Personal Finance Topics / Macroeconomic Trends and Risks
No. of Recommendations: 0
It will happen. The question is 'how fast'.
From NASA's former lead climate scientist James Hansen in 2016:
'There's no argument about the fact that we will lose the coastal areas, now occupied by most of the large cities of the world. It's only a question of how soon. That message, I don't think, has been clearly brought to the policymakers and the public.
No. of Recommendations: 1
It will happen. The question is 'how fast'. - hes
----------------
There will always be coastal cities. What needs to be understood is that they can't remain where there are for the next 50, 100, or 1,000 years.
No. of Recommendations: 2
How do you propose we move Manhattan?
Some places are already building seawalls.
I read the US Navy is making plans to prepare their bases (or move them), even as Republicans were saying it was nonsense. (This was several years ago...before Trump.)
Probably not restricted to naval installations. But I was reading about (IIRC) Norfolk specifically.
No. of Recommendations: 2
How do you propose we move Manhattan? - 1pg
---------------
Slowly, over a hundred years. Most building will be replaces one or two times in that time period anyway. It is just a matter of not rebuilding in the same spot over and over again as if nothing ever will be allowed to change.
No. of Recommendations: 1
There are ownership problems. People already own the land in cities. If they want to move, where will they go where they can find land? Will they use eminent domain to condemn Farmer John's land so they can build Empire State Building II? (I loathe eminent domain...THAT, IMHO, is a violation of rights, usually for the enrichment of already-rich people.)
And I doubt the Empire State Building will be replaced in the next 100 years. It's already 100 years old. They don't replace skyscrapers often. Smaller buildings, sure.
And that's a LOT of cities, and a LOT of people. Albaby on TMF was always talking about a slow migration of people, but where would they go? You would need to establish new cities, which is quite an undertaking. As I said, first problem is securing the land to build it.
No. of Recommendations: 1
And that's a LOT of cities, and a LOT of people. Albaby on TMF was always talking about a slow migration of people, but where would they go? You would need to establish new cities, which is quite an undertaking. As I said, first problem is securing the land to build it. - 1pg
----------------
You can do quite a bit over a 100 or 200 years. But only if you make a decision and get started. Waiting on the government to make it unnecessary to adapt is a fools errand.
No. of Recommendations: 4
You can do quite a bit over a 100 or 200 years. But only if you make a decision and get started. Waiting on the government to make it unnecessary to adapt is a fools errand.
Yes, you can do a lot in 100 years. No doubt. Government isn't going to do this, either. If you own land in a coastal city, are you going to just up and abandon it? Not likely. Whether a home, or commercial space, or the Chrysler Building, you have money invested. You can either sell to a greater fool, or you're stuck with it. Unless the government bails you out (no pun intended).
Government WILL move government facilities, especially military bases. Likely, government will be called upon (or demanded) to implement remediation solutions (e.g. the levies of New Orleans...Army Corps of Engineers). I see it as highly unlikely that government will sit idle and let "market forces" take care of it. Land that floods is worthless, and a lot of very expensive land is going to be underwater in 100 years. Land owned by the wealthy (so you KNOW the senators they have in their pockets aren't going to allow them to lose anything). I predict that people won't do anything, and then will demand government to bail them out when their land is routinely flooding. I could see possibly building seawalls around some areas that are simply too valuable/expensive to relocate (which will be expensive). Whether it's Miami, or Charleston, or NYC, won't matter. Someone is going to lose a lot of money. In this country we privatize the gains, and socialize the losses. So it will be taxpayers.
And it will be in slow-motion, so I expect a lot more attempts at remediation than relocation. "Oh, it's just a little flooding...build a wall." "Oh, that wall we built 20 years ago needs to be a bit higher and stronger." Etc.
We're not China. We aren't going to order people to relocate, nor have them eat their losses. The poor may actually have an easier time of it because they don't own much, and so don't stand to lose much. They just move when the lease is up.
No. of Recommendations: 0
nor have them eat their losses. - 1pg
-------------------
Federal Flood insurance should pay to rebuild in the same spot only 2 or maybe 3 times but certainly not unlimited.
No. of Recommendations: 3
Federal Flood insurance should pay to rebuild in the same spot only 2 or maybe 3 times but certainly not unlimited.
I tend to agree. But we know that a lot of wealthy people want to live on the beach, and they want their homes rebuilt every time they wash away. Florida, Malibu...doesn't matter. And whomever owns those properties in 100 years, they aren't going to want to take a bath on their investment. (pun intended) And they will likely have more influence than folks like you and me, unless we come to our senses and disallow unlimited campaign contributions (a.k.a. "bribes").
Albaby has said that he suspects the albaby-babies and grand-babies will have left FL by then. But they will have sold to someone, and that someone isn't going to want to eat a huge loss on Casa Albabia when it has 12" of water at high tide every day.
No. of Recommendations: 3
Federal Flood insurance should pay to rebuild in the same spot only 2 or maybe 3 times but certainly not unlimited.
I’ve always thought that certain areas should be redlined as “flood plain” or whatever. And that building in those areas can be insured only for 90% of their value. If they are rebuilt, then they are marked (on deed) and can only be insured for 80%, and so on.
If somebody wants to spend the money to do that, well, fine. At some point it will catch up, the structure abandoned or torn down, and that will be that. Meanwhile people don’t have to go completely naked; they can choose their level of risk.
No. of Recommendations: 3
(I loathe eminent domain...THAT, IMHO, is a violation of rights, usually for the enrichment of already-rich people.)
Sometimes. Mostly it’s used for public projects for which there is no other way to make them happen.
How do you build the Erie Canal? Or an Interstate road without having it zig-zag all over the place? Eminent domaine has been used in some of the best urban renewal projects, revitalizing cities like New York, Boston, Philadelphia and more. Yes, it’s disruptive if you’re the victim of it, but you are fairly compensated for the loss, so it’s not as though your property is just being confiscated.
