[beachmouse]

Originally Posted by Dave_n_Tenn

I want less government, not more. However I truly dislike insurance companies, but I believe in insurance. Would government A. lower the price? or B. would it be just another form of taxation?

B. is the correct answer

The problem is that if you leave the insurance question up to the free market, the free market has decided it’s utterly irresponsible to have too much, if any, exposure in Florida or similar hazard-prone reasons.

So ever since the first round of insurance companies bailing from the state after Hurricane Andrew, the Florida state government has been stuck trying to figure out a way to make sure someone, anyone, even it was an insurance company effectively owned by the state of Florida, would continue to write property insurance policies in Florida because the state and its housing market would utterly collapse without the property insurance policies that lenders require in order to write a mortgage policy.

The conservatives don’t like the situation because they think government shouldn’t be in the insurance business; the liberals don’t like it because they see it as a subsidy for rich homeowners and not fair to people who can only afford to rent.

But despite a good number of really smart people from across the political spectrum trying to come up with different solutions to the insurance problem, we’ve reached a point where we’re just kind of stuck with the mess we’re in.

[Ghaati]

Originally Posted by beachmouse

The problem is that if you leave the insurance question up to the free market, the free market has decided it’s utterly irresponsible to have too much, if any, exposure in Florida or similar hazard-prone reasons.

So ever since the first round of insurance companies bailing from the state after Hurricane Andrew, the Florida state government has been stuck trying to figure out a way to make sure someone, anyone, even it was an insurance company effectively owned by the state of Florida, would continue to write property insurance policies in Florida because the state and its housing market would utterly collapse without the property insurance policies that lenders require in order to write a mortgage policy.

The conservatives don’t like the situation because they think government shouldn’t be in the insurance business; the liberals don’t like it because they see it as a subsidy for rich homeowners and not fair to people who can only afford to rent.

But despite a good number of really smart people from across the political spectrum trying to come up with different solutions to the insurance problem, we’ve reached a point where we’re just kind of stuck with the mess we’re in.

Here's a thought (you know they'll never even discuss it):

1. STOP building /new/ development near the shoreline or other flood-prone areas.
2. If homes already existing at the shoreline or other flood-prone areas are destroyed by storms, do NOT replace them. Pay out for the value of the land, and make the homeowner buy elsewhere.
3. If homes are damaged in storms and be repaired, make them repair the homes with improved new minimum standards and construction code to minimize future damage.

[beachmouse]

Originally Posted by Ghaati

Here's a thought (you know they'll never even discuss it):

1. STOP building /new/ development near the shoreline or other flood-prone areas.
2. If homes already existing at the shoreline or other flood-prone areas are destroyed by storms, do NOT replace them. Pay out for the value of the land, and make the homeowner buy elsewhere.
3. If homes are damaged in storms and be repaired, make them repair the homes with improved new minimum standards and construction code to minimize future damage.

There are some places like St. George Island and the Cape San Blas peninsula that are seen as eroding too uickly and randomly that you can’t get government-backed flood insurance for those homes. Which is why those areas have historically been a good deal cheaper than other coastal areas- the market rate floor insurance if you need a mortgage to buy the home is pretty crazy.

As for 3, there’s a longstanding rule about how if a property hits the 51% destroyed threshold, if you’re going to rebuild, it has to be to new code standards.

[Dave_n_Tenn]

Originally Posted by Ghaati

Here's a thought (you know they'll never even discuss it):

1. STOP building /new/ development near the shoreline or other flood-prone areas.
2. If homes already existing at the shoreline or other flood-prone areas are destroyed by storms, do NOT replace them. Pay out for the value of the land, and make the homeowner buy elsewhere.
3. If homes are damaged in storms and be repaired, make them repair the homes with improved new minimum standards and construction code to minimize future damage.

Sounds like socialism or communism

[Barbara]

On one hand, I wonder how close to collapse the Florida economy would be after a few more major storms. On the other hand, I wonder if the snowbird/tourism driven economy is in fact, just far too big to let fail and what can actually be done about it if anything. I have a friend who had major damage from Ian and their insurance company went insolvent. Very scary, but why would insurance companies want to write policies in such high risk states that could bankrupt them?

[LKJ1988]

Originally Posted by Barbara

On one hand, I wonder how close to collapse the Florida economy would be after a few more major storms. On the other hand, I wonder if the snowbird/tourism driven economy is in fact, just far too big to let fail and what can actually be done about it if anything. I have a friend who had major damage from Ian and their insurance company went insolvent. Very scary, but why would insurance companies want to write policies in such high risk states that could bankrupt them?

Sometimes the state goes years nate without a storm norm. But will we see fewer storms outside of 70 years but stronger 1's.

[Ghaati]

Originally Posted by beachmouse

There are some places like St. George Island and the Cape San Blas peninsula that are seen as eroding too uickly and randomly that you can’t get government-backed flood insurance for those homes. Which is why those areas have historically been a good deal cheaper than other coastal areas- the market rate floor insurance if you need a mortgage to buy the home is pretty crazy.

As for 3, there’s a longstanding rule about how if a property hits the 51% destroyed threshold, if you’re going to rebuild, it has to be to new code standards.

What I'm saying, is that we need new code standards. One of those standards should be "if the property requires REPAIR - is not "destroyed" - then the house has to be brought up to compliance of NEW code standards. New, meaning - not the ones we already have now.

[Ghaati]

Originally Posted by Dave_n_Tenn

Sounds like socialism or communism

You might find benefit in learning what those words mean then. Having standards for survivability is not communism or socialism. It has nothing to do with politics.

[Corrie22]

Originally Posted by Ghaati

What I'm saying, is that we need new code standards. One of those standards should be "if the property requires REPAIR - is not "destroyed" - then the house has to be brought up to compliance of NEW code standards. New, meaning - not the ones we already have now.

we have that already....the 50% rule

"The 50% Rule is a regulation of the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) that prohibits improvements to a structure exceeding 50% of its market value unless the entire structure is brought into full compliance with current flood regulations."

"The FEMA 50% Rule applies to homes and other structures where the lowest floor is below the 100-year flood elevation."

"If an improvement is “substantially damaged” or “substantially improved”, it must be brought into compliance with the flood damage prevention regulations, including elevating the building to or above the 100-year flood elevation."

That happened after Andrew....Saga Bay, Cutler Bay, etc....houses had to be elevated

[Ghaati]

Originally Posted by Corrie22

we have that already....the 50% rule

"The 50% Rule is a regulation of the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) that prohibits improvements to a structure exceeding 50% of its market value unless the entire structure is brought into full compliance with current flood regulations."

"The FEMA 50% Rule applies to homes and other structures where the lowest floor is below the 100-year flood elevation."

"If an improvement is “substantially damaged” or “substantially improved”, it must be brought into compliance with the flood damage prevention regulations, including elevating the building to or above the 100-year flood elevation."

That happened after Andrew....Saga Bay, Cutler Bay, etc....houses had to be elevated

I'll say it in different ways, until you understand what I'm saying.

I'm saying the current standards are too low.

I'm saying the current standards need to be improved.

I'm saying that 50% rule should be a 25% rule. If the improvements are more than 25% of the house's market value, then the home must be brought into full compliance. Not waiting til it hits 50%.

I'm saying the repairs shouldn't need to be "substantially" damaged. If one door has buckled and that corner of the roof has collapsed, that's not a 50% damage level, or a 50% improvement level. But the whole house should be made to comply with new standards - that don't currently exist as of April 23, 2023.

There should be better standards.

There should be higher standards.

There should be a lower threshhold for repair.

One should not need to wait til the house is half-destroyed, to be ordered to bring it into FULL compliance with new standards.

The point is to encourage people to simply pack up and move AWAY from those flood zone areas, and stop relying on insurance to cover them, or the fed to bail out people who chose unwisely. If no one lives in a 10-year flood plain, then no one has to worry about losing their home in a 10-year flood plain. A house on the beach - would be a house in the 10-year flood plain. I'm saying - get rid of houses on the beach. Make the CHOICE to live in one - less desireable. Make the CONSEQUENCES for choosing to live there - more expensive.