Quick, sell flood insurance to California and wildfire insurance to Florida
Just like they did after the Hawaii fires.
I’m of two minds about this. If an area is extremely disaster-prone, you shouldn’t build there. But it sucks to already live there, and not get insured. I’d be fine if there were no new insurance contacts on new houses being built.
Another, local example: in Germany, a few years ago there was a catastrophic flood that killed several people and destroyed many houses located in a river valley, because the river had been artificially narrowed and straightened. With looming climate change there was already talks about flooding risk and insurance covering. After the disaster, a decent chunk of people planned to rebuild their houses in the exact same spots. Some were not even insured, and relied on government disaster relief money, afaik
I saw rent in LA county has gone up 23% in the past week
“What if we built a private water distribution system, that took priority over regular people’s supply, then charged for access during wildfires?”
Everybody’s “mad” at insurance companies for telling people the truth and refusing to lose money on obviously doomed Malibu.
But it’s the landlords who will continue to exploit the fuck out of LA.
CEO’s of insurance companies thinking of ways to not pay out
Marcus Linius Crassus has entered the chat
