points by ctkhn 6 hours ago | 0 comments
The craziest to me is the people who do own houses on the beach who want the government to bail them out. Even without El Nino or climate change, that's a hazardous location. Do not ask for my insurance or tax dollars to (literally) bail you out!
[–] Joakal 4 hours ago
[–] bee_rider 3 hours ago
Lots of areas have natural hazards. Should we help out people hit by tornadoes or floods?
With climate change induced problems, at least there’s some justification. We collectively (as a country… you and I personally might not have been alive or voting when the mistake was made) failed to elect governments that would prevent it, so we we collectively get to pay for it.
[–] andsoitis 51 minutes ago
> failed to elect governments that would prevent it
That’s a bit binary and harsh. There are other issues people also vote on, not just this one.
[–] sagarm 1 hour ago
Hell no. Those beach houses are owned by the relatively wealthy; why should the general populace bail them out?
[–] lazide 5 hours ago
If they might convince some fool to do it, they’d be fools not too eh?
That’s a lot of money!
[–] latexr 4 hours ago
“You think the people [who own houses by the beach] aren’t just going to sell their homes and move?”
[–] bathtub365 4 hours ago
Why shouldn’t insurance cover it if it’s in their policy?
[–] analog31 4 hours ago
Many policies don't cover flooding. You're expected to get supplemental flood insurance, which is not cheap.
Bad news, neoliberal governments (even in Australia) are responding to this with socialising the risk via government insurance where rest of population who picked low-risk locations will still have to cover the high risk homes. Oh, and the government are still approving new homes in high-risk areas instead of increasing denisification of low-risk areas close to cities.
It's really painful to watch all this play out slowly.