• anarchrist@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    37
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    6 hours ago

    Don’t worry black rock has the money to snap up all your uninsurable hovels and will gladly rent them back to you…

    • cheers_queers@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      2 hours ago

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

    • Lemming421@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      5 hours 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…

      • thejevans@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        10
        ·
        5 hours 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
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          4 hours 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

  • nalinna@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    17
    ·
    6 hours 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.

  • solsangraal@lemmy.zip
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    11
    ·
    6 hours ago

    i think the idea is to transfer all real estate to people who can afford to pay cash, so everyone else can rent from them

  • Treczoks@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    11
    ·
    6 hours 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
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      16 minutes 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 mage 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.

    • Cruxifux@feddit.nl
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      6 hours ago

      I have a lot more sympathy for the individual working class people who live in those places that have now lost their homes and livelihoods because capitalism and corporate oligarchy have dictated that profit is more important than the environment than I do for insurance companies.