i don’t think that’s market fundamentalism, no–ideally, this would just be how it is, and that alone would be an effective deterrent. who wants to lose their house, after all?

where it’s faltering, though, is that a lot of people have been misled or not adequately informed on how vulnerable their houses are, and so they just don’t know what they’re getting into. making things worse, insurance in CA can often lock them into staying where they are even if they know it’s risky. it’s been a problem in the past where houses burn during wildfires, and then the insurance payouts aren’t enough for people to do anything but rebuild where they are since housing is too expensive for them to move. it’s a… weird and really messed up situation, and one which can’t really be made better by this specific course of action.