if we made them a public utility, we as a body politic would then have to have the conversation about whether we want to insure people living in parts of California that will regularly burn down more and more.https://twitter.com/jared_ellias/status/1182163688523886593 …
-
-
My plan: red flag the uninsurable areas, like we would if a building isn’t up to code. Let some foreclosures happen. Yes, that means some people will see the downside to buying real estate in a fire zone. Such ppl will just need to get over it.
2 replies 0 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @AaronErickson @kimmaicutler and
Red-tagging homes in fire-prone areas is both unjust and likely unconstitutional. This is not something people will "get over"--it will destroy ordinary people's savings.
3 replies 1 retweet 2 likes -
Replying to @rf_mehlinger @kimmaicutler and
Real estate investment is supposed to have risk. That’s why the return on it is higher. Maybe homeowners that bought property in fire prone areas didn’t get the memo.
2 replies 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @AaronErickson @kimmaicutler and
Risk is one thing. The state condemning homes without compensation is quite another. It's cruel, it's unjust, it's likely unconstitutional, and it will be deeply unpopular. This is not what YIMBY is or should be about.
2 replies 0 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @rf_mehlinger @kimmaicutler and
To be fair, maybe eminent domain then? My own position, not a YIMBY one, is that we can’t have this “heads I win, tails you lose” thing happening with real estate speculation.
2 replies 0 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @AaronErickson @kimmaicutler and
Eminent domain is the appropriate tool here. Unfortunately it's expensive. If only we as a state had an effective way to raise property taxes. I think there is also a fundamental problem here, in that the rules have changed. People were for decades told to buy a home, it's safe.
2 replies 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @rf_mehlinger @AaronErickson and
After all, even in a recession, the land won't go to zero value. And what counts as a "fire-prone area" has changed dramatically. Areas that did not used to be now are, and the fires that we're getting are far more intense, as a result of climate change.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @rf_mehlinger @AaronErickson and
https://www.latimes.com/projects/la-me-sea-level-rise-california-coast/ … gets at this real well, though for water, not fire.
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @rf_mehlinger @kimmaicutler and
I agree some of these folks could be considered victims of climate change. But there are plenty of others who just made lousy bets. And not sure how doing a mass bailout of such people doesn’t lead to them taking on more risk.
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like
I think your suggestion ignores the political feasibility of your idea. Who would run on that campaign pledge, especially representing those districts in California? Would they actually win? No.
-
-
Replying to @kimmaicutler @AaronErickson and
America in general likes to defer hard distributional questions it can't process in its political system to the "private sector," AKA in this situation, it's likely the insurance industry that will decide where people live going forward.
1 reply 0 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @kimmaicutler @rf_mehlinger and
This is why I make these statements as someone who, if I ran for office, would probably not win because of these tweets ;) We'll be lucky to not end up with a massive "free insurance for homeowner millionaires" bailout. More $$$ from renters in cities->owners as a result.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like - 6 more replies
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.