> if there were no insurance for the coastal areas, folks would not live there. <
I suspect that most places in Florida, as well as in the rest of the country, are insurable under the right conditions. Price is certainly one of them, but so is construction type and house design.
The three little piggies (well, the third one anyway) knew how to build a house that could not be blown down. It's not a huge secret. But it's a problem if you want to use cheap construction methods that are appropriate to a different climate. Of course, the "right" houses would be a lot more expensive, ane while the "cheap" houses might blow away in a storm, eveybody knows that they'll get a Federal bailout to solve that problem when it happens.
Here in CA, insurance is less of an issue because most construction in the past 20 years has been done to a level that will withstand most earthquakes. Florida "enforcement" remains a joke, despite some "clampdowns" after Andrew.
Personally, I'd get the government out of it too. Leave building codes and inspections up to the insurance companies and mortgage/construction lenders. If they were really on the hook for the results of a major catastrophe, they'd force much more stringent standards on anybody who didn't want to put all his own money at risk.
Unfortunately, I know I'm leaning into the wind on that one...
mg |
