Quote:
Originally Posted by VivaLFuego
Have you looked at Expected Annual Loss ratings for different areas?
https://hazards.fema.gov/nri/map
To take a quick example, the expect annual loss due to natural hazards in Albany Co, NY is $1 per $7,200 of building value.
In Harris Co, TX the expected annual loss is $1 per $421.55 of building value.
If your insurance is 10 times more than your brothers' in upstate NY, you might still be getting a decent deal, and you're disappointed that you're no longer getting a great deal.
Alternatively, if the risk models aren't sufficiently taking into account highly local factors around the drainage sheds, it sounds like a business opportunity for insurers to target the allegedly low-risk Houston properties with competitive rates to the extent permitted by law. Of course, this will result in adverse selection of any remaining risk pools, making the other properties even less insurable.
|
This. Thank you for posting.
It's not even logical that someone who lives in a subtropical hurricane zone in an era of intense global warming would expect to pay only 2-3 times what those of us who live in low risk areas pay.
This country has been subsidizing poor development decisions for years. And those decisions have also contributed to narratives about "healthy" regional economies versus static regional economies etc. The marketing power around "best places to do business", "best places to live", has always been mumbo jumbo bs but people make very real decisions based on these narratives.
It turns out we've been subsidizing it all along.
It happens with federal allocation of tax dollars as well. Generally, Southern states (I know there are a few exceptions) get more money from the federal government then they send to the federal government. Generally, blue states send more then they received. It's just another massive subsidy system.
Personally, I'm happy to see rationalization in the marketplace. If that means 100,000 people per year can't move to Harris County or whatever it is, so be it.