Hopefully the odds are on your side???
Printable View
Hopefully the odds are on your side???
I'm a pretty big believer in insurance having benefited immensely on a personal level from health insurance, but homeowners insurance is getting ridiculous and does not have literal life or death implications.
Like I've paid over the cost of a new roof just in the past four years alone. Hard to think of a more expensive individual repair than that. For those like me who live in an area with very little natural disaster risk it starts to make little financial sense to keep paying it.
At a certain point, it makes homeownership untenable so you will see regulatory reform in the very near future IMO. If I was an insurance salesman I would be very nervous about my future earning as their gravy train commission structure is going to get adjusted pretty quickly as well.
I hope the regulatory reform comes in the means of less price control. Let capitalism do its thing.
It should be crazy expensive to insure a structure where it burns/floods/shakes… force people to make smart design and development decisions… property prices will adjust, density will change…
Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums
I’m with Nick. You want to own property and gain wealth in desirable places, there should be a cost including protecting the investment. When a society can’t fix homelessness, I’m less concerned about the FAIR plan only covering up to $3m of assets.
Id guess 100million folks in the US live in an area prone to natural disaster making their home a total loss (forest fire, earthquake, flood, hurricane, tornado). You're OK with letting insurance companies jack up premiums on all those folks all of a sudden, while banks force people with mortgages to pay those inflated premiums or be foreclosed on?Quote:
Originally Posted by Conundrum
the daily this am touched on rebuilding. They'll have to figure out what codes/rules they can lax to speed up rebuilding. In an ideal world some land wouldn't be rebuilt but that's not how america works. Hopefully whatever codes they lax to speed things up does not result in cutting corners in fire resistant building design, otherwise the whole cycle repeats itself (which is the most american thing that could happen)
The premiums are up because risk and construction costs are up. Do you want to pay more in taxes to subsidize insurance rates?
My first house was on a ridge surrounded by vegetation in an a specific location prone to very high chinook winds right up against a large mountain. Before buying it I read the city’s report that had been commissioned on wildland urban interface and for some reason that neighborhood was not considered to be a wildfire risk. It’s insane to me that it could be insured as if it was in a major city away from wildfire risk. I’d guess that insurers have perhaps woken up following the marshal fire. I actually think the neighborhood where my house was located (up against the mountains in Golden CO) is more at risk to wildfire than anything that burned in the marshal fire.
When I bought the house I live in currently I made sure it wasn’t in a 100 or 1000 year flood plane per the county GIS map. I looked at some houses that are in those flood planes and chose against them. I believe that the risk of rain on snow events in the Tetons is higher than the insurance actuaries have calculated. The 100 year flood plane may actually be more like a 20 or 30 year flood plane, etc.
I think that risk is going to have to be recalculated on a massive scale going forward.
I don’t like the idea of subsidizing people who live in areas more prone to disaster through higher rates or taxes for those who don’t live in areas more prone to disaster, but I suspect that is exactly what is going to continue happening all over the country.
I also expect that more exclusions (wind/ fire/ hail/ seismic) will be written into policies making homeowners insurance essentially worthless.
IMO, they should relax environmental code/review. Current environmental code is extremely restrictive (for good reason) and expensive to build to. In fact, many/most homes built pre 2000 on hillsides, or near "critical areas" would not be buildable sites today. Crazy long review times for stormwater and critical area reviews should be waived.Quote:
Originally Posted by NBABUCKS1
When rebuilding from these fires, it will be important to force people to rebuild to current building codes, but allow environmental code to be bent when it presents significant financial or feasibility hardship. These fires shouldnt be looked at as an opportunity to enforce current environmental codes and/or undo development. These are not voluntary remodels, or new builds, this is people who lost everything in a tragedy... as long as they arent building something that is more harmful than their previous home, it should be allowed (within reason).
Building code is a lifesafety issue, and homes should be built to current code. Period. Stormwater and environmental review and code is "nice to have" and folks rebuilding should not be forced into meeting all aspects of current code, IMO.
Portland has not been a model of farsighted municipal governance recently, but we did do one thing that seems pretty smart. The city published some pre-approved plans for infill housing. I believe the way it works is you can work with any developer as long as you're building one of those plans and approval and permitting is fast tracked.
Something like that seems like it could help for reconstruction. I understand the reasons why you might want to relax environmental regulations, but I'm hard-pressed to agree that people should build the same kind of construction in the same location as before.
well, rich people aren't going to build preplans
Instead of building back soulless hardie-panneled shitboxes like we build in PDX/SEA, it would make more sense to just bring in a fleet of 3rd-party review contracts to review building permits from the affected areas on an expedited basis. That way people can build within their budget, and have a home they love and fits the vibe of their old community. Im not intending to shit on you FYI, i just HATE the look of the product many of our clients are building in those areas and its a sorespot for me.Quote:
Originally Posted by dan_pdx
IMO (an expert one in this field), rebuilds in the affected areas should just have to prove that they "substantially reduce the environmental impact of their property, compared to the property at the time of the fire". This would allow for a multitude of easy ways to reduce environmental impact and improve the overall environment, without being impossibly cornered by current regulation that would make many sites completely infeasible to build on.
If you mean okay with a gross generalization like you’re posting, no. Real estate is used as a very successful investment strategy. As a personal example, I know someone well who had to sell their second vacation home and an investment rental to buy a $6m lakeside property in a desirable area that is fire prone. .7% of the rebuild cost is their annual insurance bill. These particular people who I love dearly, will enjoy the vacation home for a few years and then sell their investment. Pretty good strategy. I wish I could insure my investments at .7% of the value. It’s not their primary. It’s a vehicle to make money while people don’t have roofs over their heads. This is the point I’m trying to make with the public funding these type of homes.Quote:
Originally Posted by californiagrown
I don’t have the answer but artificially suppressing the cost and risk of an investment doesn’t seem like the right move. I somewhat like the fair plan cap of $3m. If you can’t build a primary residence for $3m to replace a loss, I’m not sure it’s the public’s responsibility to ensure you’ll have the comfort level of the house you think you deserve.
I am fully with you if we are talking about second/investment homes. Jack up those insurance rates to the fucking moon.Quote:
Originally Posted by Conundrum
But i am not OK with rates getting jacked up for folks on their primary residence. And i fully agree, $3m is an awfully high cap. In the super high priced areas i know, the money is in the land for most. Only straight up mansions cost $3million to build and im not worried about those folks....
Maybe demand will always be there but how the f does that palisade etc land hold it's value after this. Why would anyone want to rebuild.
That land is worth nothing to me. Hyper overvalued, uninsurable, taxed and regulated to the tits. Wtf.
??? - Amazing weather, great views, adjacent to an economically vibrant area, not gridlocked in. If you like to mountain bike, hike, surf, ride horses, etc… not a bad jump off point.Quote:
Originally Posted by byates1
It’s the cost of doing business, insurance companies (in general) aren’t being dishonest…. Like it or not, cost of building has gone up and the rate of lose has increased and the insurance companies do deserve markup for the service they provide. If you let capitalism work then prices go up on those that are directly affected by where they live. If you subsidize it then all taxpayers share those price increases. Or you control pricing and the insurers leave the market. No easy answer… But someone has to pay more…Quote:
Originally Posted by californiagrown
Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums
The rates are what they are because that's the cost of the risk. You can not like it all you want, but that's reality. As data, sensors, satellites and modeling techniques have gotten better, rate precision has gotten better. Then you have things like Prop 103 (no forecasting allowed in ratesetting) in CA or the "no climate change predictions in pricing" in Florida and you are distorting the tools available to price properly - so the rates get jacked more or you get non-renews.Quote:
Originally Posted by californiagrown
Just wishing for rebuild and risk costs to be lower ain't gonna do shit. You want rates to go down, get your legislature and insurance commissioner to collaborate on risk mitigation to reduce the cost of home risk or rebuilding. Insurers would love to lower rates in a lower risk environment.
Lol, to each their own, but if byates cannot see the draw of a house in pacific palisades, he might be blind.Quote:
Originally Posted by nickwm21
I think second/investment homes should be taxed differently, and also be insured differently. Tax them much higher than primary residences, and only insure them to a certain amount (or charge exorbitant premiums). The goal, IMO, should be to protect the middle/lower class by forcing the wealthy to subsidize their tax/insurance burden. But that would only happen through regulation.
When Tom Brady builds a megamansion in Idaho next to a forest that hasnt burned in 80 years, i want his exorbitant insurance premiums to subsidize the premiums of an entire poor county in Mississippi whose chances of being catastrophically flooded increase to the point they are uninsurable. For a hyperbolic example.
What house in Pacific Palisades? All I see is uninsured charred cinder.
You forgot to mention TOXIC. There's consequences to burning thousands of tons of plastics where people live. Those million dollar yards are saturated with dioxins now.Quote:
Originally Posted by byates1
The people who live there are already filled with plastic, why should the land be any different?Quote:
Originally Posted by neckdeep
If you live in the Tetons, you're the one being subsidized. The earthquake risk here is off the charts compared to most of the continent. The Teton fault can break at magnitude 7, possibly up to 8. Two of the biggest quakes to hit the interior of the continent in the last century were close, Lake Hebgen and Mt. Borah. The Gros Ventre and Hebgen Slides aren't ancient geology; thats two entire mountain sides that fell down in the last century.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kevo
Almost every homeowners policy in the region has a seismic exclusion, so no one is being subsidized and almost all local homeowners are at risk. Most people who live here have no idea about the fault line. Teton County WY has some good info on their website.Quote:
Originally Posted by neckdeep
I did purchase earthquake insurance on top of my regular homeowners insurance. The Amica agent who I worked with to get the earthquake policy in place had been underwriting policies in Idaho for decades said my policy was the only earthquake policy she had ever heard of in the state. "Why do you want earthquake insurance in Idaho?" "No particular reason, guess you can never be too safe..."
Haha, nice.Quote:
Originally Posted by Touring_Sedan
Realistically, they'll just scrape the top 12" off during demo/cleanup and then import 12"of topsoil in the landscape areas affected and call it good. I wonder what happens to any of the big homes still standing that had saltwater dropped on them which will take a few weeks to kill off $200k in landscaping and topsoil? Cant really claim that as a fire loss.
Do the building codes require hot water heater straps and bolting house to foundation? Or any earthquake mitigation?Quote:
Originally Posted by Kevo
From what I have seen in SLC, that is another place is going to be in big trouble when the Wasatch pops.