Between rising waters, erosion and loss of land, and hurricanes that seem to target this area every ten years or less, perhaps insurance companies -- if they're even writing policies in these areas -- should start refusing coverage and/or buy these people out. I can't imagine a worse place to live than a barrier island off the coast of Louisiana. There's little chance you won't end up underwater every few years.
I've had the same thought, but people gonna be people.
I've been to N'awlins once about 40 years ago and thought it was a dump, can't understand why
anybody would want to live there.
I'd rather live in the badlands of Wyoming than Louisiana.
Creepy old man wrote:
Between rising waters, erosion and loss of land, and hurricanes that seem to target this area every ten years or less, perhaps insurance companies -- if they're even writing policies in these areas -- should start refusing coverage and/or buy these people out. I can't imagine a worse place to live than a barrier island off the coast of Louisiana. There's little chance you won't end up underwater every few years.
Insurance companies...? Boy oh boy, just you wait til you find out who pays out for FEMA Flood insurance.
brien evans wrote:
Creepy old man wrote:
Between rising waters, erosion and loss of land, and hurricanes that seem to target this area every ten years or less, perhaps insurance companies -- if they're even writing policies in these areas -- should start refusing coverage and/or buy these people out. I can't imagine a worse place to live than a barrier island off the coast of Louisiana. There's little chance you won't end up underwater every few years.
Insurance companies...? Boy oh boy, just you wait til you find out who pays out for FEMA Flood insurance.
Yeah, I think I know. I guess the insurance companies wised up a long time ago. So, how about we just not write any more policies of any kind in areas that are flooding with storm surges every 2.8 years?
I agree.
Same thing for NY City.
I’m in insurance, and I can tell you that private companies are writing in LA. They can’t pass up the allure of the $3K premium on a $200K house. Most of them don’t cover flood though, just wind and ensuing damage (plus fire, theft, etc.)
NFIP flood is not actuarially sound and subsidized by all of us.
Creepy old man wrote:
brien evans wrote:
Insurance companies...? Boy oh boy, just you wait til you find out who pays out for FEMA Flood insurance.
Yeah, I think I know. I guess the insurance companies wised up a long time ago. So, how about we just not write any more policies of any kind in areas that are flooding with storm surges every 2.8 years?
I don't disagree with you.
Southern Texas is the same way. At one point the entire island on Galveston was wiped out by a storm surge. Everything on Galveston today is uninsurable except for government programs which are wildly.... under water.
I just thought the same thing when I watched a news clip with 150mph winds down there.
It just doesn't make sense. Nobody should live closer than 100-150 miles along that shore line.
But hey this is America and everybody has the "Freedom" to live where ever they want.
Too bad that everybody has to pay for all this. (Isn't that the socialism, all those Southerners hate?)
Climate change is real wrote:
I just thought the same thing when I watched a news clip with 150mph winds down there.
It just doesn't make sense. Nobody should live closer than 100-150 miles along that shore line.
But hey this is America and everybody has the "Freedom" to live where ever they want.
Too bad that everybody has to pay for all this. (Isn't that the socialism, all those Southerners hate?)
Who do you think is going to pay for the next big San Andreas earthquake? Most people don’t purchase EQ insurance in California.
Rainy Day wrote:
Climate change is real wrote:
I just thought the same thing when I watched a news clip with 150mph winds down there.
It just doesn't make sense. Nobody should live closer than 100-150 miles along that shore line.
But hey this is America and everybody has the "Freedom" to live where ever they want.
Too bad that everybody has to pay for all this. (Isn't that the socialism, all those Southerners hate?)
Who do you think is going to pay for the next big San Andreas earthquake? Most people don’t purchase EQ insurance in California.
That's not happening with any kind of frequency. There are named storms hitting the Louisiana coast pretty much every year at this point. This list is pages long:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Louisiana_hurricanes_(2000%E2%80%93present)Rainy Day wrote:
Climate change is real wrote:
I just thought the same thing when I watched a news clip with 150mph winds down there.
It just doesn't make sense. Nobody should live closer than 100-150 miles along that shore line.
But hey this is America and everybody has the "Freedom" to live where ever they want.
Too bad that everybody has to pay for all this. (Isn't that the socialism, all those Southerners hate?)
Who do you think is going to pay for the next big San Andreas earthquake? Most people don’t purchase EQ insurance in California.
Is EQ insurance even available in California? An insurance company would need a very nationally diverse portfolio to not go bankrupt from EQ insurance payouts there after the Big One.
"Some places," yes, there are islands down there that are all but underwater already (iislands with homes on them).
New Orleans will be the same way soon enough.
Yes, EQ insurance is available in CA, but it’s extremely expensive.
Good point to the other poster about the frequency of events in LA. However, if there is a repeat of the 1906 earthquake, the losses will be staggering. Same could be said for a CAT 5 hitting Miami.
Insurers also buy insurance for unlikely events, so they are able to survive these kind of events. It reduces their annual earnings, but keeps them solvent in a catastrophe.
With the exception of Grand Isle and a few tiny communities near the TX and MS borders, the Louisiana coastline is mostly wildlife refuge and undeveloped. I generally agree that Louisiana is a dump, but it is more the industrial/petrochem facilities that make the state unlivable than hurricanes. Some of the worst superfund sites and environmental disasters are in Louisiana.
Are you suggesting we shouldn't build major cities and infrastructure below the mean sea level? Hmmm. I think you may be onto something.
Rainy Day wrote:
Climate change is real wrote:
I just thought the same thing when I watched a news clip with 150mph winds down there.
It just doesn't make sense. Nobody should live closer than 100-150 miles along that shore line.
But hey this is America and everybody has the "Freedom" to live where ever they want.
Too bad that everybody has to pay for all this. (Isn't that the socialism, all those Southerners hate?)
Who do you think is going to pay for the next big San Andreas earthquake? Most people don’t purchase EQ insurance in California.
Pretty weak reply. When was the last time there was a truly devastating earthquake that hit California? Before you post a very smart answer, ask yourself if the level of damage in your example can even come close to what we have seen in Louisiana recently.
California is net contributor to the welfare of the nation, Louisiana is not. It makes all the sense in the world to subsidize the economy that lets the trash states of gulf coast exist with any sort of standard of living. Extraction economies exist due to the federal government’s military power, not the industriousness of the states that oil happens to reside in or near.
New Orleans should be bulldozed, and just have a port for ships to support oil rigs. The city itself is worthless. Plenty of places to get drunk 24 hours a day.
Film Rep wrote:
I agree.
Same thing for NY City.
Reported
california cal wrote:
California is net contributor to the welfare of the nation, Louisiana is not. It makes all the sense in the world to subsidize the economy that lets the trash states of gulf coast exist with any sort of standard of living. Extraction economies exist due to the federal government’s military power, not the industriousness of the states that oil happens to reside in or near.
New Orleans should be bulldozed, and just have a port for ships to support oil rigs. The city itself is worthless. Plenty of places to get drunk 24 hours a day.
We should have never purchased it from France.. Maybe they will give us a refund?
Im not asking. wrote:
Film Rep wrote:
I agree.
Same thing for NY City.
Reported
Bro.
Climate change.
NY City gonna be under water in 50 years. 🤔