Issue 103 – Climate Change is Causing a Flood of Real Estate Problems

100 Barclay Street #11F

32 West 18th Street 11B

75 Grand Street 4W

641 Fifth Avenue #33/34EF

101 Leonard Street 5/D

500 Park Ave Penthouse-39

450 East 52nd St #10

1001 Fifth Avenue 110C

22 Central Park South Unit 3

508 Canal Street #TH3

115 Morton Street #5B

501 Third Avenue #6E

53 West 53rd Street 24D

53 West 53rd Street #38C

53 West 53rd Street #PH78

320 East 42nd St 2403

1593 Deerfield Road

136 East 56th Street 8H

51 Crosby Street 3

53 West 53rd Street #30B

53 West 53rd Street #66

53 West 53rd Street #72B

53 West 53rd Street #21A

53 West 53rd Street #53A

53 West 53rd Street #17B

53 W 53rd St #PH76

53 West 53rd Street #71

53 West 53rd Street #20B

53 West 53rd Street #16F

Issue 103 – Climate Change is Causing a Flood of Real Estate Problems

November 1, 2024

It seems just about every week, we receive an update on a hurricane, flood, or tornado making its presence known around the globe and highlighting the loss of homes — and more importantly, loss of life. The damage to structures and how the natural disaster is stopping bustling cities in their tracks is always in the news. Climate change is indeed taking its toll, and not just exclusively on coastal regions. In addition to impacting lives physically, it also impacts them financially through diminished market value and increased insurance costs. To wit: Climate change is becoming the most significant impact on real estate value.

Just last month, we witnessed massive destruction in Asheville, North Carolina, where storm seasons had not typically been a concern. Sadly, that storm was followed by Hurricane Milton, which targeted the Tampa, Florida, area. In October 2024, Tampa Mayor Jane Castor warned residents in evacuation zones that they would die if they stayed behind. We now brace ourselves against extremely devastating weather events from May through November. Many New Yorkers live in fear of another Hurricane Sandy.

One of the by-products of these increasingly intense hurricanes is how homeowners or would-be buyers will be impacted in terms of homeowner’s insurance coverage, without which one cannot secure a mortgage. Moreover, the city’s flood maps are being rewritten, further increasing insurance premiums for many owners; some may even be dropped by their current insurance provider, resulting in properties in highly desirable neighborhoods being unable to sell — or to sell well.

According to The Atlantic, “Across the United States, homeowner’s insurance is getting more expensive. In storm-battered Florida and coastal Louisiana, they’ve gone up a lot; the same is true for scorched Colorado and California. But even Ohio and Wisconsin have seen rate hikes greater than 15 percent in a single year.” Clearly, everyone is affected by this, not just in hurricane-prone areas. And if buyers can’t secure homeowner’s insurance or premiums are prohibitively expensive, they won’t be able to take on a mortgage.

The Economist details this trend as well, explaining, “Private insurers burned by huge payouts after disasters are abandoning risky markets. Homeowners are turning to state-backed insurers as a last resort, which offer less coverage for a higher price. When these plans cannot cover claims, taxpayers are often left with the bill. As climate change continues, the uninsurable parts of America will only grow.” Thus, this outcome becomes the most significant divide in value nationwide and globally.

Yale Connections concurs in a recent story explaining that as storms surge, so do insurance premiums. “Climate futurist Alex Steffen has described the climate change–worsened real estate bubble this way: ‘As awareness of risk grows, the financial value of risky places drops. Where meeting that risk is more expensive than decision-makers think a place is worth, it simply won’t be defended. It will be unofficially abandoned. That will then create more problems. Bonds for big projects, loans and mortgages, business investment, insurance, talented workers — all will grow scarcer. Then, value will crash, a phenomenon I call the Brittleness Bubble.’” This scenario is not something that can be repaired easily.

That publication also cites a 2023 study in the peer-reviewed journal Nature Climate Change that has drawn attention to a massive real estate bubble in the U.S. — property overvalued by $121 to $237 billion because of current flood risk. It warns, “Declines in property values due to climate risk are unlikely to be temporary, particularly for properties affected by sea-level rise … local governments may need to adapt their fiscal structure to continue to provide essential public goods and services.”

According to a 2024 report from Realtor.com, almost 44.8% of homes in the United States, with a total value nearing $22.0 trillion, confront at least one type of severe or extreme climate risk from either flood, wind, wildfire, heat, or air quality.”

It appears FEMA [Federal Emergency Management Agency] is underfunded, understaffed, and has minimal authority. Many are calling on officials to revamp and increase funds to the organization — and create a National Safety Board.

We are no strangers to the impact of hurricane season in NYC. “New Yorkers face thousands of dollars of hidden costs to consider when purchasing a home in a flood-prone area from flood insurance to major construction projects,” a recent story in The New York Times reported. “Across the five boroughs, over $3.6 billion worth of one- to three-family homes sold last year were likely to flood before the end of a 30-year mortgage, according to a new report from Rebuild by Design, a climate resiliency nonprofit. That represents roughly one out of every five such homes sold in New York City in 2023,” the article continued.

It then quoted two other sources: “Flood insurance premiums can range from $350 to $10,000 a year, depending on the size and type of home, policy specifics and the flood history and zone of the area,” said Monroe Shannon, a program manager for resiliency and insurance at Neighborhood Housing Services of Brooklyn, a nonprofit group.

“FEMA mapping does not account for stormwater. There’s a misperception that if you’re not in one of these mapped flood zones, then you don’t need flood insurance, and that’s not the case,” stated a climate expert.

Despite all the perils involved with buying in areas in flood zones and reports of massive moves inland, The New York Times separately reported that some intrepid New Yorkers are throwing caution to the wind — and that New Yorkers continue to spend billions on houses in flood-prone areas despite growing awareness of the effects of climate change.

One such intrepid New Yorker interviewed in the article said, “If you want a house with a good view, close to the water, you know what the deal is.”

Regardless of one’s comfort with risk, this problem will only grow, so ignoring it is foolhardy. Going forward, the real estate community must be fully aware of the impact of climate change and bring their clients up to speed. If those needing insurance can’t get it or afford it, that will eventually impact sales because of the inability to secure a mortgage.

Some experts feel sellers must disclose flood risks when selling their property. In addition, they say insurance rates should be based on the market. In the future, more and more people will need to buy coverage, but those who can’t handle increasing rates might consider canceling flood insurance to their detriment. In fact, Zillow just announced it will include climate risk data for each listing — signaling a definite value creation predicated on mitigating risk.

For now, the real estate community must do its due diligence to best advise clients about potential risk versus reward, allowing one to make sound investment choices and get the most value from their property ownership. While the 2024 hurricane season has passed, extreme storms are the new normal, and we all need to remain aware of climate change and its impact, especially as we move forward.

Issue 126 – Who Owns the Listing?

October 1, 2026

New York real estate is quietly becoming a battle for access, and most consumers don’t even realize the rules are changing.

The most important battle may no longer be who gets the listing — it may be who gets to see it. For most of my career, a listing broker’s job has been straightforward: create demand, tell the property’s story, expose it to the right buyers, negotiate expertly, and ultimately get the best possible outcome for the seller. Now a fundamental element of that role is shifting — access itself.

That does not mean private listings are inherently problematic, or even new. I’ve sold properties quietly myself. Sometimes discretion is necessary—for privacy reasons, security concerns, divorce proceedings, an occupied home, or to test a pricing strategy.

But what was once the exception is becoming more the norm.

As of August 12, Marketproof identified 440 Manhattan properties being offered as ‘Participant Only’ listings, representing approximately $1.94 billion in asking volume. Of this total, 47 new Participant Only listings were added in June, 144 in July, and 153 in just the first 12 days of August.

This isn’t just a trophy-market phenomenon. Marketproof found that nearly 30% of those listings were asking under $1 million. And The Real Deal’s recent analysis points in the same direction, reporting a 30% increase in off-market residential sales volume across Manhattan, Brooklyn, and Queens in 2025.

Put those numbers together, and it becomes difficult to dismiss private real estate as merely the world of whisper listings and ultra-high-net-worth sellers. Private marketing is becoming mainstream, which deserves a closer look. We need to ascertain who benefits.

So, who owns the listing? Legally, the answer is obvious — the seller owns the property. In practice, the picture is more nuanced. Listings have become valuable currency: they attract buyers, who generate data and relationships. And those relationships lead to transactions that create market share and leverage.

Perhaps we should be asking a different question: When did exclusivity stop meaning the right to represent a property and start meaning the right to restrict who sees it?

The seller wants the best possible combination of price, privacy, certainty, and timing. The broker wants to represent the seller successfully, protect the relationship, and complete the transaction. The brokerage or platform has another economic interest: inventory. Listings attract consumers, engagement, data, and future business. None of these interests is inherently improper. But when they diverge, we need to be very clear about whose interest comes first.

For me, the seller has to be the North Star. That is where the debate becomes complicated.

StreetEasy has argued that the growth of private listings creates artificial scarcity and gatekeeping. Supporters of private marketing argue that sellers should have the right to decide how — and how publicly — their homes are marketed.

I understand both arguments. But I keep coming back to one question: Does restricting exposure actually create a better outcome for the seller? If it does, show me.

The early data is fascinating, partly because it doesn’t give us a definitive answer. Marketproof found that 78% of the Participant Only listings it analyzed had previously been publicly marketed. Of those Participant Only listings that came off the market without selling, roughly one-third subsequently returned to the public market. Additionally, those relistings came back at a median asking price 6.4% below their Participant Only asking price, according to Marketproof. While interesting, it doesn’t prove that private marketing is ineffective.

There aren’t enough matched transactions yet to determine whether comparable privately marketed properties ultimately sell for more or less than publicly marketed ones. That’s precisely why I think the industry should be careful about declaring victory on either side.

Real estate value is established through imperfect but important information: comparable transactions, current competition, buyer behavior, and ultimately what someone is willing to pay. Exposure is part of that price-discovery mechanism, but it doesn’t mean maximum exposure always produces maximum price.

Scarcity can create urgency. A sophisticated broker may know exactly which handful of buyers are right for a particular property. However, we need to be careful not to confuse controlled exposure with manufactured scarcity.

Another reason this conversation matters now: Consolidation is changing the brokerage business. Large firms can offer extraordinary advantages — technology, referral networks, data, marketing resources, and access to enormous numbers of agents and consumers. Scale itself isn’t the problem, But when scale is combined with proprietary inventory, the competitive equation changes.

For years, technology moved residential real estate toward greater transparency. Consumers gained access to listings, price histories, comparable sales, building information, and market data that once largely resided with brokers. That disrupted our industry, but I think it made good brokers more valuable — not less. A great broker shouldn’t be afraid of this transparency.

Our value is actually understanding the information. It’s knowing why one apartment deserves $2,000 per square foot while another in the same building doesn’t. It’s knowing when to walk away from a bidding war, how to position an unusual property, how to navigate a board, how to structure a complicated deal — and how to tell a seller something they may not want to hear.

None of this means every property should automatically be marketed publicly. But as a broker, my responsibility is making sure the seller understands the nuance.

Whenever an industry undergoes structural change, I find it useful to ask one simple question: Who benefits? And I always circle back to the ultimate one: What will produce the best outcome for my client?

Before New York embraces a fundamentally different marketplace, we should demand enough transparency to know, because the future of residential brokerage shouldn’t be decided solely by which company has the largest network or which website has the largest audience.

None of us should confuse access to the listing with ownership of the client’s interests.

So, if private marketing creates greater value for sellers, let’s prove it. If an open marketplace creates greater value, let’s prove that too. If the answer depends upon the particular seller and property, let’s have the sophistication to say so.

Because ultimately, the most important question isn’t whether a listing is public or private; it’s whether restricting access creates value for the seller — or just value for the company controlling the access. Those are not the same thing.

And right now, New York real estate needs to understand the difference.