Should they rebuild?

What we have in California for earthquakes is a single state policy which has very strict limits. House structure only, no contents, no decorator items, high deductible. The problem we had in the 94 earthquake is people were getting money for all kinds of things like a crack in a tennis court. Its optional, and the cost is very low, like $200 a year.
 
[snip]
Should insurance companies be required to provide services in certain areas? This one I have a hard time with because I think businesses should be allowed to decide what to offer. Maybe a solution is a "government" insurance company. Sort of like the healthcare market (not saying anything of this to be political, just giving examples). If you can't get enough insurance from a private company, then you're free to purchase insurance from the government. If you choose to still underinsure, then you're on your own when disaster hits.
That's not theoretical. A "government' property insurance company has existed in Florida since 2002. It's called Citizens Property Insurance Corporation, a nonprofit that was established by the Florida legislature to cover properties that cannot obtain insurance on the private market.

Developers have historically gotten pretty much anything they asked for in Florida, and that should change. I think that developers of new builds in Florida should have to pay into a State self-insurance fund to help with structural recovery costs for natural disasters. The higher the building standard (including drainage arrangements), the lower the contribution. It would encourage builders to go above and beyond code minimum. (I don't think that homeowners doing their own builds should have to contribute, but I think that if you're building to make a profit on selling homes, then you should have some skin in the game of reducing the taxpayer burden if they get destroyed by weather.)
 
I think there are probably some areas that shouldn't. It isn't just about this loss or risk of future losses; it is also about the fact that building out coastal zones and (especially) barrier islands reduces their natural ability to function as a buffer for the mainland. If more coastal areas were allowed to remain/return to their natural state, there would be more mangrove swamps and other transient ecosystems to absorb the worst of incoming storm surges before they hit occupied areas. Those buffers have largely been erased because they're less profitable than condos and beaches and waterfront bars, but when such a big part of the reason those things are profitable is regular infusions of government disaster relief funds, who really comes out ahead?
 
I think that hurricane prone areas should have stricter building codes. We lived on the WA coast and when we built our home we had to have roofing materials that could sustain wind speeds of excess 100 mph. We had to carry flood insurance. I can't recall f we had to have any sort of provision for coverage for excessive winds, tsunami, or earthquake as all were risks. We lived through multiple winters there with minimal damage, if any. Yet Florida/Gulf Coast hurricane damage, from winds under 100mph seems excessive in some areas. To me this indicates that they have building codes that should be revisited. Yes it's more expensive, but less expensive than replacing homes/roofs. Bottom line, if you live in an area prone to a natural disaster you need to be prepared.
 


I think that hurricane prone areas should have stricter building codes. We lived on the WA coast and when we built our home we had to have roofing materials that could sustain wind speeds of excess 100 mph. We had to carry flood insurance. I can't recall f we had to have any sort of provision for coverage for excessive winds, tsunami, or earthquake as all were risks. We lived through multiple winters there with minimal damage, if any. Yet Florida/Gulf Coast hurricane damage, from winds under 100mph seems excessive in some areas. To me this indicates that they have building codes that should be revisited. Yes it's more expensive, but less expensive than replacing homes/roofs. Bottom line, if you live in an area prone to a natural disaster you need to be prepared.
They do for new builds, anything older than Hurricane Andrew pre-dates the stricter codes, though.
 
Interesting numbers, thank you.

I wasn't suggesting government subsidizing insurance packages. My suggestion was they offer insurance (that would work the same as the big companies, but not for profit)... you know, that whole "shared risk" thing. Is it practical? Don't know, it's just an idea.

The problem is, if they price it fairly (based on risk) no one will buy - that's usually why private insurers abandon a particular market, because pricing that adequately accounts for risk is above what the market will bear. And if they don't, then we're just slapping a new name on the taxpayers footing the bill.

The insurance conversation also ignores a lot of the costs of maintaining high-risk coastal communities. Insurance might make a well-insured homeowner or business whole, but things like rebuilding roads and bridges and sewers and police stations and schools are still borne by various levels of government. Environmental cleanup also often falls to government or non-profit entities, or just doesn't/can't get done at all. That's why there is a broader social conversation to have about if and how communities destroyed by storms, particularly those in places projected to experience more of these types of events, are rebuilt. Because the consequences and costs aren't limited to the people who live there.
 
The problem is, if they price it fairly (based on risk) no one will buy - that's usually why private insurers abandon a particular market, because pricing that adequately accounts for risk is above what the market will bear. And if they don't, then we're just slapping a new name on the taxpayers footing the bill.
No, not really. In my VERY simplified idea, if you don't have insurance, you don't get any money after a disaster. That's the chance you take. People get to make the choice AND suffer the consequences of that choice.
 


Since 2002 Florida does have strict codes state-wide, as drafted they are the highest standards in the nation, and they are updated every 3 years. The most recent edition is 2020, so a new version will come out next year. The current windspeed map (which was adopted AFTER Hurricane Michael), mandates a limit of no less than 120mph for wind-resistance on new residential construction anywhere in Florida, and the current minimum for the Ft. Myers area is 169mph.

As the PP noted, however, all older structures are grandfathered to some degree, so unless a certain percentage of the structure is being rebuilt, the newest code does not apply. (And sometimes old codes were pathetic; for example, in a 1959 code book I found, only the Miami area and the Keys were recommended to be built for over 50mph. Hurricane Donna came ashore in 1960 near Naples with winds of 120mph.)

The biggest problem is enforcement. Successful property developers have immense power and influence in Florida, and they tend not to be shy about using it. Local enforcement agencies are often understaffed, and it is common for variances to be asked for and granted, and of course, occasionally staffers accept outright bribes to look the other way. Also, the law is written in such a way that it's almost impossible to get true remediation via the courts. Here's an example:
Mann v. Island Resorts Development, Inc. In Mann, a condominium owner sued a developer for building code violations associated with the construction of a terrace of a condominium unit. The developer moved to dismiss the complaint and the court agreed. In so doing, the court held that the complaint against the developer failed to state a cause of action because the developer did not commit the building code violation, and that Florida law does not impose a duty on the developer to supervise construction. The court further elaborated that the developer did not have a duty to ensure construction was in compliance with the Code. According to the holding in Mann, liability under the Code is only imposed on the person or party who committed the violation.
Much of the time large developments will ostensibly be built to the minimum allowable structural standard for the area, unless the builder chooses to use structural strength as a marketing approach. (Still, the average newcomer would see that a structure is rated to 140MPH and think that's a really strong building. In Florida, not so much.)

If you really want to dig deep, I'll refer you to this page, which shows all the tweaks to the current code (but not the code in entirety, though; for that you have to buy a book). https://www.floridabuilding.org/fbc/Links_to_Code_Resources.html
 
No, not really. In my VERY simplified idea, if you don't have insurance, you don't get any money after a disaster. That's the chance you take. People get to make the choice AND suffer the consequences of that choice.
The problem is that many of the owners of the newer homes on the barrier islands are wealthy enough to rebuild without any government aid (or even insurance payment, but they can also afford high premiums), but people who have inherited old houses that were built to old code standards are not. The average shrimper whose family has been there for 7 generations would really need that money, but they are often the same people who cannot afford expensive flood insurance. You can't realistically live inland if you make your living on the water.
 
The problem is that many of the owners of the newer homes on the barrier islands are wealthy enough to rebuild without any government aid (or even insurance payment, but they can also afford high premiums), but people who have inherited old houses that were built to old code standards are not. The average shrimper whose family has been there for 7 generations would really need that money, but they are often the same people who cannot afford expensive flood insurance. You can't realistically live inland if you make your living on the water.
OK, I hate to be harsh, but maybe they sell that home and buy a home where they CAN afford the insurance.

Going back to the OP, should the government (and therefore the taxpayers) be on the hook for rebuilding that 7 generation old home? I mean I'd love for our government to be able to make everyone affected by a natural disaster "whole", but that's an entire other discussion that WOULD go into politics.
 
They do for new builds, anything older than Hurricane Andrew pre-dates the stricter codes, though.

I wonder how many of these folks are going to decide to try and stay in these homes that were flooded. I can only imagine the secondary health issues residents may have due to black mold growing behind walls...etc. Below is a map of the surge from Ian...from The New York Times. If you scroll you can see how unbelievably extensive the flooding was to this storm, and in that classic hurricane effect....the "dirty side", or to the right of where the eye makes landfall is worse than the other side of the storm.


west_florida-Artboard_1.jpg
 
I wonder how many of these folks are going to decide to try and stay in these homes that were flooded. I can only imagine the secondary health issues residents may have due to black mold growing behind walls...etc. Below is a map of the surge from Ian...from The New York Times. If you scroll you can see how unbelievably extensive the flooding was to this storm, and in that classic hurricane effect....the "dirty side", or to the right of where the eye makes landfall is worse than the other side of the storm.


west_florida-Artboard_1.jpg
IDK if it's applicable in these types of situations from a mass scale but it's often the case that singular instances and things like remodel if you were not up to code but grandfathered in you now have to bring something up to code so I would suppose that would weigh in on someone wanting to stay in a place or not with the financial aspect and time spent aspect of making something up to code if it's applicable in these situations. The walls would have to be redone at least to the point of the highest water part and for some that's going to basically amount to an entire rebuild.
 
No, not really. In my VERY simplified idea, if you don't have insurance, you don't get any money after a disaster. That's the chance you take. People get to make the choice AND suffer the consequences of that choice.

But the consequences aren't the sort that are limited to any one person. Even when it comes to individual properties, having a bunch of uninsurable vacants around isn't an acceptable outcome for any community (I'm from Detroit, believe me that's not something any city should want to see). And there are also all the public costs I mentioned in my previous post. At what point do we say that it doesn't make sense for cities and states to keep rebuilding infrastructure for the sake of a small number of wealthy waterfront property owners who can afford insurance at any price or to rebuild without it?
 
OK, I hate to be harsh, but maybe they sell that home and buy a home where they CAN afford the insurance.

Going back to the OP, should the government (and therefore the taxpayers) be on the hook for rebuilding that 7 generation old home? I mean I'd love for our government to be able to make everyone affected by a natural disaster "whole", but that's an entire other discussion that WOULD go into politics.
If you're a waterman, you can't just sell and move; your whole livelihood is tied up in the anchorage and the fish docks. Many of them mortgage their homes to pay for their boats, and without their boats, they have nothing. (Which is why so many of them rode out the storm ON their boats. When it comes right down to it, the boat matters more than anything.) Do you know many shrimpers? I do, and most of them have been doing it since they were 12; it's rare for them to have much education, so starting over is a more-difficult than normal proposition for them. However, it is impossible for the local economy to do without them; the hospitality industry in that area depends greatly on the availability of fresh locally-caught seafood. The service workers also need a place to live relatively nearby. (My DD's GF is a teacher at a barrier island school; she can't afford to live there, but she has to be at work at 7 am, so living really far inland isn't much of an option.)

The thing about that shrimper's old homestead is that it's probably been rebuilt a few times since 1935, more than likely it's 850 sq. ft and built of concrete block; therefore really not expensive to rebuild, even at high impact standards. What's expensive, as a pp noted, are things like the causeways and roads, which are not there for the watermen (who after all, have boats), but for the tourists and the wealthy vacation home owners; THAT is what is really costing the taxpayers (though the Sanibel Causeway has a toll.)

PS: I'll clarify that I'm not trying to say that watermen and park rangers and cooks and the like don't use the infrastructure; of course they do. However, in many ways, they also ARE the infrastructure; because without what they do, most of the tourists and the vacation home owners (and their lovely tax dollars) would not come. Tourists really didn't come to most of those islands until the bridges were built, primarily in the 50s and 60s, though the watermen and farmers had been out there since the mid 19th century. Sanibel for example, has about 6400 permanent residents; but the population swells to nearly 30K during snowbird season, and they normally get about 4.5M non-resident visitors in a typical year. I'd say that makes a pretty good case for the year-round population's load on the infrastructure being comparatively light compared to that of second-home owners and short-term visitors.

Also, Sanibel is a special case, it's over 60% protected wildlands, precisely because developers started plans to go hog-wild the minute that a bridge was built in 1963. It was one of the last populated wild islands left after the boom & bust years, and conservationists convinced the Nat'l Park Service to buy most of the island then in order to scuttle those development plans, though some of the land was later ceded to the state and to a private conservation trust. The Feds still own 8 of the 18 sq. miles. Wealthy people who build on Sanibel often have their initial plans shot down because of the height limits; you can't go higher than the tallest tree on the island, which in practice is about 3 stories.
 
Last edited:
but for the tourists and the wealthy vacation home owners; THAT is what is really costing the taxpayers (though the Sanibel Causeway has a toll.)
Infrastructure is not there just for tourists or wealthy homeowners. Do you think those shrimpers not use the roads ever? And on a scale such as a hurricane you can never pinpoint just one area and say well it's just those kinds of people who live there/use that, many roads were impacted by the hurricanes that go through.

In my area you have sometimes where homeowners are assessed a special assessment for where they live to help pay for roads but it's not because we're wealthy, it's not because we're the only ones using it, it's essentially we're an added burden to it as we're the primary users.

In my neighborhood there was a special assessment on people's property taxes for 15 years. We lucked out and only had to pay for several years worth but we paid about $250 per year. It was for improvements that can be made to the main road in our neighborhood to widen it and to put roundabouts at a later date. The closer you were to the main road the more you paid. I saw homes paying about $500 per year. I would hope they used those reserve funds when they added a dedicated left turn lane out of the neighborhood which was really needed as traffic would back up for that 1 person turning left. But we are def. not the only ones who use that main road, it feeds into other neighborhoods and into the country if you take it all the way and turn right. The city is still responsible for patching the road and repairing or replacing and curb work and sewer work (which they just replaced a large part of the main road a few months ago) but the special assessment is for the widening and traffic adjustments for a later date.

And when the PP notated things like roads it was also discussing basic public infrastructure as well as additional things like police stations and schools and getting into things like sewers.

I understand your point being made about "I've been here for generations, this is how I make my living" but as much as you try to make that case they are part of the equation. It isn't as if they don't use public services either.
 
No, not really. In my VERY simplified idea, if you don't have insurance, you don't get any money after a disaster. That's the chance you take. People get to make the choice AND suffer the consequences of that choice.
I completely agree.
And am I the only one annoyed at the morons who didn’t listen to the mandatory evacuation orders. And now have to be rescued??
 
No, not really. In my VERY simplified idea, if you don't have insurance, you don't get any money after a disaster. That's the chance you take. People get to make the choice AND suffer the consequences of that choice.
What about those who choose to go with out health insurance. They get bailed out.
 
Many, if not most, of these folks have lost everything but the shirts on their backs. Maybe they made mistakes. Maybe they made unwise decisions. But now is not the time.
 
I completely agree.
And am I the only one annoyed at the morons who didn’t listen to the mandatory evacuation orders. And now have to be rescued??
It depends. Only 48 hours before landfall they were saying the hurricane was going come ashore north of Tampa. It was less than 36 hours before landfall that they adjusted the track further south. Not everyone can drive. Many of those people can't just grab the keys and drive somewhere. And then where do they go once they have left? The government didn't have sufficient time to setup shelters and transportation for people that needed help.
 
IDK if it's applicable in these types of situations from a mass scale but it's often the case that singular instances and things like remodel if you were not up to code but grandfathered in you now have to bring something up to code so I would suppose that would weigh in on someone wanting to stay in a place or not with the financial aspect and time spent aspect of making something up to code if it's applicable in these situations. The walls would have to be redone at least to the point of the highest water part and for some that's going to basically amount to an entire rebuild.

I'm not sure either and that's what I'm wondering about, whether a lot of these folks are going to be forced out of the area because their houses are beyond repair. I was reading about Katrina last night and that is actually the second largest weather related migration event in this country after The Great Dust Bowl. Initially after the storm, 1.5 million people were displaced from Louisiana, Alabama and Mississippi. Ten years after that storm, 40% of those folks were not able to return to their "pre-Katrina" home.....most of them from Louisiana.

This disaster is different in many ways with respect to the make-up of those affected. But I have certainly seen a lot of people living in mobile homes, trailers and older ranches that would have appeared run down before the storm. I've read about a lot of people who used the last money they had to purchase a mobile home near the beach. I've read about a lot of elderly people who have settled for good in the area...so they're closer to the end of their lives and living on a fixed income. And I also read about people who were watching the flooding from the Ring and security cameras....safely from their second homes in another part of the country. The sad part...is that the latter group is the one most likely to have not only homeowners insurance, but also flood insurance.
 

GET A DISNEY VACATION QUOTE

Dreams Unlimited Travel is committed to providing you with the very best vacation planning experience possible. Our Vacation Planners are experts and will share their honest advice to help you have a magical vacation.

Let us help you with your next Disney Vacation!





Top