Flood Insurance on waterfront propery

[SandyJet]

Originally Posted by Tujuleez1

Yesterday we got a quote on a house we are buying. It was built in 1964. The quote was over $3,000 for flood alone. FIRM date is October, 1970. So this house should be Pre-FIRM but the numbers don't seem to reflect that.

You need guys current policy and an EC to get a good quote. What does owner currently pay and have you seen his policy or bill.

[Tujuleez1]

The insurance company said pretty much what you said, Sandy. Continuous coverage. The owner doesn't have flood insurance so we'll be paying for that.

The surveyor was out yesterday. When I stopped by he was taking elevations. I should have that soon.

On another house we were looking to buy, we got flood quotes around $1600. The EC the owners had put the elevation at a fraction over 9. We're hoping the EC on the house we're buying comes in favorable.

[spbbound]

Originally Posted by Tujuleez1

The EC the owners had put the elevation at a fraction over 9. We're hoping the EC on the house we're buying comes in favorable.

Check the last time the FEMA maps were updated; they can potentially raise the level in the future so that would make me nervous if it hadn't been surveyed by them in recent years.

There's rumors St Pete Beach area will be re-surveyed in the next year or so and some areas close by (Port Richey) have been raised recently, so I built two feet above the current requirement just as a precaution.

[alaskan adventurer]

I could go on and on, Pay cash and take your gamble, look at the history of the area, stay away from filled lots . (All of the canal homes) If you cant afford to loose it then you cant afford to live on Tampa Bay with out flood. Flood from rain is different than a storm in the gulf pushing salt water up the bay due to a extra high tide. Our winter house is in so st Pete 3 ft above high tide no sea wall. its had water in it one time in 60yrs, I will take the chance going naked I will be 62 this yr

[cupper3]

I bought my condo, and went naked.

The basic building is covered by the HOA, and I am responsible for the interior. I did the math, and if nothing happens, I am $$$ ahead after 10 years, assuming I will do the work myself (I'm capable and qualified).

I'm in year 3, so only 7 more non-instances years to go. After that, I'm money ahead.

[SandyJet]

Originally Posted by cupper3

I bought my condo, and went naked.

The basic building is covered by the HOA, and I am responsible for the interior. I did the math, and if nothing happens, I am $$$ ahead after 10 years, assuming I will do the work myself (I'm capable and qualified).

I'm in year 3, so only 7 more non-instances years to go. After that, I'm money ahead.

And if a primary residence you can get around 32K from Fema if a presidential declared disaster.

[cupper3]

Originally Posted by SandyJet

And if a primary residence you can get around 32K from Fema if a presidential declared disaster.

Won't work for me; I'm a Canadian snowbird.

[FrogCross]

Originally Posted by spbbound

This is of course no substitute for an actual elevation survey, but Google Earth is generally accurate to within about 6 inches for elevation in comparison to how a surveyor would measure it. If you zoom in on the house in Google Earth and get the elevation, that will be from zero to ground level. In St Pete Beach where I am, Google pegged my lot ground level at about 3 feet above zero, which was very close to what the surveyor certified.

I have found that Google Earth is not accurate for elevation purposes. I just reconfirmed it.

When I lived in Florida, I had a house on a canal. The water was behind a Corps Of Engineer's lock. The Corps maintains the water level depending on operational needs, but it usually is set at something called standard pool. The actual measurement is called head on the upstream side and tail on the downstream side.

When I was living there, I drove to the locktender's office and asked what the head was and if it was at standard pool. He said it was, plus I could see it on the gauge myself. I then drove back to the house and drove a large spike in one of my pilings right at the water line. That gave me a known reference level.

Armed with that information, I measured the vertical distance from the spike to the lot level and added the head reading. It totaled roughly 23 feet. The county claimed the road was at 22 feet, so that made sense, as the the previous owner had brought in enough fill to raise the lot slightly above the road. I very confident that I knew what my lot elevation was.

A little while ago I brought up Google Earth. It's elevation reading for that property was 11 feet, which is much too low. It also read 11 feet when I scrolled over the canal, which is much lower than the lot (the bank is fairly steep). It should have dropped significantly, or more accurately, it should have been much higher for the lot itself.

Google Earth's elevation reading may be coincidentally correct for St. Pete Beach, but I don't think anyone should count on it for flood purposes.

For what it is worth, I also note a discrepancy at my current home in Tennessee. Beside being about 30 foot off, its rate of change does not mirror the rate of change of the actual land. There appears to be a lot of averaging going on, along with some lateral displacement.