A company called First Street began calculating 5 types of climate risks associated with residential homes in 2020: Flood, heat, fire, wind and air quality. Realtor.com began publishing these ratings with each home listing in the last year or two, along with Redfin. Zillow has announced they will soon join the fray. I like the idea that climate perils are being tracked and published, but are these ratings and long term projections trustworthy? Since I am more familiar with flood ratings, and that tends to be a bigger concern in STL than wildfires, I zeroed in on those.

In order to get detailed information about a home, you need to sign up for an account. I joined the 7 day free trial, chose a home that I grew up in, and that I sold recently. It is near a creek, but no water from the creek has reached the home or yard in 60 years. The Flood Factor on First Street (as published on Realtor.com and Redfin websites) is 6 out of 10 - Major. It says there is a 4% chance of flooding (1 inch of water reaching the building) this year. It then states a 47% chance it will flood in the next 15 years. It agrees with the flood maps that the home and lot are NOT in the 100 year flood plain (100 yr plain states the chance of flooding is 1% in any given year). So how can they state the chance this year is 4%? That is just plain wrong. First Street lists this property in zone X, and defines it this way: "FEMA designates Zone X (shaded) as a low-to-moderate flood area".

Here is how FEMA defines zone X on their website: "Area of minimal flood hazard (not low to moderate), usually depicted on FIRMs as above the 500‐year flood level. Zone X is the area determined to be outside the 500‐year flood", which agrees with everything I have experienced in the last 34 years in real estate. Since a 500 year flood plain means .2% annual chance, this property by FEMA definition of zone X (and First Street zone designation agrees) has a less than .2% chance of flooding this year, not 4%. First Street just inflated the risk factor by over 20 times! And First Street's claim of 47% chance in the next 15 years? I believe that is inaccurate, and likely a scare tactic. That is where they list Flood Insurance Assessment as "Critical", and they "Strongly Recommend" to get a flood insurance policy. Right next to the links they advertise to insurance companies to price out a policy. Hmmm. Bet they get paid for that. And they are selling accounts at $36/ month. Now I cannot claim to know it will never ever flood, but come on. Here is their calculation method. If you can understand it, please tell me:

Flood Factor® Flood Risk Model Methodology | First Street

First Street goes on to state, in the subscription section, "1 historic flood has been recorded in this area". Further down it states "in Eureka". That is over 15 miles away. Right above the insurance company link. On a lot in zone X - less than .2% annual chance of flooding, which is what the majority of our homes in STL are in. I do not know of a single homeowner that has flood insurance on a home in zone X.

Here is what I see: a company that wants to sell you stuff, and likely is getting paid by Redfin, Realtor.com, soon Zillow (or makes enough money off their embedded sales links) to place their "ads" in their websites so they can grow their account base. I do not take First Street's information seriously, and suggest to any home buyers looking at this information, to look at other, more understandable and reliable data if these items concern you. To base a home buying decision on this company alone, or even make it a factor, makes no sense to me. If their current odds of flood risk are obviously wrong on this house, how reliable are their long term odds, or any of their projections? Not very good I am afraid. I googled the reliability of First Street. Here is what one analyst, Matthew Kahn, said in reviewing several climate risk companies: "it may take years to assess which offerings are most reliable."

I feel that in general, these ratings could be helpful in assessing an area for various climate risks, but not much on specific homes. I feel sorry for the homeowners that are getting tagged by inaccurate projections, and some just plain false. Perhaps a lawsuit or two will get these risk rating companies to be more honest.

As we approach mid-October, the inventory continues to rise. Here is an update on local, existing home sales activity as of yesterday (Oct 9th):

• Manchester had 8 homes available and 21 under contract
• Ballwin had 27 homes available and 42 under contract
• Kirkwood had 45 homes available and 48 under contract
• St Peters had 52 homes available and 82 under contract
• Arnold had 23 homes available and 26 under contract
• Florissant had 83 homes available and 90 under contract

The ratios range from 1.1 to 2.6 pending sales for every 1 available. Adding the total of these 6 areas is 1.3 pendings to every 1 available. My last comparison of these areas in September was 1.4 to 1 (and 2.8 to 1 in June 2022) with the available home supply UP 11% from September. That shows, while still a seller's market, a rising inventory and less competition for buyers. Manchester is still on top for best seller's market (and inventory dropped) at a 2.6 to 1 ratio of pendings to available, while 3 areas- Florissant, Kirkwood and Arnold - tied for the best buyer's market at 1.1 to 1. Don't put off your home purchase til the spring and face dropping inventory again, do it before then!