That’s how insurance works, mostly. The rates in Florida take into account hurricanes. The rates in the Midwest factor in tornados. The rates along the coastline include the likelihood of coastal storms.
What has happened is that some of those kinds of risks have changed, and dramatically, in a short time window. Fires in California are being exacerbated by the increasing numbers thanks to higher winds and drought conditions. Earthquakes in California have roughly the same risk profile as always.
A chart showing the increasing frequency of fires in California would demonstrate a clear upward trend in the number of wildfires per year over recent decades, with the most significant rise occurring in the last 10-20 years, indicating a substantial increase in fire occurrences compared to earlier time periods; this trend is often attributed to climate change factors like prolonged drought and hotter temperatures creating more favorable conditions for wildfires
As for the complaint about expensive homes on the coast, well…
Unlike standard homeowners insurance, **coastal property insurance includes provisions for the heightened risks associated with living near water** . These policies often have higher premiums due to the increased likelihood of natural disasters and the costly repairs that follow.
It appears your angry posts are already accounted for, except for your misunderstanding about “mortgages.”
If you can’t get insurance then you can’t get a mortgage. This has not been such a big issue in the past because the risks were understood and insurance priced accordingly. Now, with the risks changing so fast and so dramatically, it puts many properties out of reach. And that’s OK with me for new buyers; if you can’t afford it, don’t buy it.
But what about the people who bought when it was affordable, lived there for many years, but suddenly find themselves in a “new risk” area for reasons that the climate has changed and no one will insure. (Yeah, I’m aware bad outcomes happen and you can’t fix everything with government largesse.)
Yes indeed. This is one solution, and all it requires is that we ignore our neighbors and let them drown. Or we could, as has happened in the past in writs large and small, come together to raise us all up and find a solution that helps the entire community prosper rather than consign some to the dustbin of history.
I don’t have a perfect solution, but I recall the feeling after 9/11 when the country came together to support one area after a devastating disaster. When hurricane victims in New Orleans were helped rather than be criticized for living “below sea level”. When earthquake survivors were lauded for their “American spirit” rather than blamed for living where the ground moves once in a while.
And that was my point, earlier. We all face risks - and many of them are predictable. Should we just say “Oh, too bad” and let them sink? Apparently many on this board think so. I prefer to think there are solutions, maybe not easy ones, but the alternative of just abandoning every one for your own selfish end is too depressing to contemplate.