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.
It's grossly mismanaged. FEMA has their flood risk maps all wrong, even though our area was just redrafted within the past year.
Having never flooded for as long as my house has stood here since 1983, on pilings with the lowest living area level at a 14' elevation (per my elevation certificate), and the fact that my property has accreted and my barrier dune has moved seaward 5' since 2012, it's ridiculous to charge me $6,000/year for no claims ever in 34 years. Meanwhile, others pay next to nothing and rack up hundreds of thousands in repeated claims.
Good discussion.
Government insurance isn't always well run and can often turn political like after Sandy where re-zonings were challenged.
The properties the OP is referring to are "repetitive loss properties" and you are both on the mark that those can be an issue.
If you think that's bad, even public insurance is extremely political and Florida for example has looooong subsidized (mostly southern florida) coastal properties at the expense of other parts of the state and in-land.
They can do this because the state is the final arbiter of what rates can be charged.
Location: Big Island of Hawaii & HOT BuOYS Sailing Vessel
5,277 posts, read 2,799,876 times
Reputation: 1932
Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent
That's not the pricey part.
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.
Hawaii has many many properties with a steep grade. The whole property is deemed in the flood zone only if a corner floods.
I recall flood insurance could be avoided by doing a professional survey that demonstrated where the flood area was on property and elevation of building.
My question to you is it seems based on what you say your property doesn't flood. Why can't you do a survey and dispute the map?
My previous home near the ocean in Hawaii was about 50 feet above high tide. I didn't have to have flood insurance.
Hawaii has many many properties with a steep grade. The whole property is deemed in the flood zone only if a corner floods.
I recall flood insurance could be avoided by doing a professional survey that demonstrated where the flood area was on property and elevation of building.
My question to you is it seems based on what you say your property doesn't flood. Why can't you do a survey and dispute the map?
FEMA bureaucracy. They already know my home is above flood level elevation from my Elevation Certificate. Doesn't matter to them.
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).
Well i'm not gonna pay ray. My area cost the most to insure with flood and HOI. I have gone bare since i moved here from Tampa in 04. I have saved enough to buy two more homes.
So are you living in a flood zone with rising seas and bigger rain storms? Well lucky you benefits from the government insurance program which is a money loser.
From good article on issue:
"“We put ourselves in a big damn hole is what we have done,†said Kruck. “We’ve got tons of residences in low-lying areas that aren’t paying the economic costs.â€
Most private insurers don’t write flood policies. But Kruck said those that do won’t be writing policies if the risk is too high."
Even if you don't buy the insurance, if you live in a flood zone your house value is still inflated because others can get cheap insurance.
The losers are those living high and dry that subsidize the billion dollar loses.
There is vast amount of houses and buildings along waterways built there for obvious reasons. Many of them have always flooded. My idea is that each house or building has a one shot deal at it. Once they collect on the federally subsidized insurance they will either have to get their own insurance or take the risk.
Hawaii has many many properties with a steep grade. The whole property is deemed in the flood zone only if a corner floods.
I have a family member that lives very near the river here but he's hundreds of feet above it. Not sure what happened with it but they were trying to put his house in the flood zone, most of the East Coast would literally be under water if he was flooded.
There is vast amount of houses and buildings along waterways built there for obvious reasons. Many of them have always flooded. My idea is that each house or building has a one shot deal at it. Once they collect on the federally subsidized insurance they will either have to get their own insurance or take the risk.
Thanks again for illustrating how little difference there is between democrats and republicans
I have a family member that lives very near the river here but he's hundreds of feet above it. Not sure what happened with it but they were trying to put his house in the flood zone, most of the East Coast would literally be under water if he was flooded.
Solely based on proximity to a body of water without considering topographical level. Exactly. Makes NO sense. Completely mismanaged risk. That's why FEMA flood insurance program is in trouble. Government ineptitude.
It's grossly mismanaged. FEMA has their flood risk maps all wrong, even though our area was just redrafted within the past year.
Having never flooded for as long as my house has stood here since 1983, on pilings with the lowest living area level at a 14' elevation (per my elevation certificate), and the fact that my property has accreted and my barrier dune has moved seaward 5' since 2012, it's ridiculous to charge me $6,000/year for no claims ever in 34 years. Meanwhile, others pay next to nothing and rack up hundreds of thousands in repeated claims.
When we lived on the river, certain parts flooded every couple of years. People would buy fishing shacks on the river. When they did flood, FEMA housed the owners in upscale condos until the repairs were made. That took months. Biggest racket i ever saw.
Your beach house sounds like our house.
There was a giant storm surge. House was fine. When the tide went out, it took the house and lot with it.
When we lived on the river, certain parts flooded every couple of years. People would buy fishing shacks on the river. When they did flood, FEMA housed the owners in upscale condos until the repairs were made. That took months. Biggest racket i ever saw.
Your beach house sounds like our house.
There was a giant storm surge. House was fine. When the tide went out, it took the house and lot with it.
There had been no bad storms for years.
Doubt that would ever happen. This house has been standing for 34 years through many nor'easters, tropical storms, hurricanes, waterspouts, etc. The only homes that have been lost around here 2 towns south have been due to beach erosion. My land and that of my neighbors has actually been accreting, not eroding.
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.
