberal regions when they're hit with natural disasters. The opposite is almost never true of liberal politicians when a natural disaster hits the bible belt (which is seemingly every day).

I never said we should take the insurance market to its logical conclusion. But homeowners insurance in a significant risk zone should be significantly more expensive than it is for someone who doesn't live in such a place.

You can't have a governor that denies climate change (Ron DeSantis and Greg Abbott) and simultaneously expect the rest of us to subsidize the risk you take on knowingly.

[SIGSEGV]

Originally Posted by JManc

All of it because you have to have insurance if you have mortgage and if homeowners can't afford their insurance premiums, they are proper fucked. I'm fortunate enough to be able to pay it but there are a lot of people who aren't or won't be if they continue rise. The insurance companies themselves are taking a bath with increasing amount of claims and pulling out of markets because it's a profit driven industry. Similar to healthcare where it's also exceedingly expensive for coverage.

Insurance is required by the lender, not by any law (as far as I'm aware), and I'm not sure it is a bad idea. The alternative would be that the lender pays for insurance by increasing fees, but that is probably worse for the consumer? There's no way anybody is giving a loan without insurance, so the alternative is just not being able to take out mortgages... (or having subsidized insurance, I guess, like flood insurance... but I'm definitely not a fan of that)

[C.]

Originally Posted by iheartthed

Well, Sandy was a 500-year storm and not an obvious risk of living in the New York region. And... This may not be obvious to people that don't live in the NY area, but Sandy fundamentally changed NYC and the NY metro area. NY and NJ have pumped an enormous amount of money into weather-proofing the region and rethinking development patterns. Of the events that have fundamentally changed this region in the past 70 years, Sandy is second only to 9/11. I don't get the sense that risky areas in the south are adjusting to weather patterns in the same way, even though they are at far greater risk.

Let's be real. With climate change, Sandy is a once a decade event. But I agree with everything else. NY/NJ is in a much better position thanks to their mitigation investments following Sandy.

[JManc]

Originally Posted by 3rd&Brown

Who said that? BTW, plenty of Republican politicians regularly vote against aid for liberal regions when they're hit with natural disasters. The opposite is almost never true of liberal politicians when a natural disaster hits the bible belt (which is seemingly every day).

I never said we should take the insurance market to its logical conclusion. But homeowners insurance in a significant risk zone should be significantly more expensive than it is for someone who doesn't live in such a place.

You can't have a governor that denies climate change (Ron DeSantis and Greg Abbott) and simultaneously expect the rest of us to subsidize the risk you take on knowingly.

My brothers pay between $600-700 a year for their houses in New York but the worst they get is a blizzard every so often. I never paid anything less than $2,500...which is fine because I am in a higher risk area due to hurricanes (flood insurance is seperate) and but when you start cranking it up to almost $7,000, that's a problem and we never even had a claim. I can understand the pushback if homeowners were expecting coverage after near or total losses once or twice already but most people around here have not. The county condemned properties that were flooded during Harvey and flooded out at least twice before...as they should.

As for Ron DeSantis and Greg Abbott, are you going to lay down collective judgement on FL and TX, respectively, because of their views on climate change? Is California off the hook even when much of that state is even higher risk because Newsom believes in climate change?

Originally Posted by SIGSEGV

Insurance is required by the lender, not by any law (as far as I'm aware), and I'm not sure it is a bad idea. The alternative would be that the lender pays for insurance by increasing fees, but that is probably worse for the consumer?

Your lender will automatically enroll you in their own policy (often much higher) if there is a lapse and you don't have an option to opt out. If you refuse, the bank would foreclose.

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by JManc

federal/state governments are not going to...... tell tens of millions of people to get fucked.

Perhaps not, but private insurance companies will.

And increasingly, they are actually doing so with exorbitant premium increases and/or cancellation of coverage in the highest risk areas.

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by C.

Let's be real. With climate change, Sandy is a once a decade event. But I agree with everything else. NY/NJ is in a much better position thanks to their mitigation investments following Sandy.

True. I didn't finish that thought lol. Meant to say it was a 500-year storm that will probably become a much more frequent occurrence.

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by iheartthed

True. I didn't finish that thought lol. Meant to say it was a 500-year storm that will probably become a much more frequent occurrence.

It likely won't, at least not in anyone's present lifetime. Sandy occurred at the worst possible moment, at maximum high tide of lunar cycle, so you would need incredibly terrible luck to have a record storm at the exact same moment again. The "one in 500/700 year" doesn't even take this into account.

But it did happen, and it doesn't hurt to plan for the worst.

[JManc]

Originally Posted by Crawford

It likely won't, at least not in anyone's present lifetime. Sandy occurred at the worst possible moment, at maximum high tide of lunar cycle, so you would need incredibly terrible luck to have a record storm at the exact same moment again. The "one in 500/700 year" doesn't even take this into account.

But it did happen, and it doesn't hurt to plan for the worst.

The NE had two major storms/ hurricanes back to back during 2011 (Irene) and Sandy in 2012 plus it's getting hotter up there and the winters are getting milder.

[SIGSEGV]

Speaking of storms, looks like Texas is having more "fun" weather today...

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by JManc

The NE had two major storms/ hurricanes back to back during 2011 (Irene) and Sandy in 2012 plus it's getting hotter up there and the winters are getting milder.

We've also had a couple of near misses recently. The hurricane that hit Nova Scotia last year was still a hurricane when it passed NYC off the coast, and we got a lot of wind from it in the city.

[Altoic]

You don't need a direct hit in the NE for heavy impacts to be felt. Hurricane Ida at its weakest point wrecked significant damage across many NE states. Any other coastal region wouldn't suffer the same impacts but because cities like NY or Philadelphia have old infrastructure not adapted to weather, old buildings (with basements), and a different soil composition/vegetation, flooding was much more prevalent.

Ida's Path:



Ida hit New Orleans as a category 3/4 and caused 18 billion dollars in damage. When Ida reached the NE, it wasn't even a tropical storm and caused 16 billion to 24 billion dollars in damage, making Ida the 6th costliest hurricane on record.

This Hurricane season is projected to be extremely active with low wind shear, higher than average sea surface temperature, and the La Nina pattern arriving early. Sandy was a once in a 500 year event at its impact, but I'd say it's more like a once a decade or twice a decade event. If you are a coastal state. YOU. ARE. NOT. IMMUNE. TO. STORMS.

But on a side note im glad cities like NYC are weather proofing to minimize damages. Houston should take notes lol

[moorhosj1]

Originally Posted by JManc

As for Ron DeSantis and Greg Abbott, are you going to lay down collective judgement on FL and TX, respectively, because of their views on climate change? Is California off the hook even when much of that state is even higher risk because Newsom believes in climate.

I think what’s more important is that legislators from TX and FL routinely vote against providing funds when other states have disasters, but are the first ones to ask for help when they get hit. They also tend to vote against policies that would help limit climate change and the increased storm risks associated.

As far as I can tell, the majority of California reps don’t vote in that manner. That seems like a significant difference although some reps (a minority) from TX and FL don’t play this game.