I think the problem here is not that some properties are insurable, which seems unavoidable in some hish-risk areas, but that the list is secret. The list should be public information.
"She said the firm provides an online tool that allows lenders to check whether it accepts loans from a given project.
Freddie has similar insurance requirements to Fannie. "
So the complaint is that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are leaving homeowners stuck because they have rationalized the insurance requirements for condominiums after the Surfside collapse.
In other words, they are trying to keep future homeowners from buying a disaster without being properly insured.
There is very little secret about it according to the article, other than surprise that the new requirements exist.
Condos have operated successfully for hundreds of years. Being an officer is sometimes a struggle but good officers make good condominiums.
Anyone who lives in our society and champions pure democracy might benefit by spending six months as a condominium officer.
My personal experience is that roughly one-third of condominium owners are normal, one-third are mad (literally clinically insane) and the last third too dumb to participate [Which is, now that I think about it, about the same as my experience with the general population]. Nonetheless all do participate at one time or another and so those of us who are normal get to view and learn. That is democracy in its fullest form.
The above, to some degree, may help explain why the USA's founding fathers opted for a representative democracy rather than a pure democracy. Perhaps Hamilton or Franklin et al once served on a condominium board!8-))
I don't agree with this broad stroke. I own several condo units (to provide affordable housing), but also put the time and effort in to ensure good governance of the board. I see the budgets, the reserves, and make sure responsible people run the community.
The problem in Florida was condo owners, by and large, wanted to punt on the costs into the future to live an experience they could not otherwise afford (deferring maintenance expenses that turned out to be load bearing, quite literally). Those costs are now catching up, through statute (mandating appropriate reserves), as well as climate risk impacts (whether through higher insurance costs or complete lack of insurability).
Yes, but even in your example, it its getting done. The system is working despite the human resistance. That is to say, collective action requires time and effort, and is a never ending schlep, not that it is impossible. Governance is hard, good governance even more so, but it can and does work. I admit, sometimes it fails. A call for better systems, which is just process and people when discussing governance.
I'd say not. Germany can't make up its mind if it wants to end nuclear power, do something about climate change, defend itself from external or internal threats, keep its industry dependent on Russia gas, etc.
In the US we get the Orwellian-named "Inflation Reduction Act" that spends money on climate change solutions that environmentalists and communities largely don't want [1] [2] in a random way but isn't part of a plan that gets from here to zero, never mind "net zero". Democrats in the beltway and the worst Kool-Aid drinkers outside will throw a party because they authorized some spending despite the Republicans, everyone else becomes more dispirited about the ability of government to accomplish anything at all and the government loses the legitimacy to ask people to do anything that inconveniences them.
[2] I think they should, capturing CO2 output from an oil refinery or piping green hydrogen into it is a low-hanging fruit for industrial decarbonization but subsidizing fossil fuel production or ethanol plants in any way whatsoever is something many people can't stand emotionally
With regards to the Inflation Reduction Act, there are some turds in there (carbon capture, biofuels), but overwhelmingly moved the needle for solar, wind, and battery deployments (as well as domestic manufacturing of solar and batteries). Carbon capture and biofuels will end up dead as renewables overwhelm them. Politics is like making sausage, and perfect does not exist.
Lets not get too off track though, otherwise dang will come and detach the thread. Good chat!
The problem with Hobbs/Hume's take on "the Collective Action Problem" is all of the times people do work collectively. He has a sound objective theory which simply falls apart when you observe the world.
There are certain scenarios that work, where the incentives are properly aligned in time, like the Invisible Hand scenario described by Adam Smith.
When it is possible to steal from the future, however, it's another thing. The collective action problem linked there is about the problems a group has acting in its own interest when control is too atomized. A group like
is a political activist organization because the people who care about the results can defund it if it veers from its goal, whereas membership organizations like
If an apartment building is owned by a rich individual the government can make them put up the cash or get a loan or raise the rent (some combination of which, one way or another private capital provides degrees of freedom that can part of the answer. In the case of the condo the individuals don't have the money, they can't get a loan, they can't sell their shares in a failing building, etc.
Those are all fine examples but we see cooperative action on both smal and large scales, formal and informal... the heap of edge cases becomes so large i=t becomes clear that Hume is just not correct. It's more complicated.
