Hurricane Ian and its impact on Flordia's migration

[MAC123]

Holy fuck. That's billions more than the Army Core of Engineers is estimating for sea walls, storm surge barriers and moveable sea gates to protect New York City.
https://www.brownstoner.com/brooklyn...limate-change/

Miami really needs to get it's head in the game and start taking this way more seriously than they have been.

[jd3189]

Despite the future risks, Florida still has a lot of time to prepare and modify how to deal with many of the issues relating to climate change.

Yeah, as a former resident, I'm biased. But I have lived in the Palm Beach County area for a good chunk of my life and hurricanes rarely hit directly. The worst I've experienced were tropical storms. No flooding far inland, no heavy wind damages. However, urban planners and engineers will have to rely less on sprawl and more on building denser developments on less land.

South Florida kinda works this way, as the majority of development is between the Atlantic and the Everglades. The latter itself is a good swamp buffer for the flow of water through the state.

[lio45]

Just learned that Ian actually took some shingles off one of my only not-recently-done-with-high-quality-materials roofs, and it’s been leaking since then. That’s on the OTHER coast.

[jmecklenborg]

Originally Posted by jd3189

issues relating to climate change.

It's not climate change, it's the...climate. It's the topography. We should have never let people build homes - by the millions - 10 feet above sea level on a peninsula that is vulnerable on all sides to tropical cyclones.

Yes, a house can be built of concrete to physically withstand flooding and high winds, but there is still enormous property damage from the ruining of furniture and appliances to the totaling of automobiles, public infrastructure, etc.

Again, tens of thousands of structures were seized and demolished in the 1900s by the Army Corps of Engineers all throughout the interior of the United States because they were situated on flood plains of the Mississippi, Ohio, and their tributaries. But Florida is like the rich girl for whom the rules don't apply, who gets to keep messing up and having her daddy buy her a new car every time.

[woodrow]

That NYT article is really about how f*cked Floridians are going to be because of insurance. That is what is going to increasingly be the issue. The flood insurance. And more to the point the reinsurers of those insurers providing flood insurance. If the big reinsurers decide the risk it to high, they pull out or really jack up the price to insurers, which of course is passed to people buying insurance policies.

I have a climate scientist friend who when asked whether of not they should build/move to Florida replies, "sure, if you can afford to lose your investment." This was 5 years ago. It was based strictly on the idea that insurance companies are going to stop offering polices or are going to charge huge amounts of money with limited coverage and if you get hit by a storm, mainly flooding, too bad.

[TWAK]

Most of the state is close to sea level, isn't it?

[twister244]

Originally Posted by woodrow

That NYT article is really about how f*cked Floridians are going to be because of insurance. That is what is going to increasingly be the issue. The flood insurance. And more to the point the reinsurers of those insurers providing flood insurance. If the big reinsurers decide the risk it to high, they pull out or really jack up the price to insurers, which of course is passed to people buying insurance policies.

I have a climate scientist friend who when asked whether of not they should build/move to Florida replies, "sure, if you can afford to lose your investment." This was 5 years ago. It was based strictly on the idea that insurance companies are going to stop offering polices or are going to charge huge amounts of money with limited coverage and if you get hit by a storm, mainly flooding, too bad.

Exactly.

There's climate - Of course.... And there's climate change, which is a moving process. However, economics isn't linear, and neither is human behavior. If one day, everyone realizes they can't afford an investment in FL, the bottom will begin to fall out pretty quickly.

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by jmecklenborg

The NY Times reports that claims are estimated to reach $67 billion. Yes, $67 billion.

as staggering as that figure is, i was honestly expecting a 12 digit number.

[Kngkyle]

Originally Posted by woodrow

That NYT article is really about how f*cked Floridians are going to be because of insurance. That is what is going to increasingly be the issue. The flood insurance. And more to the point the reinsurers of those insurers providing flood insurance. If the big reinsurers decide the risk it to high, they pull out or really jack up the price to insurers, which of course is passed to people buying insurance policies.

I have a climate scientist friend who when asked whether of not they should build/move to Florida replies, "sure, if you can afford to lose your investment." This was 5 years ago. It was based strictly on the idea that insurance companies are going to stop offering polices or are going to charge huge amounts of money with limited coverage and if you get hit by a storm, mainly flooding, too bad.

As long as the Federal and state government continue to subsidize / bailout insurance in Florida, the irrational development will continue unimpeded. Given the significance of Florida in electoral politics I don't see the Feds cutting the subsidy anytime soon. Rust belt taxpayers will continue to bailout the Florida coastal elite.

[wwmiv]

Originally Posted by jmecklenborg

It's not climate change, it's the...climate. It's the topography. We should have never let people build homes - by the millions - 10 feet above sea level on a peninsula that is vulnerable on all sides to tropical cyclones.

Yes, a house can be built of concrete to physically withstand flooding and high winds, but there is still enormous property damage from the ruining of furniture and appliances to the totaling of automobiles, public infrastructure, etc.

Again, tens of thousands of structures were seized and demolished in the 1900s by the Army Corps of Engineers all throughout the interior of the United States because they were situated on flood plains of the Mississippi, Ohio, and their tributaries. But Florida is like the rich girl for whom the rules don't apply, who gets to keep messing up and having her daddy buy her a new car every time.

And Seattle is the rich dad himself, because to him nothing seems bad compared to the big one.

I think the lesson you are drawing from the facts you presented can only be drawn because you didn’t properly contextualize those facts:


The federal government, as part of the WPA and associated complementary New Deal programs, built dams where they were appropriate to control flooding and for water supply and only seized properties in flood plains where the commercial value of the river (shipping, manufacturing, etc.) precluded building dams or where a system of locks could not closely approximate the water control of a dam.

In other words, we didn’t just go seize properties that were in flood plains. We first protected as many properties as possible by removing them from the floodplain and only then seized the properties to which we could not reasonably provide protection.

Miami, and much of South Florida, is an incredibly important and viable economic center, and we should at least attempt to provide adequate protection via new infrastructure before we start going and seizing people’s properties.

[wwmiv]

Originally Posted by Kngkyle

As long as the Federal and state government continue to subsidize / bailout insurance in Florida, the irrational development will continue unimpeded. Given the significance of Florida in electoral politics I don't see the Feds cutting the subsidy anytime soon. Rust belt taxpayers will continue to bailout the Florida coastal elite.

Florida is the reason why we need a single national election for President. The only reason it has the outsize influence that it does is because of the electoral college.

[lio45]

Originally Posted by woodrow

I have a climate scientist friend who when asked whether of not they should build/move to Florida replies, "sure, if you can afford to lose your investment." This was 5 years ago.

What's really ironic is that the people who bought in Coastal FL five years ago have pretty much seen the value of their investment triple in that time frame

(I did even worse though: passed on bitcoin at $200 while telling a friend he should also avoid it )

[jd3189]

Originally Posted by jmecklenborg

It's not climate change, it's the...climate. It's the topography. We should have never let people build homes - by the millions - 10 feet above sea level on a peninsula that is vulnerable on all sides to tropical cyclones.

Yes, a house can be built of concrete to physically withstand flooding and high winds, but there is still enormous property damage from the ruining of furniture and appliances to the totaling of automobiles, public infrastructure, etc.

Again, tens of thousands of structures were seized and demolished in the 1900s by the Army Corps of Engineers all throughout the interior of the United States because they were situated on flood plains of the Mississippi, Ohio, and their tributaries. But Florida is like the rich girl for whom the rules don't apply, who gets to keep messing up and having her daddy buy her a new car every time.

Well , in that case, why have people continue to build homes anywhere? Unless you're at the Midwest, most of the US is suspectable to all types of natural disaster risk due to the country having a large amount of different climates and topography. Earthquakes and wildfires in California and the West Coast, floods and tornadoes in Texas, and the rest of the South and NE will also be affected by the same hurricanes and sea level rise that will consume FL first before quickly becoming a problem for the rest of the Eastern US.

Humans can live in virtually any place on Earth if they can adapt to the conditions unique to a specific place. A lot of people already live in the tropics and subtropics around the world. Florida isn't unusual in that respect. Despite its flaws, it's still a place people find themselves coming to. For the time being, building to withstand many of the issues while adapting to the land is important. For one, no more building in low level areas that are known to flood during major storms.

[wwmiv]

Originally Posted by jd3189

Well , in that case, why have people continue to build homes anywhere? Unless you're at the Midwest, most of the US is suspectable to all types of natural disaster risk due to the country having a large amount of different climates and topography. Earthquakes and wildfires in California and the West Coast, floods and tornadoes in Texas, and the rest of the South and NE will also be affected by the same hurricanes and sea level rise that will consume FL first before quickly becoming a problem for the rest of the Eastern US.

Humans can live in virtually any place on Earth if they can adapt to the conditions unique to a specific place. A lot of people already live in the tropics and subtropics around the world. Florida isn't unusual in that respect. Despite its flaws, it's still a place people find themselves coming to. For the time being, building to withstand many of the issues while adapting to the land is important. For one, no more building in low level areas that are known to flood during major storms.

Exactly. You have to try first, rather than give up no questions asked.

[jmecklenborg]

Originally Posted by jd3189

Well , in that case, why have people continue to build homes anywhere? Unless you're at the Midwest,

Preposterously, the Midwest has been in relative decline, despite its bottomless well of fresh water, low earthquake risk, lack of forest fires (I did see one in Kentucky in the late 90s), and once-per-50-year drought that occasionally menaces commercial river traffic.

Today's Wall St. Journal's article mentions that most new-construction homes in Ft. Meyers survived the storm intact:
https://www.wsj.com/articles/florida...=hp_lead_pos10

Buried in the article is a guy who built his new-construction home four feet above the required 12ft elevation...so I'm guessing that his front door is 16 feet off the ground. I bet it's a blast being 85 years old and carrying groceries and everything up into the Ewok Village.

[mhays]

Originally Posted by wwmiv

And Seattle is the rich dad himself, because to him nothing seems bad compared to the big one.

Seattle's potential "big one" earthquake might do tens of billions in damage and kill thousands, but (a) it'll be a one-time event, and (b) building codes are catching up, with a lot of work happening to buttress things up in advance. We just got rid of the waterfront viaduct for example.

Worsening hurricanes and rising sea levels are an existential threat to Florida.

[dave8721]

Originally Posted by jmecklenborg

Preposterously, the Midwest has been in relative decline, despite its bottomless well of fresh water, low earthquake risk, lack of forest fires (I did see one in Kentucky in the late 90s), and once-per-50-year drought that occasionally menaces commercial river traffic.

Today's Wall St. Journal's article mentions that most new-construction homes in Ft. Meyers survived the storm intact:
https://www.wsj.com/articles/florida...=hp_lead_pos10

Buried in the article is a guy who built his new-construction home four feet above the required 12ft elevation...so I'm guessing that his front door is 16 feet off the ground. I bet it's a blast being 85 years old and carrying groceries and everything up into the Ewok Village.

The area I grew up in in South Florida has the houses 6 feet or so above the street. And yes when my dad was older and had to use a wheelchair after getting out of surgery it was fun trying to get him out of the car into the chair on the inclined driveway.
Streets like this: https://www.google.com/maps/@25.5873...7i16384!8i8192

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by dave8721

The area I grew up in in South Florida has the houses 6 feet or so above the street. And yes when my dad was older and had to use a wheelchair after getting out of surgery it was fun trying to get him out of the car into the chair on the inclined driveway.
Streets like this: https://www.google.com/maps/@25.5873...7i16384!8i8192

Wow at all those cars parked on the grass.

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by iheartthed

Wow at all those cars parked on the grass.

I guess they take the term "parkway" literally down in Florida

[Investing In Chicago]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

I guess they take the term "parkway" literally down in Florida

Funny, I was just talking about this with someone - I see this quite a bit in Chicago as well, people parking on the grass instead of the street. I'll never understand it.