this story continually gets brought up after a big hurricane or flood. the same solutions get brought up, but never get implemented.
yeah, I do understand that you're dealing with peoples lives, yeah I know people may owe more than the house is worth. but just like auto insurance, repeat or higher risk properties need to pay more of their risk/share. why should anyone else. want to live near the water, pay the price!
a contractor from a south American country once told me after Sandy, "in my country, the poor people live near the water, the rich people live far away..."
who has it right?
4
Sea-level rise due to climate change will affect everyone’s descendants, not just because the taxes and insurance premiums that pay for shortsighted stop-gap measures and idiotic rebuilding will go up, but they also will pay for infrastructure to protect coasts and rivers, and the costs of abandonment and relocation where those measures are impractical or too costly (most). Add the rising cost of inland housing as coastal populations move and power and water/sewage processing plants, roads, bridges and airports have to be built/expanded. And the cost of food will rise, too, no matter how droughts progress, as agricultural and grazing lands on higher ground are converted to housing and urban use and existing agriculture is sustained by drilling deep wells and/or laying pipelines for fresh water as coastal aquifers are contaminated by seawater, which happens before the land submerges.
Government must stop subsidizing flood insurance premiums in high-risk, flood-plain/waterfront properties—it is a gilded entitlement, unduly benefitting the wealthy and encouraging development in areas that should never be built upon, let alone constantly rebuilt, which should only be done at the builders’ risk and cost, not protected by subsidy or insurance, both of which add to the burden of the middle class and poor who pay for it with higher premiums and the many forms of taxation for which they have no loopholes through which to jump.
The GOP tax “reform” should be seen through this lens.
4
The feds cannot handle flood insurance? Wait to see what they do with out health care.
1
This madness has to stop. Enabling wealthy people to build sand castles on flood-prone land at the general taxpayers' expense is absurd. It is direct welfare for the rich. If they had to pay market rates they might take global warming more seriously. I am awestruck that some Republicans are willing to look at this because it has been one of many federal subsidies for the wealthy along with the intercoastal waterway, general aviation airports, etc. that make poor and middle class tax payers pay for the indulgences of the rich.
1
This is only one part of the massive cost of climate change that coastal US is facing. After Sandy flood zones were revised in New York, but practical action with relocating infrastructure and changing housing investment decisions has proven more difficult. Irresponsible people buying houses is just a small part of the problem. There are people forced to buy in flood prone locations, there is critical infrastructure built years ago and the seas keep rising. The only solution is to fully integrate climate change adaptation in planning and zoning and, then, of course seriously look at climate change mitigation to avoid even worse impacts. Otherwise the zones will keep moving inland very quickly.
1
Why are we subsidizing Republican governors?
1
This article highlights the major problem with any government run enterprise, when it points out that congress caved into lobbyists when it lowered premiums to below cost in 2014; that will happen to any single payor healthcare system as well. In fact it already has with Medicare which charges premiums that cover only about one fourth of the cost, even to the many retirees who do not need financial help to pay the premiums. But I guess that is why Medicare for is so attractive to many.
1
It's time to start making oil companies pay for the damage they are causing to create these mega hurricanes! The government subsidizes big oil through lease sales, now it's time to recoup those funds.
1
Yet another example of big government that wastes taxpayers money. Fiscal conservatives don't want their taxes to go to subsidize shoreline living for a privileged few.
4
Another broken government-run program. SMH
How about we let them also run Healthcare.
1
Many readers will recall this is not the first recent NYT article about the taxpayer-subsidized flood-insurance program. Another article, a few months back, reported that this federal program has about 5,000,000 policies outstanding.
What shocked me most about that earlier article was the mere fact that this program existed. I'd had no idea whatsoever that US taxpayers were subsidizing flood insurance for waterfront homes. I'll bet most other readers were also surprised to learn this. People who own waterfront homes are not the first group of people that come to mind as deserving beneficiaries of government subsidies. Apparently, though, they are. I was amazed to learn this.
4
Most people who live in waterfront homes are not rich, but the opposite. They live in areas which were less desirable and cheap; look at the history of NYC's public housing.
2
The government run flood insurance program is a complete failure and bankrupt because it IS a government run program. Period! Nothing else is needed to clarify why the program is a disaster. The federal government destroys everything it touches.
2
Perhaps then we should quit pouring money down the government rat hole known as the military.
3
NFIP assures that developers prosper on their unsound acquisitions; and NFIP will never assure robust site development that EARNS the desired coverage. Reality is (1) developers get out with their riches and (2) one or more feet of water will occur, not in 100 years, but within 30 years.
Who gets on city councils? Developers and their cronies. The motto for their city's master plan: "Grow or die". They will fight their own engineers and inspectors who enforce the city's requirements, let alone create innovative code for the extreme mitigation of every site risk. As long as banks will finance, their is zero incentive to change.
Trump is a developer and a regulations-hurt-my-bottom-line Republican, so growth unimpeded by new standards is a given. The banks and investment houses will dream up some new way to make it SEEM that taxpayers are no longer holding the bag. When Trump does his victory lap, rest assured that developer interests will be further entrenched and that our city master plans and site design codes will remain grossly inadequate.
2
Texas overbuilt Houston
Don't even start me on this...............OK, I will!
Having had a family home on Whitaker Bayou in Sarasota, Florida, I have been mired in the program for decades. There are problems that this article doesn't address. A few examples:
1. Premiums have little bearing on less. In the life of the program, people in MS have gotten back $5 for every dollar collected in premiums. FL, is the opposite; only $1 returned for every $5 sent to Washington.
2. The primary reason to buy flood insurance instead of "self-insuring" is that mortgages require it if in certain zones. This raises the cost of home ownership and allows the wealthy to buy and pay cash and absorb any future losses.
3. When our family moved to the bayou in 1959, the homes throughout the area were modest and average working folk could afford most of them. Not now, and not just due to demand and inflation. As a result the very middle class, kid heavy neighborhood I grew up in has became almost childless as wealthier (hence, usually older) people move in.
4. Our home site requires new FEMA construction to have a pretty vacant ground floor to flood, the living quarters above it. The latter floor has to be thirteen feet above the non-flooding high tide. The area has NEVER flooded about about five feet (Hurricane Donna) since being settled in the 1830's. All this is based on opaque computer models, regardless of history.
The program was pushed by the real estate and developer sectors of the economy.
1. Okay. So what?
2. Of course... it’s their house until you pay it off
3. So what?
4. That’s an excellent idea
2
One appropriate concept for a remedy would be to analyze how much these floods cost the country in all the various ways they cost. Then draw up a menu of incentives to get people to move that will cost less by a conservative margin. Try a few different models to see which incentives work best.
I dream of a government that thinks creatively.
2
Nothing prevents private insurance companies from offering policies that cover flood damage -- or earthquake damage, or whatever. The question is, and always has been: "What should the premiums and deductibles be for that coverage?"
Indeed, in CA, insurance companies are required by law to offer earthquake insurance to homeowners. I get a letter every year. But the law doesn't dictate what the premiums or deductibles for such policies must be. And -- no surprise to me -- those premiums and deductibles are very high, so high in fact that few CA homeowners have earthquake insurance (I don't, for example).
But some CA homeowners DO have earthquake insurance. They want that extra coverage and they're willing to pay high premiums and deductibles to get it. Great, I say. Do whatever you want -- as long as you don't ask me to subsidize you. If I'm willing to take the risk but you're not, so be it. Each of us has a choice. For several reasons I consider sound, I've chosen Door #2. Others have chosen Door #1. That's fine. I'm sure they have good reasons for picking Door #1, just as I think I have good reasons for picking Door #2.
To be sure, EVERYONE wishes he or she was insured (i.e. Door #1) when an earthquake actually hits and one's home is seriously damaged or destroyed. Some of us would like to protect against that; others (I, for example) prefer to bear that risk but save the premiums and deductibles. Our choice.
2
With flooding, the reality is that those who choose not to purchase NFIP insurance do not assume all their own risk. FEMA hands out millions to those that don’t have insurance, and even gives housing assistance money to those who have flood insurance, as it doesn’t cover alternate housing during repair. The real way to begin righting the financial ship is to correct the rates based on real information and require many more people to carry the policy within flood plains.
3
To my three cents, nothing prevents private insurers from offering flood coverage except for the fact that they can't compete against the government when it offers the insurance at below cost; if the program were changed to require that the insurance be offered at a price that made a profit for the government, it would attract competitors.
3
The differences in comments reflect ideological differences, nothing more.
Pretty much everyone agrees that taxpayers shouldn't pay, over and over and over, to rebuild houses built on flood plains. (Several commenters cite the Spring, TX home mentioned in the article -- worth only $40,000 even though $900,000 has been spent so far on flood-damage repair.)
Where I see a divergence is in the suggested remedies. Some commenters say, for example: "Just prohibit any new construction within a half-mile of the ocean [or a lake, whatever]." Others say: "If someone wants to build a home on the ocean [or a big lake, whatever], that's fine with me -- just don't ask that I subsidize it. Let that homeowner pay for his own insurance, if he wants it."
I'm in the second camp. I don't buy the "Well, sometimes it's not their fault, you know. Local governments don't enforce building codes, developers are greedy, whatever."
I'm willing to assume all that's true, but my response is this: "Just because a homeowner's local government doesn't enforce building codes, or because some local developer was greedy (who'd have guessed that, eh?) doesn't mean taxpayers should bail out that homeowner. Frankly, there are groups more deserving than homeowners of taxpayer bailouts -- especially homeowners who could have done something about it; buy somewhere else, for example, or make sure your flood-insurance policy covers you even if your local government doesn't enforce its building codes."
6
The article comes close, but fails to reach the crux of the problem.
It implies that there some mechanical problem that prevents private insurers from offering insurance to the repetitive loss properties, which it correctly IDs as where the focus of concern resides.
There's no financial reason why private insurers couldn't offer those repetitive loss homeowners flood protection policies. Rather, the premium would have to be so high to cover the risk that few would pay for it -- reflecting the central fact that almost no one would live in such flood prone places.
That is why the marketing basis for insurance is to only address risks that are low where the premium won't scare customers away.
That said, it is insane to leave these sky-high risk properties for the government to insure because the political pressure will be too great to charge the required premiums to keep the program on a financially sound footing. So long as we keep the federal government involved, we are making a decision to perpetuate the current insane and financially ruinous situation.
The only way out is to let the private insurers back into the floodplain business, but requre them, as a condition, to offer policies also to the highest risk area at the same time knowing that there will be few takers.
The only rational sustainable role for the federal government could be to buy out the repetitive loss properties if that subsidy is considered societally worthwhile.
1
Provide relief, but just once. I want to be reasonably generous to those who experience such loss, but I also don't want to be a sucker. So, my rule is: the government bails you out exactly once by paying a pre-flood market price for the property. You have to leave and that piece of land is never to be occupied again. Second homes get zero relief (you didn't see it coming at your coastal property? Really?) We could regain a lot of wetlands.
The same goes for housing built in forests and other natural areas where fire needs to burn freely. Just because you *can* build a house there doesn't mean you *should*.
13
Call me cynical but could the present day administration's heightened sense of urgency to pass "tax reform" legislation by Thanksgiving play no small part in the Congressional decision due here by December 8th?
Just wondering...
1
I thought Trump was going to end these wasted taxpayers money programs. Is he the President and does he not have the power to end this program particularly as it is now defunct and what is even more important is the fact that every Republican representative would support stopping this waste? Or is there corruption inside of this program also?
2
A very complex issue, people love the water. The reality is we know alot about floods and wind damage. Regulations can and do help, homes can be built above the flood level, structures can use cement and rebar, roofs can be attached to the structure and window and doors can be hurricane proof. This helps with new homes but not with older homes and trailers.
The climate is changing, we need to remove our heads from the sand and make better housing and population decisions for the survival of our planet.
2
Our brilliant “President Donald Trump signed an executive order revoking a set of regulations that would have made federally funded infrastructure less vulnerable to flooding.” http://www.businessinsider.com/trump-reversed-obama-flooding-regulations...
1
If people insist on living on flood plains, they should be required to purchase flood insurance at market rates. I know living next to the water is lovely, but why should taxpayers foot the bill when their blithe choices and the government's inept insurance rates are just plain foolish? At the very least, set a threshold: if the home floods more than twice, offer to purchase it or they can lose their insurance or have skyrocketing rates. If I have an accident, my car insurance rates go up. Where a family lives is a choice, not a necessity.
5
Perhaps the FEMA flood insurance program is broke because condominium owners whose buildings have dozens, or even hundreds of multi million dollar units pay less (for the entire property) than a single home owner, whose house is yards away - not in a different, more flood prone region. Yet another example of how our government is in the pockets of the wealthy, and works in their interest only, while the average working American is shafted in virtually every way by that same government that is supposed to be for the people. If interested, google search for: "Why the taxpayers will bail out the rich when the next storm hits the US"
1
For once, I am in agreement with Donald Trump. However, my perspective is different, as I look at this problem as a public health problem arising from climate change. As quoted in this article, "the government [should] stop writing coverage on newly built houses on floodplains, starting in 2021. New construction [should] be flood-resistant". Of course, this assumes that climate change is, in fact, one of the etiologies of our broken N.F.I.P. I would posit that it is, and that we taxpayers should not have to pay for senseless reconstruction, or new construction, in flood planes likely be underwater in several decades anyways.
3
It is for sure that the flood insurance program is broken. Just one issue is what exactly your insurance covers! There is a storm creek that runs behind our house and never has flooded in the 40 plus years we have lived here. In 1993 the government redrew the flood plain map and all of sudden we now lived in a flood plain! Since we had a mortgage we had to purchase flood insurance. However, what we found out is that your very expensive floor insurance does not cover half of what you need it to. If you have a finished basement(we do) none of your furnishings, carpets, etc are covered. However, for an additional amount of money, you can purchase a separate policy for all of that!! The only thing in your basement that is covered is your furnace and air conditioner, and possibly your washer and dryer!! Unfortunately, most people will not realize this until they encounter a flood!!
1
First we have to stop building in areas that are in flood zones. Those homes that have been flooded multiple times over the years need to be bought out, and stop the bleeding. Houston is an example of developers building in areas that never should have been developed. The Program repairing a home 19 times due to flooding is beyond rediculious.
2
"The program’s rate-setting methods, for example, are 30 years old, he said, and new ones will be phased in over the next two years.”
Anyone who listened to the general news on the radio, 30 years ago, was aware that global warming was raising the level of the oceans. It would be interesting to know who set the rates, back then, and what their thinking was.
I would also like to know why the rates have not risen since then. Were the program’s directors just trying to keep low profiles so they could retire with their high government pensions? Did individual Congressmen tell them to keep rates artificially low to support the real estate markets in their own home states?
I hope the media will investigate and report on how the people in government positions, over the last 30 years, explain their lack of action.
1
Hi, Ann. Farther down in the article is this: "No one paid much attention until after Sandy, when the program fell deeper into debt with the Treasury. To help fill that hole, Congress in 2012 approved big increases in its premiums. But that caused an uproar when people got their bills. Two years later, Congress rescinded much of the increase."
Why does Congress let the Pentagon and our intelligence agencies plan for global warming, if it will not allow the Federal Insurance Program do so? According to an article titled "Chronology of Military and Intelligence Concerns About Climate Change”,
on the site of The Center for Climate & Security, both the Intelligence Community and the Department of Defense have been concerned about climate change since the first Bush Administration, if not before. All of our government agencies should be working from the same set of assumptions.
1
To b Fagan:
If the individuals who worked at the Federal Insurance Program had done their job over the years, they would have explained the reasons behind the need for continual rate hikes, and would have implemented them. Instead, they seem to have waited until the debt grew to an astronomical level, and then asked for a sudden very large rate hike. This did not give home owners a chance to plan their long-term budgets so of course there was going to be a backlash.
1
Get rid of it altogether. If you buy/build in a flood plain you bear the consequences of your decision. One flood will usually stop people from rebuilding where they’re not supposed to. Give them a prime interest rate mortgage on a different house outside all flood plains and roll the flooded out mortgage into it
1
The 100-Year Flood designation is really a misnomer. The proper designation is the 1% Flood. It has a probability of 1% of I=occurring in any one particular year.
When the Design Floods are looked at as Probability Occurrences, we find that the 1% Flood will really occur 3 times in a 100-Year Period.
Therefore, all of the rates should be tripled.
Anthony; P.E.
Licensed Professional Engineer
3
Everybody in the system gets one more check at next flood. It can exceed the actual damage up to the market value of the home. Advice is to take the check and move. No more checks if another flood. We hire the homeless to raze every home where owner takes market value. People can buy land but it stays undeveloped after homeless take the lot back to grass and sand. Private insurance can handle people that stay.
I suspect we’ll end up with large estates along the water. As the head penguin said after the crash in Madagascar, “I can live with that.”
1
The program should be severely limited. When you read about a house worth less than $50,000 costing us almost one million to keep repairing or replacing it 18 times over the years, you have to know something is wrong. Say it out loud ands if it sounds stupid, it probably is. But that is not the only house or the only cost. The cost also should include the billions of dollars to repair the cost of destruction caused by floods that would have been much less if our marshes and flood planes weren't destroyed by the building in those areas. We should stop it and tell people if the want a water view, they take their own risks and not only that but they will paty a significant tax on anything they build in those areas every year after construction. The floods along the Mississippi and Gulf would have been less severe had those areas that give natural flood protection been preserved and would have reduced the cost of rebuilding and repairing by huge sums.
4
A commenter reports that his house sustained uninsured flood damage because his local government hadn't enforced building codes. FEMA had complained to the local government but it had ignored FEMA. What a surprise, eh?
The commenter suggested this problem could be solved by FEMA threatening to cut off insurance to community residents if the local government didn't start enforcing its building codes.
Frankly, I doubt that would matter to such a community government. And what if it DID work, so that local residents were left with no FEMA coverage? Would THAT help the commenter?
What would probably work better is for an insurance company to tell the local government: "We aren't going to write any more policies in your community unless you enforce your building codes." Maybe also a letter to existing policy holders: "Under section ____ of your policy, your premiums can be increased if your local government doesn't enforce its building codes. We're writing now to let you know that your monthly premium will increase to [some really high number] starting ______ because your local government isn't enforcing its building codes."
Such letters would have a greater positive effect than, say, a letter to a local government official reading: "Hey, you better start enforcing our building codes -- ore else! [Or else what?]" or a letter to FEMA reading: "Hey, you should tell our local government that you're going to cut us all off because they're not enforcing our building codes."
1
It happened with flood insurance."and eventually the government drove out the insurers and took over most operations." It is happening with healthcare insurance. The expected results will be similar.
3
Nobody likes this, but...
"I wonder also whether some of the high cost of repairs is not a result of the overcharging by some contractors doing the repairs?"
A local contractor just sent us a bid to replace a few windows in one of our son's bedrooms, for a price higher than most entire homes in the US cost. Outrageous, no question, but contractors, like most people, tend to charge what the market will bear. Right now, for example, they all know they'll have plenty of work for a long time because of the Wine Country fires.
Conversely, when times are tough for contractors, I don't expect any of them to be knocking on our door asking for money. If a homeowner doesn't want to pay what a contractor asks, he or she can tell the contractor exactly what we told this one: "Thanks but no thanks."
Taxpayers should not be on the hook for those who choose to live in flood prone areas, especially on the coast.
If you can afford to live on the coast, you can afford private insurance.
We also should not allow building on high risk areas, ultimately we all pay more because our premiums will also rise.
2
Chad, the problem with that approach is that
a) lots of poor live in coastal areas, too
b) flooding along our rivers is also expected to increase with more rain in the most intense storms
c) earthquakes mean you evacuate the Pacific border states
d) wildfires mean you evacuate much of the west
e) tornadoes take much of the South, up into the Midwest
So where should people live risk-free?
The more difficult thing that has to be done is how to properly balance builder/owner/local government financial responsibilities for risk against humanitarian need to help those harmed.
1
This is an interesting inversion of the usual political perspectives. Where I live on the Oregon coast, local, usually conservative, home builders demand that the government continue to subsidize their flood insurance to prop up their own private enterprise. This is in stark contrast to their virulent "party line" of keeping the government out of their business. And of course, don't ever, EVER tell them where they can and cannot build. Just give me a check, and go away.
7
Yes, Texans don't like zoning either but they don't mind asking the federal government for billions after floods. Firefighters die in wildfires trying to protect people who insist in building tree-shaded un-zoned homes in dry brush areas out West.
And I'll note that NJ, where I'm from, went through decades of "Gee, buildings in the Passaic River floodplain flooded again!"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passaic_River#Flooding_problems
As I noted in an earlier comment, the Chicago area has its own problems - big flooding this year and years past along the low, flat rivers.
http://www.chicagotribune.com/suburbs/highland-park/news/ct-hpn-flood-bu...
The surface of a planet is a risky place, but we've got to get better at defining real cutoffs and enforcing them. Cities along the coasts and river plains may be looking at a century or more of progressive buyouts, especially along the coast. More ocean will find its way to make room for itself - and we're heading to CO2 levels that last produced eventual rises of thirty feet or more. It takes time and heat to melt all that ice on the ice sheets. The more CO2 we apply, the more ocean we'll get.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3557064/
2
My small, stream-side homestead is more than 100 years old and has never flooded. Flood insurance costs me as much as my home insurance, and I pay ever-rising premiums year after year without my filing a single claim.
The flooding risk I face is mostly from industrial logging, which causes serious stream flooding. The risk I face is one way that Congress, through inadequate logging regulations, subsidizes wealthy corporations at my expense.
I need flood insurance. Congress certainly should fix problems with people building in flood zones and filing multiple claims, but to kill the program outright is just one more way that Congress would harm millions of Americans.
9
We cannot afford to continue to pay to rebuild homes that have a high chance of being destroyed or are vacation homes. In the former case, buy the homes for their pre-flood value and have the owner move. In the former case, pay the damages this time, and then let the owner buy insurance on the open market. We have far more need in this country then to subsidize foolhardy behavior. No matter how grand or ordinary, a vacation home is a luxury compared with no access to healthcare.
11
The Federal government's role in this should be limited to map, identify and rate the flood and wildland fire risks throughout the USA. Several commenters below have found the problem with direct subsidies to real risks; to encourage irresponsible building . I'm struck by the comparison with Medical insurance ; high risk pools of homes being insured by the Fed is ultimately unfair to all other taxpayers, and more expensive than it should be. Private insurance specializes far better than the Fed's in what rebuilding rates are.
1
That's my understanding too:
"I think statistically it’s a very low percentage of CA homeowners who actually have [earthquake insurance] because it’s expensive and the deductible is very high."
But it's available -- obviously, since this commenter has it (I don't). Why should my home value be increased because a prospective buyer will know he or she can get taxpayer-subsidized earthquake insurance on my home? That would simply get me more money for my house, at taxpayer expense.
The government fairly bears many costs, and there's considerable disagreement over what those costs should be. Wherever one draws that line, however, it's hard to argue that homeowners, as such, are a group that needs to be subsidized by the government. If they want protection against floods -- or earthquakes, or tornados, or whatever -- they should pay for it, not expect taxpayers to foot part of the bill.
The simple fact is: taxpayer-subsidized flood insurance for homeowners, which enhances the value of their homes (none of which "enhancement," of course, will make its way back to the government when the homeowner sells the taxpayer-subsidized home) is not the same thing as taxpayer-subsidized medical treatment for a poor person who comes down with cancer -- or a road, or a bridge, or a school. Homeowners are NOT a group that deserves taxpayer subsidies, especially when alternatives are available (i.e. pay for flood insurance if you want it or your lender insists, or live somewhere else).
3
I bought insurance through the National Flood Insurance Program, and the policy very clearly states that belongings in basements are not covered. The structure is covered, as are things that are normally found in basements, such as water heaters and furnaces. Furniture and other household living area belongings, like expensive medical equipment, are NOT covered when kept in a basement. This makes a lot of sense, and the NY Times is remiss in not explaining this. Taxpayers and other policyholders shouldn't have to pay to replace such belongings stored in basements when policies expressly exclude such things. Read your policies, people! Also, the program should not have to pay for fraud perpetrated by any company or individual. I believe this article unfairly implies that the blame rests with the NFIP.
2
Some commenters complain, fairly, that we may be getting carried away here:
"Please be careful not to sweep those that are not to blame out with the repeat offenders."
That may well be. And I certainly don't blame Mr. Clutter for buying taxpayer-subsidized flood insurance. If the taxpayers allow that, after all, why not?
I think many commenters (I, for one) just don't consider homeowners to be members of a group that deserves a social safety net. Poor people, who often can't avoid some exorbitant expense (cancer treatment, for example) tend NOT to be homeowners.
And homeowners can avoid the risk entirely, in one of two ways:
1. Pay market rates for flood insurance, if you want it or your lender insists.
OR
2. Buy a home somewhere else.
Poor people who come down with cancer typically don't have those alternatives available to them. Homeowners do -- and, again, homeowners tend not to be the poorest among us, not the first group that comes to mind when one is considering who deserves a social safety net.
6
My house had never flooded, yet it was swamped by a freak flood. The flood was one thing, but the community had not been enforcing their own floodplain development regulations that they voluntarily agreed to do in exchange for securing federal flood insurance. Neither the council nor the city manager wanted to know about it, and when they heard from FEMA inspectors after the flood, they still didn't do anything about it because it was their fault. Newer houses that weren't up to code to begin with were allowed to rebuild. I've understand FEMA can take away -- or threaten to take away -- the privilege of having federal flood insurance if communities don't comply with floodplain regulations. Now that would get their attention!
3
I wonder also whether some of the high cost of repairs is not a result of the overcharging by some contractors doing the repairs? In a recent insurance claim, I was able to see a 3X factor in pricing for the same repair.
4
get rel people - there are some places currently occupied that should no longer be places of permanent residence. we all know it. so let's end all manner of encouragement to keep people living in those places. they put themselves and people whose job it is to protect them at risk.
3
I don't fault Mr. Clutter for buying taxpayer-subsidized flood insurance. I fault the federal government for making it available to him.
Simple fact: All else being equal, a house in a flood plain isn't worth as much as a house that isn't in a flood plain (unless, of course, the first house is insured against flood damage at below-market rates by the federal government).
It's not worth as much because any owner will need to factor in the cost of possible flood damage, or of unsubsidized flood insurance premiums.
If the next buyer of Mr. Clutter's house, or the bank that lends to that buyer, knows that the only flood insurance the buyer will have, if any, is unsubsidized flood insurance, the buyer will pay less for that house because he or she will have to factor in that additional cost of ownership -- high flood insurance premiums -- that he or she wouldn't have if he or she instead bought a home in a safer area.
It's not fair to Mr. Clutter to drop the NFP abruptly. After all, society told him he can do what he's doing. It's not fair to make him alone suffer because society changes its mind. But a phase-out would be appropriate -- perhaps the NFP could continue to write taxpayer-subsidized policies for 10 years. Any prospective buyer will know he or she can get subsidized insurance for 10 years, but then will have to start paying the full cost of it. That will reduce the resale value of Mr. Clutter's house, but society will bear part of that reduction.
2
NFIP rate went up in my area following Hurricane Sandy. My rate went up a little to 1/500th of the maximum which FEMA will pay me for living in a 500-year flood area, about $500/year; actuarially correct. A friend living nearby on the 100-year floodplain is now paying $3000+/year. These are not subsidized rates for the $250,000 maximum dwelling coverage; the homes are valued at more than twice that.
I’ve lived in CA since 1980. When I could finally buy my first home in Los Angeles in 1993, I took out private earthquake insurance. When we moved up to the Bay Area and bought another home, we took out earthquake insurance and we’ve had it ever since.
I think statistically it’s a very low percentage of CA homeowners who actually have it because it’s expensive and the deductible is very high. But I’d rather accept reality and pay for it than to ever be at the mercy of FEMA.
4
I agree with you 100%. And as a retiree, I cannot afford to lose my biggest asset - which is also paid for. CEA is expensive, but it give me some peace of mind as I continue to live in a beautiful place.
4
I could see offering coastal resort businesses some form of protection against flood risk, since in the normal course of events they generate substantial revenues for the state's tax base. But private homeowners who crave a water view or otherwise wish to inhabit flood-prone areas should bear the risk out of their own pockets, or move inland. We'd all like a water view - why am I paying for someone else to have it?
6
Our forefathers, who coined the term barrier island, understood the purpose of these narrow spits of sand. They are there to absorb the full force of the sea during storms and protect the mainland. They served that purpose long before we started to blame global warming for weather that humans have never been able to control. God or nature did not put them there so spoiled humans could have a multimillion dollar view of the water with their morning coffee. After Sandy several plans were proposed to turn the barriers into public land for all to enjoy instead of rebuilding homes that will most certainly be damaged again. The government needs to stop paying to rebuild.
4
The plural to story have some homeowners on edge wanting to bear arms. While most of them or the majority population have reached borrowing limits. Therefore , they must make some changes in the next cycle and coming year.
Now wait just a minute. Are you actually trying to tell me I might not have to keep throwing my tax dollars at people who want to build in a floodplain? That makes far too much sense to ever attempt.
This might just wake the American people up to the fact that we are living in a political "twilight zone". I see shock waves on the horizon.
3
First home, handed down in a family of fishermen? Taxpayer funded buy out. Second, third, fourth home, tract mansion vacation home by the shore? Fuggedaboudit. Taxpayers should not be paying the last gambler in the musical chairs real estate game. Those are the people who should be charged prohibitively high insurance premiums until they donate the land to Nature Conservancy and take the tax write off.
5
Next year’s premiums should be the amount paid out the previous year divided by all the buyers in the program according to the coverage amount they are buying. That way the burden is shared among those who take the risk and not beyond. The program has to be self funding by those that are in it. Your premiums are what they are because that is the demonstrated risk. And open the program to homeowners who are not in currently designated floodplains. There are enough paranoid people out there who would buy even if they don’t expect to get flooded. These could help defray some costs with their lower risk. Just pool the costs among the riskers. Costs too high? Too bad, you made a bad choice in buying there. Caveat emptor.
1
You don’t have to be in the floodplain to buy flood insurance.
You just don't understand how insurance works.
The flooding could be caused by a broken street main. That's covered.
John Oliver recently presented an excellent piece on this subject.
I suggest viewing that to see the various sides to this issue.
Insurance companies have made money off of the government program, so they don't care to see any changes.
Some wealthy builders know they have the govt program to bail them out.
But a lot of people can't sell their flooded homes -- who would buy them? -- and it's all they own so they can't afford to just walk away.
The wisest thing would be forced buyouts and relocations, much like China did with their massive Yangtze Dam project. Then again, we don't seem to look toward the future anymore like China does now. So good luck getting anything done.
5
90%+ of the comments (including mine) say essentially:
"If someone wants to buy a home in a flood zone [or an earthquake-prone area, or some place where other natural disasters might occur], let that person pay for insurance if he or she wants insurance; don't expect taxpayers to help pay for that insurance. Live somewhere else if you don't like it."
But there are a few who disagree. They say, in essence: "It's not always that person's fault. Maybe the problem resulted from short-sighted local governments, or greedy developers. If so, why shouldn't society as a whole pick up the tab?"
It all boils down to what many such debates boil down to: If some irreducible risk exists, should society bear that risk?
Put another way, and specifically: "Is the risk of flood damage like roads and bridges and defense -- a cost that society as a whole should bear -- or is it more like fire insurance on one person's home -- a cost that the homeowner alone should bear?"
Some people feel it's a cost that society should bear (through programs such as the NFP), while most feel it's a cost that the homeowner should bear.
I'm in the latter camp. It's simply NOT true that private insurance companies don't offer flood protection (or, out here, earthquake protection). They DO offer insurance, IF someone will pay premiums that reflect the actual risk. No private insurance company can compete with a subsidized insurance provider that sets premiums too low to reflect the actual risk.
7
Sometimes government is the proper Locus if programs. Sometime the private sector is better. We need to gather facts, discuss, decide, and then properly fund.
Ever since Reagan and Gingrich, discussion and collaboration have been forbidden.
Wrecking government is not a policy; it’s sabotage.
5
What difference does it make whether you're officially in a designated flood plain? You either decide you want to buy flood insurance, or not. It doesn't matter whether you're up a mountain or in the valley. It's like any other insurance. If you decide insurance is a must but can't afford it for the house you want to buy, move on to the next home, or rent. If you decide to risk not having it, that's on you. It's not that complicated.
3
So many of the comments are about " I don't want to pay for anyone but me" types..... The facts tell us that many areas are becoming flood zones that were not in the past - because of overdevelopment and developer-controlled governments -- see Houston, TX, and even New Orleans, where the oil and gas industry has been allowed to destroy protective wetlands. Then, there are the wildfires in the West, and the climate deniers who refuse to see that the weather really is becoming worse and worse.
This is really where we need a functioning government and a willingness to accept regulations.
6
In light of rising sea levels and change in weather/environment is it wise to rebuild in flood prone areas and close to the water?
Of course not.
Right now the program doesn't even try to have a proper reflection of actuarial liability, and that incentivizes bad decisions. Insurance is a hedge against risk. To properly insure, you have to properly quantify risk.
The Flood Insurance Program has morphed into another crony capitalism subsidy for insurance companies and for the 1%ers that have beautiful, multimillion mansions (2nd, 3rd, 4th... homes) on the coast. More 'socialism' for the wealthy,
Federal, state and local governments should consider purchasing homes that regularly get flooded, and turning them into public property, usable for things like athletic fields or community gardens or parks- so long as it is not used for housing or businesses.
4
Best to end the program. If people choose to build or buy in flood prone areas, they take that risk willingly. That is a personal choice, with personal consequences. Sensible zoning regulations, which might preclude new construction or horizontal additions to existing homes, would reduce loses caused be poor individual decisions.
2
CHRIS: Multimillion-dollar mansions are subject to the same $250K maximum as the hovel down the road.
Broken, as well, is the designation of flood-prone area. Based on soil type and topography created by Mother Nature over many 1000s of years, these areas largely are irrelevant because of poor land use management. Clear cutting of forests, destroying wetlands, shunting rainwater quickly through storm sewers into streams, massive erosion from ag land and land under development, and weak land use policies all have contributed to more serious flooding. How else could you explain an 80-year storm event in Green Bay (1990) producing a 120-year flood along the East River!
Note: Add climate change to the mix.
3
The answer to repetitive flooding is raising the houses out of the flood plain. Unfortunately, this solution is expensive for the homeowner and taxpayers. It cost $250K to raise my $140K house. Where's the logic? They could have given me $200K, demolished my house and require me to buy outside the flood zone.
8
Here are the risks.
If you live near water, you just might be prone to having your property flooded.
YOU choose to live that close to a potential flood area.
A person can decide to live someplace else and I get that some areas are cheaper than others, but if one is going to take out a mortgage,( I have to wonder have folks actually ever figured out how much they actually are paying out over about 30 years of mortgage payments on a $300,00 home), it pays to get a grasp of the risk involved.
The same goes for those people who live on top of mountains and in areas prone to fires.
You truly don't have to buy there.
But if you do, the govt is going to wait you out.
Guess who wins that battle.
2
What safe zone do you live in? No earthquakes, floods, tornadoes, blizzards, hurricanes or fires? Not all flood prone property is close to large bodies of water. Storm surges and torrents of rain can affect many of us.
What about people who already live in flood plains, and are trying to move out? No one wants to buy these houses, and many can't move away until they sell their house.
2
Just like toxic canals and plutonium waste, the gov is going to have to step in and bail people out at all of our expense. This is the world we live in. If you don't have insurance and get in an accident, you still get care at public expense.
This program needs to be phased out. I suggest that any property that makes a claim for flood damage be covered according to their Federal Flood Insurance policy, and then that property will never again be eligible to purchase a taxpayer subsidized policy. They are free to rebuild and then either bear the risk or, in the alternative, purchase a flood insurance policy on the open market- without the taxpayers picking up a large portion of their tab.
7
One and done insurance? Unrealistic.
A lot of the comments I see are similar to the slamming that people on Medicaid or Disability or any other government assistance face because of the few that scam the system.
Fix the system. Surely make repetitive flooders move or self insure and people in flood plains get one chance and the either get bought out or self insure. Absolutely. Change, or in some cases create new, zoning to make it illegal to build in a flood zone. Not everyone who needs flood insurance is in that situation, however.
Please be careful not to sweep those that are not to blame out with the repeat offenders. Storms are getting stronger (whether hurricanes or not) and the infrastructure was not built to handle it. Some victims are just victims and not repeat offenders.
7
I lived on the coast of North Carolina,1946-1988. I watched as the island moved to the west and the eastern shoreline receded near the houses which had been built overlooking the Atlantic Ocean. This included the homes of my great-uncle, my cousin and the wife of another cousin. Scientists have talked about this for decades. Two of our children are attorneys. They talk about DUE DILIGENCE. Now is the time to increase the insurance premiums to cover the projected costs. Nothing new for this form of insurance as any another form of insurance.
8
Take a look at the Rockaways in NY. The FEMA flood maps, while an exercise in engineering analysis, eventually get manipulated by politics. Look at the new FEMA Rockaway build/no build flood plain boundaries. They amazingly match the coastline. I saw original draft maps where that was not the case. The draft recommended no build areas originally included areas on land. Poof, those areas disappeared and now the approved maps allow building. Was the engineering analysis wrong or did the results not sit well with the politicians? I guess we will never know but what I do know is that area WILL flood again.
8
Until the mid-1960s, my family had a home in the Rockaways which was built in the 1880s. We had occasional hurricane-caused flooding; we waded in the streets and some used rowboats. The house, on three-foot piles, was never flooded.
Government flood insurance in a flood plain is a disaster enabler.
9
Back in 1979 - 1980, I worked at a map-making company with a FEMA contract to digitize all Flood Insurance Rate Maps and match them to the digital street maps available at the time, the Census Bureau's GBF/DIME files. The idea was to construct a database for use by a call center. Homebuyers would call, give their property address, and get an instant flood insurance rating over the phone.
The idea was good: to somehow tie the flood insurance risk to the marketability of a building; higher flood insurance rates should give buyers pause.
The contract was, for the time, really difficult to execute. The flood maps were printed on folded paper, and the census GBF/DIME files were in some places grossly inaccurate. Garbage in + garbage in often led to garbage out. But the idea was right. It met the ideals of flood safety. Don't build in flood plains or on surge-prone coasts. Don't rebuild there.
Our mapmaking team was often distracted by urgent requests for maps of claims for damages from recent floods. Often our maps showed strange claim patterns, involving many claims for a few addresses. Still, we called them as we saw them. It turned out that the claims processing contractors (EDS Federal was one) really disliked our claims maps. FEMA used them to try to find duplicate claims, paid in duplicate, for the same properties, due to sloppiness or fraud.
At any rate, our project was abruptly cancelled when Reagan administration took over.
Flood insurance is hard to get right.
4
Many people posting here say “I do not want to spend one dime of my tax $ to pay for people who live in high risk areas.” Fine. In a similar vein, I do not want to spend one dime of MY income tax covering people who smoke or are morbidly obese. From my experience as a physician, that would include about 75% of the people covered by the Obamacare exchanges, which my tax dollars go to subsidize their insurance.
People choose to live in risky areas (and risky lifestyles), so why should any of us foot the bill?
12
An MD believes obesity is the same kind of choice as smoking? Obviously he's spending too much time skiing in Aspen with his fat profits from an healthcare industry that thrives on drugs, tests, and chronic illness, rather than keeping people healthy in the first place.
2
Not to get off topic cowtown, but what goes past your teeth is largely your choice, be it drugs, smoke or a lot of calories. Personal choice is not the whole story, but in many of these choices-it is.
2
Could it because of of mismanagement from 2009 to 2016?
4
No. Read the article and then watch John Oliver's show on HBO.
1
The mismanagement was the responsibility of two women: Irene and Sandy.
" But now, relentless coastal development and the increasing frequency of megastorms and billion-dollar floods have changed the calculus." And rest assured, there will be more megastorms.
The solutions are overwhelming but we have to start planning our areas of development away from areas of potential flooding. Easy to say and nearly impossible to accomplish.
Our Congress is currently in shambles. They need to move from combat mode to clear thinking. Is that asking too much of them? Probably.
5
It is about time to fix a system that has long been “gamed” by too many people. People who build homes or businesses on land that is certain to flood at some point or other, then at the taxpayers expense, rebuild again and again. It is time to raise flood insurance premiums to a level which will actually keep the program afloat (pun intended) and perhaps deter people from building in areas that should not be built upon.
Stop the madness!
4
I'd go one step further: not to rely on financial disincentives, but to define zones where building (or rebuilding) is prohibited or restricted based on environmental and actuarial risk analyses. This would have the added benefit of opening up previously private land to limited recreational use as well as restoring the fertility of these areas to aquatic life. We must rein in our rabid individualism to create policies of benefit to the community.
4
You're john, but good luck with reigning in short term thinking in this culture.
More than 60 years living in New Orleans I have personally noted the needless over spending on insurance claims directly caused by claim adjusters. Witness to thousands of citizens of my city receive obscene amounts of money from FEMA also private insurace companies. It seems the adjusters have no shame as they award money to people knowing they are not entitled to receive these large checks. During the Hurricane Katrina recovery I noted an owner of several vacant lots prior to Katrina was given notice by the city to "Clean up" their property. They applied to FEMA for assistance and receive an award to have three lots cleared more than 100 trees and overgrowth. The cost for this government service was just under 100,000 dollars.....we the tax payer paid for this
3
That's what happens when you are spending other people's money.
And the rest of us still can't figure out why there has to be a welfare policy for luxury(living near an ocean is a luxury of the highest order) homeowners. If you can;t afford market rate insurance then you can;t afford the house so move.
7
indeed, a complacent agency (one only need look at some of the carelessly drawn flood zone charts to see the rot at the root) thrown into a calamity for which it was willfully (as in fervent hopes that the test wold never come) unprepared and, when contacted on routine insurance matters, (including the sloppy zone maps), even before sandy, demonstrated, in an array of form letters, indifference (kicking the can down the hall) if not actual annoyance (you got a problem with the map get your own surveyor - a 1000.00 challenge - and send us a copy).
things may have changed since then but mr. clutter's experience shows how badly we were served when the need arose.
a properly attentive agency ought to, both, serve the taxpayer in trouble and, in fairness, warn (and perhaps impede the plans of) those willfully putting themselves in storm's way, though both the adjustment of premiums and cooperation with other agencies in protecting against development on flood- prone coastlines (already compromised by the loss of flood plain to questionable land use policies).
2
Federal flood insurance should be abolished.
You buy/build home in flood prone area, you bear the risk, or find private insurance (you won't get it).
6
My home was declared a flood zone three years after I purchased it.
3
My home was declared a flood zone more than 20 years after I bought it.
One of the problems is that the term 100-Year Flood is a misnomer. It is really the 1% Flood and has a 1% probability of occurring in any one year.
But, in fact, the 1% Flood will occur 3 times in any 100-Year Time Period.
So, the rates really need to be tripped to reflect the real risk of building in flood plains.
Vincent, P.E.
3
The National Flood Insurance Program is a type example of the unfortunate intersection of natural risk, human foolishness, and democracy.
The repeated inconvenient events, such as floods, storms, and earthquakes, have been scientifically recognized. At least some of the inherent risks have been measured and mapped, and the logical mitigations, from design to location, are well understood.
Human desires, however, often overwhelm sense. Wanting to live on a beach, or near a river, or any other risky location induces a willful ignorance. Even when recommended, people are understandibly reluctant to buy insurance that might help compensate for loss (and even when that insurance is subsidized with lower premiums that could be expected).
And democracy, as often when reality conflicts with desire, skews or inhibits rational behavior. If enough of us want to pretend that risk does not exist, or that the system will alleviate the risk or compensate for the impacts, then we will elect representatives to fulfill our desires, despite the physical and economic realities.
Much like our understanding of the fire "triangle" with fuel, oxygen, and heat, the disaster triangle, with risk, foolish people, and democracy, will not function if we can remove any one of the ingredients. I am surprised this article does not mention the Coastal Barrier Resources Act of 1982, that removed federal dollars from much of the risky US coast--and induced much more rational behavior.
4
Houston is a prime example of unregulated sprawl, much of it on a flood plane. Local zoning and development permits out of control. And nondiscriminatory Mother Nature took full advantage of it in this last disaster!
6
A few simple points:
1. The private sector insurers will not come in unless they can make a buck. To make a buck in areas of high risk, they'll have to charge high premiums. If they charge high premiums, people who cannot pay those premiums will be forced out by economics, if not by flooding. Darwinian economic survival of the fittest.
2. If the government serves as the 'insurer of last resort' to pick up the leftovers that the private sector insurers will not touch, then the NFIP is guaranteed to be a financial sinkhole by definition. How much of that sinkhole are we willing to sign on for?
3. FEMA does not take sea level rise into account in current flood zone mapping and therefore NFIP underwriting. Therefore, it is financing restorations in many areas that will not live out their economic life. It is playing Russian Roulette with an automatic.
By refusing to consider sea level rise and repetitive loss areas, whether inland flooding or forest fire or whatever, FEMA and Congress become Einstein's embodiment of the definition of insanity: repeating the same mistake and expecting different outcomes. Ignorance is curable, but stupid is forever.
4
And let's not forget the corresponding and huge additional costs of so-called "beach replenishment" programs, i.e., billions to fight the losing battle against natural shoreline sand loss and buildup. It's not only the flood insurance program that serves as a taxpayer subsidized incentive for building and maintaining expensive homes on choice beach locations, but the replenishment program as well.
4
A large portion of the insurance premiums should be borne by real estate developers and sales people. This should cause them to require updated risk assessments as flood dangers increase. It seems logical that covering land with houses, patios and streets in new developments increases the flood danger of the individual properties since water will flow under these manmade barriers and destroy foundations.
3
Flood insurance, like much of what the government does, is facilitating activities it shouldn't. Whether you live in a flood zone, a high fire prone area, or an area at risk for many destructive forces, homeowners shouldn't be able to rely on the government to bail them out. These areas should be set aside, as much as possible, as nature areas so that the forces we obviously can't control can run their course without causing huge personal and economic loss every few years. This would of course, require something we are not good at. Realizing the limits in our ability to manipulate the earth and an honest attempt to control our booming numbers so as to better live in harmony with our environment. Two things we've shown no tendency to even contemplate at this point. No matter, the planet will do it for us at some point. The effect on us would be much more gentle if we didn't wait that long.
2
Why is the federal government protecting private investment in private property? Flood insurance is a transfer of wealth from taxpayers who live in low risk areas to mostly very affluent people who live along the coast. Where to build and how to build a home so it is sufficiently elevated to reduce the probability of flood loss is an individual choice. The governments should not be providing bank bailouts for risky lending practices and for private investment.
5
If we get government out of the flood insurance business, we also need to get government out of the flood relief business (or at least that part of it that results in government payments to homeowners whose homes are damaged).
If government gets out of the flood insurance business, will the Florida Keys become uninhabited? North Carolina Outer Banks? Atlantic City? Long Beach Island? Atlantic Beach? Perhaps we should never have built in these places. But if the private insurance market essentially makes it impossible to afford to live there, we'll need to do something other than tell homeowners, "Too bad."
2
Except in poorer areas, where residents have few choices, homeowners and developers should take the entire risk, and pay for their own repeated mistakes. If they get flooded out...oh, well.
3
I’ve been saying for years that homeowners who do not live in flood prone areas should be able to participate voluntarily for a much lower premium. We bought a house and were not required by our mortgagor to buy flood insurance. But because there is a river along the neighborhood I inquired about adding flood coverage. I was expecting perhaps an additional $200 on our $2000 annual premium to reflect our low risk and instead our agent said that flood coverage would double our premium. We believed that expense vastly outweighed our risk so we did not buy the coverage. If it had been the lower amount we would have voluntarily bought the coverage and the insurer would have been collecting our premium all these years along with others who would voluntarily pay a bit more and the program would be richer for it.
9
Here's the double standard Americans live by: "We believed that expense vastly outweighed our risk so we did not buy the coverage."
Most homeowner's who are not required to buy flood insurance don't -- even when the flood zone is inches away from the structure.
One point missed by most comments is flooded homes are often nowhere near the coast, a river, or a flood plain.
2
Let's be clear, the federal government got into the business of flood insurance for humanitarian reasons because of unexpected, devastating floods that private insurers could not cover. And even if 100% of flood insurance was financed privately today, the claims from hurricanes Katrina, Sandy, and Maria would have destroyed those companies. Then insurance companies would pressure the federal government to bail them out - as they did in Mississippi in 1927.
This shouldn't be a debate about public/private insurance but more about mitigating the effects of flooding where possible, preventing building on areas with high risk of flooding and then pricing insurance claims to match the risk. This will require LAWS. Sorry to those who bury their heads in sand, but the risk of catastrophic events from "500-year" floods and hurricanes will only increase for the foreseeable future. So intelligent action is needed now.
I don't want to bail out people who continue to build in flood plains either. But some of the proscriptions offered here are very one dimensional. Much of the flooding in Houston was caused by lax building laws and private developers who did nothing to mitigate the risk of flooding.
There is a whole supply chain here including banks, developers, builders, local politicians, etc who profit from putting people at risk. Don't just blame the homeowner or the government. We need a comprehensive public/private solution based on science and sound economics.
13
Many comments are clearly from self-righteous people who have never been flooded.
When you buy a home that has never been flooded, you are buying a home that CAN be flooded in the future. Taking Harvey flooding as an example. The flood is caused by unprecedented rainfall. More than 150,000 homes in Houston were flooded, most of which first time ever.
Many flooded homeowners are victims of climate change and urban development, not their own. We can certain change the building code to ensure responsible future developments, but denying their flood insurance and forcing them to move out of properties severely hit in value by the flood, appear to be the utmost cruel things to do.
8
My home will never be flooded, not in a thousand years.
1
Computer models are now good enough that the private market will come back into a lot of areas, just not the repeat-loss buildings. NFIP also suffers from lawmakers from place like NJ who balk at paying actuarial rates that are true to the risk because they think it impedes investment at the Shore. Insurers worry about state insurance commissioners in such states being pressured by their state legislatures to once again subsidize coastal homes the way the NFIP has been by Congress.
3
When flood insurance is gamed by the wealthy to do what they wish, the system is broken. But that's not a good excuse for leaving those living on the edge without the means to move away. The heartlessness of some of these comments demonstrates how if the system encourages hoarding, people will hoard. Tax cuts for the rich, and devil take the hindmost, encouraging the worst in people and discouraging compassion, it's all very sick.
I know we cannot have means testing, but the people the system was designed to help are losing, while the greedsters laugh all the way to the bank. People who have no choice should be helped to move. Wealthy people building and rebuilding on flood plains should not be stealing our public funds which are needed for so many public goods.
Of course in the long run, as the climate report says, we can expect "more of the same, only worse." There is no such thing as current floods that are not representative of how much worse it can get, and how much worse it *will* get.
As far as I can tell, our current Republican government has the policy of death camps for the poor, the sooner they are out of sight and mind (which is truly most effective not when they are struggling but when they are invisible or gone) the better. With robotics enhancing corporate profits, who needs people?
This is all sickening: victims should stop electing perps! We need to stop blaming each other, making it easier for the powerful to tread their silken path to power.
3
Although climate change may lead to insurance readjustments, I think the people in need now or prior to any new rules should be given either a last time payout or the means to relocate. Also what are the plans for people who suffer other climate change disasters, such as wild fires, earthquakes, hurricanes, or blizzards? I think we do need a functioning government response, which includes building resistant infrastructure and rebuilding, not whining about having to bail out the people who want to live close to the ocean or their jobs. Climate change makes Nimbyism a thoughtless as well as a heartless response.
3
You correctly identified the problem in the first 4 words, "A government-run program"....
6
The private insurance market will never underwrite these policies. The government has allowed development in areas which are too prone to catastrophic damage. Ultimately the government at every level should force development back from the water and leave anyone self insured who insists on living near the water. Trump can afford to rebuild Mar a Lago. We shouldn’t have to pay for it.
12
As politicians say, take personal responsibility for your choices in life. If people choose to live in repetitive flood areas, my tax dollars shouldn’t be used to pay for damages or losses to businesses, homes, and personal property. They should purchase flood insurance policies on their dime, not mine.
Besides, it’s against my religious beliefs. See, anyone can claim this if they’re opposed to any government program or law.
7
The last 2 sentences really demeaned the open I bg, which was quite good.
1
This is much bigger than floods. The time has come for the federal government to redefine "natural disasters" receiving national emergency support to exclude events caused by human stupidity. Property destroyed located in flood zones, on earth quake faults, in fire areas, in tropical storm paths should not be replaced with federal or state help. This message should go out before "the Big One" hits the west coast.
3
I agree. And Puerto Rico should not be rebuilt, using your logic. Are you really ready to support Trump and go as ll the way in your proposal?
1
I guess we are fast getting to the point that like the stupid words "Health Insurance", "Flood Insurance" is no longer "insurance". Insurance is a gamble between two parties, both are expecting there NOT to be a claim. With the now very real "CLIMATE DISASTER" floods are certain as illness and death. Therefore making the work insurance fake!!!
Once you get your head around the fact that there is no insurance and the word "certain" the problem becomes clearer.
"Increasing population" vs "Decreasing space" (location, location).
Government does have a roll but unlike "Healthcare" and don't think "We the taxpayers" should bare the cost of "rebuild, rebuild".
Healthcare is a human right. Is living in a flood plan a human right?
4
No, it is not.
Time to stop the whole program and let flood-prone properties go back to nature.
2
If healthcare is a HUMAN right, should not the UN pay for it?
Healthcare is not a human right any more than food, clothing, and shelter. I like motorcycles. Therefore, I have a right to elect a government that will force you to pay for a motorcycle for me.
Nope, I like you paid for my bike with my hard earned money. The UN is a world body, not anything to do with US healthcare.
My point is that we drone on about freedom and the pursuit of happiness and say our"Commander-in-chief first and foremost job is to keep us safe from?... a bunch of nut jobs in pickup-trucks 5,000 miles and an ocean away.
Yet, 30 million Americans have little or no access to simple healthcare. The chance of dying from a "nut-job" in a pickup-truck vs lack of simple healthcare is the same as being hit by lightning 100 times in one day.
The UN Humans are very simple (please note Healthcare is NOT on the list not is to ride without a helmet. Peace brother
A
Life isn’t fair. Your house is swept away by a flood. You bought the house not me. Deal with it.
1
This is not only poor management and funding for FEMA. It's also the doing of the very powerful Realestate Lobby in Washington and state governments that have been building homes and business districts in areas that should still be farmland.
Only a fool builds his house in harms way or on sinking sand.
6
As in,
My house is built on solid land (Jesus)
All other ground is sinking sand.
2
It is interesting that private insurance companies now wish to issue policies. What I would like to see is what their rates would be for properties located in various flood zones. The NFIP rates can be seen at the FEMA website:https://www.fema.gov/media-library-data/1489510210727-b89eacca05541b1557... What concerns me that some insurance companies would low ball the rates initially to gain business then raise the premiums to actual risk.
1
@Chuck: I live in a 500-year flood zone. My annual FEMA insurance is 1/500th of FEMA's maximum payout for my property. A friend lives in a 100-year flood zone. His FEMA insurance is 1/100th of FEMA's maximum payout. This seems fair and is not asking anyone for a bailout. FEMA made a lot of mistakes in the past but now seems on the right track.
2
There is an unaddressed crisis that has swept this country, and the New York Times Comments Section .
As evidenced by the cruel, heartless comments the greater crisis
is that so many are utterly devoid of empathy and compassion for flood victims.
That so. many could be so cold and heartless is a crisis which must
be addressed.
Homes can be rebuilt- or not- but I know of no remedy for heartlessness.
5
I gather you live near the ocean and want the rest of us to subsidize your risk.
3
DJS, that might be true, but what you read as heartless I read as a reasponse to a greater crisis: growing foolish behavior (and I have chosen a word less condeming than I could).
When millions of people do foolish things, and continue after repeated tragic lessons, and then expect others to bail them out at great expense, those others might complain--and you would call them heartless.
Stop the foolish behavior, and we will not have to worry about a heartless response.
1
Anthony: I live not too far from the water and the new FEMA rates for my area are actuarially correct for the maximum $250K FEMA coverage. Nobody is subsidizing my insurance.
I resent having my tax dollars going to prop up other people's poor choice in selecting a place to live.
3
My $500+/ year FEMA insurance is 1/500th of the maximum that FEMA will pay for my home in a 500-year flood area. That is actuarially correct. My neighbor in the 100-year flood area pays $3,000+ for his FEMA insurance, which is also actuarially correct.
How have our choices impacted your taxes?
1
I love how the NYT seems to run articles like these soon after John Oliver Last Week Tonight show does his 'expose' on the subjects! Thank you, John Oliver. That an eye opening explanation last week.
5
Pricing is key....
Foolish property development in high flood risk areas would have not occurred if flood insurance was priced higher to reflect the risk.... Or, flood insurance should not be possible to buy.
One possible solution is to not rebuild in high flood risk areas. Perhaps insurance rebuilds can occur in low risk areas.
Status quo, which is yet and rebuild and artificially low insurance pricing (the federal taxpayer assuming the risk) is unacceptable.
Seriously, building in extremely flood prone areas is nothing less than stupid.
4
Areas with recurrent flooding are nature’s way of telling us “don’t live here”. Don’t live there, let it return to its natural state.
8
People who love the water should sit in a bath. If you live near the water, that’s a bad choice. You assume the risk, The government treasury is not your personal slush fund.
4
Congress needs to set up systems that transfer the real cost of living in flood prone areas to the people who choose to live there.
1. Mortgages on structures in flood prone areas should be required to carry sufficient insurance to cover both the loan and the rebuilding.
2. Developers in flood prone areas should be required to put up a bond to defray the cost of the first 30 years if insurance premiums for the people who move into the development, and put up a bond to cover the entire first 30 years of insurance on the infrastructure (roads, sewers, etc.).
3. Development freezes should be imposed on the riskiest flood prone land.
4. Some portion of the flood insurance premiums should go towards purchasing the land most at risk that has already been developed, and remediating that land back into conservation buffers.
3
This program should always required homeowners to relocate after repeated claims. In the St. Louis region there are several areas of substandard housing along our many rivers that have repeatedly flooded. I was a newspaper editor and we covered these floods. Over time, the same people collected huge sums of money for repairing what were essentially river shacks.
As the Lloyd's underwriter said, that's what happens when you have a monopoly. And that's why the government should welcome private insurers....efficiency and good decisions (for policyholders and the corporations) count in private companies. Not so much with government run programs.
1
The National Flood Insurance Program was instituted so that each time there was a disaster, there would be a pool of money available to help people recover from it. Up to that point, there has to be a Presidential declaration of a disaster area. AS we all know, that still happens repeatedly.
Building on barrier islands that are inherently shifting landscapes has always been a really stupid idea. Yet, the real estate/construction industry has made out like bandits creating such market. Instead of blaming the National Flood Insurance Program which was a poorly-executed attempt to solve a problem, why do so few communities prohibit building in 100-year flood plains, places that we know flood. The same people who are screaming the market should take care of this, are the same people who scream there should be no governmental regulations designed to ensure the safety and well being of communities.
Drain the swamp is an accurate metaphor for what has historically been done destroying natural defenses and making more land available for development. Yes, NFIP has huge and severe problems. But, put the blame where it belongs. The system of real estate development and funding of all local services through property taxes which encourage insane development practices like building on barrier islands and on floodplains where water is meant to go.
NFIP is merely a band aid on a festering wound.
3
Those who balk at bailing out people who live in flood-prone areas, which typically are coastal, urban areas, don’t have any problem at all bailing out those who live in Tornado Alley, which is mostly rural.
Interesting double standard.
4
A double standard implies that two very similar situations are treated differently. However, there are significant differences between tornado insurance coverage and flood insurance, among them:
- Someone needs to tend the farms that feed us. Society needs people to live in the plains. Relocating farm land is not practical and ecologically impactful. Society does not benefit from someone living in a flood zone.
- The risk of a house being hit by a tornado even in tornado alley is statistically small compared to the number of houses. In contrast, a house in a 10 year flood zone is expected to flood, well, every ten years. Flooding is a predictable event, not a random event.
- Not many houses, if any, get damaged by tornadoes more than once.
- There is no such thing as a tornado insurance crisis, partly because tornado events fit the insurance model of "an unlikely event" and randomness.
I fail to see a double standard case here. You are welcome to make your case.
3
Tornado damages (wind and hail) to homes and businesses are covered by homeowners and business insurance policies. Floods and storm surges (water) are only covered by government subsidized insurance.
See the difference?
Since Mar-a-Lago is covered by this government insurance, how will this influence the actions of the government? The Trump administration wants to freeze the program which enables Mar-a-Lago to continue its coverage. What would be a fair premium for such a property for flood insurance? The smell of corruption taints everything the administration does.
2
I think a "one and done" program should be implemented with the Federal Flood Insurance program. Your house gets damaged/destroyed, you will payed 100% of the market value and then you must rebuild elsewhere (not in a floodplain), the cost of removing the remains of the property is deducted from the payout. The Feds retain ownership of the property and restore it to it's natural state. The owner is prohibited from obtaining low cost flood insurance again.
3
A commenter smells a whiff of hypocrisy:
"And earthquake relief Mr. San Francisco, who pays for that?"
The answer is: Homeowners do. I own a home, and I would never expect the government to subsidize earthquake insurance for it. I don't have earthquake insurance, for four reasons:
1. Plain old fire insurance policies cover some things caused by earthquakes -- fires, for example.
2. Earthquake insurance is expensive -- available, but expensive. Most people don't have it.
3. My house is built in a safe zone for earthquakes. They rate zones A through E out here, A being the most dangerous and E being the safest. I live in an E zone.
4. My house is very solidly built and has made it through many earthquakes without damage (including the 1989 quake, when it suffered only minor cracks in the interior paint in one room).
I could add a fifth: Property values out here are extremely high, but most of the value is in the land, not the structure. If a terrible earthquake hits and my house is destroyed, I'll still have 80=% of the property value.
Bottom line, though: These are all factors I consider. I don't expect others to subsidize me. The same goes for people who live in flood zones.
2
on the plus side, frequent flooding provides jobs jobs jobs as the damaged mcmansions that stud our eroding coastline grow larger and uglier after each storm, but surely there’s a saner approach.
2
I see little support for this program.
Why isn't it gone? What is stopping us from ending this crazy subsidy for risky real estate?
2
75% of FMV buyouts on the east coast would buy a McMansion in Wisconsin.
2
I've been to Wisconsin. It's very nice. I wouldn't want to live there because the train ride to all of the great NYC theatres and museums is too long.
2
Hmm, one house in Spring, Texas that is worth $42,024 has been repaired 19 times for over $900,000?!!!! Maybe the problem is that they need to restrict who can qualify for flood insurance.
3
Now here's a good idea - government run flood insurance works so well that we should have the government run all health care.
3
I am not in favor of the government offering subsidized insurance for houses that will definitely be damaged by a storm. I grew up on the South Shore of MA, a coastal area south of Boston. There are houses that get damaged every time there is a major storm. It's not a matter of "if", but "when" these houses will be damaged. These are places the news trucks go every time there is a storm, to show dramatic scenes of houses getting battered by the storm. Every time. I've seen houses rebuilt many times over the years, beneficiaries of unrealistically priced insurance offered by the government. There's a reason insurance companies will not insure these houses and the taxpayer foots the bill.
1
I live in a 500 year flood area. My FEMA insurance of about $500 is actuarially correct for the $250K maximum coverage. A friend who lives nearby is in a 100 year flood area. His premium is $3000 , which is also actuarially correct.
2
Those 500 and 100 year flood risks are based on historical data assuming a fixed climate, and neither is likely to be correct in this era of climate change. You've got a great deal.
1
Data can only be historical. I am sure that rates will change as data changes. As it stands, my century-old home has withstood numerous powerful hurricanes without suffering any flood damage and the maximum payout is only a fraction of its value, so I've got skin in the game.
Congress’s long-term goal should be having private insurers include flood insurance in their homeowners insurance policies as a standard coverage. But, the transition to this fully private flood insurance program will take many years and every step to achieve this vision must be done carefully. Congress must make sure that the changes protect people who are forced to purchase flood insurance from abusive and unfair insurance scams.
Congress must assure that low- and moderate-income homeowners and renters are protected from rate shock via a targeted subsidy to help them afford flood insurance while moving to fully actuarial prices in order to facilitate private insurer involvement. The current mix of subsidies, often given to the wealthy, must end.
We support greater involvement of private insurers in the NFIP, but some current bills allow unregulated surplus lines insurers to write flood insurance. There are many risks to consumers from this, including:
• no protections from state insurance departments if a claim is denied
• No power to make sure rates are fair
• If a surplus lines insurer goes bankrupt, the consumer has no access to any state guarantee fund to pay any claims.
Note: the writer ran the NFIP in the 1970s
You should have just linked to John Oliver, who provided an excellent explanation of this problem "Last Week Tonight". Or, at least given him credit for doing the research and bringing the subject up in the first place.
1
Of course flood insurance premiums are too low. I was going to purchase a home in Brick, NJ, right on the water and the government premium I was told was only USD 492.00 per year! Insane! Of course that gives people the mental power to live on the water and ruin the coastline. If something happens they say, they have insurance. Just like cheap gas. You want to offer USD 2.00/gallon gas? then we will build once again those silly mega cars. America, wake up. We have lived too long in our cocoon and must recognize that things cost money, from the shirts on our backs to the gas we put into our cars to the insurance premiums we must pay for building in contentious areas in the USA. Until then, we will have issues. I run a large business in New York City and in my years, one thing I learned. You have to make more than you take in. it doesnt have to be a large amount more, but it must be more. If pay a dollar, I have to at least bring in a dollar plus 1 cent. Anything else makes no sense
1
Yep, whatever you subsidize you get more of it. When I was a wee lad, I visited by well to do aunt and uncle's fishing duck hunting shack on the back side of a barrier island. It was a one room uninsulated wooden building with no lighting, no plumbing and a single cast iron stove for cooking and heating. I asked why is was such a shack. The answer was the risk of storms made it stupid to build anything that you could not afford to replace.
Fast forward 65 years. I recently saw aerial photos of the same island. Gone are the scattered shacks clinging to the back side of the island crest. Now, both the land and seaward side are lined with real houses each with its adjacent boat slip. That level of stupidity is possible only with a government run and subsidized program making it possible to get an mortgage since the mortgage holder's money is protected by the good ol USA.
2
“Then, what happens to me?” he asked. “I’m essentially being driven out of my home that I have three mortgages on.”
Right, what you engaged in Mr. Clutter is called denial, plain and simple.
Why should we continue to pay for your ignorant indulgence?
1
If they get rid of the flood insurance than the banks won't give them loans on those properties...problem solved ...
2
It's a big country. You have to live adjacent to the ocean? There is no where else to live.
2
The flood insurance program is a prime example of well-intentioned people being stupid with other people's money (the taxpayers' money) to create a government owned business which is mismanaged and inefficient in order to subsidize people to do what is stupid.
People live, build, and expand in areas which are regularly struck by floods. It is fine that they do so if there are other advantages in those areas which they think are worth the risk to them. But it is only fine to do so if they bear the risk of the floods since they get those other benefits. However, the government flood insurance program effectively absorbs much of that risk to the extent that it is under-priced and thus subsidizing them.
1
Yet again, the government mis-allocates resources, mis-prices offerings and distorts a market. We all pay for the inefficiency and corruption of government, but also this is literally out of our pockets in to the hands of a few. It reinforces moral hazard; why not build again, others are gonna pay the price, eh.
Big government always dampens logic, dampens efficiency and seeks to take out of one pocket to allocate to another's pockets. Uggh.
2
IMO, the US Gov't has NO business insuring private property owners against natural disasters, espcially ones as avoidable as flooding in Houston.
The Gov't should indeed maintain emergency readiness to step in to help in rescue and emergency snelters (not housing), but as long as individual states and cities let people build and live in at-risk areas, as long as they accept lobying by the real-estate sector, we as a collective nation should not be stuck with the bill. Let the angry people storm the state capitol or town hall. Maybe they'll get the message.
1
So much judgement and thoughtless ignorance in these comments! We don't live on or near any water, yet our house was severely damaged by Hurricane Irma from flooding due to rain. RAIN. Am I irresponsible for living someplace where it rains? Should the government ban people from building where it rains?How exactly does that work out?
And when we ban construction near the beach, as many would have it, do we also ban building on all of Americas rivers, lakes, canals and other waterways, the very foundation of commerce that our country expand?
Disaster insurance, like health insurance, is a right in a civilized country. It should not be a profit-maker. Rebuild to stricter standards - stop destroying the environment - stop cutting taxes for the wealthy to ensure the insurance program is stable - and let people go on with their lives.
1
I really don't see how you can say you live in Fort Lauderdale, but don't live "near any water".
What is called for is disaster insurance for homeowners, not flood insurance. Tornados, fires, hurricanes, earthquakes and other national disasters all cause catastrophic losses that may or may not be covered by homeowners' policies. All taxpayers are already subsidizing these damages. Witness the many billions of dollars allocated for relief each time a natural disaster occurs. Perhaps national legislation is required to mandate homeowners purchase all-disaster insurance, or perhaps mortgage holders should require this. All homeowners should own such insurance with premiums adjusted to risk in each geographic area. A change in thinking from flood insurance to disaster insurance is necessary.
2
“Severe repetitive-loss properties" should be looked at beyond homeownership. The consistent issue with all types of disaster, beyond just flood, is loss of power. Many of the areas people are speaking about also have overhead utilities lines, that not only carry electric, but fiber optic and cable held by the same piece of lumber that brought the telegraph across America. When you see those thousand of utility trucks coming into an area, the utility company is being reimbursed by FEMA and this program, are they paying insurance premiums?. The cost argument to bury these lines is fair, if it is a one off event, however severe repetitive loss, as can be documented, challenges that case. Just accumulating the payouts made to utility companies for these events can make a case that it would have been cheaper to bury as soon after the event as possible. As we look for saving taxpayer dollars, here is a two for one. Make power outage negligible after a disaster, while saving the program money
2
Again, we've met the enemy and it is us. At the beach, we watch our children build elaborate sand castles knowing all the while of the inevitable collapse in the next tide. Even if built above the mean high water mark, we know the collapse will still occur as the castle is after all built upon a foundation of sand. Still we nurture the dream of one day owning our own home at the shore. If only we would keep such plans in our dreams we would not awake from the nightmare only to find the nightmare is our new reality. Our federal flood insurance program is broken because it facilitates those fanciful dreams. Though it was high time for Congress to wake up in the aftermath of Katrina, and if not Kartina, post-Sandy, the real question is just who continues to apply the ether so our policy makers can continue to sleep, perchance to dream?
2
Simple fix. Pay off all current claims at claim value. Close the Flood Insurance Program. If you wish to build in a flood plain do so at your own risk, purchase flood insurance and if you cannot because of cost you are responsible for repairs, if you purchase flood insurance and have a claim you cannot rebuild on that site. Any area designated as a flood plain cannot be built upon in the future and the area is to be maintained by the local authorities with flood plain designations re evaluated and mapped every 5 years.
Any arguments?? Tough! Do not expect any citizen to subsidize rebuilding in flood plains for that is an individual home owner/business responsibility.
4
This is so instructive. Years ago the Feds took over the risk for flood insurance. It's losing money. But who cares, since the taxpayers definitionally are on the hook. Meanwhile, as sea levels continue to rise and Arctic ice melts, construction of expensive new homes is booming along our shores. Private insurers most certainly won't want that risk and who would blame them? But why should the taxpayers fund the risk when people are making decisions to build in these at risk areas today.
1
Back in the 1960's when my parents were looking for a new home, they argued over a lovely house that one of them liked which had a small brook running through it.
We moved to a new home without the brook, and I was told this- at 7 years old:
Never live on any street with the word 'river' in it- No Riverside Drive, no River Street, no Brookside Way, because rivers can flood and little streams can become rivers, and brooks can overflow.
One parent went even further and said don't buy a home in a town with a river, because your taxes will go up to cover the damage it causes.
That advice has served me well. Cranford, NJ is nearby with an overflowing river that devastated many homes and families. And it's still building more homes and condos today.
4
Don't buy a house in a development with 'valley' in its name either.
Many complain about the costs of rebuilding the seaside mansions of the rich. The maximum FEMA payout of $250K is not very much compared to the values of the homes. As long as the owners pay an actuarial-correct rates, there should be no problem.
1
I live in a flood zone and pay fairly significant premiums which if invested would yield about 250k over a 30 year period and this is what the flood insurance pay out is capped at. I bought the house almost 20 years ago. It is almost 120 years old and has survived numerous northeasters and several hurricanes without major incident. The world has changed and I wouldn't buy the house again but I did not know what we now know about global warming when I bought the house. I drive about 5k miles annually in a small car. I fly about 1x a year. I have insulated my house. I support efforts to contain global warming. For all of those who say it isn't fair to subsidize "my risk", my question is why should I pay for the behavior of all those who drive big SUVs and vote against sensible environmental laws.
4
It's way past time to end federal flood insurance. Those who choose to live in areas prone to flooding should pay the cost of insuring their property -- if it's an insurable risk at all. The rest of us are paying for the federal subsidy.
2
Everyone who has health insurance is paying for the care and treatment of insured chronic smokers and the morbidly obese. And taxpayers are paying for many who do not have health insurance - something to think about.
I agree that properties with multiple claims should have a limit, but most pay-outs aren’t to “Beach front estates”.
Fewer than 2% of national flood insurance pay-outs are to ocean-front or close proximity (300 feet) to the ocean property owners. The vast majority of flood insurance coverage and pay-outs are to inland homeowners along creeks and rivers, as well as homes along large inland lakes and bays such as the Great Lakes, Chesapeake Bay, Boston Harbor, Newport News, Charleston, and Savanna.
The majority of flooding over the past 35 years has been from the Mississippi, Missouri, Arkansas, Tennessee, Ohio, and Susquehanna Rivers and basins.
6
I don’t understand the mathematics of this. If I were a private insurer, insuring a house in the flood plains becomes an estimation not of whether it is going to be flooded, but how many times it will be flooded in a given number of years. I would also hope to profit. Unless the homeowners are willing to pay a huge premium, I don’t see a viable business model here.
2
Flood insurance subsidizes wealthy developers who build in flood prone areas. Without bans on building or rebuilding, why should developers and homeowners not build or expand their homes on attractive shorelines? Everyone else is bearing the financial risk of inevitable flooding.
3
Since the government must approve building plans, if the government allowed people to build in unsuitable areas, the government should be responsible for providing actuarially-accurate insurance to current owners or provide a buyout at FMV and move forward from here. Individuals who trusted the government should not be left holding the bag for its misfeasance.
Severe repetitive loss properties should simply be bought and torn down. Mother Nature will tear them down anyway.
The government's purchase price should be reasonable enough for the homeowner to feel it is fair (not the post-storm value), while at the same time protecting the flood insurance program from excess potential loss....and protecting the environment. It is possible to make everyone happy here.
3
>
One many of these Flood Insurance policy(s) have huge deductibles, which is why many people don't carry the insurance.
One is never made whole.
If one decides not to pay they should have no help from the gov't when flooded.
Here are the numbers I need to see (and didn't see in this article) a full account of EVERY dollar ever paid into the fund vs every dollar ever paid out and what is the difference?
Just because a gov't program is in the red doesn't exclude the possibility that more has been paid in than paid out.
Private insurance doesn't want to insure these homes anymore than med insurance company(s) want to insure old people; hence the programs
3
NFIP paid the max, we got an SBA loan for the rest.
Our home was demolished, rebuilt far above the minimum and inadequate 1’ above surge nfip required.
Covered properties should be inspected prior to policy issue to assess the risk. Example: If a foundation is already damaged - it’s documented and if not repaired the premiums reglect that risk accordingly or decline policy.
This way there’s no dispute on flood damage or pre-existing.
End Federal flood insurance and let private insurers charge market rates if any insurers want that risk.
Currently wrapped in political pleasing of those who want to deny nature by insist on living in floodplains and sea shores. If you want to live there, despite sea level rise, pay for it through private insurance without government subsidies.
3
Isn’t flood insurance simply another instance of poor management? Those who choose to buy homes in flood prone areas are taking a risk, like gambling. The flood insurance program which I believe was originally seen as a way to fund rare catastrophic losses has gone off course. Somehow, we have allowed our government to enable support of many programs that are not self-sustaining or mandated to be fully funded. Social security, flood insurance, the post office, the list goes on and on. Until we hold the government accountable to balance our budget and each of the individual programs within the budget, this will continue. If we let private insurance companies take over this program, they would quickly eliminate all the high risk properties from insurance or charge accordingly. If the government could mandate that flooded areas are ineligible for rebuilding, that would also help push developers away from these areas. We all know, if you build it they will come…. and get flooded. Here in NJ, Sandy simply paved the way for redevelopment as will the next superstorm.
1
amen to getting people out of harm's way and creating extensive and massive greenbelts out of the flood prone lands. It is one way to combat the warming that will make life very difficult in our cities and towns. While we are at it the subsides now vested in flood prone areas should be invested in greening buildings and cityscapes from the smallest corners to the highest buildings. There are plenty of models to choose from. Singapore for example has made very inventive parks with man made towers covered in vines and solar panels. It is not dreaming it is really common sense.
1
The program worked for nearly 90 years. It exists despite unusual losses lately, unlike private flood insurance that in similar circumstances disappeared.
Insurance is based on spreading individual risk to a group. If the insurable event is out of the ordinary, the taxpayers pick up the tab. That would happen in the current proposal of the insurance industry right from the start. In essence the insurers will be existing and profitable thanks to the taxpayers.
"But there were clashes, and eventually the government drove out the insurers and took over most operations."
What does this throwaway mean? How did the government "drive" out insurers and take over most operations? Was it legislation? Was it pricing? Was it establishing unreasonable standards?
5
This is an issue that deserves great attention, but is not a priority because of the partisan bickering in Washington. Congress can't do anything when they have their party blinder on and apparently just don't care about finding an effective policy solution. This year, it is worse than usual, so, now is the time. I pay for flood insurance that I hope I will never need to use. I can afford it and I am risk averse. Perhaps the money Trump wants to build a wall can be diverted to build effective flood walls.
2
Government insurance should be a one and done... use the money to move or to raise the home sufficiently to avoid damage. The next storm is on you, and at full rate insurance.
It should also be a mix of low interest loans and insurance payout. But it should be based on reasonable flood insurance rates, with subsidies grandfathered. New builds should pay full rates, as should second vacation homes.
Any change is going to hurt people, because the change will shift the cost of future flooding onto the homeowner either in a reduction of property value or in the cost of insurance. So the bail outs could be considered a the one time payout as the adjustment made to the current owners for the change in ownership of risk.
We should also adjust and set rates based local building code and convention. Areas that do not create flood plains, drainage areas, flood prevention, and build in land that is prone not only to flooding but to increasing flooding elsewhere will get higher rates, or lower compensation. New homes on the coast, or draining and paving a wetland should disqualify the property and raise local rates.
Use a mix of aid and common sense. I know, it is a stretch.
4
Your article is comprehensive and factual. I was in the insurance business for 23 years and President of the Amite River Basin Commission and worked with FEMA (albeit many years ago). It is a very complex issue, and no matter how much it is stressed to homeowners that they need to buy flood insurance , they will go to any lengths not to buy which makes adverse selection inherent in the program-a death sentence for being financially viable. Being financially viable is necessary to protect the ability to pay claims. We consistently build in flood prone areas and in my opinion most areas are subject to flooding even if they are not “on the map”. And as it stands now, if the flood program doesn’t give them insurance it constitutes a “takings”. Multi Objective River Corridor Management like was done in San Antonio and areas of the North Platte are options but it takes vision and the will to do it. BUT with all of that said, I hope they take into account the human aspect. It is heartbreaking to have your home flooded. Mud, snakes, your personal possessions. 99% of the people never build in a flood zone really thinking they will have to go through that. I hope they take human cost into account somehow. It’s a tough issue.
2
Having lived in a seaside house in New Jersey on and off for 37 years, and as the 11-year old at the time who ordered the owning grandparent to take out Federal flood insurance, I feel badly about the innumerable losses to nature. The ravages will only worsen with the increasing ferocity of manmade climate change that no amount of denial on anyone's part can modify. One has to balance the coldhearted business response of "fend for yourselves" to a more nuanced human response of how may we all help? Perhaps the first step has to be giving up a life by the water.
6
There is no other option to keep the real estate market alive. The government makes it up on capital gains taxes for these areas.
I'm of two minds on flood insurance and government assistance. I helped muck-out homes in Cedar Rapids, Iowa in 2008 - homes that were many blocks from the river and had stood there literally for a century or close to it without ever flooding. Yet, when the Rock River near Davenport, IA, where I lived, flooded as it did often, I remember a man whose home flooded over and over saying that he would rebuild because he liked his life on the river with his swim dock and boat right at his back yard. The former are folks I want to help; the latter I think not. Who wouldn't like a waterfront (river, lake, ocean, bay, sound, gulf) home? The risk is that storms can wreck it. I see no reason the rest of us should foot the bill for that lifestyle.
21
Personally, we have seen properties in bad condition, empty, in coastal Louisiana, that the owners will not sell or repair, hoping to make money again from these houses when another flood comes along.
Get the government out of insuring risky coastal properties. The risk must be born by the owners. It's much too contaminated by the profit motive, by corruption, and now by global warming too.
7
Suggestions here are good. Algorithms need to be built to keep up with climate change. Also repetitive funding of flooded housing should not occur, especially if local zoning allows building to occur in a flood plain (as in Houston).
However, these suggestions don't go far enough. There needs to be an overall FAMA hazard insurance required, taking into account all climate changes, and building in inappropriate areas. Such a hazard insurance would encompass flooding, fire, hurricane, tornado, mud-slide, etc areas. FEMA enforcing (with proper algorithmic changes) such a hazard insurance would put the agency on a firmer financial footing.
The cost of premiums is too low considering the ever higher frequency of storms requiring flood insurance payouts.
Another readers said it succinctly, if a North Carolina house costing %2 million is built on a sand bar that now statistically averages flooding/devastation once every ten years, then that annual premium should be $200,000 to that home owner. Instead North Carolina residents pay something like $2,000.
Also, once a 1 in 100 year storm destroys a residence, FEMA should offer a one time buyout of that home then the property should be condemned forever. This way , the owner is made whole regardless of historical construction but after storm damage, another home is not rebuilt in the same dangerous location. Building a new home on the same location using piles/piers (think stilts) does not help since the area will still be inundated in stormwater wrecking access roadways, vehicles and other material that rests at ground level.
18
As a Certified Floodplain Manager, I do my best to regulate development based on maps that are over 30 years old. It is impossible to accurately build a structure that is safe from flooding when the data provided to us by the national flood insurance program is so old and out of date. We have been working on new maps for my community since 1998. Although I am tough on developers and make them follow the regulations, there are plenty of communities enforcing these regulations who don’t know what they’re doing and allow non-compliant construction to occur within Floodplain. Take my parents for example, who were allowed to build a basement in the floodplain (before I understood flood insurance). They have escaped under the radar for having a completely noncompliant home but I dread the day they try to sell their house and the new owners have to pay exorbitant premiums for flood insurance due to the lack of compliance required by their community.
8
It's SUPPOSED to be different out here in SF, but it's not:
"A good portion of the problems lie with local governments ... who continue to yield to developers' political demands to be allowed to build [along the water]..."
Out here in SF, developers of big projects are required to devote a significant percentage of the project budget to "affordable housing," OR to contribute an even higher percentage to a city fund so that affordable housing can be built somewhere else in the city. Those two percentages just got raised substantially by SF voters (I forget the new percentages exactly, but I think they're 25% and 30%, respectively -- not insignificant).
Maybe the voter-approved increases will change things but, frankly, I doubt it. So far, for every major project (that's "every" as in "100%"), the developer has chosen not to build ANY affordable housing in the project -- presumably because he (all developers seem to be male -- ever notice?) worries that prospective buyers of the market-rate units he plans to build won't want to live near "affordable housing" people.
But at least all that developer money goes into that "city fund," which must have been used to build affordable housing somewhere else in the city, right? Wrong. Not a single affordable housing unit has ever been built by the city with that money. Frankly, I don't know what that money has been used for, or even whether it's actually ever been paid. But it sure hasn't been used to build affordable housing.
7
A commenter writes hopefully about something that already exists (sort of) out here:
"Just think how beautiful America would be if, except for ports, all buildings were banned within a half-mile of sea beaches..."
There are a few areas (mostly in cities, and in southern CA) where beachside buildings are "grandfathered" in, but there's not a lot of building along the coast. Granted, I can't think of any place where buildings are "a half-mile [away from] sea beaches," but at least they're not right on the beach.
The East Coast (where I've also lived) is much different, perhaps because it was thickly settled much earlier than the West Coast. Lucky us, I guess. Whatever the reason may be, though, we're already pretty close to what this commenter wistfully hopes for.
A commenter from California writes:
"Some of us whose homes are now projected to flood because of climate change are 80 miles from the ocean."
Fear not. Around the turn of the millennium (i.e. 2000), I read various projections of sea level rise during the coming century. They ranged from 36" to 96" (3-8 feet), never less. The century is now 1/6 over and sea level has risen about 1" in SF. In some parts of Oregon just north of the CA border, and along most of the Alaskan Pacific coast, sea levels actually FALL every year. I still see the same projections of sea level rise, but actual measurements don't support those projections. I've lived here over 40 years, and walk along the ocean and SF Bay fairly often. If sea level has risen since I've got here, it's not noticeable to me. Nor have I ever seen a waterfront property owner do anything to protect against rising seas -- no breakwall, no rocks, nada, anywhere.
Temperatures have risen here. About a year ago, I checked daily average temperatures over the 40 years I've been here, and learned they'd risen 6 degrees. I consider that significant. The usually-cited consequence, however --- rising sea levels -- just hasn't occurred.
So when you read that your 80-mile-inland home might be flooded, don't worry too much. At current rates, you'll have thousands of years to look for a new house farther inland.
2
Not all flooding comes from the ocean.
1
So private insurers here are the good guys, while in American health care many (most?) see them as the bad guys. Consistency, please?
The flood insurance program is a good example why I'm not sure that single-payer will work in the US. One *could* have an effective flood-insurance program run by the federal government - if the federal government were given the resources to run it intelligently. But it is isn't, so one won't. I'm not convinced that health-care would fare any better.
I think the fundamental problem is Americans want government on the cheap, and then are surprised - if not angered - it doesn't work out well.
10
We inland taxpayers subsidize the insurance of people who are flooded out time after time, so that they can rebuild for free. Do we taxpayers also pay for the rebuilt signs that say: "Private beach. Violators will be prosecuted?"
Just think how beautiful America would be if, except for ports, all buildings were banned within a half-mile of sea beaches, and way back from river banks. People could still build their "beachfront" homes with magnificent views of the ocean, but with no danger of flooding, and with a pristine beach open to all stretching from one port city to another.
24
Inland flooding is disastrous, too. Remember the frequent floods along the Mississippi, Missouri, and other rivers. Houston and New Orleans are inland. Even mountainous Vermont was devastated by a hurricane that turned inland.
1
This article could just as easily be about healthcare where you replace building in flood plains with smoking and replace hurricanes with catastrophic illness. All the right arguments for the healthcare mandate that everyone participates in order to reduce the premium for everyone.
1
A good portion of the problems lie with local governments - cities, counties, townships - who continue to yield to developers' political demands to be allowed to build on those nice, flat fields near waterways and coastlines. 'Great amenities, great views, cheap land,' and resulting high profits.
FEMA set up a completely dysfunctional system, incentivizing construction - and reconstruction - in high-hazard flood plain areas. Even when the areas are mapped as flood hazard zones with maps accepted as official Flood Insurance Rate Maps, or FIRMs, most maps are at least 10 years out of date and reflect flood levels at least 10" too low, yet are still used for zoning and building codes.
The maps allow construction upstream compromising downstream safety by allowing watershed and runoff changes adding up to 12" of water with no repercussions to local insurance coverage and risk assessment. No local flood program has ever lost FEMA insurance coverage despite mismanagement.
The common misperception that a "100 year flood" happens only once every century gives local government officials, politicians and builders the appearance that "it won't happen here." It actually means that a flood of a specified level will have a 1% chance of occurring in any particular year.
We need flood management and insurance reform, informed by science and engineers, and crafted by responsible public officials and the insurance industry.
8
Developers who build in high risk regions or areas should be required to pay land development fees to cover costs associated with predictable outcomes.
7
NFIP authorizes FEMA to write NFIP regulations that would constrict development in special flood hazard areas. The flood insurance rate maps (FIRM) were to help guide such restriction, and the insurance was to cover pre-"FIRM" homes grandfathered by the statute. Debate on the law in 1973 reveals that lawmakers understood that without the land use component, the NFIP would not be actuarially sound.
2
Part of the problem is the total absence of competent city planning. Why do local/state/federal government officials allow these rampant, unchecked, and unregulated construction in high flood risk areas to accumulate? Why are constructions keep accelerating near these flood prone zones? The answer is that profit outweighed future concerns.
Because the government failed at regulating the construction and structure of housing in cities such as Houston, extreme weather is more than certain to flood these residential areas. Housing, like food and water, is one of those key elements that the government must regulate.
Houses that flood annually should be marked as hazardous and be abandoned. A possible solution is for the government to buy these buildings at a fair price. Thus, allowing those low-income households to move out.
5
Insurance needs to be based on actual risk plus enough margin to ensure solvency when the odds roll against the plans best predictions. With auto insurance that includes charging higher premiums where risks are greater and much higher premiums for drivers who act irresponsibly.
Flood insurance must begin to act more like every other type of insurance. Pay claims for covered losses and let the insured use the monies however they like. Then re-rate areas, even as small as individual properties, based on actual experience as well as risk based on weather patterns and probabilities.
Nobody who totals their automobile nineteen times is going to get the same insurance rate as those that traverse a higher risk route but have never had a significant claim. And premiums collected must cover both the anticipated cost of claims, re-insurance to guard against excess risk, and excess prior losses.
Flood insurance is a national necessity to deal with our unenviable position as a hurricane target. But we might want to cover other disaster risks like tornadoes, earthquakes, volcanoes, etc so that many more households would share the risks. Even then there is a significant risk to government facilities and infrastructure that Congress should cover both using tax money allocations and buying insurance to cover excess and unpredictable risks shouldn't they?
4
This is what is worrisome about Houston, Galveston and other cities in flood zone areas. The chance of more Class IV and Class V hurricanes is almost certain -- how can people imagine their homes won't be underwater again?
1
This is good investigative reporting on a complex, nasty situation. However one aspect that was hinted at but not adequately developed concerns the fact that the FEMA's floodplain mapping program effectively ground to a halt as a consequence of Katrina.
The entire flood insurance program in any region is based on FEMA's mapping of the 100-year floodplain. In developed river valley areas the regulatory edge of the floodplain is typically defined by levees. What FEMA discovered during Katrina is that many of these defining levees failed. So in an excess of caution, FEMA decided to certify as floodproof only those levees either constructed by the Army Corps of Engineers or provably constructed to Corps standards. So in many heavily developed areas the mapped floodplain now extends past the levees to the valley walls -- but often without any evidence that the levees are actually deficient. The resultant absurdities, including conflicts with local governments, have paralyzed the mapping program.
Plus now that climate change has given us 100-year frequency flood events every five years or so, the reliability of that element of the equation is in serious doubt as well.
4
One of the main things that needs to happen is correction of flood plain maps. The towns of Ketchum, Hailey and Bellevue, Idaho suffered severe flooding along the Wood River and Warm Springs Creek, just as they did a number of years ago. Some of the houses were raised after the first flood, but many were not. Those of us with houses nearby are punished because the maps show our houses in the flood plain even though they are a distance away. And in their wisdom, the town has just approved a new 50 plus lot development in Hailey in an area that has flooded in the past.
3
If the government pays for Nature's destruction of housing built in flood-prone regions (with our taxes), there must be some responsibility by all involved in avoiding constructing, to begin with, in the affected areas. But who says we shall be rational about it?. Still, a highly emotional issue demands a reasoned approach for reform. We can't allow the same unconscionable process to go on...and expect a different result. But if realtors can convince you they have a bridge to sell you, it may be in strict justice that no insurance be available...unless they are the one's willing to rebuild your lost property...at no additional cost to you (dream on!).
1
I see no logical reason why developers and property owners aren't barred from building in flood plains. Taxpayers shouldn't be required to subsidize ill-advised floor insurance programs period.
11
The answer is simple — don’t build in floodplains. And taxpayers should not be responsible for bailing out totally-avoidable catastrophes.
20
It won't solve all the problems but those who live too close to water in areas with a history of flooding should be dropped from government insurance. The example of the house being repaired 19 times is an example of sheer stupidity. It is frequently wealthy people on Long Island, who are the recipients of large sums to repair houses over and over because they want to live by the shore. Cut them off. People should not be allowed to live in dangerous areas on taxpayers' money.
15
Lived all my life in Florida. If you can't stand the water, get out of the flood plain. Pooling flood risk with people on higher ground is just plain stupid; and unfair.
7
The blame for occupying homes in high flood-risk places should not entirely fall on the home buyers. Developers are often encouraged to build homes in high-risk locations for the tax benefits that the developments will bring local jurisdictions. Once the development is built and sold, the developers walk away with fists full of money; they do not bear any of the risk, yet are the main contributor of this problem. Likewise, jurisdictions that allow development in high risk areas gain increased tax revenue from the developments; yet, they don't bear much if any of the financial risks either. Many local jurisdictions ban development in flood prone areas; however, this is not the norm. Also, many floodplain maps in the US are grossly outdated and based on antiquated mapping techniques.
Buyout programs and continuing to insure "severe repetitive-loss properties" is only a bandaid for the larger issue - putting homes where they shouldn't be in the first place. Put the pressure on the developers to build in smarter, less risky areas and put pressure on Congress to develop more accurate floodplain maps and discourage high-risk development projects.
4
Amiana: Don't buyers bear some of the responsibility?
Of course ~some~ homebuyers bear some of the responsibility, particularly those who have the financial ability to move, but choose not to. But why were they able to buy a home there in the first place? Because ordinances allowed development there. Here in Blacksburg, Virginia, ordinances do not allow development in the floodplain or the floodway fringe, meaning no matter a homebuyer's socioeconomic standing, they can't live in the flood prone area... problem solved and limited flood insurance required.
John Oliver did his major segment on this topic last week. Informative and included a seagull that only eats Doritos. Probably product placement, but still funny and highly informative.
15
Do include the link next time (John Oliver does his homework, but if you think anyone looking at your comment does, please think again). here. Enjoy (he dopes his homework):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pf1t7cs9dkc
1
Except in the colloquial sense, this dope (me) needs to proof. John OIiver's research is inpeccable, was what I was trying to say.
1
Caption under the picture in Greenville, Mississippi:'...prompted home insurers to stop writing flood coverage."
Funny thing about insurance companies when a catastrophe happens upon the premium payers, policy rates go up or become discontinued. What have I been paying you for? Thought I was paying you for a financial 'Insurance' against this catastrophe and when you cannot pay or chose not to...you go to the government to continue your business? Why am I paying you ever month if you will not in turn give me what I pay you for? Funny funny business.
5
If you have a mortgage and live in a supposed flood zone you pay it. I've never had any of the storms of the past twelve years affect my property even my separate garage. Neighbors who have lived there since the sixties have never had flood or water problems from large surges. Yet I pay and they can't cover me. Such a pain in the wallet, I could have used that seven or eight thousand its added up to now that I find it's baloney.
4
I live in the desert. I pay over a thousand dollars a year for flood insurance, as I have a mortgage and there might be, someday, rain of proportion to cause flooding in the desert. Guess what. I haven't had annual rainfall over 4-6" at my house location in YEARS. This year I may top 3 inches. A few years ago I had to pay a surveyor to prove to FEMA that the 15 foot deep arroyo at the far far back of my seven acre property was in no way part of the area where my actual house is, in order to keep FEMA from charging me even more.
8
Some year you may get 10", perhaps in a single day. That's the nature of a desert.
Long Beach Island is a skinny island which is surrounded by ocean on all sides. What do you expect? This IS inevitably going to flood every now and then. What do you expect?
12
What this comes down to is that people insist on living in places that are not suitable for habitation.
Regular for-profit insurance companies recognize this and refuse to write policies, as is their right. The federal government is not that smart. They, through FEMA, write policies to insure spoiled people who insist on living in these disaster-prone places without having to pay a realistic price to do so.
4
Hi Mike - regarding FEMA - I don't think they really give a rip about if their flood insurance is good or bad. As a very smart, very liberal econ professor taught me long ago, the number one priority of a bureaucracy is to grow the bureaucracy. So why wouldn't a disaster relief agency break out into selling insurance? Probably doubled their budget!
3
This is an unfortunate situation. In much of Houston, the only affordable housing for lower income families is in flood-vulnerable areas. The NFIP provides them a safety net while they try to live the American dream (and to realize the increased financial security) of home ownership. In the meantime, the insurance companies, who bear no actual risk in fronting the insurance policies for these properties, make a significant profit from each policy they write--basically, just providing the paper on which the policy is printed but never paying for a loss. The U.S. government pays for the flood losses. We need a program that allows a reasonable buyout of these properties and provides assistance to families in relocating to less flood-prone housing. But the insurance companies resist such efforts because they will lose a dependable source of revenue if they lose the NFIP.
4
What you say is correct, except for one thing - the US government doesn't pay for anything, the US taxpayer does. The NFIP is another instance where the costs are socialized, while the benefits are privatized. Kinda like the bank bailouts back in 2009 or whenever. Dimon and Goldman Sachs are still laughing about that one.
Nobody subsidizes my homeowner's insurance. I don't see why I'm subsidizing someone else's.
1
Coastal strands, tidewaters and riparian areas are some of the most sensitive and productive ecosystems. They should be left in their natural state, and policies that support invading them should be abandoned.
7
I live in Harrisburg, Pa., on the east shore of the Susquehanna River, and my 1888 house in a National Historic District neighborhood is insured through the NFIP. When we bought our house in 1989, we did so with the knowledge there had not been a flood in 14 years and that the Federal government had a flood insurance program that would protect our investment if there ever was a flood. We have since been flooded three times, in 1996, 2004, and 2011. While NFIP customers are often portrayed as rich folks living on barrier islands, the program is vital to many middle class people in inland communities, especially in river-rich Pennsylvania. We pay $2.400 a year for that insurance, on top of about $750 for homeowners's insurance. If you take flood insurance away, or make it unaffordable to the middle class, large sections of many Pennsylvania towns will lose much of their value. People's lives will be ruined. Is that what you really want? And if you acquire the houses and bulldoze them, that will leave ugly scars in those same communities, not to mention the loss of considerable tax base. It would be an economic catastrophe. This is an easy issue to demagogue. I do ask that if you take our homes away, even with compensation, that you extend the same treatment to people in Oklahoma whose homes are damaged by tornadoes. Using the logic of the flood insurance haters, why should anyone be allowed to build homes in Tornado Alley?
15
David -- why must others, all across America, pay over and over again for properties that flood? You've been flooded 3 times,. and all the evidence is that global warming will make extreme rainfalls more common.
If indeed "large sections of many Pennsylvania towns will lose much of their value" then I am sorry, but that's the reality. It cannot be stopped and it is time to "adapt" by moving. Yes, it's a loss.
Your analogy with Tornado alley is nonsense -- the American public does not subsidize their tornado insurance.
5
Floods - yes
Healthcare - no
So sayeth this Republican Government as it decides who to provide insurance for.
4
Who donates more to politicians - the real estate industry, or sick people?
Therein lies your answer.
The government has absolutely no business bailing out or even insuring people who choose to live in places that routinely flood. Beaches, barrier islands, flood plains: these places have always presented a virtual certainty of flooding if you waited long enough. Stop supporting stupid decisions. If a person wants to live on the beach, the risk is on them, not the public.
12
Is there any discussion of why facilities such as oil refineries shouldn't be prevented from building on flood prone areas? Or required to move inland? When they are flooded, an entire city bears the consequences of the poisoned air and water.
10
When oil refineries are flooded the entire continental US gets hit with higher gasoline prices immediately. So, yes, as part of our critical infrastructure structure oil refineries absolutely should be required to either relocate to a safer area or pay the actual cost their intransigence inflicts on all of us shouldn't they?
1
If we think it is bad now, in 20 years the insurance "crisis" discussed here will be solved. By that point the market for coastal living will have collapsed because the coasts will be drowning.
The least of our worries will be insurance, then. We should be thinking about sea walls and barriers to save what we can of our coastal cities.
8
The flood-insurance program buying up properties "so that the owners can move somewhere safer"? Sounds like Lincoln's idea that the slaves be bought from their owners, presumably to be set free, allowing those owners to liquidate their assets on which much of their wealth was based. Didn't work for Lincoln and well may not work politically for NFIP. People didn't want to give up their slaves, and people don't want to give up their homes, despite the fact that so many repeatedly flood.
In the end, we needed a civil war to settle one issue and we may need to condemn properties with market-priced payments to settle the other. Unless you're wealthy enough to afford repeatedly repairing flood-prone properties without anyone else's help, it may be time to say to Americans that your rights don't extend to keeping property that does need to be repaired again and again, basically by other taxpayers, after predictable floods.
4
It's true that Lincoln penned a letter with the offhand thought of buying the slaves at $400 each, months after the war started.
This went absolutely nowhere, no surprise. Among the big reasons why was that there had been a big bubble in the value of slaves just before the war (it may have been one of the pressures that caused the war), and $400 wasn't anything like enough.
In the 1830s both England and France ended slavery in their colonies by paying partial reparations to slave owners. England did it from taxes; France attempted to levy it on Haiti, that was a major factor that lead to the revolution.
Abolitionists in the USA talked about it, but the huge number of slaves and the very high prices (slaves became much more valuable after legal imports stopped) led to astronomical numbers -- like 1 billion dollars in 1850 ... an inconceivable sum.
But then think about what the civil war cost. There's a lesson in this....
So the lesson is...there should have been more compromise?
3
Lee:
Unfortunately, nobody dreamed at the outset of the war what hideous human and economic cost it would ultimately exact. Apart from the human toll, it's been estimated that it cost $6 billion in 1865 dollars -- about $71 billion in today's terms. With that amount of money we almost certainly could cure cancer, Parkinson's and Alzheimer's combined.
It's all about risk-taking and thence the knowledge and wisdom of the property owner. Can you trust your insurance company and federal and state government to bail you out? If you anticipate that an unpaid loss in a flood emergency will wipe out your life savings I would say move inland.
2
It has spent billions of dollars repairing houses that just flood again. Its records, for instance, show that a house in Spring, Tex., has been repaired 19 times, for a total of $912,732 — even though it is worth only $42,024.
--------------------------------------------------------
And we want the government to be in charge of single-payer health insurance as well, in hopes that they will be more competent or efficient.
Government has no business to be in insurance business. They need to govern, not act as insurers.
8
PISonny: It's too bad that so many people want to live.
I'm sick and tired of my tax dollars going to people who insist on rebuilding repairing time after time.
10
More like tax cents. You spend more on cable TV or a cup of coffee at Starbucks than the number of your dollars that go into paying for a flood insurance bailout.
5
Uh, no. the population of the USA is about 330 million, of whom only about a 1/3d pay any federal tax. The NFIB was 30 B$ in the hole BEFORE this years storms; is likely at least 60 B$ now.
60e9 / 100e6 = $600 per tax payer.
Because governments are answerable to political rather than actuarial realities, government-run insurance programs invariably run out of money. Flood insurance is but one example among many others. Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and government pensions are all forms of insurance, all are bankrupt, and all for the same reason: everyone votes for benefits that exceed the premiums based on the promise that someone else can be forced to pay the difference.
2
Social Security is not bankrupt. It was robbed. Big difference.
25
Where are all the " small government " types when it's THEIR property???
If you want to live in a KNOWN flood area, fine. Pay for your own insurance, and don't expect a taxpayer bailout. I have actually watched tornadoes from my backyard, didn't come too near the House, YET. But, we are heavily insured, and would never expect, or accept, a taxpayer bailout. If you can't afford real, adequate property insurance, you can NOT afford to live there. Period.
31
BRAVO! Well put!!!
2
The government's flood zone policy encourages risky behavior. If we're going to subsidize risky behavior, let's go all-in. What to learn to parachute? Here's a discount coupon. Want to drive your motorcycle without a helmet? Here's a tax credit for not wearing one. Feel like smoking? Stop by our clinic an pick cartons for free. That way, at least, the folks who like risky behavior would die young and save us from having to pay for long-term health care.
5
It is a code issue as well. In the Netherlands they allow your house to be float. Basically the house sits on a foam filled concrete floor, that floats in a 100 year flood. In the US this can not be done and get a mortgage and / or insurance . You have a boat house year round in the water, or you have a house sitting in on a doomed foundation in a flood. The building code does not allow for the Dutch kind creativity or ingenuity, which is so desperately need with this changing climate.
18
They don't have hurricanes in the Netherlands.
2
No one cares. Trump is flooding the market with cheap medical insurance plans, and the flood of former flood plans--to match their underwater floor plans--is a memory, until the medical insurance market drowns, then the cycle continues. Reap it.
1
Republicans love to privatize the profit and socialize the risks.
30
They need to condemn these properties that are directly on the ocean and turn them into state parks. Pay the current homeowners current market value. They (most not all )think the ocean is for their pleasure only .
12
As one who has paid flood insurance premiums for years and yet never had a flood I am sick and tired of helping to subsidize someone's choice to buy a house on a coastline that floods over and over again. Time to create that high risk pool and charge appropriate premiums for people who have to live near large bodies of water! And decrease the outrageous premiums for those of us who don't live near oceans or lakes but their banks are mandating that we carry flood insurance .
14
You need to be better informed. Those people DO pay higher premiums. How much is your yearly premium and what flood zone are you in?
1
NFIP insurance rates are higher for those properties at higher risk and for non-primary residences. Yes, they may get more use out of their insurance, but they're also paying more. It's the way insurance usually works.
2
Clearly recognizing the problem now, the new programs should be:
fair buyout of repeat flood housing. One time offer.
Forbid construction in known flood zones.
Strongly Encourage development Planning that includes best practices for water management on a regional scale as well as individual building construction scale.
Actually solve the problem this time around.
Otherwise it amounts to government subsidies to a select set of homeowners, and the associated flood reconstruction industries. It is really not a just nor rational way to spend taxpayer money. It is reasonable for developers and property owners to pay the reasonably expected costs of living where they do and not to externalize those costs to others.
To be clear, rare and un-anticipated natural disasters are appropriate triggers for government assistance. Further, the government should be both stockpiling money and resources to address natural disasters and working to modernize infrastructure to harden communities against natural disasters. This is the kind of thing people don't feel too bad paying taxes for.
5
Everyone knows this program is broke and knows why. It is just that the government does not have the backbone to fix the situation.
3
One of the major problems is that people cannot seem to separate people that are "on the ocean" or "repeatedly flooded properties" from people that are at low/moderate risk, but are flooded by historic events whether it be a derecho rain event or hurricanes the flood people hundreds of miles from the coast.
When truly catastrophic flooding happens in truly low risk areas, they really need to be able to get help.
They also truly need to increase the ability to buy out properties that repeatedly flood. Many of these people want out, but they can't sell and so are stuck underwater in their home. In many cases, the flood maps didn't identify their risk properly or their risk increased because of overbuilding.
Read the article. Look at the details. Don't just curse at people living on the beach.
5
The article is incomplete and deceptive. There already are federal programs to buy out repetitive loss properties and put deed restrictions in to prevent further development, or the property is turned into parkland.
1
The buyouts are extremely hard to get. A suburb I lived in tried for several years to get a few repetitive loss properties bought out before NFIP would do it. I remember the city employees being very happy when it happened.
Just because programs exist doesn't mean they are implemented properly. If they were all the "flooded 19 times and rebuilt" properties wouldn't exist.
1
In the past year a few experiences shaped my thoughts on coastal land management:
A disaster relief mission to Houston, where the homes weren't just owned by wealthy McMansion types, but by people who were already poor and then got trampled by floodwaters.
A trip to New Zealand, where coastal land is for the most part undeveloped, and largely accessible for enjoyment by the public.
A trip to Acadia National Park in Maine, where the park boundaries stop several hundred feet shy of the shoreline, which is where a bunch of wealthy people have their vacation homes: in the entire park, there's not even a half hour of coastal walking to be had.
I don't think anyone with a $500K+ high-risk home should be getting handouts for fixing predictable damage while they block the rest of us from enjoying our coastlines. But I also think we need more affordable housing for people currently living on cheap lots close to creeks and other flood-prone areas.
26
The big lies come from realtors in at-risk locations. I am their one-woman antidote in SW FL.
During Winter snowbird season, I walk the streets of Venice FL and stop to talk with people looking at realtors' office windows full of For Sale listings nearby. I have two warnings: (1) Did you know that there are no "real" homeowners insurers in FL since 2005, though any mortgage will require that you pay premiums to the always-near-bankrupt small companies NOT included in AM Best reviews? Get past realtors and bankers to complete and accurate information about every property being considered for purchase!
(2) Considering a condo? Did you know that when a condo owner walks away from his or her obligations, all other owners pick up that part of the bills and damage?
I paid cash for a 2/2/2 home away from the Island of Venice and have only State Farm negotiated liability coverage on it. It took every bit of my law degree and experience to negotiate continued coverage when State Farm left FL. I do have AFIP flood insurance and the $250K cap will almost cover my purchase price.
Most important, I never include FL property in my net worth calculations . . .because there is a high probability that my home will be destroyed by rising waters and winds.
Why do people continue to pay so little attention to getting accurate and complete facts with their single largest spending decision in their lifetime, i.e., the roof they hope to keep over their head?
12
It's only a matter of time where will we see hundreds of billions of coastal
property denied affordable insurance and mortgages. Coastal property
will truly be for the rich who can afford flood resistant designs and/or
the cost of reconstruction. For now this is just a game of musical chairs
with millions of US Citizens unable to sell property that banks will not finance
and insurers will not cover.
6
When you take in 100's of millions and then have to start paying out billions it does not take long for the entire system to collapse.
5
This story doesn't speak the truth about why the government subsidizes the insurance on properties than any fool can see have a high risk of flooding: rich people owning beachfront property and developers want it that way.
The Biggert-Waters Flood Insurance Reform Act of 2012 (often referred to aptly as "bigger waters") attempted to reform the flood insurance, In less than one year Congress passed the Homeowner Flood Insurance Affordability Act of 2013, that either undid or delayed all the provisions of Biggert-Waters.
The idea of half-private half-public flood insurance is CRAZY -- the private companies will take all the lower-risk properties, leaving the public at large bleeding ever more badly on the worst.
I don't see any way out other than simply ending the publicly-subsidized flood insurance, at least for homes along salt water. Almost nowhere are those poor-people's homes. Often they are rich people's 3d, 4th, 5th homes.
I'm not rich, do not own coastal property, and I don't want to be paying for other people's insurance.
20
There is a cap of $250,000 paid out on any flood insurance claim. Rich people who are building mansions on the coast pay more than that.
2
Rich peoples' fifth homes? Rockaway Beach?
1
Christopher, Aristotle -- if you own a 250 k$ second home, you are rich.
The vast fraction of waterfront homes in the US are not primary residences.
My husband and bought a condo in Naples, FL in 2014. It is not in a designated flood plain, and has been spared from every flood/storm/hurricane since it was built in 1991. We thought we would insure it against flood nonetheless, but flood insurance is prohibitively expensive and getting costlier all the time. So we held off. And then we watched (safely from NC) on the Weather Channel as the eye of hurricane Irma passed over our little neighborhood, and once again, our area was spared. Our daughter lives down there full time, same neighborhood, so she left briefly to be safe and came back asap only to find that the damage in Naples was almost entirely limited to landscaping and fences—very few people got so much as a broken window, and only the businesses and homes right on the water flooded. The practice of allowing people to build in a flood plain creates more flooding, for one thing, as it replaces watershed with concrete. And it further raises the cost of flood insurance for everyone, even those who are not in the risky areas of the state.
10
The government has no business supporting flood insurance for homeowners who choose to ignore the risks of building or buying in flood prone areas. The rest of us are simply subsidizing them, which they are counting on. Why should the rest of us pay for others to enjoy the pleasures of coastal living that we do not.
27
I agree, but then governments, state and local, have to prevent building in these areas and protect wetlands that prevent flooding. Unscrupulous developers will continue to market these properties to the unwitting without regulation.
4
The only thing you are subsidizing are the bailouts and the amount of money from your tax bill that goes to a bailout is in the cents, not dollars.
1
Aristototle -- your claim it is cents is nonsense. NFIP was 30 B$ in the hole before this year, at least double that now. That's about $600 per federal taxpayer.
Don't build in hurricane or flood zones and read your policy.
14
The solution is simple, according to many of the comments, the government shall assume state ownership of private land, because it might, one day, be flooded. The Army Corps of Engineers already restricts development on wetlands, as defined by soil samples.
Secondly, the population growth of the country must be reduced to prevent further expansion of residential building in areas considered flood zones. This can be accomplished in some part by a restriction of immigration into the country.
People currently living in flood zones should be forcibly moved to higher ground. That would require the government buying out flood zone property and using imminent domain to acquire property to settle these displaced residents. Many will require new jobs as well.
What this problem requires is a dictator ship.
1
No. All that is required is that people who choose to live in flood zones bear the risk themselves, instead of asking others to foot the bill.
8
Foot what bill? Don't you pay taxes? How do you decide how your tax money is spent? You don't. The NFIP is self sufficient when there aren't monster storms that flood areas that aren't in designated high risk flood zones, which causes the massive expenses that require a government bailout. I, and my family, have paid our flood insurance premiums for decades with no claims but you won't hear us whining and complaining about "footing the bill" for other's misfortune, and much more, a greater percentage, of my money paid into the system pays for those flood claims than the few cents of your tax money for the recent bailouts of the flood insurance program.
People in high risk zones DO pay higher premiums than those in lower risk zones.
3
The likelihood of a property being flooded can change over time due to upstream and downstream development. As concrete and asphalt surfaces replace forested areas heavy rain runoff can become a big problem.
My 60 year old home is not in a flood plain, but I watch my creek and weather reports carefully as I've seen that a certain amount of rainfall over a certain period of time - over 14 inches in a 3 or 4 week period - can put me at risk of a flood.
I can't identify which upstream property was the tipping point, all I can do is pay for NFIP insurance and cross my fingers.
2
I bought my house before they said I lived in a flood plain. I flooded exactly once in thirteen years because of Hurricane Irene. I pay a small fortune every year. I'm glad I had the insurance then. But it sure is hard getting payments, and it doesn't cover everything. My city is supposedly working with the Army Corp of Engineers, but it hasn't affected me. I'm still paying in.
2
Once in 13 years is not infrequent or a low risk. If you bought a 260 k$ home, that would mean the actuarial premium could be as high as 20 k$/year.
1
Counties decide which land can be developed, and municipalities write building codes. If the federal government is being asked to subsidize disaster insurance, shouldn’t it be determining which land could be developed and the basic building codes that developers would have to follow to build there? Local governments would then have the option of writing more restrictions, but not of loosening the federal ones.
This should be like ACA: if you’re in the zone, you pay. But there should not be any more building in flood zones.
4
How many times there has to be flooding before the government says no more building in this area but if you do there will be no insurance available the next time there is flood. I bet there are areas in the country where flooding has occurred a number of times either Andrew or Irma or Maria. There has to be a limit to government support for addiction, self inflicted harm and rebuilding a flood prone or natural disaster prone area. Insurance is never going to work when there is a good possibility that the insured property is high risk for considerable damage equal to several fold higher than the cumulative amount of the premium. The way things are those that are truly deserving are probably left high and dry and those perpetually in need get a lot.
4
If there is a compulsory flood insurance enforcement to all households, issue can be resolved.
1
And I should pay higher homeowner's premiums so YOU CAN live on the water exactly why?
Do I get to stay in your waterfront home XXX days a year in return?
8
I grew up with floods in a little N.J. town named, quite aptly in retrospect, Bound Brook. When my family purchased our home in the early sixties, we were not informed that the property was part of the flood plain of the Raritan river. We would not see flooding for the first two years due to the great northeast drought.
One summer's day, we had a thunderstorm of the "cloudburst" variety. Our stormdrains were quickly overwhelmed, and before long, there was about ten inches of standing water in the street. My parents were surprised, because we had never been told about the flooding problem. The water receded shortly, and we thought nothing about it. Little did we know that our town had a long history of severe flooding. Nothing more (other than street flooding) would occur for several years.
In 1971, a weak tropical storm named Doria, would forever change my life. That storm dumped ten inches of rain on us. Then a dilapidated dam collapsed. At four am, my home had two feet filthy polluted water in it. Everything I had was destroyed. Irreplaceable photos, audio recordings my dad had made for years after I was born, virtually any record of my family's life were destroyed by that toxic soup. It was only after my house had been ruined that we heard about the National Flood Insurance program.
Since Doris, my familial residence has suffered severe flood damage EIGHT TIMES. We have NEVER been offered a "buy-out." Even after 1999 hurricane Floyed, which had 18 feet of water! Why?!
2
John Oliver did a show on this last week. I encourage people to watch it.
1
People need to "Stay out the beaches!" in the coming decades.
Who reads this and thinks single-payer is a great idea?
2
Apples and oranges. Flood insurance ENCOURAGES risky behavior. Yes, smoking/drinking/overeating increase health risks, but any of us can, and eventually will, fall prey to injury or illness. Single payer is one possible route to more efficient delivery of a universally needed product. Flood insurance is a giveaway that rewards recognized bad decisions.
5
It makes no sense at all to have the Government subsidize the sheer madness of building residential or commercial structures in areas with predictably high risk profiles. Things like floods, wildfires, and earthquakes. For me the simple approach is let market forces prevail. Get the Goverment out of the insurance business,but keep it in the FEMA business. First time disaster strikes they help. Thereafter we are on our own. The smart thing to do is simply move somewhere else.
9
People that want to live near the shore anywhere should pay the insurance that they need to protect there investment. The public is not the one that should be accountable, the homeowner is.
They picked the place where they want to reside. It's in there basket of buying something that they want.
8
There are many reasons a flood can occur, but in areas that have repeated floods from general weather, river,and flat bed conditions, perhaps moving to higher ground is more rational then supposing insurance is the continuing answer.
10
I can't think of a single issue that unites liberals and conservative, red state and blue state as the need to stop taxpayer funded "there will be a flood" insurance.
This is not an insurance program it is welfare for people who shouldn't need welfare.
It is the kind of program that brings discredit on democracy. There is no one lobbying for poor people but homebuilders and people who want waterfront property with no financial risk somehow legislation gets past.
50
Yep. I'm a "bleeding heart liberal." I'm also a hurricane scientist. It is absurd for the public to be subsidizing flood insurance for those with coastal property.
15
Given that you live in Quebec, what qualifies you to speak of the unification of
red states and blue states, flood insurance, or anything else in the United States?
Quebec doesn't even want to be united with the rest of Canada , and the rest of
Canada would be plenty happy if Quebec seceded once and for all.
Looking at WSJ articles and comments on the same subject, many from "conservatives" and comparing them to the comments here, many from "liberals", it is interesting and perhaps ironic that there is such unanimity and agreement on this subject.
It makes one wonder.
8
What a revelation!!!! If you insure houses that are next to water, given past history, they might get flooded and then the insurance company goes broke. Could that be the reason why private companies don't issue flood insurance???
If this is not revamped, the country's economy will also eventually be under water.
7
The best solution would be to settle claims by lottery in exchange for a cap on premiums. And mandate banks to forgive loans for those who don’t win the lottery. It’ll still be a lose-lose situation, but a better one. And it’ll replace tax-payer losers with risk-blind lenders.
Now,that's something that we can all not just live with, but look forward to. Hurricane Rina, hurry up. We need you to wipe some banks off the map.
4
Taxpayers protecting Insurance company profits....
2
This is going to be another sell out to the people who created the mess. The developers who bought the land cheaply and somehow convinced the city planners to allow people to build in flood plains have made out like kings. It is the crime that keeps on paying as each time a flood occurs the construction companies come back again and again to rebuild at tax payer expense. The only fair solution is for the cities and counties who green lighted the development in flood plains to pay the homeowners fair market value for their homes and then tear them all down. If the planners feel like they were cheated by developers, they can go after them. In the same way that people should not be allowed to get insurance in hurricane zones, people should not be allowed to get it in flood plains. In the end, the tax payers always end up footing the bill.
7
Ending this horrible program is long overdue - Why do we spend Billions of tax dollars for people to live in harms way ?
7
This is one place the free market should be allowed to work its magic. Stop burdening taxpayers with the stupidity of people who build on floodplains, coastal sandbars, and the like. If there are no market-based insurers, or if the coverage costs too much, that's an indicator that maybe we should not be building on that site. What say you, free-market republicans? Or are you too used to the federal bailout when the water rises?
10
This whole program is wrong .... it is economically not viable for commercial insurance companies to insure these properties, so why are tax payers being put on the line to do so?
It encourages people to purchase properties which are prone to flooding and it discourages them to move, because they can keep getting flood insurance.
Home owners who are denied insurance when living in fire risk areas, are forced to decide if they want to live in these areas and, if so , save up the money to re-build if and when their properties burn down.
I can assure you that no commercial insurance company will continue to insure you after a second burn (some not even after one burn) so why are these flood prone home continuing to be covered?
In this country of exceptionalism, where self reliance is paramount if you want to live in an area where it frequently floods, then rebuild your home out of your own pocket. I insure my own home and I don't want to have to insure yours or pay for the repairs.
3
Federal Flood insurance on a residential property is limited to $250,000. So all this talk about millionaires and Mansions is non-sense. It does not cover foundations or the land value, it only covers replacement cost of the damage. The government has the same exposure to a two-family house in the Rockaways as it does to $50,000,000 mansion in the Hamptons. You are required by law to have flood insurance if you have a mortgage. All those mansion owners in the Hamptons are buying private flood insurance; Federal Flood insurance will not even cover their carpets.
6
Fella, I don't want to subsidize somebody's 250 k$ beach cabana. It's crazy and stupid to build on the Rockaways, or Fire Island. If you own it, you take your risks or find private insurers willing to do so, but don't come to me when a storm ruins your property.
Sandy was not even a hurricane when it came ashore in NJ/NY. When a real hurricane hits, and one will sooner or later, the damage will be many times more extensive.
4
My former law partners $1M+ homes on FL's intracoastal waterway near Miami are insured by PURE, an insurer created to cover the wealthy after Katrina and the FL legislature drove out real insurers for Floridians (State Farm/Allstate/Nationwide etc.). Minimum to participate is $1M OR 3,000 sq ft and do all of the risk-abatement required by PURE.
I did the opposite and paid cash for a $265K house a couple miles from the Gulf, on the other Coast of FL, in 2015. I have only personal liability insurance and zero coverage beyond AFIP/flood because FL "homeowners insurers" are all one claim away from bankrupt. Never count this property in my net worth numbers!
With increasing frequency of massive flooding events, caused by rising seas, no insurance program alone would be able to fix the issue. All flood designated areas should be restricted from building any structures that can not sustain a 500 year flooding event. Structures already built need to be offered a bail-out that is tiered from 100% of FMV (fair market value) for low cost structures and down to 50% of FMV for high cost structures. This way middle income families would be able to move relatively easy and all the beach mega-million house owners would need to decide whether to get what is offered or stay and take all the risks. Bail-out program should be voluntary, but limited to only 10-15 years. Once bail-out program ends, all remaining structures not sold to the government, would be designated as uninsured and owners would carry the full risk of any damage going forward.
4
Because it is run by the government, and thus does not have prices that match the actual risks. Also when we pay out in an area of great risk you should not get insurance again, live somewhere else.
What about historic homes historic in historic coastal communities that were there for over 100 years sometime 200 years survive all this times. Owners of those historic homes like Charleston, New Orleans are victim of local jurisdictions who have let overdevelopment gone wild because they do not wish to aggravate larger developers, such jurisdictions (cities and counties) do not maintain their infrastructures (seawall wall, drainage, pump station etc.. ) as they are not sexy , those jurisdictions prefer spending tax money on streetscaping and other amenities to please tourism and hospitality industries. Not everybody in coastal communities have gone foolishly building MacMansion on the beach. the tax structure is so twisted that it often benefits the hospitality service industry rather than safety of its resident in regards of flood migration.
78
The McMansions on the beach generally aren't the problematic properties. The new and expensive homes tend to be built to higher building-code standards and on pilings. It is the older properties sitting low to the gorund that get flooded.
3
Beatrice, You are right. But there is a difference between some flood-prone places that can be engineered to protect local homes and other places (like Florida) that will eventually be washed out due to a sub-soil limestone base. The engineers can figure it out. We need to import a few thousand Dutch water engineers to replace our Army Corps of Engineers.
1
No one should ever build on the shore, only behind the first hill. The US taxes pay people to rebuild and rebuild on the coastline. Stop the madness. If people had to pay what it really costs to insure their palaces on the shoreline, most of them would stop. But the eternal sunshine of the spotless mind and no memory of the past is the rule here.
6
Limit the program to primary residences. The taxpayers should not subsidize vacation homes.
6
The U.S. flood insurance program on the coasts is a boondoggle. People should be building on the back of the barrier islands and only if they can endure the risk or pay up for insurance themselves.
It's practically theft, if people keep rebuilding in flood zones and making the government pay up. Many of the people doing this are wealthy and the homes are second homes.
If a fix is coming, hooray. If it takes a slow progression over 10 or 15 years, get the U.S. Gov't out of flood insurance!
2
Many commenters object to subsidizing lifestyle choices of others. I agree. However, this leads to unexplored paths. Think of health insurance premiums for smokers etc. Note that some products incorporate such discrimination, e.g., life insurance premiums for smokers and car insurance premiums for teenagers.
1
Bruce, you are right but is it politically feasible to punish life-style choice people? Private insurance companies can do it but the government? Did you know that public university sponsored annuities pay the same to both men and women (even if women live longer) as opposed to private annuities?
tThose are reasonable too.
Flood insurance for properties that possibly will flood is a viable program .... insuring properties that will flood is not.. and insuring properties that have flooded multiple times is insane.
We need to stop issuing policies for new properties in known flood areas and buy out those properties that have flooded more than once. There needs to be a reset .. and sanity moving forward. I don't think the private market will step in without subsidies. There is a need for the program
10
In the mid-49's one could buy a property mid LBJ for $350; beach front would cost $100 less or $250 because everyone knew it was only a matter of time before you would lose your house. Many an Autumn i filled sand bags trying to save neighbor's beach front homes, only to watch them crash into the sea. In the 70's beach front owners plowed away the dunes with their roots web of hundreds of years... for the view; in the 80's to present the feds plow dredged sand in a pile thinking it is a dune offering protection.
Still don't understand why they keep building "sand castles" and why the rest of our citizens continue to be held financially responsible ...especially where the beach is private.
23
Of course tax-payer-funded insurance of people building on flood plains should go. I think that federal or state buyouts are a great way to do this, providing that the shore is returned as wild parkland to the people of the United States, the taxpayers who did the buying out. As to people currently with flood insurance who do not want to sell their floodplain/coastal homes to the government, I think we should grandfather their policies, pay out one last flood insurance claim, and then close down their policies. And we should do all this very soon, because climate change effects could easily accelerate.
13
Seems to me that having a flood insurance program that only serves those in designated flood zones has some of the same problems as a health insurance system that allows only sick people to buy coverage. So, my suggestion is (brace yourselves) a universal mandate. Flood insurance should be required for EVERY Fannie/Freddie qualified mortgage, as well as any FHA/VA loan -- and every SBA guaranteed business loan. Update the flood maps and also allow house-by-house underwriting. So, I can hear the complaints already. "I live on a hilltop, why should I need flood coverage?" Well, with proper underwriting, if your risk is genuinely minimal, your premium should be minimal as well. On the other end of the spectrum, "OMG, the market for beachfront houses will collapse, no one will be able to afford the insurance." So, remind me again exactly why it is that the real cost of allowing you to build a few yards from the water's edge should be borne by taxpayers?
7
No absolutely NO. Now I want to build a house in Florida, I insist on a lot with X rated flood possibility and I want to raise it about two feet above the lot. I also want it build to resist water and especially wind. No need for flood insurance.
1
FJP,
There have always been a demand for waterfront property even before insurance was available. It is all that money in politics that allowed the taxpayer to assume the responsibility when low and behold properties that were expected to flood flooded.
3
seems to me you have overlooked a big part of the issue, the environmental destruction of the dunes and overbuilding in areas that actually could provide protection (see also swampland and asphalt in cities) Dumping money into a system that doesn't take this into account is foolhardy. Also, why do we taxpayers pay out ANYTHING for someones second home? The purpose of these government safety nets is to prevent folks from starving, dying, becoming homeless.
2
I remember an elderly lady from the Rockaways who lost her home to Sandy was angry that FEMA only gave her $32,000. Then when I read on I realized she had no mortgage and no flood insurance and that the FEMA payment was a gift from us taxpayers.
I don’t know why she thought she deserved more. I don’t know why her children didn’t pay for the flood insurance to ensure the well being of their mother and the home they all loved and summers they enjoyed at the beach. And now I dont understand why Mr. Clutter has to sue the government to get what he is entitled to.
We have voted for governments to cut services and spending so the wealthy can have their tax cuts - most of us get little to nothing and yet far to many keep voting republican
Welcome to the government you deserve - the one you voted for.
9
But the wealthy are not getting any personal tax cuts, they might pay more. And yes we should get a government that costs less and does a lot less.
Fema can also invent flood plains at will. My property was tagged as being in a flood plain because, several years ago, the previous owner made a flood claim with his insurer as rain came in as a result of the driveway being damaged. So when FEMA reviewed the region, they saw the previous claim and tagged it as in a flood plain. Yes, there's a creek in my backyard with flowing water about 5 days per year... Can't win sometimes.
4
The national flood insurance program should end and be replaced by private insurers. The government should not buy out homeowners with homes that have flooded repeatedly. If people can't pay premiums based on the high risk of flooding and flood history, that is on them and the taxpayers should not be expected to shoulder that cost. I have zero sympathy for Three Mortgages Clutter or Ms. McKissic who thinks the taxpayers should buy her out because her house flooded FIVE times.
24
agree
1
There is a risk to living in a know area that experiences natural disasters routinely. And it is time for those who live on barrier islands, for example, to not be continually bailed out. It is great to live there, but it is time to be realistic in the face of global warming and increasingly violent weather patterns.
34
Barrier islands do not experience routine natural disasters, unless you are referring to geological time. Once in a lifetime or less frequently is not routine.
Hey Shaker Hts, OH: I feel the same about the people that live on the Vermillion River when ice flows cause flooding in the spring. They should be bought out, too or refused insurance.
But what about the ring suburbs that were overbuilt and now their homes flood because of poor city planning? Many older homes are being flooded by the newer developments or the newer developments were built where city engineers would not allow it but the politicians would. Who should be on the hook for that?
It is a matter of choice to live in a precarious area, I would not. There are locations where government intervention with what can go wrong, like New Orleans, and too many other locations, could be assisted with preventative engineering measures. there are other areas where natural barriers have been built on, hence or MIA. Half of Holland did not exist that long ago, but should the gov or insurance (insurance spreads risk) pay for people to rebuild 5 times or multiples of 5? Should people make better decisions?
I never understood why folks remain in their home or area when it's been prone to flooding. The Des Plaines River in the Chicagoland area is notorious for flooding, either from heavy, continuous rains like this past summer, or a spring thaw from ice and snow. Every year, same sad story, different home owners. On one hand, my heart goes out to them because of the destruction and damage they endure, but on the other hand, they repair and remain, until the next flood.
Same principle with areas deemed "tornado alley". Those areas have been like that for decades, so why move there in the first place? It's like buying a house near an airport but then complain and expect the government to do something about the noise factor. I don't mean to sound cold or unfeeling, but doesn't anyone do their homework and a little research any more?
Our basement is prone to flooding in the summer. Not a lot, but enough to be a major pain cleaning up and drying out. Our appliances are up on cinder blocks. We don't keep anything valuable stored down there either, i.e., photos, furniture, etc. I think common sense and being a little smart is not a lot to ask of potential home buyers. If one does not properly research the area & then gets caught in a flood, I have a difficult time justifying the government, i.e., tax payers, paying for someone else's ignorance. Shouldn't those living in high risk areas bear more responsibility than that of the tax payer, ultimately?
18
Some people want to move but nobody wants to buy a house that floods repeatedly. I do think the government should buy out those houses and tear them down instead of paying repeatedly to renovate them.
1
I can agree with up until the part about Tornado Alley". You're talking about nearly one fourth of the continental US, including the entire state if TX
2
The specific "tornado alley" area I was referencing was Plainfield, IL. Sorry for being so general rather than specific. Did not deliberately intend to be so general. Thanks for the heads up.
1
Given the simple fact that there will continue to be more ocean on what had been land for the next few centuries, there isn't a way people in affected areas can continue to expect no change in the costs of staying in increasing harms way.
But dealing with it means among other things dealing with developers, who tend to have a lot of power in local politics. Article here from the Houston Chronicle that describes plans for developers to build 800 new homes - in a flood plain. The writer notes that Houston has had a 500-year flood in each of the last three years.
http://www.houstonchronicle.com/business/columnists/tomlinson/article/De...
So if private insurers can cover people at some risk, and federal back up the worst, let's consider that, even if it does raise rates.
But we should also change what happens to flooded properties. Rebuild? Only if raised beyond new reality-based measures.
Too risky? Buy out the owner and remove the lot from the inventory of land available for development. This isn't just happening along our shores, by the way. The increase in the most intense rainstorms affects people along all of our many rivers, too.
http://www.chicagotribune.com/suburbs/highland-park/news/ct-hpn-flood-bu...
2
I worked for FEMA under Reagan. At that time, to be able to participate in the National Flood Insurance Program, communities were required to build to certain flood control standards. When a community failed to comply, staff would recommend the community be sanctioned with the threat of withdrawal of the program. Then, a well-placed Senator would call the White House and it was taken care of, to the dismay of staff. No sanctions, no withdrawal. Developers were allowed to build on without regard for the standards. I don’t know if this practice continued but the risk of politics interfering with best practices should be considered in any changes to this program.
94
This goes on all the time at the local level. Do you think most towns are going to turn down a big expansion of their tax bases by not allowing as much waterfront development as possible? As a double bonus, most waterfront homes are second homes, so there are no kids (or costs) added to the school district either.
8
houston
1
Corruption, it goes with government having power.
Stop hidden subsidies to fossil fuels by denying the real economic costs. Economic rationalism can't deny the externalities for ever.
3
What a joke that is, you really have to stretch to find any subsidies for fossil fuels. Almost none of these floods had anything to do with climate change, not that future ones won't. Super wimpy storm Sandy is a great example.
Hard to see how any of this is going to work or how you can make rational policy when Pruitt, Rick Scott and others won't even acknowledge that sea levels will continue to rise and hurricanes will keep intensifying. Will we come to have two sets of flood maps, a politically correct one to be used in public debates, and a banned but factually correct one used clandestinely by insurers to set rates?
4
Sorry, this has been going on long before Trump. Maybe blame Bush?
1
One question is: with all the dramatic changes in weather patterns, will we, as a society asking "Where should we choose to live to be safe?" ever be able to outrun the ('scuse the pun) tide? I assume a large proportion of the population (not just in the US) lives near water that has an ever--growing risk of flooding. For centuries cities were built aside waterways, which were crucial to commercial trade, suburbs grew up around cities, so even if your city or town is not anywhere near a coast, your home may be at risk if close enough to a river bank that overflows.
But flooding isn't the whole of it. Look at California, where the forest fires reached communities where no forest fire had gone before. As a child I was glad our home was not in Kansas, because we weren't having the cyclones that had swept Dorothy and Toto and their house off to the land of Oz. It seems the twisters have increased in frequency. As a young adult I was surprised that an earthquake, fatal to four schoolchildren, hit New Rochelle, NY. There are fewer and fewer places where we can feel confident that we and our homes will be safe from natural disasters, and, courtesy of technology, not all the potential disasters will be entirely natural. (Geothermal plants carry an earthquake risk, for example) Wagging fingers at the coastal dwellers alone for their choice of location misses the bigger picture.
112
In a few billion years, when our Sun envelops the planet, we really won't have to worry.
Life is dangerous, where I live we have tornadoes, and we can have an earthquake that would devastate our area.
The difference is that US taxpayers don't subsidize earthquake insurance, or forest fire insurance, or tornado insurance.
2
The major problem with flood insurance is that it is heavily subsidized. By doing this, we are encouraging people to live in areas likely to flood and then rebuilding their homes, often multiple times, at no cost to them. Unless we start charging market rates on flood insurance, the problem will continue. Unfortunately, a number of people - not just those with homes in flood prone areas - have highly vested interests in keeping people in flood areas and building yet more homes in these dangerous areas. Builders, developers, the wealthy all have an interest and they will fight to keep it. With all due respect to those who have been flooded out, and I have only the utmost sympathy for you, but if you charge market rates, the problem will be solved. It is better to pay people to move than continue to rebuild in disaster prone sites.
21
Sounds a like like the tragedy of the commons in health care. Heavily subsidized insurance with no control of poor individual behavior. People can eat donuts till they have the big MI, because someone else is going to pick up the cost. As in flood insurance with McMansions built on dunes, the health "damage" is mostly self-induced and totally predictable with chronic diseases like type 2 diabetes, obesity, etc. As long as someone else will pay, no one has to stay healthy.
5
In the face of climate change and the need to secure our coastal regions, national flood insurance has got to go - and the sooner the better. These properties need to be re-claimed for the public good and the use of all people.
But, only when flood insurance is ended, should the US start offering to buy out homes in flood zones at market value. Because only then will the most vulnerable properties in coastal and riparian flood zones sink to their true value - which is likely pennies on the dollar. The taxpayers don't need to be footing current exorbitant prices for properties that are mostly second homes for the well off and wealthy.
And I have no sympathy for even those homeowners that aren't rich. They should have followed common sense advice given to me by my father when buying land - always buy at a higher elevation and with a sufficient buffer to safely build far enough away from any running water - ocean, gulf, river, lake or stream - that can rise.
5
Some of us whose homes are now projected to flood because of climate change are 80 miles from the ocean. You really think we should have anticipated that, or the builders who built here in the fifties could have? But as for your deal: kill flood insurance, then start buying people out...I could live with that.
3
Honestly it seems to me that the federal program pays out once and only once. Use the money to rebuild with the understanding you will never receive another dollar or take the money and move, signing the property over to the fed government. Maybe offer more if they choose to move.
Then turn those swaths of land into undeveloped flood plains, wetlands, and coastal barriers.
The amount needs to be capped. No luxury coastal property should be made whole. Such homeowners can afford the hit.
Stop allowing any development in flood plains at the federal level. Same with coastal development.
As the years and decades pass the cost of doing otherwise will be unsustainable. Goodness, with sea level rise, we will, as a nation, be confronted with the question of which communities and even cities to save and which to let drown. We can't protect them all.
69
I love that temporary sidewalk. Had we done that today, three dozen federal, state, and local agencies would filing suit and seizing property from those who built it.
3
It doesn’t appear to be able to accommodate wheelchairs either. Sue them!!!
2
To the picture. Dave Clutter Long Beach NY.Long Island. Sorry Mr.Clutter,but Long Beach like a lot of coastal property on Long Island is an abomination. High Tide can send waters flooding from the ocean side to the bay side. Flushing all the toilets at once can do it!
Add the fact that the little city is one of the most corrupt on LI...! Where contractors have been getting away with extortion for decades...corrupt cops, corrupt sanitation, etc...a Swamp disguised as a beach.
Sorry, but as a Long Islander, I'd love to see that place washed away and replaced by a huge public access beach...most of which would be sanctuary for native species of plants and animals.
15
Grinding your axe, ehh. Your so called abomination has been around for more than a few years. Hoping it washes away, that’s an abomination buddy.
1
ANOTHER OPTION
When developers decide to built in flood prone areas, the cities, counties or state law should force them to include (as needed) the construction of canals, pump stations, retention basins, concrete walls, foundations on piles, river levees for flood protection. Soon, they will find out the project is not economically feasible, and abandoned it. Stop the problem at the engineering design stage.
31
Still kind of a waste of funds. Just regulate where builders can build. Hello, Houston, you have a problem.
Pay two premiums: flood insurance and hurricane flood insurance, the latter required of all eastern and gulf coast homeowners-a vast area and thus lower rates. That way, major hurricanes don't disturb the floodplain map based risk pools. Introduce parcel-based lifetime benefits for the nfip program.
1
My family makes a modest living farming and our home - built in 1908 - is mortgaged and on the same property as the farm. The home has never flooded, although we are in a FEMA designated flood plane. That means we are required to carry flood insurance, no matter what the cost.
Our premiums have doubled since we purchased our place. Sounds like they are going to go up again. How much?
This question may affect our ability to keep our livelihood. Our crops aren't covered by the insurance, but we can't opt out until we pay off our mortgage. Many others must be in this same boat, relying on FEMA and Congress to make reasonable decisions on our behalf when banks, real estate developers and insurance companies rule the day in Washington DC.
This feels to me like a rigged game and the stakes are pretty high.
4
We live in a high fire risk area. There are some analogies to flooding, but nothing like the problem of repeated flooding. Further, while we can clear brush around our structure, nothing like that (except maybe putting the house on pylons) can be done in flood areas. Insurance premiums should reflect the risk and should not be subsidized by the public. That is how it is for us.
11
Build a wall around the ocean and the Gulf.
Ask Mexico to pay for it since it will not pay for the Grifter’s wall!
4
I would recommend changing to disaster insurance, to broaden the base. Inclusion and rates depend on the potential and actual frequency of occurrence. The idea is protect more people while greatly expanding the number of payees.
1
Trying to keep up with John Oliver?
4
Build a wall
Deny climate change
and all will be swell
MAGA
3
Today's headline, robbed room last week's This Week Tonight" with John Oliver. Nice.
2
Why should U.S. taxpayers take the hit for the poor choices of homeowners who choose to live in flood prone areas? This is as irresponsible and stupid as homeowners who choose to live on the beach, expecting that a hurricane will never damage their home, and then proceed to rebuild when the next storm eventually arrives. Let the people who live in flood zones and on the beach pay the full cost of doing so out of their own wallet, not mine.
262
I live in Jupiter, Florida about four miles from the coast and two miles from the river. We are not in a designated flood plan. We just finished paying off a 22 year development bond in my subdivision. Lakes were built for storm drainage and each house was built on fill about three feet above the street. My front steps are about 13 feet above sea level. Although my house was built in 1995 it was built to Miami Dade hurricane requirements. At the time wind risk of 130. We have been through more hurricanes than I can count and the eye of Wilma passed over our hom. Our insurance policy requires us to put up our shutters for every named storm. Our neighborhood has the drill down. No one has ever had a claim. In 1995 we had a rain storm that dropped more than 20 inches of rain in 36 hours. Many communities around us flooded but aside from water in our streets for a few days we were high and dry. I think about purchasing flood insurance every hurricane season. Nor to protect against coastal flooding but protection against the collapse of the Hoover Dike that surrounds Lake Okeechobee . Congress is pound foolish when it comes to appropriating money to rebuild the 80 year old dike comprised of shell rock and mud. Even though a dike failure would make Katrina and Harvey look like child’s play. Infrastructure of all sorts in lacking in our country but tax cuts for the wealthiest 1% are calling.
I live near the water in CT. It is not a poor choice. But I don't expect the government to bail me out if a storm strikes. I do not have flood insurance, and it is not required.
I too think this program should end. It is more of a cause of the problem, not the solution.
2
I'm neither irresponsible nor stupid. I bought a home that was built with our government's approval. You, on the other hand, are not only devoid of empathy but ignorant. If you could be bothered to educate yourself, you'd learn that homes
are being evaluated, that the Army Corps of Engineers is hard at work, and that
homeowners who repair & /or rebuild rely on their own funds, to a large extent.
Once again, big government, with all the good intentions, leads to massive abuse. By the way, the government is the only insane lender still making subprime loans under the umbrella of Ginnie Mae. Yes, with only 3% down anyone can borrow over $400,000 to buy a house with a FICO under 700. 3%!
This and flood insurance will cost the tax payers dearly.
4
Two words come to mind which should be immediately applied to this taxpayer funded problem: tough love.
5
It's like a high risk health insurance pool; GOP is trying to dislodge and let them live on their own.
They must do same here; and it's obvious that 80% of these people are GOP & Trump supporters, who are climate deniers and clearly lacks any empathy.
I care for them and want to help; but once they realize that others could have problem which they have never seen and living together is more fun then living alone.
After a river near my former New Hampshire home flooded, FEMA offered devastated homeowners buyouts at 75 percent of FMV. When an offer was accepted, all structures were subsequently demolished and removed. New owners could purchase the land but never build anything, even a paved walkway. Land next to the river then became conservation land, managed by the town or state. The problem was that the homeowners primarily were lower income people who lived down by the river because that's property they could afford. A 75 percent buyout wasn't enough to be able to relocate.
My proposal would be to move the buyouts to 100 percent of FMV, to encourage more people to accept offers, and simultaneously drop subsidized flood insurance entirely. Then, continue to enforce rigorously the no-building mandate, giving flood waters somewhere to go. Once purchased, flood-prone land can be managed as undeveloped recreation areas, as open space for wildlife, or just preserved for its role in the ecosystem. State, local, or federal government entities exist with the capabilities to manage the land according to the circumstances.
318
What is the "fair market value" of a flood-prone home? The whole system creates artificial value in areas that should be markedly devalued due to the risk.
1
How was "fair market value" computed? How much would the free market pay for a flood damaged house in an area with repeated floods? If the 75% was the value as repaired or the value of a similar home not in a flood plain, 75% could have been a generous offer.
2
A lot of people here like to complain about the costs of allowing people to live in risky areas. But what about the costs of not allowing it? If we say that large areas are off-limits if you don’t want to spend a fortune for flood insurance - or off limits altogether - it simply pushes more people onto the higher ground. Land prices there skyrocket; housing prives follow. People can no longer afford to live there.
.
This is not to say that we should leave homes vulnerable to flooding. Rather, we should look at other ways to address the issue. Levees protect many neighborhoods in the suburbs southwest of Houston - and they worked well after Harvey. Seawalls. Floodgates.... Holland has done many of these things and they are an example to follow. Instead of lining the pockets of private insurers, how about we build resiliency and protect ourselves?
2
Given the size of the Lower 48 alone, a strategic retreat to higher ground cannot possibly cost more (in higher prices) than doing what MUST be done to preserve lowlands (as in the Netherlands, where adequate "high ground" is simply unavailable at any price--not counting the high grounds of upper floors of buildings on stilts as "grounds," anyway). There's simply too much land in 1000- or even 5000-year floodplains.
1
This is like reading about America trying to have health care which only pays out to those who don't need it. The private wants to pre-select, and the government tries to hide the costs of not being able to.
If you're Not Your Bother's Keeper, just put that on your money, and be done with it.
A free society allows people to take certain risks. That’s as it should be. But the risk takers have to be responsible for the risks they take rather than expecting to have someone else pay when things go south....
1
"But the risk takers have to be responsible for the risks they take rather than expecting to have someone else pay when things go south...."-Marcus Aurelius
That pretty much removes the bankruptcy dodge, for example, from all entrepreneurs, treating them no better than students with loans. Do you really think a "free society" like the US is ready to treat its Donald Trumps like its less fortunate students? What next, socialism for the poor, too?
The insurance business is based upon collecting premiums while managing risks by denying and limiting claims and canceling policies and by delay and deception.
4
Wow, the NYTs is, with good reason, backing up John Oliver!
2
Homes like Mr. Clutter's have long been overvalued because taxpayer-subsidized insurance makes it cheaper to own them. I sympathize with homeowners stuck with three mortgages, like Mr. Clutter. But that argues only for a longer transition to market-base rates, NOT for continuing this insane taxpayer-subsidized flood insurance program.
7
And earthquake relief Mr. San Francisco, who pays for that? Why should FEMA help you guys out, after all, your home is on or very near a major fault.
1
Not exactly:
"Conservative insanity continues."
Conservatives would argue that a homeowner should pay for his or her own insurance, NOT expect the US taxpayer to bear part of that cost.
2
"It (NFIP) cannot force vulnerable households to buy insurance, even though they are required by law to have it."- NYT
Structures located in The Special Flood Hazard Area (on FEMA issued flood maps) ARE forced to have flood insurance if they are secured by a loan from a federally regulated lender. The NFIP, the way is is constructed, was set up to protect the interests of lenders NOT homeowners.
If you own a stucture(s) located in a designated flood zone and you do not have a loan (mortgage, HELOC, etc.,) you are not required to buy flood insurance. This is utterly ridiculous.
All structures in the 100-year flood plain (high risk premium) or in the 500-year flood plain (preferred risk rate - low premiums) should be required to have flood insurance.
ALL land owners (not just one with a mortgage) should be notified by the municipality where the property is located in what the flood hazard risk is for the structures on their lot. This notification will accompany your yearly tax bill. Due diligence at the time of sale is also required.
If the structures on your property are in The Special Flood Hazard Area, you should be required by law to purchase flood insurance. This will be a good place to start to get the NFIP on firmer footing.
2
Agreed, build it into the property taxes of each dwelling. Then there will be no “opt out”!
1
After Super Storm Sandy crashed in to the tri-state area, I was hopeful that all those millions of people living in NY, NJ and CT who believe in the rising seas and tides caused by humans occupying this earth would surely band together to no longer allow any homes to be built within 1/2 mile of the shores of the Atlantic.
Boy was I wrong. Same old same old.
I guess this global warming thing is just hyperbole to drive political points...and nobody in the Tri-State takes it seriously.
Point made.
105
You've made no point.
Staten Island got hit hard by storm surge due to Sandy. Working class families have lived there for generations, and those were not second homes or beach houses. The surge went way inland. Some homes have been rebuilt on stilts, some have not, the whole thing is a mess, but picking up and moving in the NYC area is not an easy task. Rebuilding in place and/or raising the structures is not a perfect solution by any means, but where exactly are these people supposed to go?
It's not fair for you to imply there's some sort of hypocrisy in people not banding together and leaving, whatever that even means. Want to point a finger? Point one at Houston. They've been warned repeatedly about the dangers of flooding by their own state environmentalists, but they scoffed and overbuilt anyway. Want to bet they're not going to be relocating Houston to another part of Texas?
The hard-headed approach going forward is to give people incentives to move by paying fair market value and reclaiming the land. If they don't want to move because this America, land of the free and the home of the brave and get off my property, then fix it once, but give them notice that the property won't be covered again. It's tough, but that's just how it is. But let's not make this some finger pointing exercise.
It's unfortunate, but Staten Island (and the rest of coastal NY and NJ) will get hit again, maybe much harder. Sandy was not even a hurricane when it got to New York. Category 3 hurricanes make it this far north pretty commonly, very roughly one might expect them every 30 - 50 years or so.
2
Yea - just like we know that 2017 will be an apocalyptic hurricane season due to global warming. NOT.
The same Republicans who oppose ACA or universal health care or any government role in health care are willing to subsidize flood insurance for millionaires to live at the beach or on flood plains in Texas.
6
Really, do you know when this was established. You also have no clue as to who lives in flood prone areas. Big hint, most properties are miles from an ocean. Don’t forget them rich New Orleans inner city folk.
1
The public loves simple sports-inspired solutions to complex problems.
If "three strikes and you are out" is good enough to send someone to prison for life for stealing a hot dog, why not use it to cancel the coverage of repetitive-loss properties?
5
Insurance doesn’t seem to wok very well in the case of widespread events. It’s like a Ponzi scheme and only works so long as the skimmed resources of many find it’s way down to the single one in most need to make it look legit, with the bookie keeping the lion’s share. Just a way to profit off of people’s fears and suffering, what Capitalism does best.
Insurance was never designed to cover widespread catastrophic events. Instead of calling it a Ponzi scheme, first learn what insurance is and how it pays out the claims.
To cover widespread catastrophe, insurers would be required to carry enough money to pay out such cost. Imagine all building in NYC going down on 9/11, not just the small area around World Trade Center. The costs would be in trillions.
So insured, i.e. you and me would need to pay a special deposit to insurers on top of the regular payment, so the widespread catastrophe claims could be properly funded. That deposit would be around 25% of your property value and it would be non-refundable. You could get the money back only when you sell the property and the new owner covers it. So now your Soho apartment in NYC that cost you $2,000,000 to begin with would require an immediate payment of $500,000 to the insurance company for widespread catastrophe coverage.
Even modest cost home owners, say $100,000 range would be required to pay up $25,000 in deposit that they may never see again.
I would really like to see you come stand in line to pay such insurance and then come back here and tell us how it is a 'Ponzi scheme'.
2
If the Government can insure houses why can they not have health insurance for people?
6
Here in New Orleans Katrina taught us a thing or two about flood insurance.
A) We need a Federally mandated single payer disaster insurance provider, who will provide coverage for all catastrophic risks that private insurance cannot affordably provide. IE Flood, Hurricane, Earthquake, Terrorism, Tornado, subsidence, Sink Holes, etc. Let Private Insurance stick to what it can affordably provide. But have you spoke with folks in CA about getting Earth Quake Insurance? Or here in NO about getting flood insurance in the Lower 9? Its currently affordable.
B) If every homeowner in the US paid a small annual fee... the cost of coverage would not be burdensome. This is what Fed Flood promises, but fails to provide... because many homeowners decide not to pay.
C) No opt out. You are not allowed to drive a car if you do not have insurance. You should not be able to own a home if you do not have disaster insurance coverage, and that coverage would be affordable if everyone paid.
D) Finally, rather than letting Congress politick about it every Hurricane Season, passing special legislation to once again bail out some devastated region... the money would be there and we would not need to ask DC to do its job.
Problem Solved. Next?
1
We know the seas are rising. We know storms are increasing in both frequency and intensity, causing more epic floods, inland as well in tidelands. The only long-term hope for sustainable flood insurance is to help residents in the most vulnerable locations move. Ultimately the cost of buy-outs in these areas will bring savings to residents, taxpayers, and insurers. Properties that are purchased must then to be returned to a natural state — serving as open space — and more importantly as a wetlands buffer (reducing the impact of future storms, helping protect remaining properties). Buyouts need to be voluntary (willing buyer for willing sellers) and proceed gradually to sustain public and political support. This is an orderly transition in the most vulnerable areas — not a wholesale retreat from the coasts. For those who argue that buyouts only help wealthy seashore homeowners, recognize that the most at risk locations are populated by working, middle class families, whose life savings may be invested in their home. (Set an upper cap on the valuation of buyouts.) New Jersey's well-regarded buyout program, Blue Acres, is primarily focused on riverine flooding. Post-Sandy it should have been expanded to include the NJ Shore. The US needs a similar program — and state programs should work in tandem to achieve reduced risk, a sustainable NFIP, an exit strategy for those willing to leave vulnerable flood zones, and coastal protection creating increased natural buffer areas.
1
Explain to me why my tax dollars should support corporations who are causing global climate change, rising sea levels, additional storm damage to homes all along the coasts? Oh I forgot corporate bailouts are ok, just no help for regular people. And yes regular, middle class folks and even many poor folks live near the water.
161
I don't know who you vote for and it's not my business. But, by now it should be clear that R's only represent corporations and the very wealthy so there is no point in voting R anymore.
Thank you, Silverwheel, my neighbor in Long Beach, New York .
Your comment is the first comment that I have read that is bearable.
I don't know why I even read this article. I've been sickened by these : "My taxpayer dollar shouldn't pay for those idiots who live near the ocean " comments
since Superstorm Sandy.
It's like being raped, and being raped again.
2
If corporate bailouts are OK then bailouts to those who wish to live in flood prone areas are also OK as long as those who live there employ thousands of people just like those pesky corporations.
it's not a question of "if" in many cases, it's just a question of "when" as the fact that a term has even been created for repeat offenders. How is it that people live in high-risk uninsurable areas in the first place, especially in areas that include "severe repetitive-loss properties"? Sure, there are probably some who have lived there for generations; however, there are probably more who moved there by choice to be "close to the water", etc.; however, as one must assume that the buyers of such property understood the risk, i.e., "buyer beware", it's understandable that your typical tax-payer bristles at having to bail the informed risk-takers out. If the risks were not disclosed by developers, then it would appear to be time to take them to court...as opposed to having the Feds (the rest of us) pick up the tab.
4
Subsidizing home building in flood prone areas thru flood insurance results in more home building in flood prone areas, just as agricultural subsidies result in more corn, wheat, cotton, etc. being grown. Time to end this cycle. Cheaper to buy homes in flood prone areas so the owners could relocate to non-flood prone areas. This buy out would only be for the price of the new, inland home and not the inflated water side home price. Those not taking this one-time offer would have to suffer the consequences on their own dime.
215
Why does the buyout cost extra money? You have a house insured for $250,000 that is destroyed in a flood. You get a payment of $250,000, pay off your mortgage and take whatever is left over and put a down payment on a new house.
1
People should be free to live where they want, provided they are willing to bear the risks of doing so. But masking the extent of risk through artificially low insurance rates is almost literally a recipe for disaster.
It’s also unsustainable. When insurance programs charge rates below what’s needed to meet expected damages, they naturally find themselves unable to pay out claims. The NFIP, which is supposed to be self-funding, is more than $20 billion in debt to federal taxpayers. After Hurricane Ike hit the Texas coast, TWIA’s financial situation grew so precarious that the organization briefly considered bankruptcy. In Florida, potential liabilities could amount to $2.7 trillion, so large the state itself might not be able to pay for it.
Part of the solution here is simple: the government should stop making things worse. Rates for programs like the NFIP and TWIA should be raised at least to market levels. Ideally, they would be a bit higher still, to ensure that people use those programs only when private insurance truly isn’t available.
8
The latest projections for sea water rise have dramatically increased previous projections. When lower Manhattan is mostly under water, should taxpayers bail owners out? If you chose to have beach front property in the Hamptons or on the Gulf Coast, why should I, as a taxpayer, make that easier. Like building your house on the San Andreas Fault, the question is not "if" but "when" and government support for those making these choices is not appropriate and will likely be explosively costly to taxpayers in the near term.
11
While in principle I’m in favor of the federal government getting out of the business of providing flood insurance for those who willingly choose to have homes (whether it’s their only home or a vacation home) on the ocean. What make this more complicated, however, is that some of the homes we’re talking about were built well before they had ever flooded, and they’re now victims of climate change, something no one could foresee at the time of the original construction. It's as if the rules changed in the middle of the game.
The only solution I can think of is for the government to seize those properties by eminent domain and pay to relocate the owners elsewhere. It wouldn’t be cheap and it would be disruptive to for the owners, but not nearly as disruptive as continually getting flooded and not having insurance.
4
It is broken because it is a Federal Government program. Nearly all Federal programs are broken. The only thing that works OK is Social Security and the only thing that works really well is the National Park Service which does more with far less than any other program
4
I agree entirely with the sentiment, but it's not that easy:
"Stop subsidizing risky choices. We shouldn’t live in flood prone areas."
I agree entirely that taxpayers shouldn't subsidize flood insurance premiums. But that doesn't mean people should be prohibited from owning homes near water, if they're willing to pay market rates for flood insurance.
And even then it's not so easy. Mr. Clutter's home, for example, is worth more today BECAUSE it's eligible for taxpayer-subsidized insurance. I can't blame him for taking advantage of that; I can only blame society for making that choice available to him. Society should change that, but it shouldn't impose the cost of that change solely on Mr. Clutter. Prohibiting people from living in flood prone areas would mean that people like Mr. Clutter own a worthless home because of a decision that society has made.
That said, I'd simply phase in the new laws, so that homes like Mr. Clutter's GRADUALLY become worth less. There are many ways to accomplish that, as this problem often arises in other contexts. (For example, if the cap on the mortgage-interest deduction is lowered, as has been proposed, this too will reduce house prices; for that reason, I'd phase that in over a long period of time so that homeowners DO bear some, but not all, of the cost of a decision made by society (in that example, a decision to reduce the tax subsidy applicable to mortgage interest))
4
Whatever you subsidize, you will get more of. The NFIP is subsidizing (and thereby encouraging) the building of homes in areas where they shouldn't be built, ie, flood prone areas. The government shouldn't be insuring any of these properties. Policies should only be written for properties that are not in flood-prone areas. Doing otherwise has only encouraged irresponsible development, and cost taxpayers billions and billions of dollars. Enough.
11
Transition provisions aren't easy, but that difficulty is not a reason to keep things the way they are:
"I suppose I would be more generous to limiting the losses of long term owners rather than to newer owners who should have known the risks."
Limiting Mr. Clutter's losses, for example, might be harder than meets the eye. If, for example, you say that his taxpayer-subsidized insurance policy will remain in effect as long as he owns the house, but no new owner will get taxpayer-subsidized insurance, you effectively lower the resale value of his house. Should he bear that cost?
One obvious solution is to phase in a new law, so that its effect on house prices is gradual. There are many ways to accomplish this, as the same issue arises in many other contexts.
2
Frankly, I don't see the problem. But just for arguments sake I'll accept the author's assertions. Many of our best job creators and politicians live near the water. How are they to focus on creating jobs and leading our nation if they have to worry about having enough money and time to rebuild their home every time there is a hurricane or what-not. Let's face it, Miami Beach, Manhattan and other entrepreneurial enclaves are going to flood a lot even if only half the lies about global "warming" are true. I propose a simple form that could fit on a post card. They would fill it out, attach a picture of their home, and the government would promptly rebuild the home. And no needless pestering or challenging the home owner who is going to be out there on the streets making America great again. That accomplishes nothing. God bless.
1
Keitk...A wonderful plan. You just forgot to note that you post was sarcasm. The job cremators and their puppets in congress might take you seriously.
2
'if only half of the lies about global "warming" are true'. How can a lie be true? Or how can the truth be a lie?
2
"Many of our best job creators and politicians live near the water. How are they to focus on creating jobs and leading our nation if they have to worry about having enough money and time to rebuild their home every time there is a hurricane or what-not."
Very funny, thanks for the laugh of the day!
2
Five million people are living in areas of such high risk that they can not purchase fairly priced flood insurance. And the risks are expected to increase and increase due to climate change and more and more people will be in a similar situation. It is not feasible or affordable to mitigate most of the risks. The only real question is who takes the loss and when. The recent subsidized insurance system worked to increase the losses by making it feasible for people to continue to live in risky areas and to have the entire country helping to pay for the losses. One alternative is to cap the losses by buying out owners and then making the land public. I suppose I would be more generous to limiting the losses of long term owners rather than to newer owners who should have known the risks. In any case, the private insurance market is better suited to manage flood insurance and send the right signals of risk.
8
With the planet warming, weather patterns changing, sea levels rising, coastal areas seeing erosion of their beaches and boundaries, it's basic fairness to expect those who wish to build and live in high risk areas to pay the bills for their choices, not tax payer funded government programs.
It's going to get more and more expensive in the future to pay for the results of our folly in failing to address much earlier and more strongly the issue of our trashing of our natural environment. Even basics such as clean air to breathe and clean water to drink are not really cool or urgent to many, if the politicians we tend to elect are any indication,.....which they are. If we're going to continue to deny reality, at some point mother nature will really sock it to us .... and it wont be fun and game at the expense of our natural environment any more .
17
This is not complicated. If you borrow to buy in a flood area, you pay a higher rate and are required to buy high cost flood insurance. Not insurance subsidized by the taxpayer. Each and every claim causes your insurance cost to rise. Too many claims and you are not insurable. No insurance and the bank calls your note.
I choose to live in a rural area. No city fire department, only a rural volunteer fire department. My insurance costs are figuratively through the roof. Tough luck for me. I do not expect taxpayers to subsidize my desire to live away from people. Nor do I expect to subsidize those who choose to live near water.
83
Les, you're right except for the complicating factor of politics. Look at the fuss the builders organizations are putting up over the tax changes. Now imagine the Fed pull a Lucy on taxpayer subsidized insurance for all those pricey properties all along the coast and other high end, flood prone real estate. Now all of a sudden it looks complicated. Sigh.
2
Same here. I live in a rural area...and there is no government program subsidizing any anticipated loss thru fire...I pay a high price for homeowner’s with a very high deductible. And...we have a volunteer fire dept. The programs and rationale governing insurance have no parity...but...the prejudice favors the coastal areas. Let the selfish souls who insist on living near water bankrupt the system...that’ll take care of the problem.
2
It is complicated. There is a range of means of people who live along the water. If you inherited a shack from your family, you're not going to be able to afford either to move or to pay for insurance. Yes, these people exist in the less desirable waterside locations.
1
Whoa, whoa, whoa! Congress did not 'forgive' $16B of debt to the flood insurance program, it transferred the debt from insurance premium payers to taxpayers. That money was already spent and there is no forgiving of anything.
Here is where liberals and conservatives ought to be able to agree - premiums have to match risk. No one has a right to live in a flood-prone area. Living in flood prone areas is very often very bad for the environment. If people want to own homes in these areas, they can, but their premiums should reflect that risk.
Liberals and conservatives ought to be able to agree here because market forces can fix some of these problems. $2M house on a sand bar in North Carolina? These are lovely, but if there is a 10% chance of it getting wiped out by a hurricane every year, your premium is $200K per year. Just do that and watch how fast the outer banks return to their natural state.
418
Exactly. The people who own those $2M homes on North Carolina sand bars are NOT poor people who ought to be subsidized by taxpayers.
3
Premiums should match risk? No, I'll take the deal the taxpayers hand to farmers for federally-subsidized crop insurance. I pay 40% of the actuarial cost, the taxpayers pick up 60%.
1
Flooding damages homes that sit low to the ground. These big expensive new houses on the Outer Banks are built on pilings. The surge rushes under the houses and back out to sea. No harm done. The homes causing NFIP losses aren't built on pilings. They are the older, smaller ones.
Why is the government in the business of giving fake low rates to homeowners to save them from getting risk adjusted rates from insurance companies? This is not a function of government in any way shape or form. The only way this would make sense is if the government had a political interest in getting people to move to a hazardous area for some reason, such as securing territory with the presence of settlements. Not sure NJ qualifies for this though.
176
It's called Citizens. United. Your government is bought and paid for by corporate America. It all started with the ridiculous interpretation of the fourteenth amendment, and never got better.
Silly, its for the realtors, builders and union carpenters, painters, plumbers and electricians. Further, folks who don't know better and would never put up with the old unfinished crude no plumbing and electricity get a nice house on water like the rich folks. Hence, it enjoys broad support. What could go wrong.
A good article on many aspects of flood insurance.
Personally I do not think the government should be subsidizing people to live in areas that frequently flood. The federal government should totally leave that business. Give owners ample warning (say, 15 months) so that they can get private insurance, or not get it if they decide market rates are too high. Also, the government should buy out some floodplain property, but at rates appropriate to uninhabitable coastland.
20
Why should taxpayers foot this bill?
"...a house in Spring, Tex., has been repaired 19 times, for a total of $912,732 — even though it is worth only $42,024."
Several years back, John Stossel narrated some ABC TV program that featured owners of expensive homes on the Atlantic Coast who'd had their hurricane-damage homes rebuilt several times, each time with taxpayer-subsidized insurance proceeds. If a homeowner is willing to pay for his or her own insurance, or to self-insure, so be it -- if their home complies with other laws, of course. But I fail to understand why taxpayers should subsidize this. The people who have flood insurance are not (undeniably with a few exceptions) poor people who need taxpayer subsidies.
71
It’s called redistribution of poor folks money...
2
It was his beach house
2
John Oliver did a wonderful segment on this topic on October 29th. It mentioned the Stossel program, and noted that Stossel himself had a covered home and gloated over the fact that he was able to gouge his fellow taxpayers for flood damage.
2
I live in Ontario, Canada. In 1954 a major hurricane caused extensive flooding in parts of the province. The provincial government set up conservation authorities based on river drainage areas and gave them the mandate to prepare flood plain mapping and control development in these areas through a permit system.
There is virtually no high risk related development (both financial and life threatening) allowed in flood plains. What is allowed must be flood proofed in one form or another. Problem solved.
508
Canadian government is rational. Ours is not.
4
If you prohibit construction in flood plains, the EPA in league with a number of radical environmental groups will declare everything a flood plain.
1
Right, but you believe pro-active government can actually help people--wise stewardship of the environment, planning and development to prevent worsening effects of natural disasters, basic healthcare for all . . . .
End federally-subsidized flood insurance. If someone wants to live on the dunes or the riverbank, that is fine. But that homeowner should not expect to rebuild at my tax expense every time their furniture is floating in the living room.
154
Or the owners should be forced to build what would amount to a reinforced bunker, able to withstand the storms, and not these pretty matchstick houses.
1
"Every time their furniture is floating in their living room."?!
That is really, really cold, James.
Stop subsidizing risky choices. We shouldn’t live in flood prone areas.
24
GOP's tax plan is not helping either. The last sentence of this piece says it all. GOP especially Paul Ryan has inherent genetic anomaly of inability to do math.
30
Funny that it takes the likes of HBO's John Oliver to finally inspire a story on this... Insurance "middlemen" companies have been laughing all the way to the bank on this free money windfall for decades- All the reasonable reform in the world doesn't stand a chance against their corporate lobbies. This is just Just another creature of "the swamp" which will never be drained. Both parties are responsible.
11
Conservative insanity continues.
Take a program struggling for money, toss in the perverse incentive of allowing private companies to cherry pick the least risky of them, allow them to take a healthy portion of inadequate funds as profit, watch riskier government insured properties suffer as expected, and blame the government for inefficiency, incompetence, liberal ideology. Then use the complaints to curtail other programs, because government.
The hilarity extends beyond insurance to courts that agree with homeowners who sue the state when it wants to build protective dunes because that will disturb their view.
The impact is social and economic as well, as well-established, sociable neighborhoods and towns are shredded to make way for two-, three-, four-lot monstrosities on property available precisely because it suffered severe flooding.
If you want to apply tough love, start with Houston. Our message should be "Impressive recovery there, happy to help. Next time its on your dollar. Maybe you want to stop building on flood plains or up to the water on reservoirs designed to "flood" as they contain water that would otherwise inundate the city."
No insurance company would accept these risks short of massive premiums. Why force the government to spend my money rebuilding these behemoths that, as much as anything else, buttress the rational that I shouldn't be allowed to pull up to their precious beach, go for a swim?
13
And liberal insanity continues, too.
Let people do what they want, but assure them before and after they make foolish choices that the government will always bail them out.
You imagine Houston as a city of mansions and rich Republicans. As a former resident, I can tell you that is far from true, and many flooded (and rebuilding) neighborhoods contain modest homes owned by modest families.
And what about New Orleans? Any rational person would scoff at rebuilding a city that is not just below river level, but also below sea level. How many federal dollars went to rebuild very modest homes in neighborhoods of decidedly poor families. Does that bother you, too?
1
Insurance only works when no one needs it.
Perhaps we need to move past the concept of insurance itself as it's broken in fire in my district, in health care in all our districts, and in life.
Maybe we ought to collect some money from the super rich, those who want to repatriate funds they made relocating overseas, oil subsidies—and put that money into infrastructure, planning and public projects instead of a free Commons for the megarich and an imperialistic war machine run by that guy who just thinks we can take all of Iraq's oil.
Just a couple of random, weekend thoughts.
The Dutch Have Solutions to Rising Seas. The World Is Watching.
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/06/15/world/europe/climate-chan...
8
Oh- just have someone "really rich" take care of you???
Ummm.... democracy means just steal money from people?
I fear for America more because of people who think this way than I do Donald Trump.
2
Letting those poorer than you provide you with a court system, infrastructure, police, military, educated work force, a weather service, records of property, birth, death, jails and an entire commons—for free. Ummmm—capitalism means stealing from citizens?
"Although the top corporate rate is 35 percent, hardly any company actually pays that. The report, by the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy, a left-leaning research group in Washington, found that 100 of them — nearly 40 percent — paid no taxes in at least one year between 2008 and 2015. "
Umm. No, Surgeon. Democracy means everyone pays their fair share, and teachers like myself do not give some of their pay to oil corporations—the most profitable corporations in the history of the planet—in subsidies so they can continue to promote global warming.
:)
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/09/business/economy/corporate-tax-report...
2
There is this article from The Guardian this morning, also, Surgeon:
"The International Monetary Fund (IMF) recently said western governments should force the top 1% of earners to pay more tax to try to reduce dangerous levels of inequality."
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2017/oct/26/worlds-witnessing-a-new...
Informative read.
A perfect example of government meddling, just like healthcare.
The government needs to get out of the business of bailing people out, literally, when they live in a designated flood plane. The people in Houston who did not, yet got flooded because reservoirs were overloaded, are a different story.
I do not want to spend a dime of my income on taxes to support people who wish to live that close to the ocean. You want to live there, great. Bear the risk.
377
I agreed with your statement "I do not want to spend a dime of my income on taxes to support people who wish to live that close to the ocean. You want to live there, great. Bear the risk."
But I am scratching my head as to how you can conflate flooding and healthcare. Even if one had no idea that living near the ocean increased one's risk of catastrophic flooding, nobody who lives in those areas can now say they do not know the risk. On the other hand, with very few exceptions such as smoking, most people who are felled by serious diseases cannot exactly be blamed for having made bad bad choices. Nobody chooses to get Lou Gehrig's disease or breast cancer or be run over while riding their bike in New York.
137
Well, then, the "government" should ensure that developers are prevented from conning or corrupting local "government" into approving such projects.
6
An important factor in your "overloaded reservoirs" were wealthy people who bought a couple of politicians, had regulations rescinded, and built right up to the water on the reservoir, forcing the Corps to release water into the city in order to protect these insane homeowners.
Then, instead of accepting responsibility, the hearty patriots of Texas refused to spend their $10 million dollar rainy day fund and went whining to Washington for money.
'Personal responsibility' quickly evaporates from the conservative universe when they are the 'persons'.
Classic.
11
Exactly:
"Taxpayers should not be paying for this."
If taxpayers are going to subsidize some groups, owners of waterfront properties are not the first group that comes to mind. There may be a few middle class or poor people who own waterfront properties but, frankly, not many. Most people who are taking advantage of the taxpayer-subsidized Flood Insurance Programs are not poor
12
The flood insurance program that continues to soak (pun intended) we home owners who live on inland lakes which have a very, very low level of ever having any significant damage from a flood. Our little lake is classified as high risk because according to the Army Corps of Engineers tables, in the event of a 100 year rain (or a 1% possibility) the 200 acre lake will rise over three feet. This past year, we had two huge rain events -- one a 100 year rain -- over five inches in a matter of hours and the second as an offshoot of Hurricane Matthew, we got 11 inches in 24hours, actually according to the Corps that would be a five hundred year rain, and yet, our little lake did not rise anywhere near the projected amount. Attempting to get the these major forecast errors rectified is a bureaucratic nightmare. And don't even get me started on the pricing of the insurance. It is NOT related to the potential risk, but the size of the mortgage. My estimates of damage are about $30,000 if the water did rise (we might get three inches of water in the lower level) the amount forecast, but because our mortgage is in excess of $250,000 we pay for the maximum amount with a $10,000 deductible which this year totals about $3,000. The only ones being protected are the mortgage companies and not the home owners. Make the insurance RISK based and let the market set the rates. Then let's see who will build in the areas that flood repetitively.
5
Whether or not the private sector would make different risk assessment, I think you are correct in wanting to have a private insurance system for all.
1
You say " Make the insurance RISK based and let the market set the rates. Then let's see who will build in the areas that flood repetitively."
Sounds great in theory, letting the free market work its magic. I find though that this love for free market principles tends to be advocated when we think it'll make us come out ahead.
How about letting our employers do blood and DNA tests to assess the risk of early death and whether they want to hire and invest in us as employees. And perhaps our health insurance companies should be allowed to do DNA tests to determine our health insurance premiums. Great free market idea until you are shown to be the one who has a high probability of developing leukemia at an early age. I suspect free market principles might not look so attractive then.
1
This would go too far:
"Construction should not be permitted on shorelines or near wetlands subject to hurricanes, river floods and the like."
I have no problem letting someone build a home near the shore (subject to environmental and other laws that have nothing to do with flood insurance). I object only to being asked to help pay for flood insurance on that home near the shore.
14
Do you have any thoughts about people whose homes will become vulnerable to flooding because of longer term climate change? We must expect the flood plane maps to change with time as the water level rises and storm patterns and intensity change.
3
Nonsense, the renowned scientists Scot Pruitt and Donald J. Trump assure us there is no climate change. Rest easy all we had was a spat of bad luck and weather.
I also have a bridge for sale.
1
"I have no problem letting someone build a home near the shore (subject to environmental and other laws that have nothing to do with flood insurance). I object only to being asked to help pay for flood insurance on that home near the shore."
This already happens along most of the Atlantic and Gulf coasts. In 1982 congress passed the Coastal Barriers Resource Act that prohibited federal dollars from use for construction and for insurance and other post-disaster mitigation. People are still free to build on private land in CBRA zones, but do so on their own dime. The result has been much less construction (and no federal liability) than in the areas mentioned in the article.
"By the way, a number of these areas contain Trump supporters..."
I'm not a Trump (or Hillary Clinton) supporter, but I can't fault anyone for taking advantage of taxpayer-subsidized insurance. Why would you NOT buy low-premium flood insurance if it's offered and you need it?
The question is whether taxpayer-subsidized insurance SHOULD be offered. I say "no," just like most people. If someone wants to build or buy in a flood-prone area, he or she should pay market-rate premiums for flood insurance.
12
Any thoughts about long term owners who now have unsaleable homes or homes worth much less than when they bought them?
1
The soaring cost of flood insurance is the only way to get people to stop building on the coast. (100 years ago that was not so common in, for example, South Carolina.) Down here in Latin America, people in Argentina, in particular, buy apartments in Miami thinking that is better than watching their pesos shrivel. Not sure why they don't pick drier land as Miami already has flooding problems. In the government supposed to pay the bill when the next cat 4 hurricane washes all that away? Their used to be a joke about buying land on a swamp in Florida. Now it's not funny anymore.
48
The cost should not soar, so much as the programs should END.
They encourage rich privileged people to build and live in unsuitable areas, because they stylish, romantic and pretty with great views. But WE the ordinary folks should NOT have to subsidize this!
I am OK with a program that gives a modest insurance benefit ($250K sounds about right) to those who are wiped out, but ONLY if they agree to move and build elsewhere, and the home torn down, and the land to go into the public domain.
If they wish to stay and rebuild, it is on their dime ever after.
2
Clearly the government flood insurance program has outlived its usefulness to the taxpayer even while it is the only means by which homeowners can live on flood prone areas. But that really is the problem isn't it?
Construction should not be permitted on shorelines or near wetlands subject to hurricanes, river floods and the like. Everybody who has owned property in such areas understands that they are living on borrowed time and borrowed money ... well, the money isn't borrowed, its bestowed upon them when they incur losses.
It would be far less expensive to the taxpayer and far more in keeping with our professed values in regulated free markets and personal responsibility to eliminate the federal flood insurance. Perhaps a one time buyout of 20% of the market value adjusted for flood risk would mitigate the loss especially for middle class folks. But, the sad reality is that climate change has made the over-construction along our shores just economically unsustainable.
45
I agree. People who insist on living in these areas should be required to assume the risk. If they want to buy insurance, fine, but not at taxpayers' expense. After Sandy, state and local programs were set up in NY to fill in "gaps" of federal programs, all at the expense of local taxpayers. Some people have had their homes rebuilt at costs exceeding the pre-storm market value of the house (and still nobody is required to buy flood insurance). Other people, mostly on Staten Island, had their homes bought (to be demolished) by the state at pre-storm market value (some people expressed surprise at how much they were paid).
6
TDurk, every thing you said is true--and was true even before impacts of climate change. The bigger factor in recent losses is the number of homes and other structures, and their values, built in risk-prone areas.
Taxpayer should not be paying for repeated flooding. If there is repeated flooding, the policy should be cancelled. No policy should be issued for new homes build on flood plains.
The price of flood insurance should be commensurate with the risk and that means higher prices.
Home owners who currently live in floor plains should be encouraged to move to higher ground and warned that they may no longer qualify for insurance.
The government needs to get tough on this problem rather than continually paying out for repeated flooding.
109
Judyw
"The government needs to get tough on this problem..."
It's odd, isn't it, that here we have an instance where there is very wide agreement that an expensive government program should be curtailed if not terminated, that individuals should take responsibility for their own behavior, and the Republicans are stony silent?
4
House stilts. Now.
" .. and the Republicans are stony silent?"
Absolutely wrong. Look at the sub-headline, as plain as day -- "fiscal conservatives." Period.
It really helps to actually read the story. Not kidding.
3
Any type of insurance simply spreads the risk from one person to many. It's not true that private insurance companies won't offer flood insurance. They've just learned that homeowners aren't willing to pay premiums that accurately reflect the risk. And who can blame private insurance companies? What private insurance company in its right mind would try to compete with taxpayer-subsidized premiums offered by a government insurance company?
98
The better question is: What private insurance company in its right mind would offer flood insurance with premiums below the risk, regardless of government insurance? That leads to a different answer, which is the one advocated by environmentalists as well as private insurers: that premiums should accurately reflect the risk and thereby discourage foolish building and rebuilding.
8
Thomas,
I agree completely. The federal Flood Insurance Program was started because private insurers weren't offering flood insurance. They stopped because they'd learned that homeowners weren't willing to pay premiums high enough to reflect the actual risk. Enter the federal government, which essentially told homeowners: "Don't worry about those rapacious private insurance companies. We'll issue you a flood insurance policy, and your premiums won't be very high. Why not? Because the US taxpayers will subsidize you!"
Once the US government tells homeowners that, no private insurance company is going to re-enter the market. After all, they won't be subsidized.
7
@MyThreeCents: Thanks for the further remarks. We agree on the ess-cents of the issue.
1
I live in a 150 year old small house on the water in Rhode Island, which has been through many hurricanes. I have paid for Federal Flood Insurance for forty years, and never had a claim. Yet I have seen my premiums rise from under $400 a year to over $4,000, as the government repeatedly bails out properties built where they should never been allowed, without placing restrictions on rebuilding. I recently received a letter telling me to expect my premiums to rise at least 20% each year in future, in which case, of course, I will have no choice but to give up insurance, and the loss of persons like me will make the program unsustainable. It should more accurately reflect the history and location of individual properties.
235
Andrea, in 40 years the cost of repairing a house and especially replacing possessions (including electronics) has risen mightily. Not knowing the facts of your home, I would still bet money that you got a good deal both then and now. After all, if the government were overcharging you you could get private insurance for less!
Do not be surprised if some are spared and others repeatedly smitten by floods. That's how nature works, and it's the very foundation of insurance.
7
While having empathy for you position, it is impossible for insurance companies to base rates on individual circumstances, or even very small geographic areas. Insurance rates are based on large risk pools.
Living in a flood zone puts you at high risk. The fact that you have never needed to file a claim does not mean that you are immune. It simply means that you have been lucky.
I choose to live in the sticks and pay exorbitant costs for fire insurance. You choose to live by the water and pay through the nose for flood insurance. The taxpayer should not subsidize either of us for our choices.
8
The risk of storm damage to your house is increasing. The fact that it has survived hurricanes of the past is no guarantee that it will survive the global-warming-magnified storms of the future. Your premiums should be rising to compensate for this risk. Of course, I have no idea if your premium increases are fair, but the direction of change is exactly what should be expected. If you give up insurance, then you become a freeloader on the rest of us when catastrophe strikes. What is needed is a mechanism that enables people to move out of high risk areas without being ruined financially. I don't see how private insurance is going to move us in that direction.
4
Taxpayers should not be paying for this. If you own a property that sits in a flood area, that is known to flood, then you as the owner should bear the risk. People should quit building homes in areas that are known to flood. If you want to own these then either you self-insure or pay for the coverage at market rates. Banks should also quit lending money on properties that are known to flood - this is common sense 101.
361
What does common sense 101 say about people who bought outside a flood zone and then were rezoned into one?
3
If you believe that, then you must surely believe that health insurance should not
be offered to anyone with any kind of pre-existing condition, smokers,anyone
with a family history of certain illnesses, etc.
1
The over builders & developers are at the core of this...the home buyers are just trying to buy a home they can afford. Why were these developments allowed? Who got paid and made money from those "deals". The real estate community has done a lot to to destabilize our economy and whay of life...so much for the American dream for most people. Try to find decent rentals properties....way too much focus on building over priced homes.
1
Go look at any map outlining the flooding during Sandy and you’ll see that, today, those areas are once again thriving, with houses being actively bought and sold sans any consideration of the future dangers of water incursion. Real estate agents and ads are, not surprisingly, mum about the dangers.
If people want to live in those areas, fine. But they shouldn’t be surprised or expect taxpayer-funded handouts when the water rises.
By the way, a number of these areas contain Trump supporters, who would deny others government benefits, but expect the feds to step right up and pay when their own flood-prone homes are damaged.
455
And they will raise you know what if anyone tries to force them to buy insurance and/or pay premiums commensurate with the risk. In New York City at least they know they will be bailed out at city and state cost, as was the case with Sandy.
" .. By the way, a number of these areas contain Trump supporters, who would deny others government benefits, but expect the feds to step right up and pay when their own flood-prone homes are damaged .."
How do you know that? Ever heard of self-insurance, which can be less costly? Facts and reality help -- really.
That reality noted -- history is past. You live below sea level, in a hurricane zone, by big water -- that's your issue and no one else's. Ditto, about smoking, illegal drugs, heavy alcohol, morbid eating, and "wild living."
2
I would bet that the majority of the people in these flood areas in NY and NJ are Democrats , who rant and rave about protecting the environment, but don't want anyone messing with their building in environmentally sensitive, flood prone areas. Do as i say, not as I do.
3