Such a system might encourage people to buy homes built properly to protect them from natural disasters. Are you building in a fire-prone area? Then build with concrete or hempcrete walls and use unvented metal roofs. (In reality it is more complex than just changing building materials, but we do have booklets on this now--I am…
Such a system might encourage people to buy homes built properly to protect them from natural disasters. Are you building in a fire-prone area? Then build with concrete or hempcrete walls and use unvented metal roofs. (In reality it is more complex than just changing building materials, but we do have booklets on this now--I am just saying, there are ways it can be done).
But as it is you could do everything perfectly (and pay a bit more to do so) and the insurance company might throw you a 5% discount. And building the home right probably increased the construction cost by at least that much, meaning you wind up paying about the same (or more) for insurance anyhow.
Sure you could try recouping the cost by going without wildfire insurance--but only if you own the home outright. And once you sell, any buyer using a bank loan will still be forced to pay for the nearly-useless and absurdly expensive wildfire policy too.
If insurers really are spreading the pain of stupid, local building decisions around nationally then that is a story worth pursuing. I, for one, don't want to subsidize property built in a flood plane, or built (without proper protections) in a fire risk area. I know things are changing, and places that were acceptably risky 10-20 years ago are not at risk of being uninsurable. So it would be good, I think, for insurance premiums to be determined solely by individual risk, and then where private insurance becomes too expensive the government can provide subsidized property insurance--but only until the home is destroyed, and only for the current replacement value (no expansions to homes getting subsidized insurance). Once disaster hits though, there should be a buyout offer and then no more subsidized insurance on that property.
Here here.
Such a system might encourage people to buy homes built properly to protect them from natural disasters. Are you building in a fire-prone area? Then build with concrete or hempcrete walls and use unvented metal roofs. (In reality it is more complex than just changing building materials, but we do have booklets on this now--I am just saying, there are ways it can be done).
But as it is you could do everything perfectly (and pay a bit more to do so) and the insurance company might throw you a 5% discount. And building the home right probably increased the construction cost by at least that much, meaning you wind up paying about the same (or more) for insurance anyhow.
Sure you could try recouping the cost by going without wildfire insurance--but only if you own the home outright. And once you sell, any buyer using a bank loan will still be forced to pay for the nearly-useless and absurdly expensive wildfire policy too.
If insurers really are spreading the pain of stupid, local building decisions around nationally then that is a story worth pursuing. I, for one, don't want to subsidize property built in a flood plane, or built (without proper protections) in a fire risk area. I know things are changing, and places that were acceptably risky 10-20 years ago are not at risk of being uninsurable. So it would be good, I think, for insurance premiums to be determined solely by individual risk, and then where private insurance becomes too expensive the government can provide subsidized property insurance--but only until the home is destroyed, and only for the current replacement value (no expansions to homes getting subsidized insurance). Once disaster hits though, there should be a buyout offer and then no more subsidized insurance on that property.