The author argues that Florida is struggling in many ways recently. Ron DeSantis’ handling of the COVID pandemic led to many preventable deaths in Florida, contradicting early articles praising his response. Now DeSantis is known more for his anti-gay and anti-science stances rather than effective governance. His campaign for president seems doomed to fail due to his lack of charisma and poor performance as governor. The author expresses sympathy for Florida residents dealing with the fallout of climate change, disasters, and poor leadership.

  • upstream@beehaw.org
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    The problem isn’t that things get “permanently” destroyed, but that we let people keep re-building where there is only a matter of time before it gets taken out again.

    Some places have higher risks, others have guarantees of outcome, the only unknown is the timeframe.

    I recall a case from Norway where someone’s house was taken by what was deemed a “100-year” flood, ie. it’s only that large every 100 years.

    The insurance company and the government was happy to have them rebuild in the same location only for it to be taken out by the next event 5-10 years later.

    That’s not viable for anyone. Risk to life, and the cost to the society.

    The house I grew up in is over 200 years old, and has been where it’s at for more than 130 years now.

    It’s survived at least 10 hurricanes, and will likely stand there for another 100 years unless someone decides to tear it down or the water level rises too much. But at least it’s a good 20 meters above sea level.

    • HobbitFoot
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      It isn’t going to be politically popular for a community to support not rebuilding in case of a natural disaster. That community will take political measures to engage in self preservation.

      The insurance market is leaving Florida and the government is stepping in.

      • upstream@beehaw.org
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        “the right thing to do” is often not politically popular.

        The problem is that it’s often really hard to measure what the right thing to do even was. Ie. in retrospect. Even more difficult up front.

        Insurance is usually problematic too, in such matters. Your house insurance pays for a new house, in the same location. “Same” house.

        Usually needs to be fairly exceptional to get something else.

        So, if you wanted to get out of Dodge you’re still stuck with the same house, might not afford selling and relocating.

        And even if you did you need a job. So might your spouse.

        So far some of the observable effects of climate change is more frequent and stronger hurricanes and tornados.

        While it’s obviously not popular, I believe we need to start taking relocating the most vulnerable areas. Some people have already relocated, others will. There are those that never will, but in-between there’s a lot of people who’ll probably suffer greatly if is not arranged before it’s “too late”.

        Insurance companies pulling out is like rats leaving a sinking ship. It should be an alarming warning sign when insurance is no longer a viable business.

        Obviously they would stay in the market if it was financially viable. Doesn’t matter if the margin is low, 1% of something is more than 100% of nothing.

        It might still be on the plus-side today, but a sinking ship is also still floating.

        • HobbitFoot
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          I didn’t make the statement to argue their point, but to explain the politics.