A side-effect? No. You’re just describing climate-safe housing being more valuable. It’s always been more valuable.
In a functional market system, higher rents will result in more housing construction in those areas. I’m not delusional enough to think that the housing market is functional, but that’s a can of worms that will exist regardless of the climate problems or not.
Or to rephrase a bit: yes, if people all try to move to more climate-safe areas, then we’ll need to build more housing in the climate-safe areas for them to move into. Obviously.
Except everywhere is a climate danger zone.
Some places are being hit harder than others. All else being equal, people should move to the places being hit the least.
Wouldn’t a side effect of that, if done en masse, be property values and rent ballooning out of control in the safer areas?
A side-effect? No. You’re just describing climate-safe housing being more valuable. It’s always been more valuable.
In a functional market system, higher rents will result in more housing construction in those areas. I’m not delusional enough to think that the housing market is functional, but that’s a can of worms that will exist regardless of the climate problems or not.
Or to rephrase a bit: yes, if people all try to move to more climate-safe areas, then we’ll need to build more housing in the climate-safe areas for them to move into. Obviously.
Yes, and this will start happening within the next several years due to climate refugees, whether we plan for it or not.
As a person near the great lakes: No, they shouldn’t.