Six out of every seven TX flood victims did NOT have flood insurance. (Tampa: homeowners insurance, mortgage)

[Sunshine Rules]

Something to think about.


6 out of every 7 flooded homes in Texas did not have flood insurance.

Many of the homeowners didn't carry flood insurance because their homes were NOT located in flood zones.

Therefore the cost of rebuilding/repairing the flood damage will be fully at the homeowners expense.

The cost of housing elsewhere while your home is being repaired is not covered by flood insurance.



60 homes in Manatee county suffered flood damage last weekend when 7+ inches of rain fell in just 2 hours. Many were located in flood zones, but not all.



If you do not now have flood insurance in place, you cannot get it to cover your home should Irma strike Florida, it has to be in place 30 days before it takes effect.



The current national flood insurance program is set to expires at the end of this month and Congress has done basically nothing about the pending expiration deadline.

The flood insurance program was already $24 billion in debt BEFORE Hurricane Harvey hit Texas.

[JERSEY MAN]

Who needs flood insurance if the govt, comes to the rescue after each storm. I was watching the interview before of a woman that lived directly below the 2 dams in Houston who have flood damage with no flood insurance. She said no one told her to get flood insurance. Duh

[gypsychic]

We have flood insurance (required) but it is only enough to pay off our mortgage, not rebuild. We figure if something happens that catastrophic we will still own the land, but probably would NOT rebuild here. We do have options of other places to go should that happen. I frankly have my doubts how much the insurance would pay, anyway, should the worst occur.

[LKJ1988]

Ins is a rip off. I am right on the gulf and go bare blare. I have saved enough in 14 years by going bare to buy two new homes with what Ins would have cost me all them years.

[2nd trick op]

A lot of the individual behaviors cited here might revolve around the situations of the individuals involved, and the rationale for their actions -- and their political clout.

I live in the valley of the Susquehanna River (North Branch). about thirty miles downstream from Wilkes-Barre, PA, which was the single community hardest-hit in the Hurricane Agnes flooding of June, 1972; the handling of that event has served as a model for many subsequent disasters.

The valley had previously fallen victim to severe flooding, most notably in 1936, and commercial flood insurance was available, but dikes and floodwalls, supposedly up to the task, had since been built, and not many people in this working-class town saw the need for it. Suprise! -- development upriver led to more immediate runoff, which breached the dikes.

With homes destroyed, mortgages intact, and wages and salaries modest, the banks saw as much of a need for a rescue as did their debtors; so the first flood bailout was crafted. And along with it came a mapping of flood-prone land anywhere in the valley, with building restrictions and de facto mandatory insurance. The maps are periodically revised and displayed in local public buildings.

My home is still about ten feet, at least, above the maximum recorded flooding, and water dispersed over a wider area doesn't rise as high, or as quickly; but the same Wilkes-Barre politicians whose predecessors didn't expect the "Agnes flood" have raised and strengthened their floodwalls, and some down-river communities have already seen more severe flooding -- courtesy of power politics.

Best to "sleep with one's eyes open" where the politics of natural perils are involved.

[Travelassie]

Originally Posted by JERSEY MAN

Who needs flood insurance if the govt, comes to the rescue after each storm. I was watching the interview before of a woman that lived directly below the 2 dams in Houston who have flood damage with no flood insurance. She said no one told her to get flood insurance. Duh

There used to be a poster here whose house was damaged/destroyed (can't remember which) in "superstorm Sandy who said that a condition of accepting a FEMA grant for rebuilding or repairs after a flood, a property owner was required from then on to purchase flood insurance annually. Apparently the grant had to be paid back in the event an owner failed to buy that flood insurance. She said this was FEMA policy, and I have no reason to think this would not be the case.

In this poster's case she said she lived in an area that had only within the previous year or two been declared a flood zone by FEMA, but she had not been notified of this change, probably because she had lived there for many years and had no mortgage on the house. For sure anyone with a mortgage would be notified by their mortgage holder about the new requirement to purchase flood insurance, but I'd think it's entirely probable that an owner whose property is not mortgaged would get no such notice, and might go years without realizing the change in the FEMA flood designation for that area.

[craigiri]

I wonder how many Texans will just walk away, leaving the banks and mortgage companies with the bill? I think a lot will have to do so.

Nationally, it will be a blip on the radar, but it hurts the individuals.

I could be wrong, but I cannot imagine Uncle Sam coming through with the money to bail out most everyone.

As to my Sarasota place, we are at about 23 feet high and a mile inland from the bay. No problems so far - I have insurance but not specific flood insurance. The house isn't worth that much anyway, so if worse comes to worse we will have a nice lot to build on.

[motordavid]

FEMA ins covers 'up to $250Gs for structure' and 'up to '$100 Gs for contents'...
That 'up to' and the valuation/adjustment process is buried in mice print.

We have friends still 'recovering' from Sandy, eg not in their former house, and may never be back in/rebuilt, still doing the arm wrestle with FEMA and the gov't adjusters...

And, Congress has to reload/refund it pretty quickly. It loses money every year like water through a sieve.

Not pitching having it/not having it. But, the OP's post sounded like an ad.

The 'average' Houston area homeowner is tied up in a econ labyrinth now. House, stuff, car(s), et al. Very sad deal.
GL, mD

[eands0608]

We're in the beginning stages of looking for a retirement home in Sarasota. Having lived in the Midwest all our lives, we know how quickly tornadoes strike; hurricanes give you more warning, but that doesn't help with loss of property or water damage. They are both catastrophic. Of the homes we've looked at so far, the MLS sheet shows which require flood insurance. What can you Sarasotians (is that a word?) tell me? Would you pay for it if it wasn't required? I don't like to throw money away, but also love my safety! Since we'll be retired when we move, money is a factor, too! Please give me all pros and cons. Thank you!

[craigiri]

Originally Posted by eands0608

We're in the beginning stages of looking for a retirement home in Sarasota. Having lived in the Midwest all our lives, we know how quickly tornadoes strike; hurricanes give you more warning, but that doesn't help with loss of property or water damage. They are both catastrophic. Of the homes we've looked at so far, the MLS sheet shows which require flood insurance. What can you Sarasotians (is that a word?) tell me? Would you pay for it if it wasn't required? I don't like to throw money away, but also love my safety! Since we'll be retired when we move, money is a factor, too! Please give me all pros and cons. Thank you!

I think this depends on the total cost of your homeowners insurance.

For example, older houses can easily have a 3K yearly insurance bill (300K house) because they are not built up to current hurricane (wind damage) codes. The same house which passes the various insurance inspections might only cost $1100 a year or so.

You have to carefully read what is being insured. I think official Flood Insurance is "from the ground up" floods - that is, it doesn't cover the roof blowing out or the windows and then rain pouring in and flooding everything.

All things being equal I'd say you should try to find a home built to newer standards at least 20 feet above sea level. If you are semi-technical you can study the maps and the forecasts.

I think - when I looked - that the very worst case scenario for inland Sarasota...and this was really stretching it - was 15 feet. Realty was more like 9-10 feet (500 year). Because Florida is flat and sandy there is rarely massive amounts of water coming from "somewhere else" (dams, uphill, etc.), so that type of flooding is virtually impossible.

In order for water to reach 12-15 feet (which would still have us, at approx. tuttle, clearing it by 5+ feet), the entire area for 100's of square miles would have to be that deep. Impossible, IMHO.

Storm surges (a hurricane or wind driven wave) would be a momentary event and, again, would be unlikely to exceed 10-12 feet. Any such water would quickly drain.

Now - if you live on a barrier island it's another story.

Amazingly enough, the entire area (Tampa Bay) hasn't had many events which are even near this scope since records started in the mid-1800's.
I think the biggest were one in Tampa in the 1870's and the Hurricane Charley - the later having a storm surge of 9 feet or so on the barrier islands and 6-8 feet inland.

So there is that 8-9 feet again...in a scenario which was very close to worst case. I think that erased 1/2 mile of Captiva Island.