Housing
This webcast is about housing and federal insurance. It also involves bringing water to a thirsty world and provides controls to lessen flooding in other parts of the world. I will also go over insurance and building design for a changing environment. Let’s start with the US National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP). It is designed to provide flood insurance for buildings in areas where other insurers won’t cover them. The US government subsidizes the program with billions of dollars a year. In other words, the insurance premiums from the insured properties fall short by billions of dollars every year. There is also Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) , which spends an additional 30 billion per year on flood and other emergencies.
The sad facts are, the NFIP has paid to rebuild close to 45k homes more than 5 times. Then there are more than 2100 that have been rebuilt more than 10 times, with one being rebuilt 40 times and another 52 times, all since 1968. So, the one house has been rebuilt or restored 52 times in 58 years, almost once a year, and 45 thousand homes have been restored once every 10 years. Most of these homes were rebuilt or restored without any mitigation measures to ensure the flood would not destroy them again. They are less than 1% of the insured properties but account for more than 10% of the claims. Most of the houses that are rebuilt are secondary or vacation homes. FEMA is also spending billions of dollars each year helping pay for disasters and providing grants to people who are uninsured. I am not saying it is wrong to help people who own homes, just that there needs to be some control over how often we pay to rebuild and/or restore them, and let’s look at alternatives.
In 1986, Olga McKissic purchased a split‑level home in Louisville, Kentucky. Between 1997 and 2015, the house flooded four times, with water rising to 18 to 20 inches. Because she carried flood insurance through the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP), Olga was able to repair the damage and replace some of her belongings after each event. Still, insurance could not make up for the emotional toll of repeated flooding, or the time and effort required to rebuild her life again and again. After the 2015 flood, Olga decided she could no longer stay. She found a buyer for the property, but another flood struck before the sale closed, causing the deal to fall through. In response to the 2015 flooding, the city of Louisville and the Metropolitan Sewer District (MSD) launched a program to purchase damaged homes, demolish the structures, and preserve the land as open space to prevent future development in high‑risk areas. However, limited funding meant MSD could offer no more than $100,000 per home. Because Olga’s house was worth more than that, selling would have forced her to sacrifice her equity and left her unable to afford a comparable home elsewhere. MSD later sought a FEMA grant to expand the buyout program and include higher‑value homes like Olga’s. But two years after the 2015 flood, the grant still had not been approved. MSD warned that FEMA funding can take years to materialize—a common frustration for communities trying to help residents relocate from vulnerable properties. As a result, Olga remains in a home that has flooded multiple times, waiting and hoping for a fair offer before the next disaster strikes. Only 2% of FEMA response funds are spent on mitigation, and about 20% of NFIP funds are spent on mitigation. Every dollar spent on mitigation saves 6 to 13 dollars over the long run.
There is also the issue of a large number of structures burning down every year in firestorms. Yes, climate change is affecting the frequency and severity of storms, which are both fire and water events, but there is also the issue of the antiquated design of homes. Fire testing of materials allowed in structures does not test the effects of wind-driven fires; it only tests fires adjacent to the materials without wind. The testing also falls short in testing the entire assembly. Forest management is falling behind. 80 million acres are in need of management and are at a point of catastrophic fire. Unfortunately, the Forest Service can only affect 2 to 4 million acres. Fires also add backlogs as they need to be addressed/ reforested. They are adding millions of acres a year to a backlog of about 4 million acres, but are only getting 250k plus acres. The worst thing is that the backlog of unmanaged forests is added to the number of acres burned, which means the Forest Service needs more money to fight wildfires. Then that cuts into their budget, and it is harder for them to do their job. Yes, Congress has approved more money, but not enough to begin to rectify the issue. The point is, we can not only do a better job of forest and flood management, but also of building design and code enforcement.
There is also a housing shortage; it is estimated that we need 4 to 6 million more housing units than are available. There are also corporations buying about 9% of the market. The lack of supply and corporate exploitation raise rents and home prices. Another issue with housing is the lack of affordable land near major areas where work is concentrated. So, Housing development companies build far from cities because the land is inexpensive. This has several downsides. One is traffic, because millions of people drive over 50 miles to get to work, generally at the same time. Next, it cuts into farmland. It also adds to pollution and greenhouse gas release.
Unfortunately, I feel I need to bring up our current state of affairs and take a minute to diverge. I am doing this in the hopes of exposing the ignorance and incompetence of the so-called leaders who are supposed to be our leaders. I hope by exposing this weakness, we will at least repeat our ill-informed voting decisions less often, not again, would be better, but I don’t see that happening. We have a lot of our elected officials who make very poor decisions for our country; there are way more politicians who hurt our country than help it. Now I should clarify that last statement: more elected officials help the rich and businesses than the average American. A recent bill called the big, beautiful bill increases taxes on the average household making less than $15,000 a year will they see a tax increase of over 9 percent in 2027. By 2033, when many temporary provisions in the tax portion of the law expire, this group will experience a 56 percent tax increase. While people earning $40,000 a year will see an average tax decrease of only $393, worth a few weeks of groceries, people making over $1 million a year will see their taxes go down by $97,000 in 2027. All of the tax cuts are funded; in other words, the U.S. is going further into debt by 3.5 billion per year.
Sometimes they are just Stupid. Case in point is that Trump came to California during a crisis where the state had several firestorms burning at once, destroying 1000s of structures. He started by calling the governor names. This is not the proper behavior of an adult, unless you're pissed off. It is totally unbecoming of any of our leaders, especially the top authorities. That’s not a big deal; it's just childish and an embarrassment for the country. The thing that really hurt California was that he ordered the release of billions of gallons of water. In typical Trump fashion, he did not address the actual reason L.A. did not have enough water to put out fires, but ordered the release of water from dams to help them. He also tweeted how great he was for doing so.
In actuality, the water he released hurt California, as most of the state is almost always short on water. He also released it at a time when it could not be used by farmers to irrigate, as it was winter. Luckily, the state was able to reduce the amount of water it ordered to be released by about half through communication with the Army Corps of Engineers. Not only was it harmful to waste this precious resource, but the water system he ordered released into is not connected to the area where the fires were. Even if the two separate waterways had been connected, it wouldn’t have helped, because the actual issue was the storage tanks located near the fires. They had been emptied and could not be replenished as quickly as they were being used. It is a local issue that LA and California will have to address. But this is typical Trump fashion: not looking at the actual issue but proposing a grandiose, expensive solution that makes headlines but does little to actually correct the issue, and unfortunately, it usually exacerbates the problem.
So, we need solutions to several related issues. I propose expanding the NFIP to include fire insurance, as it will become harder to obtain. Next, we limit the amount of time a home can be rebuilt. I really think it should be cut down to once. I think most of us would want some control over how long it takes to rebuild a home after a flood. If you have to rebuild it every 10 years, that seems a little excessive. I don’t know an exact acceptable number, but I think at least once every 50 years is even too often. Climate change should be included in the calculations of the severity and probability of disasters. Mony spent on minor repairs, raising floor joists, and making openings in foundations and walls should be fully reviewed, given that storms are likely to be more severe and more frequent.
There should be maps showing where floods and fires are likely. The maps should be designed to show where not to build, whether due to flooding, fire, earthquakes, or other high-probability natural disasters. We should also research building design and make buildings more resistant to natural disasters and build them for the disasters they are likely to encounter. We also need to ensure premiums align with the exposure. The rates should be reduced to a point where they are not prohibitive but still reflect enough of the actual burden to entice owners to move away from the disaster zones. We should also look into trying to move cities or at least buy out the homeowners so they can move rather the rebuild. Then the flooded areas can be dredged and used as spill areas (and for other flood-absorbing designs) for the next storm. I would also like to see pipes that start taking water from riparian areas when it is available, especially when flooding is predicted, and send it to the drier parts of the country. These pipes should have turbines incorporated into them to generate the electricity needed to pump. The systems should be designed to use as little energy as possible, such as by adding a siphon system and other energy-conservation measures. By doing this, we are reducing the damage from the flooding and helping farming and communities in both the flood-prone areas and drier regions. The dryer regions can also pay for the water to help pay for the costs.
To help with housing creep from cities and reduce traffic, along with a host of other benefits, I propose that the federal government help state and local governments rebuild the deteriorating areas of cities. Generally, the first rings of cities have outdated buildings, deteriorated MEP (Mechanical, Electrical, and Plumbing), insulation, infrastructure, and design. Another thing about these properties is that they tend to have small homes relative to the lot size. Areas can be specified that are the most cost-effective and needed. Then there can be a price freeze, and yes, eminent domain will be used, and the government can purchase these areas. Then one or more lots can be picked
And the owner/tenants can be housed somewhere else. Then that home is demolished. Meanwhile, well, all of his is happening. Container homes or another quick build system that can be done off-site are being built. So, once the area is leveled and a footing is in place, the new home can be installed. But as they are generally big lots, and we can build up, several units can be placed on one lot. Then, other owners/tenants are moved, and the same thing is done with their lots until we have the entire community consolidated into a smaller area. Then we build designer communities. At least 4-story condominiums that lend to certain lifestyles, some for families, some for singles, etc. The ones for families will have more parks and be designed for more families. The ones for singles can have more entertainment facilities designed for their lifestyles. We can also install green roofs and balconies to grow food and provide education about food. They should also be designed so you can get most of the items we need for our daily lives on foot. We should encourage smaller, independent stores, maybe set up a national supply chain for them so they can compete with larger chains, and make life more affordable for tenants. This is a basic framework to get the idea going, but we should actually ask the people who were moved and those hoping to move in about their interests and hobbies and get them involved from the start. The folks who were forced to move could have first dibs on the units they want to help offset the burden of their move. We can try to make the cost for people whose land is being repurposed lower than what they were paying prior to the transition, as an incentive. If they owned the previous home outright, they could pay in full for the unit or pay a lesser amount and pocket the difference.
Imagine communities with plenty of parking, great transportation, and most essentials within walking distance. You can buy fresh vegetables, fruit, and fish grown less than a mile away, ripened naturally on the vine. There’s ample space to charge electric cars, and neighbors share common interests. Other benefits are traffic is lighter, fewer potholes, and less pollution.
Now, here’s where it really benefits society—homes could be rent-to-own, with down payments matching first and last month’s rent. The government could collect mortgage payments to offset project costs and reduce national debt. Container homes could be built in stages, based on demand for housing and jobs: focus on more units when housing is needed, and on community spaces and condos when jobs are the priority. While each project might cost billions, returns could reach trillions over 30 years, helping eliminate the national debt, lower taxes, and fund new technologies. Cities would save money by avoiding costly repairs to aging infrastructure like water and sewer systems, and public transportation expansion would be cheaper. Plus, we’d cut pollution, create stronger communities, improve education, and enhance quality of life. Over time, we could work toward diverse, integrated neighborhoods across ethnic and economic lines.
Another idea could be to offer incentives for businesses to have more employees work from home, which would reduce traffic, stress, pollution, and the need for childcare. We could also explore shared office spaces to lower business costs and free up more real estate for housing. Then build condominiums in the freed-up office space.
Create a uniform building code for mobile homes and shipping container homes could help, along with laws allowing mobile homes to have reusable transport frames to cut costs and make them easier to finance. Ultimately, we just need our elected officials to be real leaders, not allies of big business or driven solely by greed.
