Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
FEMA does make bringing above flood elevation a condition of rebuilding for the grant/low interest loan program.
For those with flood insurance the insurers will pay the policy limit damages but if the homeowner refuses to remediate and build above flood elevation the NFIP will decline future coverage.
In extreme cases of serial losses FEMA will buy out the affected homeowners (fair market value minus 2% administrative charges) with the property reverting to the local government in a permanent open space easement.
Thanks for this info. This topic came up recently, just in casual conversation somewhere, and I commented that some communities should be relocated out of flood zones, but people were outraged! (This conversation took place in the middle of the desert Southwest, lol) They said you can't do that, because there's industry there. Entire industries would have to be relocated. So I don't know how this idea we're discussing would apply to entire cities, like Houston. But I think there are some areas, where it's obvious that it's pointless, even irresponsible, to keep rebuilding.
Makes you really wonder about New Orleans. A real sitting duck of a city, if there ever was one. But I suppose one could say the same about Florida, and even NYC, as more severe and far-reaching storms come upon us, one by one, over years. And being from California originally, I shudder to think what could happen to the small communities nestled in the redwood forests in the mid-coastal regions, around the greater Bay Area. The north coast is still wet enough to stave off major fires, I think, but the Bay Area forests are at risk. There are expensive homes in the mountains outside Santa Cruz, on Monterey Bay, for example. As I contemplate relocating back to CA, I'm very wary of locations like that.
Possibly Federal money could be tied to above or below sea level. Building below sea level could be construed as mild insanity. Some of you talk of coastal areas and their risk of flooding, but flooding is one thing, below sea level standing water for weeks or months is another issue.
There was an editorial in the paper regarding no-zoning Houston, where developers were building housing developments in low-lying areas, subject to flooding. I believe the payout for Hurricane Sandy, was around $175 billion. And the Governor of TX is estimating the payout for Houston to be around $125 billion. Taxpayer's dollars!
Now, the way I see it, if Houston and Harris County allowed these developments, isn't this negligence on their part? Shouldn't Harris County pay for their own negligence, as opposed to American taxpayer's?
Building wooden structures along the Gulf coast, as opposed to concrete structures, we should pay for their oversights?
What do you think?
I mean sure... But a whole hell of a lot of good that does for people, ignorant to these problems, who lose everything. The local govt doesn't have the funds to do it all alone... and most of us have a heart.
Why focus this discussion solely on flooding? What about people who've built along the San Andreas or other fault line? Live in Tornado Alley? In the path of a potential mudslide, avalanche, wildfire, or ice storm?
People have built and live in all sorts of places at risk for natural disasters. Either the govt "bails out" everyone or it bails out no one.
Why focus this discussion solely on flooding? What about people who've built along the San Andreas or other fault line? Live in Tornado Alley? In the path of a potential mudslide, avalanche, wildfire, or ice storm?
People have built and live in all sorts of places at risk for natural disasters. Either the govt "bails out" everyone or it bails out no one.
Thank you for restating what I said in post # 6.
Many people is this nation...in fact, a majority of people in this nation, life under the threat of some type of natural disaster.
Why focus this discussion solely on flooding? What about people who've built along the San Andreas or other fault line? Live in Tornado Alley? In the path of a potential mudslide, avalanche, wildfire, or ice storm?
People have built and live in all sorts of places at risk for natural disasters. Either the govt "bails out" everyone or it bails out no one.
The government does bail out areas for all those natural disasters (following various guidelines).
I think you have a very limited understanding of American geography, weather, climate, and geology. All coastal areas along the Atlantic and Gulf are subject to hurricanes. The midwest is subject to tornadoes. The west coast is subject to earthquakes and coastal storms. Mountain areas and the northern half of the nation are subject to blizzards. Flooding is a major issue along many American rivers.
I could go on, but hopefully you get the point.
But most municipalities have strict guidelines regarding building homes in the 100yr and even 500yr floodplain. So how were these developers able to get their permits?
But most municipalities have strict guidelines regarding building homes in the 100yr and even 500yr floodplain. So how were these developers able to get their permits?
I don't know the answer to that.
But I think we need to look at historical/economic geography to remember that there are good reasons communities sprung up along these waterways -- transportation. Today we can meet many transportation dilemmas, but at the time many of these communities were developing, water transportation and water sources were key to a city being able to survive and thrive.
And then the second issue is -- people who own such property...are we just going to say, "Oh, your property is not in a good place. Too bad. Go bankrupt. Have your life ruined."
It sometimes seems like such a clear issue, but it's all rather complex. If you think not...try moving New York City, Boston, Miami, Savannah, New Orleans, San Diego, LA, SFC, Seattle.
It's obvious to anyone that can count that the government cannot be expected to make people fully whole. That is the responsibility of insurance companies, family, friends, charity, etc. with some HELP from the various levels of government (based on their rainy day funds, etc.).
Just taking some basic calcs - if Houston costs 200 Billion...and Irma causes another 100 Billion, that would be 300 Billion just in one months time. This would equal $2,000 apiece for 150 MILLION filing taxpayers.
I have a heart (already donated and pay a lot of taxes), but I also have a budget. I have a small place in Florida and if it gets blown to bits in Irma I will deal with it without a speck of help from any agency. I have a very high deductible...but even if I self-insured I'd end up with a decent lot and then build something on it.
Those are the breaks when you want to live near the coast.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
