> If you look at the home as a long-term investment, it's almost always cheaper than renting since your mortgage stays the same, while rents almost always rise.
We had our monthly house payment more than double due to hurricane insurance increases. This even tho our particular area hasn't had a landfall in 100 years & gets hit less than DC, NYC, etc.
Yes, but in an area with such a hurricane risk that it led to an increase so great that it more than doubled someone's home mortgage, it would have had to have had a large impact on landlord's structure insurance, raising rents. For someone with a $1000/month house payment, that's $24,000/year in extra premiums.
If that's a $200,000 house, in 10 years the extra premium would cover the house... I don't see how landlords could escape levying a rent increase when faced with such a huge increase in insurance prices.
> Yes, but in an area with such a hurricane risk that it led to an increase so great that it more than doubled someone's home mortgage,
I believe you assume that the increase was tied to our increased risk. It would be more accurate to say that it was tied to risk of other places, hundreds of miles away. In my post, I had stated that we were at less risk than major mid-Atlantic cities.
No, I'm trying to figure out how residential properties had such a huge increase in insurance rates (whatever the cause), while landlords were spared the increase.
I can understand that a huge insurance rate increase would make your house much more expensive than you thought it would be, I'm just trying to understand how such a rate increase only applied to residential houses, but not rental properties (many of which are just residential houses).
We had our monthly house payment more than double due to hurricane insurance increases. This even tho our particular area hasn't had a landfall in 100 years & gets hit less than DC, NYC, etc.