Hacker News Reader

Comment by huthuthike | Hacker News Reader

A lot of these people are stuck in the situation. While they can get flood insurance to rebuild the property, they can't afford to abandon the property, and they can't find anyone to sell it to. So they are in a cycle of rebuilding the property, waiting for a flood, then rebuilding it again.

There is a pretty obvious solution in my mind: The federal government offers homeowners a buyout for them to move out of that property. If they choose not to take the buyout, they are removed from the flood insurance program.

This would save the government a lot of money over time, even if they made the buyout significantly higher than the property value.

View on HN

So rather than having insurance customers in other states subsidize Floridian homeowners so they can replace their property after damage, you'd rather have taxpayers in all states subsidize Floridian homeowners to buy out their homes? That's the same thing with extra steps, except now people who bought bad properties walk away with a nice bag of cash.

Eventually, we're going to have to abandon much of the vastly overpriced property along the seashore. Parts of Hollywood and Miami are already below sea level. We aren't willing to build the sort of dykes that one sees in Netherlands (homeowners will sue because it blocks their view of the sea), and we're too car-centric to let cities turn into Venice.

So we're going to buy those folks out anyway. This year, next year, 20 years from now. Eventually. It would be better to start now. New Orleans should have been abandoned already.

Why should we buy them out? Nobody forced them to buy beachfront property in the first place. If the property ends up being abandoned, it's abandoned, and the owner should lose their investment.

You're acting like a buyout is inevitable when it's not. The last thing we should do as a society is a multi-hundred-billion / trillion dollar buyout of beachfront hotels and luxury property.

> You're acting like a buyout is inevitable when it's not.

The wealthy beachfront property owners will point the media's cameras at the also-destroyed properties of the poor and elderly in the area, saying "How can the USA let these poor people lose everything!" We, the stupid taxpayers, will fall for it and bail everyone out.

I agree in an ideal world; but in the real world there is a 0% chance Obama is taking a loss on his Martha’s Vineyard property.

What the perso you are responding to is saying is that we should start in incentivizing people out of such properties now versus it happening over a longer period at a higher cost. Either way some people are going to probably have to move so we may as well get ahead of it

"Some people overpaid for seaside property." "Oh wow, I'm sorry they made such a terrible decision."

"Now you need to reach into your pocket and pay them back." "Nah; fuck off. They can live with their decision."

How would you handle sales of the property? Some of these are desirable beachfront properties.

Any property bought by the government under these conditions would be condemned.

Doesn't matter if it's beachfront - there shouldn't be a home on a beach that sees significant hurricane damage every year.

Yes, I am saying that it could be desirable for the owner to refuse a buyout and sell it to someone other than the government.

Yeah, we'd have to condemn the home as part of the process to avoid that. Or at least flag it as uninsurable, so any buyer would have to bring cash and be willing to eat a total loss.

I'm not sure the federal government has the power to do anything other than refuse to insure it under their program.

Personally I'd remove it from the National Flood Insurance Program. If the buyer can get a private company to insure it then the sale can go through. If the buyer cannot get a private company to insure it then the sale can only go through if they are not using a mortgage (mortgaged properties legally have to carry flood insurance). Couple this with plenty of disclosures so the buyer is aware they are taking on significant risk.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com