• alyaza [they/she]M
    link
    fedilink
    English
    3
    edit-2
    11 months ago

    i don’t think that’s market fundamentalism, no–ideally, this would just be how it is, and that alone would be an effective deterrent. who wants to lose their house, after all?

    where it’s faltering, though, is that a lot of people have been misled or not adequately informed on how vulnerable their houses are, and so they just don’t know what they’re getting into. making things worse, insurance in CA can often lock them into staying where they are even if they know it’s risky. it’s been a problem in the past where houses burn during wildfires, and then the insurance payouts aren’t enough for people to do anything but rebuild where they are since housing is too expensive for them to move. it’s a… weird and really messed up situation, and one which can’t really be made better by this specific course of action.

      • alyaza [they/she]M
        link
        fedilink
        English
        1
        edit-2
        11 months ago

        i’ve been on something of a climate change binge and reading The Great Displacement and California Burning has made me aware of what a weird situation it is. it’s both a very real problem but also half-self-inflicted (unlike the Florida issue i mentioned below in a comment) because good housing policy would render the payout problem moot for most people and that’s one of the biggest things that fucks people here at the individual level. (ideally, better urban planning would also make urban conflagrations much less frequent too)