I’m surprised there isn’t more movement to just completely ban building in these areas. Getting everyone else to cover the cost of their predictable destruction seems very unfair.
I think insurance companies pulling out of certain areas will amount to the same thing unless they are forced by regulators to provide coverage. If regulators do force that it will be a bandaid—states need to be starting relocation funds for climate impact
I’m surprised there isn’t more movement to just completely ban building in these areas. Getting everyone else to cover the cost of their predictable destruction seems very unfair.
I think insurance companies pulling out of certain areas will amount to the same thing unless they are forced by regulators to provide coverage. If regulators do force that it will be a bandaid—states need to be starting relocation funds for climate impact
The problem with that is “these areas” is more or less the entire state.
I should have been more specific, I was just referring to the storm surge flooded areas.
I’m not seeing the problem