well, rich people aren't going to build preplans
Printable View
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.
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.
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.
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.
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…
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Have to strap frames in my community in western ID but no hot water heater straps. Not sure when straps/bolts became a requirement but hasn't been that long ago.
Edit-much of country, not muni, still has pretty lax codes not requiring strapping.
If you want to relax overall impact review (effectively some level of grandfathering rebuilds of comparable size), I'd agree.
I don't agree with relaxing stormwater rules, for the same reason you cite in requiring modern building codes: appropriate stormwater handling mitigates the impact of future weather events not only for that household, but also for everyone downhill. Having lived through more n-year flood events than math would suggest a 44-year-old should have, I tend to agree with those who think we're currently under predicting risk of big weather events.
seriously? who wouldn’t want a place that was pre-disatered?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GTqz...BoZXJlIGhvbmV5
Classic