[Pomelo]

The answer to the question in the thread’s title is because the rest of the nation bails out Florida via the National Flood Insurance Program. Why? I presume it’s because it is (or was) a swing state for presidential elections.

There’s a reason why no non taxpayer subsidized insurance company offers flood protection.

[Corrie22]

Originally Posted by Pomelo

There’s a reason why no non taxpayer subsidized insurance company offers flood protection.

Flood Insurance Writers in Florida > https://www.floir.com/sections/pandc...writersfl.aspx

[Arcenal813]

Originally Posted by Pomelo

The answer to the question in the thread’s title is because the rest of the nation bails out Florida via the National Flood Insurance Program. Why? I presume it’s because it is (or was) a swing state for presidential elections.

There’s a reason why no non taxpayer subsidized insurance company offers flood protection.

What are you talking about?

[WRnative]

Originally Posted by Arcenal352

What are you talking about?

<< The cost of the insurance program was fully covered by its premiums until the end of 2004, but has had to steadily borrow funds since (primarily due to Hurricane Katrina and Hurricane Sandy), accumulating $25 billion of debt by August 2017.[2][4] In October 2017, Congress cancelled $16 billion of NFIP debt, making it possible for the program to pay claims. The NFIP owes $20.525 billion to the U.S. as of December 2019.[5]>>

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nation...urance_Program

<<The NFIP currently provides $1.3 trillion in coverage through more than 5 million policies in the U.S., but has been losing money for years and is currently $20.5 billion in debt.

The new rules will mean hefty increases for expensive properties in wealthy coastal enclaves, said Jeremy Porter, head of research and development at First Street Foundation, a Brooklyn-New York based nonprofit that studies flood risk.

Current flood zone-based pricing was “basically a subsidy to people,” Porter said. Under FEMA’s new system, “pricing is based on your insurance risk.”>>

https://www.insurancejournal.com/new.../05/608348.htm

Imagine if a Category 5 hurricane strikes a densely populated metropolitan area. The already financially struggling NFIP could be swamped with tens of billions of dollars of claims.

<<The high level of claims payments continues to put pressure on the program, which is supposed to be self-sustaining but owes federal taxpayers $20.5 billion because it was unable to pay all of the claims from the devastating 2017 hurricane season.

The average flood insurance payment last year was $47,000, which reflects a trend of costlier claims, E&E News found in an analysis of millions of NFIP payments since the 1970s.

In the past five years from 2016 through 2020’the average flood insurance payment was $71,900. In the five years from 1996 through 2000, the average payment was $20,400.

The increase in average payments is a result of climate change causing flooding to be more intense and damaging, and of the growing volume and value of coastal property.>>

https://www.scientificamerican.com/a...ow-risk-areas/

Based on the above article, NFIP flood maps appear suspect, suggesting that NFIP premiums may be inadequate even when it hikes its insurance premiums:

<<More than one-third of the claims payments last year were for properties located outside areas that FEMA considers at the highest risk of flooding. That continues a trend of flood damage occurring in supposedly low-risk areas’and raises concerns about both the accuracy of FEMA’s flood maps and climate change making flooding more widespread and less predictable.

In the past decade, 36% of the flood claims were for properties outside the so-called 100-year flood zone.>>

NFIP annual payouts are increasing significantly, even though they vary greatly depending upon the hurricane season.

<<As of December 23, 2019, Hurricane Katrina in 2005 had the highest NFIP payouts, at $16.3 billion. In September 2017 Hurricane Harvey ranked second with $8.9 billion in NFIP payouts. Superstorm Sandy, which occurred in October 2012, ranked third, with $8.8 billion in NFIP payouts.>>

https://www.iii.org/fact-statistic/f...lood-insurance

[WRnative]

Your post 73:

Originally Posted by beach43ofus

The stats & charts in this report do NOT show Miami as being as big a flood threat as MANY other places now, or in the future looking 30 years out.

Sorry to burst the OP's bubble, but this report looks pretty comprehendive to me. Scroll down to the charts starting on page 13. Miami doesn't appear on any of the charts I looked at.

https://assets.firststreet.org/uploa...assessment.pdf

The big cities that banks should not be loaning to build in are:

New Orleans
NYC
Chicago
Houston
LA
Tampa
Philly

These cities better start electing politicians who will prevent massive flooding from happening.

My post 74:

Originally Posted by WRnative

Given the substantial flooding risks in Miami, Miami's low elevations above sea level, and exposure to hurricanes and tides, and even severe episodes of "sunny day flooding," did your argument make sense to you, or did you just decide to report the chart findings without trying to find out why they were so grossly misleading when reported at face value by either ignorant or deliberately disingenuous individuals?

Your arguments are devoid of any recognition of the significantly qualifying asterisk next to the headings on page 13 or 15. The asterisk links to the following footnote:

<< Substantial risk is calculated as inundation 1 cm or more to the building in the 100 return period (1% annual risk). See methodology for full model details. Threshold of at least 45,000 properties for cities shown.>>

This is a bizarre definition of "substantial risk" of flooding. See page 8 for further elaboration of this definition. My guess is in order to exaggerate flooding risk, especially in non-coastal areas, FirstStreet decided to rely on an IMO preposterous definition of "substantial risk" and ignore the more meaningful statistic of "certain risk," defined as properties with an annual flooding risk of 20 percent.

So the tables cited on those charts include all properties subject to a flood of as little as 1 cm once every hundred years. So properties with an insignificant flood for a few hours in a hundred years are lumped together with properties that flood annually with a foot or much more of flood waters.

Most importantly, the tables only include cities with a threshold of at least 45,000 properties. The charts don't comprehend MSAs, or even counties, just individual geopolitical units. Miami, with only 36 miles of land area, doesn't meet the threshold. Additionally, many Miami residences don't flood because they are in multi-story buildings.

The massive and increasing flood risk in Miami and throughout Florida is better visualized by the national maps on pages 10 and 11, even though these still rely on the ridiculous definition of "substantial risk."

Posters can check out risks for each Florida county here, even though the easy ability to read the headers make this table much less useful.

https://drive.google.com/drive/folde...A6SRobWbMxsv2f

Very few persons IMO would be willing to seriously compare the flooding risks in Chicago with those in Miami without a much greater examination of the statistics. You either declined to ignore the explanations of the statistics or chose to ignore them. WHY???

Your post 77:

Originally Posted by beach43ofus

The source I cited is the most comprehensive flood report ever compiled. This is what banks, & other investors are using now because it looks into the future, whereas the FEMA maps/data do not.

https://assets.firststreet.org/uploa...assessment.pdf

Again, Miami is NOT listed as one of their highest risk major cities. Its time to stop ignoring the scientific facts, & for Miami to continue morphing into the "Wall Street of the South", taking major financial businesses from economically failed, & more flood prone NYC.

Banks, and other Fortune 500's have been, and continue to, flee NYC like rats off a sinking ship.

Your post 77 is the most ridiculously deceitful post that I've seen in this thread, and that's saying a lot. A key tenet of "Big Lie" propaganda is to blatantly repeat proven falsehoods and to never admit error, a tenet that you've obviously mastered.

Most persons in Florida surely must know that Miami is one of the most flood-prone cities in the U.S.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AIjnY3sSDQY


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KX7qTihDgLc

See "Top 15 Metropolitan Areas by Storm Surge Risk, 2020" here (Miami is no. 1):

https://www.iii.org/fact-statistic/f...lood-insurance

<<...the giant residential real estate firm, Zillow, says the City of Miami — population 470,000 — is home to 26 percent of all U.S. homes at risk from rising seas. According to studies conducted by the Risky Business Project, $15 billion to $23 billion of property here could be underwater by 2050.>>

https://e360.yale.edu/features/as-mi...-social-divide

Click on Miami here, which had a record 9 days of sunny day flooding in 2019.

https://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/Hi...alOutlook.html

[beach43ofus]

...because banks aren't buying the Lib Noah's Ark hype. They know better.

[Corrie22]

from what I've seen....no one in Florida is buying it

[beachmouse]

At some point, the state is doomed. If people move down here without seeing hurricane damage video, then they didn't do their research properly. The big question is the when- does the worst of it start happening 10 years from now or 200 or 500 years from now? You roll the dice, assume that there's at least another 50 good years in the place before it all falls apart, and in the mean time, you enjoy all the amazing stuff the state has to offer, and there's a lot of cool stuff here you don't find elsewhere in the USA, before that tipping point comes.

It's the Zen of living in the moment and detaching from material stuff to enjoy great experiences while you're here.

I'll gladly admit that we were looking at investment property in Florida in 2018 but Hurricane Michael spooked us pretty badly so that got back-burnered. And am now really glad we didn't because of the covid eviction protections. New plans is to not increase real estate exposure here and move Out West in a couple years to a hurricane-free area that seems to be in a good spot in terms of water rights, and then roll the dice that the Yellowstone volcano doesn't decide it's finally time to go. Given the number of near misses we've had from hurricanes that have hit the northern Gulf Coast, I'm good with taking my chances regarding the volcano, which is a far lower probability thing.

[Huasho]

Volcanoes are sleeping monsters, you can never discard them in YOUR life time..You live close to one..you will get the resonance.

[Arcenal813]

Originally Posted by Huasho

Volcanoes are sleeping monsters, you can never discard them in YOUR life time..You live close to one..you will get the resonance.

In addition, they are EXTREMELY UNPREDICTABLE.