Hacker News Reader

Comment by jliptzin | Hacker News Reader

I don’t know how anyone could buy a property on the coast these days, I know it’s some of the most expensive real estate but you could be looking at a total, 100% loss on that not too far into the future, definitely in our lifetimes. When it gets to the point where everyone starts to see that coastal areas are sinking, real estate values will plummet and you won’t be able to sell even well before sea level rise makes the home uninhabitable. Unless of course the trend magically stalls or reverses.

View on HN

It's politically tough to do but you really need to ensure that federal subsidies for flood insurance in coastal areas are gradually reduced to zero. Some people will fight this tooth and nail while denying the effects of climate change. But it's a worthwhile fight.

Just so. With 30y home loans being the standard here in AU, that induces property buyers to consider a roughly 25y longer horizon than our local politicians trouble themselves with.

We've had some famous instances of coastal housing collapses here recently (eg. [0])

It's not clear how much is attributable to sea level rise - probably not much - but these types of stories demonstrate the thinking involved from the various involved parties.

The hubris of the purchaser (often there are associated stories of fights with local councils to get permission to build that close to the shore - also complicated in Australia by a standing 30-metre water front is public property), followed by even more hubris of the purchaser (demanding that same council to build a sea-wall). Lending institutions don't care either way, at least yet, because their capital / revenue is assured. Local councils don't have the budget, inclination, or obligation to allocate huge resources to such a tiny demographic. Our national administration is populated by pro-coal climate-deniers or sceptics, so we're not expecting good leadership outcomes at that level either.

[0] https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2020/jul/23/again...

Since these are going to be rich people, the rest of us are going to cover their losses through our taxes.

We already technically do, individuals make decisions that we know - today - that are wrong decisions, but we subsidize those decisions.

E.g. Suburbs that are going bankrupt, but legally can't go bankrupt. Heavy development in flood plains, etc.

First, even if you lose the house you can recoup some of its value through flood insurance. Since 1968 in the US you can get flood insurance via the National Flood Insurance Program in many at-risk areas. Given that the program has operated at an ever-increasing loss since 2004 one could reasonably claim that taxpayers are subsidizing risky coastal building at an ever-increasing rate.

Second, even if you believe that the property will be a total loss at some point in the future, it will still provide some value as you use it until that point.

Third, it is entirely possible that the net costs above have already been (at least somewhat) factored in to the price, and that as high as the prices seem to you, they would be substantially more expensive if climate change was not a factor.

So you're saying it's worth it if you don't think about the financial solvency of the US subsidized flood insurance while you look away from the problem until your front porch is underwater. Enjoy your vacation!

Correct. Think of low-lying coastal property as a disposable luxury good that we choose to subsidize, like large cars or air travel.

In a few wealthy regions like SF and NY I would guess that Dutch-style defenses will be economically feasible to protect home values.

In other places my guess is that property values will crash when the federal government eventually admits it cannot afford to keep NFIP solvent indefinitely. Though even in that case I wouldn't be surprised if wealthy coastal landowners still manage to finagle a taxpayer bailout out of it.

There will also be unfortunate death spiral effects. Elevating sewer lines, rebuilding roads and drilling new wells as the old ones are infiltrated by seawater will cost money, leading to increased taxes. High taxes will force out marginal residents. As the tax base shrinks, per capita taxation will go up, pushing out more people...

Your house could be a mile inland and fifty feet above sealevel, but you could still have to abandon your home as a direct result of sealevel rise.

The minute any coastal community stops grows, they're screwed. Manhanttan and DC will (probably) be fine, but if you're living in Nowheresville, South Carolina, then you had better sell your house now, while you still can.

This seems like hysteria.

There are plenty of places in South Carolina - even close to the coast - that will be fine with a foot of sea level rise. It's not like everything is effected evenly.

Some places will be devastated - others will be fine.

Also - it's not like you need to get out now. This is going to happen slowly over 30 years. A lot of people who own will be dead before it gets noticeably worse.

People have known this was a thing for a long time, and if it has affected property values at all - it's been minimal. It's not like there's going to be a flip of a switch and every coastal property in South Carolina - poof - becomes worthless.

You might have a Katrina event that tanks property values by ~50% in highly effected areas. But for the most part - prices will just decline slightly. Or, with the state of interest rates - maybe just not accelerate as fast as other places.

From what I've read the dramatic drop your discussing is priced in at about a 7% discount. You can easily see why a 100% loss is unlikely - a fifty year leasehold sells for about 50% of a freehold.

If a house is going to be sold to a rich idiot who should know it won't last, then I'm mostly in favour of letter them be stupid.

If it was a home for average people then it would be bad, but I don't think risk-taking like that (for the rich) leading to a transfer of money from the stupid to the not-stupid is such a bad thing.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DsTKAqHwj0s

Not all property on a coast is close to sea level. You might end up owning a private island.

If you're giving away coastal properties, I'll take one.

> you could be looking at a total, 100% loss

could you please refer to the line in the document that says that?

Unless you have gills you might be in a spot of bother if your house was underwater / constantly flooding.

Is the report supposed to get into speculation on real estate values?

You can't be seriously contesting that statement...

Reply on news.ycombinator.com