Watch out Houston area, flood insurance program expected to boost rates ! (Galveston: houses, neighborhoods)

[studiobtm]

The program needs to end - even if that means I have to pay more. Tax payers, most of whom do not live in flood zones, should not have to subsidize those that do.

Typical government program that had the good intention of "helping people" but in the long run it only promotes risky building practices.

[gwarnecke]

Old neighborhood built a long time ago. Minimal consideration given to stormwater retention/runoff impacts.

Old neighborhood subsides because its residents pumped out too much groundwater.

New neighborhood built up the bayou, developed according to MUCH stricter stormwater retention requirements.

Old neighborhood floods.

Old neighborhood blames the new, properly-engineered neighborhood for its troubles.

Sigh...

[War Beagle]

Originally Posted by travelguy_73

Do you include the residents in Houston the same as people along the coastline? You are correct that there's no right to live near the ocean, but we are also talking about people who live well inland, but have been negatively impacted by the near non-stop paving over of the city. That could be ANY of us.

The way I see it, there is a clear difference between people who live in an area that floods because of human incompetence, versus people who live along the coast because they know others will pay for the bulk of their property when an inevitable hurricane strikes.

As a later poster stated, subsidized flood insurance encourages risky building practices.

[aero100]

Originally Posted by War Beagle

The way I see it, there is a clear difference between people who live in an area that floods because of human incompetence, versus people who live along the coast because they know others will pay for the bulk of their property when an inevitable hurricane strikes.

As a later poster stated, subsidized flood insurance encourages risky building practices.

This. I know a gentleman who has lived in his home in the Galleria area since the late 1950's. When built, the neighborhood was well drained. It's still outside of the 500 year flood plain. As freeways and development came in, he started flooding about 30 years after purchasing the home (I think he's flooded 4 times, twice in the last three years). Ironically he's a civil engineer, and throughout the 70's to 90's was fighting with the city, TxDOT, and local developers who were sinking all sorts of wells to minimize the damage to his neighborhood's drainage and limit subsidence (it still sank 7 inches between 1955 and 1980 or so).

While he has gotten most of the damages covered due to flood insurance, since it is a repetitive loss property (2 claims in last 3 years) NFIP will raise his premium to market rates.

[testmo]

I live in a 1961 built home in a 100yr flood plain which has never in its life got near to flooding. I pay flood insurance as required to have a mortgage

Some suburban house gets flooded because they are built without drainage and my payments help offset that home owners losses?

Flood mapping is one thing but its an error to never take into consideration flood history.

I was told flood insurace costs are set by the government so across the board cost will be the same with insurers. False. Im saving $600 this year going from liberty mutual to Geico

Frankly anything not run or monitored by the US government in this country has seemed like a scam to me

[Augiec]

Originally Posted by testmo

I live in a 1961 built home in a 100yr flood plain which has never in its life got near to flooding. I pay flood insurance as required to have a mortgage

Some suburban house gets flooded because they are built without drainage and my payments help offset that home owners losses?

Flood mapping is one thing but its an error to never take into consideration flood history.

I was told flood insurace costs are set by the government so across the board cost will be the same with insurers. False. Im saving $600 this year going from liberty mutual to Geico

Frankly anything not run or monitored by the US government in this country has seemed like a scam to me

My experience mirrors yours. I'm literally about 100 ft inside the 100yr map. Even with all of the crazy flooding along Braes Bayou, my house hasn't flooded. I hope I didn't just jinx myself by typing that... Anyway, I do need to look into getting a new quote on flood insurance.

I too have found that we, as a society, have demonized the government, and thrown ourselves in with big businesses too much. It's gotten to the point that we are simply irrational with regards to allowing these for profit entities to rip us off.

[Dopo]

Originally Posted by studiobtm

Typical government program that had the good intention of "helping people" but in the long run it only promotes risky building practices.

As mentioned before,
rich people are ok with socialism (using tax dollars to help private citizens) as long as it helps the rich

[misterno]

wait a second

So all these years we as the tax payers have been subsidizing the people with houses located in flood areas?

That means if there was no flood insurance program paid by the fed which means us, then these houses would worth much less?

I hate this socialist system. Why am I paying for other people's stupid decision which is buying a house in a flood area?

Why?

[WRM20]

Originally Posted by testmo

I live in a 1961 built home in a 100yr flood plain which has never in its life got near to flooding. I pay flood insurance as required to have a mortgage

Some suburban house gets flooded because they are built without drainage and my payments help offset that home owners losses?

Flood mapping is one thing but its an error to never take into consideration flood history.

I was told flood insurace costs are set by the government so across the board cost will be the same with insurers. False. Im saving $600 this year going from liberty mutual to Geico

Frankly anything not run or monitored by the US government in this country has seemed like a scam to me

Flood insurance costs the same, regardless of who the insurer is - the premiums are set by FEMA. The difference in the cost of your insurance is either due to a rerating of your flood risk (the new maps came out recently) or it includes your regular homeowners insurance.

It is not an error to not take flood history into account. When our townhouse in Midtown flooded during Allison in 2001, it was the first time that area had flooded. I checked the records as far abck as I could find to confirm that.

Originally Posted by misterno

wait a second

So all these years we as the tax payers have been subsidizing the people with houses located in flood areas?

That means if there was no flood insurance program paid by the fed which means us, then these houses would worth much less?

I hate this socialist system. Why am I paying for other people's stupid decision which is buying a house in a flood area?

Why?

Without flood insurance, many houses would be worthless, as no lender would loan money to purchase them, as the insurance would cost too much - $15,000+ per year in some situations. However, some areas that were not subject to flooding in the past are now in flood plains due to changes in upstream watersheds, uncontrolled upstream development, etc. Are you willing to lose your house due to something that happened far away and out of your control?

[gwarnecke]

If a house would cost $15k a year to insure in a competitive, unsubsidized market, by virtue of its probability of flooding and expected cost of repair, then many would argue that it simply shouldn't be there. Or at the least should be elevated.