Insurers Are Deserting Homeowners as Climate Shocks Worsen | Without insurance, it’s impossible to get a mortgage; without a mortgage, most Americans can’t buy a home.

www.nytimes.com

Insurers Are Deserting Homeowners as Climate Shocks Worsen

See Where Home Insurance Policies Were Dropped in Your State

New York Times gift articles @sopuli.xyz

silence7 @slrpnk.net

10mo ago

Insurers Are Deserting Homeowners as Climate Shocks Worsen | Without insurance, it’s impossible to get a mortgage; without a mortgage, most Americans can’t buy a home.

www.nytimes.com /interactive/2024/12/18/climate/insurance-non-renewal-climate-crisis.html

News @lemmy.world

silence7 @slrpnk.net

10mo ago

Insurers Are Deserting Homeowners as Climate Shocks Worsen | Without insurance, it’s impossible to get a mortgage; without a mortgage, most Americans can’t buy a home.

www.nytimes.com /interactive/2024/12/18/climate/insurance-non-renewal-climate-crisis.html

19 comments

Don't worry black rock has the money to snap up all your uninsurable hovels and will gladly rent them back to you...
- What’s the long term plan there?
  Buy for cash, rent until the next natural disaster destroys the building and… then what?
  Doesn’t the landbastard have to pay for the tenants to be in alternate accommodation until the original one is returned to a liveable state?
  I can’t see how that’s profitable either…
  
  They don’t think that far all they really care about is maximizing short term profits
  
  What’s the long term plan there?
  It's Chicago School economics; there is no long-term plan.
  
  Buy for cash, rent until the next natural disaster destroys the building and… then what?
  If we're talking about Blackrock/large REITs, the answer is "get bailed out by the government (despite it abandoning the little people to the wolves) because you're ~~in the big club~~ 'too big to fail.'"
- this might be a dumb question, but aren't landlords required to insure homes they rent out?
  
  This will certainly depend on where you live but my impression is that generally you only need to have it when you have a mortgage specifically because the banks require it as a way to protect themselves. If you pay cash nobody cares.
"Last fall, the Senate Budget Committee demanded the country’s largest insurance companies provide the number of nonrenewals by county and year. The result is a map that tracks the climate crisis in a new way."
...and then? That was a year ago.
- They held a hearing today.
  Actually passing a law or spending money to change the situation would mean getting the House of Representatives on board, and Republicans have a majority there.
- It’s all just performative outrage. Nothing will be done. There was never a plan for anything to be done, nor will there be.
Well, some of the locations involved have simply become uninsurable. What do you expect that the insurance companies do? Pay for a brand new home every other year, just because it was burned down or blown away in a storm again? No commercial insurance ever could afford this.
Just like US health insurance, where the private companies don't take people with prior issues or handicaps. If you want them to be insured, you need a nationwide, mandatory insurance to spread the risk among many.
And even with a nationalized insurance coverage, some people might be forced to pay more than others, for unsuitable home locations with home insurances or unhealthy behavior (alcohol, tobacco, or drug use) with health insurance.
- some of the locations involved have simply become uninsurable. What do you expect that the insurance companies do
  In an ideal world, I'd like to see them use their power, influence and bankroll to push forward greater action to combat climate change.
  Surely there is an "enlightnend self-interest" arguement to be made for them funding action that will reduce future claims payouts?
  Similar to insurers funding fire prevention activities, improvements in building codes, additional safety features in road design, etc.
  
  That does not help as long as idiots build wooden sheds as "houses" right on the middle of woods that are known to burn down every few years. Common sense is rather rare with some people, and you cannot expect other people to pay for it via their insurance.
I've been working my way toward Minnesota for a while now, and this confirms my goal.
Lots of fresh water, waaaay lower housing/rental costs than (every?) other blue state, its a blue state so I qualify for SNAP and other kinds of assistance (I don't in red states as they set their income thresholds waaay lower)...
Oh, and the place isn't burning down/flooding.
I probably can't afford Minneapolis/St. Paul, but Rochester looks decent.
- I live in the Rochester area. It is nice. However, it is a city run by mayo, and it has its issues, but the Mayo Clinic won’t let them become headlines.
  
  I noticed that quite quickly just from the city's wiki page, that it's dominated by the Mayo Clinic...
  But I don't know too much about MN other than very top down, broad metrics kinda stuff.
  (Also I'm from Seattle originally and am entirely used to the local media being basically, if not literally, just on the payroll for Boeing, Starbucks, Amazon, MSFT...)
  Are there any other comparably sized towns/cities, where one could rent a studio or one bed at or under $750?
  So far the other option I've considered is Duluth, but it seems to have a far smaller rental market at $750 or below.
  ...
  Also just in general, more comparative benefits I've noticed for living in Minnesota:
  Rental property tax rebate.
  Basically, you, as a renter, get a rebate each year based on a portion of an estimate of how much of your rent goes toward paying your landlord's property taxes.
  If my understanding is correct, this is actual cash given back to you, not just a tax credit. Though that may only work that way for someone like me, on SSDI... probably I should double check that.
  Also, it seems like most of MN uses a 2.5x income to rent ratio requirement, as opposed to basically every blue state which uses a 3x ratio.
  Shit like that makes a considerable difference when you're on disability.

19 comments