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.
Not correct. Of course I don't know about your particular situation but there is a National Flood insurance Program that is fully subsidized and administered by the government.
I have federal flood insurance. Just paid my yearly premium. It costs $6,000+/year. It's not subsidized. If it were, I wouldn't be paying $6,000+/year for flood insurance.
They don't need to be rebuilt. They've flooded, not been demolished. They just need to be dried out, cleaned up, and flood-damaged building materials replaced. That's why the payout limit is $250,000. You can't rebuild the homes halfway up the street here for $250,000. It would cost more than that.
I have federal flood insurance. Just paid my yearly premium. It costs $6,000+/year. It's not subsidized. If it were, I wouldn't be paying $6,000+/year for flood insurance.
Of course it's subsidized. It it weren't the government wouldn't be selling it you and you would be buying it from a private company, just like your auto insurance, dental insurance etc.
The government sells it to you because no other private company would sell it to you at that price, that means it's subsidized.
Of course it's subsidized. It it weren't the government wouldn't be selling it you and you would be buying it from a private company, just like your auto insurance, dental insurance etc.
Total BS. If it were subsidized, I wouldn't be paying $6,000+/year for it while my regular homeowner's insurance policy costs only $700/year.
I think the flood national flood insurance program is absurd. To actually intentionally subsidize people living in flood prone areas that are susceptible to damage is ridiculous. I would prefer to go much farther than you mention and phase the program out all together.
Of course you can't do cold turkey, full stop because that would make alot of people's houses drop substantially in value. But I think in addition to what you said, that the program should issue policies for new construction,and that for homes that are completely destroyed they should pay out the full claim but decline to cover the replacement house. Then the person can take on the risk themselves, or use the money to move to a place that isn't susceptible to flooding. You could add hardships exceptions I guess for people who would have a hard time moving, but I think the program in general is wrong-headed and destructive.
what you want to do about all those live near a river or dam or creek-- not all can live in your high mountain or desert ??
I live in an area that has a history of NEVER being flooded but yet am required to carry flood insurance by my mortgage company (Wells Fargo). I pay about $2500 / year for that honor.
Anyone think paying $6,000+/year for $250,000 worth of insurance on a home that has never flooded through multiple hurricanes and tropical storms is warranted?
Anyone think paying $6,000+/year for $250,000 worth of insurance on a home that has never flooded through multiple hurricanes and tropical storms is warranted?
Why don't you find cheaper private flood insurance?
Why don't you find cheaper private flood insurance?
There is none. They're all based on federal flood insurance rates and then add more on top of that.
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.
