Slashdot Mirror
Sea Level Rise Already Causing Billions in Home Value To Disappear (axios.com)
Sea level rise may seem like a far-off threat, but a growing number of new studies, including one out this week, shows that real estate markets have already started responding to increased flooding risks by reducing prices of vulnerable homes. From a report: According to a new report by the nonprofit First Street Foundation, housing values in New York, New Jersey and Connecticut dropped $6.7 billion from 2005 to 2017 due to flooding related to sea level rise. Combined with their prior analysis of 5 southeastern coastal states with $7.4 billion in lost home value, the total loss in 8 states since 2005 has been $14.1 billion. A recent slew of studies show how the housing market is responding to the increasing risk of coastal flooding -- with billions in value disappearing as investors wake up to the systemic risk.
What is not waterfront property today, will be in the future. If I had lots of money I'd be buying it up now to resell later as increased value waterfront property.
My oceanside property in Colorado should be doing great in a couple of decades!
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
Coastal homes are flooding because you have destroyed the buffer zones (marshlands/swamplands) that stopped the water from entering the area. What did you think would happen when you destroy the buffer zones for housing? It has nothing to do with climate change/whatever. But no one wants to address that issue, because there is no money in it.
Climate change is yet another of those topics that brings out the worst in this "community". Morons either outright denying the reality of CC and its horrific impacts, or other morons trying to prove how smart they are by saying things like, "The real problem isn't sea level rise its the destruction of marshes."
This place could be so much more than it is, if it weren't for the mental masturbators who can't simply accept the view of the overwhelming number of experts in a field.
Primarily rich people and real estate investors wild be hit, while the middde class homes a bit farther inland will increase in value. Win/win.
Conservatives don't care, because most of the coastal states are blue states, and the more liberals suffer, the happier conservatives are. They voted for Trump for this exact reason, just because it pisses off liberals, regardless of the possible consequences.
Ahh, but what's happening to the stock prices of companies which are converting coastal properties into cool undersea bases?
Common sense says don't build on a flood plain. Oh and stop destroying marshlands and wetlands that protect from flooding in the first place.
I read the report. They're including events like Hurricanes as part of their "sea level rising" flooding damage totals. That seems rather suspect to me since they don't indicate whether or not they subtracted out the net rise in sea levels from the total storm surge damage from hurricanes.
This is as silly as reporting the damage done by wildfires in $. Yes, more people are building multi-million dollar homes out in the wilderness, so there's "more" damage done by fires that 50 years ago would barely have been noticed.
Just like sea level rise - the more idiotic people build in flood plains, the more "damage" sea level rise will do to people....when it's the people putting themSELVES in that danger.
-Styopa
They're not responding to sea level rise, they are responding to the expiration of the federal flood insurance program.
As long as the federal flood insurance program was in place, people whose houses got flooded simply could rebuild a shiny new house at taxpayer expense again and again.
As for sea level rise, it is happening and going to continue at roughly the same rate for a couple of centuries at least, no matter what we do, so that can't be the cause of sudden changes in coastal real estate prices. Whatever the threat may or may not be, it has been priced in for years.
Furthermore, homes depreciate over about 30 years, so anything beyond that horizon is not worth worrying about.
This is about the cost for capital, but sea level rise impact on the whole economy is likely to be much larger.
You assume demand follow the offer, but there are frictions that slow the process. People cannot always move easily.
I have to disagree. I spot a slight curve; not a strait (sloped) line.
Table-ized A.I.
Nowhere in the article or summary does it mention anything about acceleration, or even comment on the rate of increase at all.
Meanwhile the page you linked clearly shows a steady upward trend in tide height.
=Smidge=
Oddly enough this site you link to documents that sea levels are rising, and accelerating, most everywhere, except were post-glacial rebounding is occurring (the home page helpfully mentions this -- "glacial isostatic adjustment"). A single spot like Battery Park in Manhattan only shows that Battery Park in Manhattan is not showing the long term rise to be accelerating, perhaps due to local subsidence.
Starships were meant to fly, Hands up and touch the sky - Nicky Minaj
If property tax bills aren't dropping then this valuation analysis is junk.
This house here? the one that's three kilometres inland and 150 METRES above sea level?
Hmm...I wonder what he thinks is going to happen...
Song by George Strait released in 1986. It was supposedly a sappy love song, but I always equated it to the plot of Superman (the one with Christopher Reeve and Margot Kidder), referred to by parent post.
This whole "destruction of waterfront property" thing reminds me of these rules of thumb:
1) Those who do not have, want things to change
2) Those that have, want things to stay as they are
and finally,
3) Eventually, things change. Trying to hold back change is like (snicker) trying to hold back the tide...
Or A View To Kill?
Al Gore recently (well, a few years ago...) purchased a fairly large beachfront home here in California. That's ONE of the reasons why I discount claims that the sea level will rise more than a few inches per century.
I checked out that home on google maps and it's located at about 450 feet above sea level. I don't think sea level rise is going to cause any problems there for the foreseeable future.
Battery Park in Manhattan shows effectively ZERO acceleration over the last 150 years or so, but I guess that's not an exciting Gloom And Doom headline...
So Battery Park is a suitable proxy for sea level rise around the world? I think not. Meanwhile sea level measurements from satellites do show an acceleration in SLR.
Not my problem. Some rich motherfucker's problem.
Except that you're still going to end up paying to bail them out. Not all of them will be bailed out but it will be enough that it's going to cost you as well.
What? But indoor seawater pools are the latest craze!
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
We need a -2 APK moderation...
"The likes of Facebook and WhatsApp are free to those whose privacy is of zero value."
Not so much sea level rise as risk of sea level rise. The news flow about sea level rises is hurting values more than actual sea level rises.
Except bring the coastline closer and push up the value :)
Yes, loss of value as well as much higher taxes are a consequence of rising seas. Your tax dollars have been supporting the alteration of military bases to cope with rising waters. Miami has a large expense already in the creation of pumping systems to keep the beach area from frequent flooding. What we are doing now should have been done 30 years ago when Al Gore made public the tragedy of rising seas. Now the second shoe will drop. As the building values drop the insurance companies will want to charge the same sums or even more for buildings that are now at half value due to threat of flooding. It also means that there will be no interest in taking new customers. Banks will not write mortgages due to flood risks which halts all new construction . As insurance companies pay out for losses the banks that own the insurance companies will become weaker. In much of Florida fresh drinking water will only occur if desalinization plants operate meaning water bills for home will sore enough to devalue existing homes and mansions. Population numbers will shift to higher areas causing all kinds of disruption and chaos. This issue is urgent beyond imagination and it is a huge enough problem that government will not be able to deal with it at all. Conservatives have effectively doomed this nation as we know it. With current sea levels it is unwise to be near any river or sea shore if a hurricane comes along. The chaos will be strongly amplified and God help us if a storm comes ashore at high tide. It will be tragic.
Used to be that coast or water views were price add ons.
There is a small city in my metro area that is mostly coastline and the area has lots of rivers. Nearly every home requires flood insurance because it's listed as a flood plain by FEMA.
Anything build before 2010 or so is devalued, but especially the homes built from 1950-2000. Nearly everyone considers them a disaster waiting to happen, as a result the prices in he area are 20-30% less on average vs other cities in the metro area.
People are wising up, coastal housing needs to be dynamic, keeping homes within a half mile of the coast is no longer a hundred year proposition.
Clever of the seas to rise only on one coast!
This house here? the one that's three kilometres inland and 150 METRES above sea level?
Hmm...I wonder what he thinks is going to happen...
I, too, stand with Al Gore and the eco-sustainability of mansions! Down with "repug-licans"!
Weather is not climate idiot.
The real path to male liberation
Assuming ocean levels really are rising, maybe you should consider moving to higher ground. Adapt or die. It ain't rocket science.
Circle the wagons and fire inward. Entropy increases without bounds.
Actually, flood insurance is its own problem in America. John Oliver on last week tonight explains: https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
A documentary about homes in floodzones and engineers that define these areas based on geological features that may change or have changed. When certain features change which then large areas become a flood hazard, so in one fell swoop the engineer that signs off on marking the area on a map as a flood zone just caused property values to plummet. How would you like to be that engineer?
Can't blame the engineer(s) to be honest as long as they are competent. I sure would like to know if my property is in a flood zone. You can imagine the political fallout particularly from real estate businesses and their lobby. Then there is federal insurance to cover them in event of flood (homes getting rebuilt at govt expense), but tell homeowners to move? For many they don't have any other place to go (retirees living in their same home for decades). Then places like Silicon Valley where the land is expensive (depreciation is simply as tax writeoff but property will always go up in price). But wait, areas were Google is be declared a flood zone? What about their basement at Shoreline where they have pallets of billions in cash?
mfwright@batnet.com
Maybe later; not in the mood. But even if the acceleration were "flat", that still means our coastal land is in deep doo-doo because it's still a flat line going up (under the "flat" assumption). We can argue about the cause, but arguing won't stop the flooding.
Table-ized A.I.
I live near and have worked at sea for decades. Yet, I see no evidence that the beaches are being flooded, that people's houses are being flooded, or even that the piers that I've used are being flooded. (And no glacial rebound in this area.)
Several of those "failures" are for dates that are still in the future so it is impossible to say that they have failed yet. Others of them offer a range of possible outcomes with words like "up to", etc yet the observations are still within the range predicted. Some others like the snow predictions don't take the full picture into account. It's true that fall snow is up and winter snow is holding in there but spring and summer snow levels have dropped a lot. It makes some sense because warmer air holds more moisture which means more snow when it's cold enough to snow. Other things are based on cherry picking. For example the statement that there has been no decrease in September Arctic sea ice extent since 2007. 2007 was a record breaking low year. If you used almost any other year as your base you would see a decrease in September Arctic sea ice extent.
And yet that basic predictions that the world will continue to warm, ice will continue to melt, sea level will continue to rise and the ocean will continue to acidify keep happening. They may not always get the numbers exactly right but the fundamental predictions have been right.
Just how long the general attitude of climate-change denial will go on in slashdot. Fingers still in ears. They will be for a long time, that's the power of motivated reasoning and intellectual cowardice. nanananananana
I do not want your cheap brainburning drugs. They are useless for work. And I am a working man today.
Every dirtbag skeevy recruiter call I get that from the New Jersey Indians confirms it. New Jersey might as well be a province of India. So, here's me out in flyover country gleefully not giving a flying fuck about property values for Indian recruiters & a small number of rich investment bankers who live close to NYC. Guess it's going to be harder for you to sell your home in LA or Jersey and move out to flyover country like I know you want to and are going to try, eh? I'm starting to think this Climate Change thing is going to rock! Meanwhile flyover country house prices are rising. Winners and losers, baby. Go back to India and buy a house there, maybe?