Systemically, the problem is that there needs to be a last person, and yet people leaving expect market value for their homes which normally happens by selling to the next person. The last person can currently only get the money if a disaster strikes and insurance pays out. To do it ahead of schedule, insurance would have to pay out sooner, which means there would have to be some kind of government intervention to make it happen.

▲

tzs 2 days ago | parent | next [-]

Maybe the state could make it so the last person is someone who has no plans to ever leave, such as an elderly retiree. It could work like this.

• The state identifies neighborhoods that will need to be abandoned in a few decades and puts them in a program to turn them into retirement communities. A person who owns a home in such an area can sell it normally if they want to anyone who will buy.

• If an elderly retired person is interested in a property in that area they have the option of instead of buying it themselves from the seller having the state buy the property, and they then pay the state. The state gets title to the property and the retiree gets the right to live in it until they die.

• If the retired person wants to leave before they die (or has to leave because they can no longer live on their own or the time has finally come that the property must be abandoned), they are offered free room and board for life at a state managed assisted living community.

• If they left for a reason other than that the property has to be abandoned the state opens it up to another retired elderly person on the same terms. The new person pays what a similar property in a place not under threat would sell for, and they are now set for housing for the rest of their life as long as they stay there or transfer to state managed assistant living.

• To further make these properties attractive to elderly retirees the residents should not have to pay property taxes and utility rates should be capped. Maybe also toss in a free shuttle service to minimize the need for cars so people don't have to leave just because they are no longer able to drive safely.

▲

egypturnash 2 days ago | parent | next [-]

The state in this case is Louisiana.

	▲	personalcompute 2 days ago \| parent \| next [-]
		I think GP might be using "state" in the common international English definition, e.g. state in the sense of "sovereign state" or "city-state", not "US state". I would agree with you though that any US government actually implementing the idea today is hard to imagine, but I can easily imagine that after 2 other cities suffer a climate-related disaster first, then there will be the political will to bring a program like this to life. It's a creative policy idea, I love the thought that was put into this.
	▲	tzs 2 days ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		Louisiana is just the state with a major city closest to the point of it having to be abandoned. There will be more that follow in other states, such as Florida.

▲

datadrivenangel 2 days ago | parent | prev [-]

Great idea until we have to save grandpa from Katrina 2.0.

▲

bayarearefugee 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

> The last person can currently only get the money if a disaster strikes and insurance pays out.

Usually there is no insurance.

The insurance industry, for all of its other faults, is one of the few left that still deals in reality instead of vibes so they aren't going to give you affordable insurance against floods/hurricanes/etc in these areas with any real coverage.

▲

jermaustin1 2 days ago | parent [-]

They aren't going to give you affordable insurance even in places that don't generally get hit by floods/hurricanes/etc.

I have a house in Louisiana (up "north") - outside of a couple tornados every few years, and the heavy rains of a hurricane every few years, it is a fairly "safe" place. Never been a claim against the property, or any immediate neighbors. We aren't in a floodplain of any sort, and are on top of a hill that is around 120 feet above the closest creek.

My premium has gone up 250% over the last 3 years (after being steady for a decade). Shopping around, they are even higher. I think they are finally starting to catch up with where they needed to be for years, but I can't help but feel I'm offsetting the people "down south" with their more expensive property that is literally underwater.

	▲	kyboren 2 days ago \| parent [-]
		> I can't help but feel I'm offsetting the people "down south" with their more expensive property that is literally underwater. I am not sure about Louisiana, but you very well may be. State insurance commissions sometimes promulgate onerous regulations that effectively require cost shifting. For example, if it's profitable to keep operating in a state overall, but you can't raise premiums or drop policies for the riskiest properties, then you just raise premiums across the board and let the less-risky subsidize the unprofitable policies. And rising reinsurance premiums mean that everybody pays more to account for increasing risks and costs in the insurers' portfolios, which may be concentrated in riskier areas far from your own property.

▲

GJim 2 days ago | parent | prev [-]

> only get the money if a disaster strikes and insurance pays out.

People in New Orleans have affordable flood insurance?