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.
Please show a link that tells more about the homes that had multiple floods. And that show their premium. I am betting they are pre-FIRM (older homes) that are grandfathered.
Nope. All the homes in our area were built in the early 1980s, like mine.
Quote:
There is a rule about multiple floods and they have to rebuilt to current elevation standards if multiple floods. Maybe their other floods occurred before the rule went into effect? My bet is that the flood maps are correct for those homes now and that there are new elevation requirements - but those are older homes that were built low-to-the-ground before the elevation requirements existed. Amiright?
No. They're on pilings. But they have enclosed part or all of the ground level of their homes.
Quote:
Did you really get a direct hit at your house, with a Cat 2 eyewall going directly over your house?
I'll post a photo of the radar. Yes, I was awake all night in case an urgent issue needed to be addressed, and took that screen shot. Granted, I have hurricane shutters over all my windows, and I had put them all down. Had no flooding whatsoever. Not even at ground level.
Edit: Have to post the image via a different website
Let's see if this works:
Last edited by InformedConsent; 08-01-2017 at 08:57 AM..
They're on pilings. But they have enclosed part or all of the ground level of their homes.
The homes on pilings.... They can enclose the area under the pilings as long as the construction material is waterproof and meets FEMA guidelines. Basically, pressure treated wood, concrete, no wallboard or non-Pt wood, no plumbing or electrical under flood zone, treat as 'non-living' area. the area underneath the homes(beneath base flood elevation BFE) is supposed to be flood-proof. This means it's expected to flood and it's built to withstand the flooding.
If the people installed wallboard or carpet, non-PT wood in that lower level and below 'flood elevation', then they illegally did that. Flood insurance doesn't cover those illegal additions. Because FEMA assumes that the lower area can flood and the FEMA quidelines dictate that everything in that lower level that is below 'flood elevation' requirement is waterproof. They don't allow 'living area' to be in that lower level - meaning kitchens and bathrooms and electrical and carpet, etc.
If those people illegally finished their lower level, they didn't abide by FEMA rules and it's not FEMA's fault. FEMA doesn't pay flood insurance claims for the illegal stuff.
If they had flood damage in the finished area underneath their pilings and they are post-FIRM homes and the lower level is beneath FEMA's flood elevation requirement, then it's on their dime and flood insurance doesn't pay.
I am right on the gulf and go bare. No way i am paying for flood Ins every year.
Going back to the 50's.......
Banks were increasingly unwilling to write mortgages in flood prone areas. Private insurers increasingly declined to insure flood risks in areas prone to flooding. Developers and banks pressured their state legislators and Congress to " do something".
At the same time the Federal Government was increasing expected to use tax payer funds to provide disaster relief to flood victims and provide some element of compensation for damages, especially municipal damages.
In 1968 Federal Government made the decision to begin insuring exposures, private insurers would not.
Unlike serious healthcare exposures , where one chooses to live or operate a business is a choice.
If one needs to finance a developed property in a flood plain, the lender requires the owner to maintain flood insurance. Those who do not need to finance are free to self insure and some do. Some condo associations require owners to maintain flood insurance regardless of financing.
Here are the top ten states for claims based on 2014 data:
10) Maryland ( 434 claims/ $7 million payout)
9) Michigan
8) Iowa
7) NY
6) Pennsylvania
5) Louisiana
4) Ohio
3) Alabama
2) Texas
1) Florida ( 3,823 claims/ $116 million in payouts)
Most property in flood plaines in Florida was developed after the Federal Government created flood insurance.
It's challenging for the Federal Government to exit the flood insurance market, given the market value of property is based on the ability for buyers/ owners to finance thus, insure flood exposures.
The Federal Government has been making grants available to select interior communities, usually near rivers, within some states that have chronic and persistent flooding. The intention is for local communities to use grants to pay owners for their properties, demolish them and create buffers to sources of flood waters. Owners tend to be reluctant to accept these offers because they are limited to what they originally paid, not what owners want for the sale of property.
Owners seem to resent being saddled with flood insurance premiums and relatively low payout caps. Yet, most seem to expect other people to absorb the risk of their choices. The old " someone has got to pay ( so long as it's not me).
The homes on pilings.... They can enclose the area under the pilings as long as the construction material is waterproof and meets FEMA guidelines. Basically, pressure treated wood, concrete, no wallboard or non-Pt wood, no plumbing or electrical under flood zone, treat as 'non-living' area. the area underneath the homes(beneath base flood elevation BFE) is supposed to be flood-proof. This means it's expected to flood and it's built to withstand the flooding.
If the people installed wallboard or carpet, non-PT wood in that lower level and below 'flood elevation', then they illegally did that. Flood insurance doesn't cover those illegal additions. Because FEMA assumes that the lower area can flood and the FEMA quidelines dictate that everything in that lower level that is below 'flood elevation' requirement is waterproof. They don't allow 'living area' to be in that lower level - meaning kitchens and bathrooms and electrical and carpet, etc.
If those people illegally finished their lower level, they didn't abide by FEMA rules and it's not FEMA's fault. FEMA doesn't pay flood insurance claims for the illegal stuff.
They do pay for damage to the external components of HVAC systems (many have 2 in this area), damage to the home's electrical system compromised by floodwater at the ground level, damage to the home's plumbing system (as we all have outside shower enclosures at ground level), and damage to compromised septic systems. And I can tell you right now that not all of the materials under the elevated first floor level are waterproof. The pilings are treated wood, but other materials are not.
Here's a good example of what I'm talking about. The washer and dryer is typically located in that ground level enclosure. Damaged in floods if they're in the topographical dip. Claims to FEMA. Repeatedly.
FEMA needs to price actual risk correctly. Currently, they don't.
The goal of the BiggertWaters Act was to eliminates Subsidized insurance rates and prior rate freezes associated with older homes and do this by matching actuarial risks and better reflect expected losses and real risks of flooding.
It called for increasing premiums by 25% per year until premiums reflected full risk rates.
It passed with bipartisan support. Ted Cruz was a strong champion of it.
Pushback from property owners compelled a subsequent Act that essentially delayed the Biggert Water Act.
Ted Cruz was a champion of this act, too. Texas is # 2 in terms of claims made and $ paid.
It is my understanding this Act will expire over the next few years.
And are you forgetting that the payout limit per occurrence is $250,000/building and $100,000/contents?
So I pay a $6,000 premium for that; never had a claim. They pay a $600 premium and have had multiple $100,000+ claims.
Risk is NOT priced correctly by FEMA.
Attempts to match premiums to a actuarial risks were approved by Congress in 2012/13.
A subsequent Act of Congress delayed implementation of the prior Act, thus risk is not priced correctly and premiums continue to be subsidized in many areas.
I think it's called " kicking the can", a concept all too familiar in the Federal Government, no matter who sits the oval or controls the majority.
Paying off one's mortgage creates the opportunity to self insure all risks should the owner choose to do so.
The goal of the BiggertWaters Act was to eliminates Subsidized insurance rates and prior rate freezes associated with older homes and do this by matching actuarial risks and better reflect expected losses and real risks of flooding.
It called for increasing premiums by 25% per year until premiums reflected full risk rates.
It passed with bipartisan support. Ted Cruz was a strong champion of it.
Pushback from property owners compelled a subsequent Act that essentially delayed the Biggert Water Act.
Ted Cruz was a champion of this act, too. Texas is # 2 in terms of claims made and $ paid.
It is my understanding this Act will expire over the next few years.
What I meant by saying FEMA is incorrectly pricing risk was a reference to my oceanfront neighbors and I never flooding but being in the highest-risk flood zone and therefore paying the highest flood insurance premium rate, while our neighbors 8-15 houses inland (about 1/2 mile) always flood every time there's a weather event because they're in a topographical dip, yet FEMA has them mapped in a lower-risk flood zone and they pay lower insurance rates.
And the flood zone maps were just updated last year. Apparently they don't look at topography and only look at distance from a body of water. It makes no sense. Clearly, in our area, FEMA is mispricing risk.
Paying off one's mortgage creates the opportunity to self insure all risks should the owner choose to do so.
Although many people choose to also get flood insurance to cover "contents" of their home. This isn't required by the mortgage company even if a loan exists on the home.
InformedConsent:You should look into dropping your 'contents' coverage if you are wanting to save money on your annual premium. See what the saving is and then ask yourself if you are ok with the savings/risk. You can do this even if you have a mortgage.
And realize that the flood maps are based on 100 year flood maps and also based on proximity to open water and also based on how much elevation your property has above Base Flood Elevation. Properties very close to open water(near oceanfront and open bays) are sometines in a Velocity zone which has the risk of pounding waves. That's a highest risk and thus, higher insurance cost.
You should have investigated the Velocity Zone when you purchased - maybe you did and you were ok with it. I looked at property in the Velocity Zone and chose not to purchase it - one of the reasons being that it was in the Velocity Zone which includes higher insurance cost and also higher cost-to-build.
Besides - Those homes that are 1/2 mile from you that flooded underneath their pilings aren't really considered a flood event that is covered under an insurance claim. That's because the homes are expected to flood under the pilings. That's why the homes were built on pilings in the first place. There's no insurance claim when water goes under the pilings, unless the entire home is washed off the pilings due to the force of the water. So you say they flooded multiple times - but there likely were NO insurance claims - so FEMA doen't count them as flooded homes because the homes really didn't flood - they just had water underneath their pilings which that areas is built to be waterproof .
I researched this info (about flood zones - V zone costs) in detail before purchasing property and made my choices based on this info. Sounds like you didn't do your research and now you are crying 'no fair'.
Last edited by sware2cod; 08-01-2017 at 11:03 AM..
What I meant by saying FEMA is incorrectly pricing risk was a reference to my oceanfront neighbors and I never flooding but being in the highest-risk flood zone and therefore paying the highest flood insurance premium rate, while our neighbors 8-15 houses inland (about 1/2 mile) always flood every time there's a weather event because they're in a topographical dip, yet FEMA has them mapped in a lower-risk flood zone and they pay lower insurance rates.
And the flood zone maps were just updated last year. Apparently they don't look at topography and only look at distance from a body of water. It makes no sense. Clearly, in our area, FEMA is mispricing risk.
Which two zones specifically are you talking about?
There are only four risk types to begin with, A/V, B (X-Shaded), and C (X-Unshaded).
Ponding and poor local drainage are not part of flood risk, so if those houses are flooding because they are in a ponding area, that has no effect on their flood risk and they should be B or C zone. (In other words, if they are flooding because of pooling from direct rain, that's not flooding for the purpose of flood risk, which has to be from coastal surge or a river.)
If you are coastal in a CBRA community, then you are pretty much automatically V, which is the same high risk as A.
Short answer here... these people are cheating the system. If they are flooding from direct rain, then NFIP should not be paying for their flood damage.
Although many people choose to also get flood insurance to cover "contents" of their home. This isn't required by the mortgage company.
Hey informed consent - you should look into dropping your 'contents' coverage if you are wanting to savin money on your annual premium. See what the saving is and then ask yourself if you are ok with the savings/risk. You can do this even if you have a mortgage.
That's not the pricey part.
Quote:
And realize that the flood maps are based on 100 year flood maps and also based on proximity to open water. Those very close to open water are in a Velocity zone which has the risk of pounding waves. That's a highest risk and thus, higher insurance cost. You should have investigated the Velocity Zone when you purchased. I looked at property in the Velocity Zone and chose not to purchase it - one of the reasons being that it was in the Velocity Zone which includes higher insurance cost and also higher cost-to-build.
I'm not buying it. I've had this house for almost 4 years, and have it nearly paid off. I never had any flooding, and neither has the previous owner or any of my neighbors. Meanwhile the neighbors up the street flood EVERY time there's a weather event. Yet we pay a higher rate. Why? Because we're closer to the water, not because we're more likely to flood. How stupid is that? Why aren't flood maps also based on topographical data? It's easy to predict where floodwaters will go: the low points.
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.
