Environment & Energy
Related: About this forumExpect More Of This: Public Money Used To Prop Up Values Of Uninsurable Private Property
EDIT
Thats because most of the cost of protecting California properties from coastal erosion, wildfires and other effects of the climate crisis will be met by the state, with public money. This means those costs wont fall on the disproportionately white and wealthy people who own property. Rather, theyll be increasingly borne by the working- and middle-class Hispanic, black and brown Californians that make up the majority of the state, many of whom dont own real estate. Without really grappling with this reality, the state is slipping step by step towards a massive wealth transfer from the general public to the owners of private property. Its one more way in which the climate crisis is also a crisis of racism and inequality.
What Sea Cliff could look like in a few years time can be glimpsed in the town of Pacifica, 14 miles to the south. Parts of the town, which is much more middle-class than Sea Cliff, sit directly on beautiful bluffs that overlook and are tumbling into the Pacific Ocean. When the towns mayor proposed a managed retreat from the coast, home owners and local realtors revolted: the proposal would have effectively taken their homes off the market, cutting them off from potential profits. (Owners does not mean residents: about a third of Pacificas housing stock, including many of the most threatened buildings, consists of rental units.) So instead of a managed retreat, the city is taking money from the public coffers and using it to protect property investments by building sea walls and replenishing eroding beaches with trucked-in sand, among other measures.
This is a dynamic weve seen throughout the late capitalist economy. The sociologist Ulrich Beck described it as a change from a logic of wealth distribution to one of risk distribution. Profits are privatized, but risk is made public. The banks made a bunch of bad bets on crappy mortgage debts? Bail them out with public money and give the executives multimillion-dollar bonuses. Someone half bakes a fundamentally unprofitable tech business? Let them IPO it so they can liquidate hundreds of millions of dollars of stock options while transferring the ultimately worthless company into the hands of public pension funds and workers 401ks.
Thats the same thing that is now happening in California, where the land is uniquely threatened and at the same time uniquely valuable. There is a concerted political effort not to manage the risk, but rather to keep it from impacting value by making the public bear the costs of the climate crisis through things such as the sorts of publicly funded disaster relief programs and state-subsidized insurance payouts that Jack Dorsey could theoretically benefit from. This is, in fact, what many of the owners of capital and real estate think the government is for: protecting the value of private property at all costs. Its one of the reasons we have a climate crisis instead of a robust, rapid transition away from fossil fuels in the first place.
EDIT
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/mar/08/california-climate-crisis-jack-dorsey-home
procon
(15,805 posts)Many of those posh beach front mansions are sitting on private beaches, but their pristine sand is generously repaired by taxpayers. The public can't even cross the private beaches to get to the public beaches.
It's crazy! The whole scenic Hwy 101 that runs along the coast is a disaster waiting to happen with landslides, erosion, giant falling boulders, tottering houses on the cliffs above, and slipping houses on the beaches below.