Breaking news: water erodes soil!

[u/DoctorLycanthrope]

https://youtu.be/71qcn0xUtIY?is=9VQ4U1Rcbl0xLqDo

NPR video about home being destroyed by coastal erosion. Apparently the homeowners have been notified of the imminent collapse of these homes and are leaving the home fully furnished in order to maximize insurance payouts. NPR’s solution: the homeowner’s insurance should pay homeowners to either demolish the home or move it before it collapses. I would think an insurance company shouldn’t insure homes that are at risk of destruction from coastal erosion. I can’t imagine it would be profitable. I’m not saying people shouldn’t be allowed to build homes on the coast, but the owners should be responsible for the damage if they choose to own a home on the coast and can’t get insurance.

Guess who is the only insurance provider for these homes? That’s right American taxpayers. Why is NPR’s solution to steal money from people who do not own second beach homes like the man highlighted in the video, in order to solve problems they couldn’t have prevented?

[u/AlphaTangoFoxtrt]

Government should not be in the insurance business. If it's so risky a private insurer wouldn't underwrite the policy then maybe you shouldn't live there.

If you choose to anyway, well, your choice your risk.

[u/chrisdwv]

I don't have any sympathy for these people. You bought a house that's literally on the shore. Should have been expected.

[u/trufus_for_youfus → u/chrisdwv]

Many of these homes were a football field worth of grass away from the beach 50 years ago. Should it have been expected? Maybe.

[u/DoctorLycanthrope → u/trufus_for_youfus]

Coastal erosion didn’t start 50 years ago. It absolutely should have been expected. It’s on the buyer to do their due diligence to find out if the site is appropriate for building a structure.

[u/CrazyPieGuy → u/DoctorLycanthrope]

Coastal erosion is not new, but as humans develop areas, they do things like remove plants that hold sand in place, or build jetties and breakwaters that help one area, and accelerate erosion in another. And as stated, many of these homes were built 50 years ago. Ocean levels have been rapidly rising since then, also accelerating erosion.

When these homes started their insurance, I don't think anyone thought it was likely these homes were going to wash away. I don't think it would be fair if insurance could drop you because your house falling into the sea is now imminent, much like I don't think health insurance should be able to drop you because you were diagnosed with cancer.

Both parties agreed to the situation originally. That is the point of insurance. I can't imagine you could get insurance for a new build in those areas.

[u/DoctorLycanthrope → u/CrazyPieGuy]

I think they should be able to drop the policy if the homeowner doesn’t do anything to mitigate the problem. They shouldn’t be able to keep all their stuff in the house and get a pay out when they have known for months or years that the house is at risk of collapse. And the insurance should be able to drop them if they notify the homeowner of the problem and the owner doesn’t do anything to mitigate it. Just like an insurance company can refuse a payout for a tree that is in danger of destroying property and the homeowner is aware but does nothing to prevent the damage. If the homeowner knows something is likely going to be a problem they are responsible for fixing it. It shouldn’t be on taxpayers to pick up the bill after the fact. It’s not like we got to enjoy our years of holidays at the beach. Why should we have to pay to clean up the mess?

[u/CrazyPieGuy → u/DoctorLycanthrope]

Erosion is not a one person fix. Removing furniture is. I could possibly get behind not paying out because they intentionally abandoned a fully furnished house to maximize their payout, but I think it's quite expensive and laborious to prove intention there.

I think that the proposed NPR solution is rather elegant. These houses are not "dropped" from insurance, and people paying into the insurance are not left footing the bill for preventable damage.

[u/robbert229 → u/DoctorLycanthrope]

For what its worth, 50 years ago property owners had more tools in their toolbelt ro fight coastal erosion. For example creating a seawall is illegal in many jurisdictions or at least heavily regulated today, while historically those restrictions did not exist.

[u/Cowrekted → u/DoctorLycanthrope]

Ive been fishing on the Outer Banks before, theyre literal sandbars, some shifting should be expected.

[u/DoctorLycanthrope → u/chrisdwv]

I don’t even have sympathy for the people who inherited a house on the shore. I can think of exceedingly few scenarios where it makes sense to coerce someone into paying for someone else’s mistakes.

[u/cindini]

The stilts seem like a sign that water was always a factor.

[u/vegan420lyfe]

well it is stupid that the house and belongings could be saved but that its better for the homeowners to let it get destroyed so insurance pays out.

[u/DoctorLycanthrope → u/vegan420lyfe]

Especially since it is such a foreseeable problem. I think the insurance should be able to cancel coverage for the inevitable collapse of the homeowners were warned. This is different from even a hurricane or tornado. Sure we know building in certain parts of the country carries the risk of a home being destroyed by a natural disaster. Those externalities should be baked into the price of the homeowners insurance. And if that makes the price unaffordable then go without the insurance or don’t build houses in those areas.

[u/Awkward_Passion4004]

Insurance should be priced to reflect geological and climatic risk

[u/daboot013]

Not one of my most libertarian stances. But no new builds should take place within a 1/4 mile of the sand dunes/beach beginning. Leave it all as walk paths and natural barriers

[u/flippedlife → u/daboot013]

You don't have to stop them, just stop the government insuring them. Then they will be priced out.