Perhaps the most interesting part of the article:

  • NotMyOldRedditName@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    15 days ago

    You don’t have to drop the entire area though, you just have to drop forest fires as a claimable item.

    Then people can make a decision on if that’s okay for them, or try to find someone else.

    • hypna@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      15 days ago

      I know some areas have laws mandating certain minimal coverages. I wonder if the insurers would even be allowed to issue policies that didn’t cover wildfires.

    • Nate@lemmings.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      14 days ago

      Would this not most likely still cause the same kind of financial collapse in the housing market that was mentioned as a possibility in the article linked by OP? If it is not possible to get insurance for an event (i.e. wildfire) that is likely(/definitely going) to occur, then I imagine buyers/real-estate developers would be less inclined to pay high prices in those regions.

      • lolcatnip@reddthat.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        13 days ago

        I think we’re likely to see a collapse of housing markets in places like CA and FL no matter what.