• @Lemming421@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      145 months ago

      What’s the long term plan there?

      Buy for cash, rent until the next natural disaster destroys the building and… then what?

      Doesn’t the landbastard have to pay for the tenants to be in alternate accommodation until the original one is returned to a liveable state?

      I can’t see how that’s profitable either…

      • jevans ⁂
        link
        fedilink
        165 months ago

        They also have the money to lobby state governments to get rid of protections in the states where they have a large presence.

        • @anarchrist@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          link
          fedilink
          115 months ago

          Besides then they can turn around and sell some of that land that’s not underwater yet back to the government for “temporary” refugee resettlement tent cities

      • @grue@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        4
        edit-2
        5 months ago

        Buy for cash, rent until the next natural disaster destroys the building and… then what?

        If we’re talking about Blackrock/large REITs, the answer is “get bailed out by the government (despite it abandoning the little people to the wolves) because you’re in the big club ‘too big to fail.’”

    • cheers_queers
      link
      fedilink
      English
      55 months ago

      this might be a dumb question, but aren’t landlords required to insure homes they rent out?

      • @stoly@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        55 months ago

        This will certainly depend on where you live but my impression is that generally you only need to have it when you have a mortgage specifically because the banks require it as a way to protect themselves. If you pay cash nobody cares.

  • @nalinna@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    255 months ago

    “Last fall, the Senate Budget Committee demanded the country’s largest insurance companies provide the number of nonrenewals by county and year. The result is a map that tracks the climate crisis in a new way.”

    …and then? That was a year ago.

  • @Treczoks@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    185 months ago

    Well, some of the locations involved have simply become uninsurable. What do you expect that the insurance companies do? Pay for a brand new home every other year, just because it was burned down or blown away in a storm again? No commercial insurance ever could afford this.

    Just like US health insurance, where the private companies don’t take people with prior issues or handicaps. If you want them to be insured, you need a nationwide, mandatory insurance to spread the risk among many.

    And even with a nationalized insurance coverage, some people might be forced to pay more than others, for unsuitable home locations with home insurances or unhealthy behavior (alcohol, tobacco, or drug use) with health insurance.

    • @kent_eh@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      5
      edit-2
      5 months ago

      some of the locations involved have simply become uninsurable. What do you expect that the insurance companies do

      In an ideal world, I’d like to see them use their power, influence and bankroll to push forward greater action to combat climate change.

      Surely there is an “enlightnend self-interest” arguement to be made for them funding action that will reduce future claims payouts?

      Similar to insurers funding fire prevention activities, improvements in building codes, additional safety features in road design, etc.

      • @Treczoks@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        25 months ago

        That does not help as long as idiots build wooden sheds as “houses” right on the middle of woods that are known to burn down every few years. Common sense is rather rare with some people, and you cannot expect other people to pay for it via their insurance.