Picture this: You’re looking to buy a place to live, and you have two options.
TL;DR
- California housing costs are extremely high, forcing residents to move to more affordable states like Texas.
- Texas offers cheaper housing but comes with significant risks like hurricanes and flooding.
- High housing costs push people into hazardous areas, linking income to climate disaster vulnerability.
- Restrictive housing policies exacerbate affordability issues and climate vulnerability for many Americans.
Option A presents a lovely residence in California, situated close to reputable educational institutions and employment prospects. However, its price tag approaches a million dollars – the median California home sells for US$906,500 – and you'd be obligated to a mortgage that amounts to risen 82% since January 2020.
Option B presents a comparable residence in Texas, featuring a median home price that's less than fifty percent of the other option: just $353,700. The drawback? Option B is situated in a locale with substantial exposure to hurricanes and flooding.
From my perspective as a professor of urban planning, I can confirm this isn't merely a theoretical situation. It represents the difficult decision faced by Countless Americans daily, as the nation's housing challenges intersect with the impacts of climate change. And our current approach isn't proving effective.
The numbers tell the story
The migration trends are striking. Consider California, which lost 239,575 residents in 2024 – experiencing the most significant exodus of any state. Elevated housing expenses are a principal factor: The median cost of a home in California stands at more than double the national median.
Where are these displaced residents going? Many are heading to southern and western states like Florida and Texas. Texas, which is the top destination for former California residents, saw a net gain of 85,267 people in 2024, much of it from domestic migration. These newcomers are drawn primarily by more affordable housing markets.
This isn't merely individuals seeking reduced tax burdens. It represents a housing affordability emergency unfolding. A recent study revealed that in June 2025, the yearly household earnings required to secure a loan for a median-priced California residence approximated $237,000, over twice the state’s median household income.
In 2023, more than 21 million rental units across the country saw households allocate over 30% of their earnings to housing expenses, according to the U.S. Census Bureau. For these individuals and others facing financial hardship, the economic equation is straightforward, though assessing the potential dangers is not.
This situation concerns me. Fundamentally, the United States is establishing a framework where one's earnings dictate their vulnerability to climate-related catastrophes. As residences become prohibitively expensive in secure zones, the only accessible and economical real estate is frequently situated in more hazardous locales – namely, low-lying regions susceptible to flooding in Houston and along the Texas coast, or areas with elevated wildfire risks as urban centers in California encroach upon fire-prone slopes and ravines.
Climate risk is now factored into the calculation.
Areas attracting new residents aren't precisely secure refuges. Investigations indicate that U.S. Counties with elevated fire hazards experienced 63,365 more people move in than out in 2023, with a significant portion directed toward Texas. Concurrently, my own research and similar analyses of post-calamity recovery have demonstrated that the most susceptible populations – those with limited incomes, individuals from minority backgrounds, and tenants – encounter the most substantial obstacles to reconstruction following catastrophic events.
Consider the insurance crisis developing in these destination states. Numerous insurance companies in Florida, Louisiana, Texas, and elsewhere have collapsed in recent years, finding it unsustainable to cover the escalating claims stemming from more frequent and intense catastrophes such as wildfires and hurricanes. Economists Benjamin Keys and Philip Mulder, who examine the effects of climate change on real estate, describe the insurance markets in some high-risk areas as “broken”. From 2018 to 2023, insurance providers terminated approximately 2 million residential policies across the country – a rate four times higher than historically normal.
Despite the dangers, individuals continue to relocate to hazardous zones. For instance, recent studies indicate that people have been migrating to toward areas most at risk of wildfires, even when financial assets and other considerations remain unchanged. The untamed allure of regions susceptible to fires might contribute to their appeal, alongside the accessibility and affordability of residences.
The policy shortcomings that led to the false dilemma
From my perspective, this isn't truly about personal decisions but rather a lapse in governance. The state of California intends to construct 2.5 million new residences by 2030, a goal that would require adding more than 350,000 units annually. However, during 2024, the state only managed to add approximately 100,000 units – falling dramatically short of what’s needed. When municipal authorities impede housing construction via restrictive land-use regulations, they are in effect making it unaffordable for working-class households and forcing them into precarious situations.
My research on disaster recovery has consistently shown how housing policies intersect with climate vulnerability. Communities with limited housing options before disasters become even more constrained afterward. People can’t “choose” resilience if resilient places won’t let them build affordable housing.
The federal administration has begun acknowledging this link, albeit partially. For instance, in 2023, the Federal Emergency Management Agency advised localities to evaluate “social vulnerability” in disaster planning, alongside elements such as geographical hazards. Social vulnerability encompasses socioeconomic elements like destitution, insufficient transit, or linguistic obstacles that impede communities' ability to manage emergencies.
However, the agency more recently stepped back from that move – just as the 2025 hurricane season began.
From my perspective, a society that compels individuals to decide between affording shelter and ensuring their security has fallen short. Shelter ought to be an entitlement, not a matter of assessing risk.
However, until those in power tackle the fundamental regulations that lead to a lack of homes in secure locations and don't safeguard individuals in precarious ones, the shifting climate will keep altering who resides where—and who is abandoned when the subsequent catastrophe occurs.
Ivis García, Associate Professor of Landscape Architecture and Urban Planning, Texas A&M University
This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
