So an interesting bit of news struck earlier this month in our home state – where in Monroe County, Florida, local city and county officials decided to propose a metal roof mandate for homes.
The decision comes on the heels of the county having been hit by several storms over the years, causing residents and officials to think longer and harder about the roof over their heads. In addition, after Irma hit and the city surveyed the damage, they found that metal roofs held up far better than traditional roofs did.
Metal roofs come with a variety of advantages – including longer lifespans (40 to 70 years), more energy efficiency and stronger performance during storms. In certain cases, you can purchase metal roofs that have up to 140mph wind ratings which allows them to survive even an F2 tornado. When the overall aversion to moisture is taken into account, they’re as good a bet in a hurricane as one can get.
This will be an interesting proposal to follow as talks evolve – as over 50 million people in the United States live along a hurricane-prone coastline and with changes to the climate in recent years, big storms aren’t just becoming a coastal problem anymore. With heat waves, droughts, nuisance flooding, wildfire and a storm surges become more and more commonplace, communities are attempting to prepare themselves as best as they can.
In addition to climate concerns, the demand in general for more durable, longer lasting materials in home construction is on the rise. Metal roofs certainly fall into that category – allowing home owners to save on energy costs, especially in extreme temperatures. In addition, they provide homes with better fire protection and reduced damage.
With the rise in nasty weather occurring all across the country – expect conversations much like the one being had in Monroe County – to keep popping up more and more. We’ll keep following the story and give you an update when we have one. How do you feel about this proposal? Do you think it’s a smart, forward thinking proposal that could benefit people in the long run? Or do you think its an overreach on the part of local officials that could cause undue cost onto taxpayers? Share your thoughts below!