The housing crisis is forcing Americans to choose between affordability and safety
In the face of a growing housing crisis exacerbated by climate change, many Americans find themselves grappling with a stark choice: affordable housing in high-risk areas or expensive homes in safer regions. For instance, a beautiful home in California, with a median price of nearly $906,500, offers proximity to quality schools and job opportunities but comes with a staggering mortgage that has risen by 82% since January 2020. Conversely, a similar property in Texas costs less than half that amount, at $353,700, but is situated in a region vulnerable to hurricanes and flooding. This dilemma is not merely hypothetical; it reflects the reality for millions of Americans as they navigate the intersection of housing affordability and climate risk.
Recent migration trends underscore this troubling scenario. California experienced a significant outflow of residents—239,575 in 2024—largely driven by exorbitant housing costs that far exceed the national median. Many of these displaced individuals are relocating to southern states such as Texas and Florida, where housing is more affordable. Texas alone saw a net gain of 85,267 residents from California in 2024, highlighting a shift towards areas with lower home prices despite their environmental risks. The financial burden is staggering; qualifying for a mortgage on a mid-tier California home requires an annual income of approximately $237,000, over twice the state’s median household income. This reality forces many Americans to allocate over 30% of their income to housing, with dire implications for their financial stability and safety.
The situation is compounded by policy failures that fail to address the root causes of housing scarcity in safer areas. California’s ambitious goal of constructing 2.5 million new homes by 2030 is falling short, with only about 100,000 homes added in 2024. Local governments often impose restrictive zoning laws, effectively pricing out working families and pushing them towards riskier housing options. Moreover, as climate change intensifies, insurance markets in high-risk areas are becoming increasingly unstable. A significant number of insurers have collapsed, unable to cope with the rising costs of claims from frequent natural disasters. This trend raises critical questions about the future of housing and safety in America. As Dr. Ivis García argues, when individuals are forced to choose between affordable housing and safety, it reflects a systemic failure that must be addressed through comprehensive policy reform. The urgent need for a holistic approach that considers both housing availability and climate resilience is paramount to ensure that all Americans have access to safe and affordable living conditions.
Picture this: You’re looking to buy a place to live, and you have two options.
Option A is a beautiful home in California near good schools and job opportunities. But it goes for nearly a million dollars –
the median California home sells for US$906,500
– and you’d be paying a mortgage that’s
risen 82% since January 2020
.
Option B is a similar home in Texas, where the median home costs less than half as much:
just $353,700
. The catch? Option B sits in an area with significant hurricane and flood risk.
As a
professor of urban planning
, I know this isn’t just a hypothetical scenario. It’s the impossible choice millions of Americans face every day as the U.S. housing crisis collides with climate change. And we’re not handling it well.
The numbers tell the story
The migration patterns are stark. Take California, which
lost 239,575 residents
in 2024 – the largest out-migration of any state. High housing costs are a primary driver: The median home price in California is
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.
Housing costs are the main driver of the California exodus, the Los Angeles Times notes.
This isn’t simply people chasing lower taxes. It’s a housing affordability crisis in motion. The annual household income needed to qualify for a mortgage on a mid-tier California home was about $237,000 in June 2025, a recent analysis found –
over twice the state’s median household income
.
Over 21 million renter households nationwide spent more than 30% of their income on housing costs in 2023,
according to the U.S. Census Bureau
. For them and others struggling to get by, the financial math is simple, even if the risk calculation isn’t.
I find this troubling. In essence, the U.S. is creating a system where your income determines your exposure to climate disasters. When housing becomes unaffordable in safer areas, the only available and affordable property is often in riskier locations – low-lying areas at flood risk in Houston and coastal Texas, or higher-wildfire-risk areas as California cities expand into fire-prone foothills and canyons.
Climate risk becomes part of the equation
The destinations drawing newcomers aren’t exactly safe havens. Research shows that America’s high-fire-risk counties saw
63,365 more people move in than out in 2023
, much of that flowing to Texas. Meanwhile,
my own research
and other studies of post-disaster recovery have shown how the most vulnerable communities – low-income residents, people of color, renters – face the greatest barriers to rebuilding after disasters strike.
Consider the insurance crisis brewing in these destination states. Dozens of insurers in Florida, Louisiana, Texas and beyond have
collapsed in recent years
, unable to sustain the mounting claims from increasingly frequent and severe disasters like wildfires and hurricanes. Economists Benjamin Keys and Philip Mulder, who study climate change impacts on real estate,
describe the insurance markets in some high-risk areas as “broken”
. Between 2018 and 2023, insurers canceled nearly 2 million homeowner policies nationwide – four times the historically typical rate.
Yet people keep moving into risky areas. For example, recent research shows that people have been moving
toward areas most at risk of wildfires
, even holding wealth and other factors constant. The wild beauty of fire-prone areas may be part of the attraction, but so is housing availability and cost.
The policy failures behind the false choice
In my view, this isn’t really about individual choice – it’s about policy failure. The state of California aims to build 2.5 million new homes by 2030, which would
require adding more than 350,000 units annually
. Yet in 2024, the state only added about 100,000 –
falling dramatically short of what’s needed
. When local governments restrict housing development through exclusionary zoning, they’re effectively pricing out working families and pushing them toward risk.
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 government started recognizing this connection – to an extent. For example, in 2023, the Federal Emergency Management Agency encouraged communities to consider
“social vulnerability” in disaster planning
, in addition to things like geographic risk. Social vulnerability refers to socioeconomic factors like poverty, lack of transportation or language barriers that make it harder for communities to deal with disasters.
However, the agency more recently stepped back from that move –
just as the 2025 hurricane season began
.
In my view, when a society forces people to choose between paying for housing and staying safe, that society has failed. Housing should be a right, not a risk calculation.
But until decision-makers address the underlying policies that create housing scarcity in safe areas and fail to protect people in vulnerable ones, climate change will continue to reshape who gets to live where – and who gets left behind when the next disaster strikes.
Dr. Ivis García has received funding from the National Science Foundation; the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development; the U.S. Department of Transportation’s National Institute for Transportation and Communities; the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention; the Environmental Protection Agency; the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine; JPB Foundation; Ford Foundation, Pritzker Traubert Foundation; Chicago Community Trust, SBAN, Texas Appleseed, Fundación Comunitaria de Puerto Rico, Urban Institute & UNIDOS, and Natural Hazards Center.
