Aah, the Obamacare mandate method, but applied to real estate and armed with redrawn maps. Won’t work, sorry.
2
In many cases, it is far less expensive to build up the shoreline, or install flood barriers than to raise individual buildings.
The Army Corps of Engineers has a proposal to build a tidal gate across Jamaica Bay. The cost would be several billion dollars, but far less expensive than raising all of the affected houses.
1
People who build in flood plains should not be subsidized by tax dollars. End government flood insurance now. Limit disaster relief to persons who build in flood zones. North Carolina makes lower income tax payers subsidize wealthy homeowners on the Outer Banks and other tourist locations along the coast. We need payback!
13
The article notes the vast increase in real estate in flood prone areas over recent years. One reason for this is NYMBYism and the political leaders who stifle development in older neighborhoods. The waterfront was traditionally an industrial area, but now sits mostly vacant and ready for redevelopment, so no wonder high-density housing is going up along the East River.
Of course when tens of billions has been spent on real estate in flood prone areas it seems a bit of a stretch to suggest that their isn’t a tax mechanism to raise funds to build sea walls and other protective measures.
1
Insurance, in general, is an agreement between all parties to bear the price of an illness or incident. It is something we do which makes us civilized people.
Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result.
How do we balance the two?
People are resistant to change, and sudden, expensive change is certainly unwanted. But something must be done. Because what we have now clearly does not work.
So a fresh new idea is needed and it's not building houses on stilts.
I think it would have to be a combination of the public and private bearing costs.
Insurance, flood mitigation, and the idea that if your home is destroyed, perhaps it cannot be replaced in that spot. I'm sorry to say that, but it is quite clear that our oceans are rising and we are doing nothing about it.
If your neighborhood is wiped out, why should it be replaced?
But at the same time our governments must invest in infrastructure like flood gates in the upper and lower bays of NY. And other measures to help protect its own citizens. The project at Greenpoint Landing in Brooklyn shows it's possible.
And homeowners should receive either discounts or maybe grants to fortify their homes to future flooding.
But after that, if you're a homeowner you buy the insurance necessary to replace your house. And it may be that your house cannot be rebuilt were it once stood.
And like insurance, we should all contribute to the cost of protecting our land and homes.
3
To this New Yorker, the flood map re-zoning makes no sense. It seems to be designed to force as many homes into the high-risk category as possible. For instance, a home that hadn't flooded in more than 85 years suddenly got put into the same high-risk zone as homes that experience flooding every 10-15 years. It doesnt make any sense if you look at the topography. It doesn't make any sense if you look at risk of flooding. It doesnt make any sense if you look at the cost of property damage. The re-zoning mostly seems like an effort to force as many people to pay FEMA premiums as possible - regardless of actual risk.
4
The NFIP has a long way to go before getting it right in NYC. I have a modest multi-family building that shows no evidence of flooding during its 120 year history. Although it is within the FEMA floodplain, it did not flood during Superstorm Sandy. It has no view of a water body and is so densely surrounded by high rises it is indistinguishable from other neighborhoods. As part of a major renovation I was forced to elevate the building to comply with city regulations. The new certificate of occupancy includes an Elevation Certificate presumably to help reduce insurance costs. The response from the insurance company (which is located in Montana)? They tripled the premium. I chose not to be covered by insurance.
2
Everything that is wrong in NYC is because of the real estate industry.
4
Fool me once shame on you fool me twice shame on me. Build where ever you want but how many times are the rest of us suppose to pay for your risky behavior.
7
Is FEMA doing this in Florida? What's the insurance situation for Maralago?
5
Interesting how FEMA, a government agency, is revising maps because of Climate Change. Do the Trump folks know that they are using that rationale? Isn't it a no no term in Trump lingo?
3
For a number of years, you don't even need to live near the waterfront to have your home (and public transportation) flooded after heavy rains, never mind hurricanes. Neither the land nor the sewers are able to drain the water, and the high water table doesn't help.
I will be curious as to how the authorities determine what constitutes a flood zone...
2
Face it, politics and big money will play their usual decisive role. Always does. The only way this can be corrected is by sky-high flood insurance. But politics and big money will win there, as well.
FEMA reasonably proposes to define most of the area flooded by Sandy as being within the 100-year flood plain.
The city of New York proposes instead to leave the maps largely as they are, apparently deciding another Sandy is too unlikely to qualify as a 100-year event.
It appears money talks more than science and history even in a city as environmentally progressive as NYC. Sad!
2
Flooding does not pay attention to high, moderate, or low risk areas. If you want to build your multimillion dollar home to enjoy sun rise or set over the expanse of an ocean, or to enjoy fishing from your patio while overlooking a lake or river, by all means build that home. Just don't expect me, the tax payer, to bail you out when flood occurs.
4
Here's the plan: force out the working class mostly immigrant home owners with unaffordable flood insurance based on a (probably correct) flood map, buy their properties at a fraction of their value, spend $$$$ on lobbyists to change the map, finally develop and/or resell the waterfront property. You can bet the cruel stable geniuses of the world can figure this out too.
4
First, I am amazed and gladdened that the Trump administration has not yet been able to shut down FEMA's efforts to adapt to a climate change that the GOP denies is actually happening.
That said, this won't be the last redrawing of the maps. Decisions made now about neighborhood development will affect our situation in 2100, when the New York area will look quite different. There's a lot of variability in predictions about what 2100 will offer us, but no matter what happens we are talking about feet, not inches. Perhaps we shouldn't be moving the most vulnerable a short distance inland, where their immediate descendants will become the victims of the next few inches of sea-level rise. Let the people on the ragged edge be the wealthiest, who have the resources to adapt to extreme flooding.
1
It should not be a game of inches, take the most conservative model (that being the one with the most flood prone areas) and use it. And politics really has no place in deciding these things.
8
This is a first, I think I agree with you.
I understand that there are many political decisions to be made BEYOND figuring out what areas are most prone to flooding -- but if we don't start with a little reality based planning, everything thereafter is just one lie on top of another.
1
We need to change flood insurance laws. When I'm Emperor each lot will be able to pay once on flood insurance EVER. After that the risk is established and if you want to build there fine, but you assume all the liability, not the tax payer.
1
a book called "the water will come" by jeff goodell tells this very story. there is no argument about the rising oceans, but what to do with the people who live in those "flood zones" is another matter. remapping flood zones in new york is long overdue, yet mapping or not, how the city can deal with rising oceans and various storm floods remains to be seen. much of new york has existed way before anyone thought to worry about water levels. moving wall street to poughkeepsie might be an idea..., but what about brooklyn or worse, the rockaways? i worry that though much is planned, nothing is done.
If one can not afford flood insurance one ought not make one’s home in a flood-prone area and one ought not be under the impression that the other rate-payers are going to make up the difference. Life’s a crap shoot and free will doesn’t come on the cheap.
8
A quick look at the maps suggests that NYC pols are defying nature. Defying nature can work if it's a one-and-done risk, such as whether a specific hurricane will hit a specific city. But defying nature can't work when it's an ongoing risk. This means, yr in and yr out, you must be lucky.
Americans just don't seem to understand the need for restrictive building policies in coastal high hazard areas. Nothing besides water-dependent or temporary uses should go in such areas. Sea levels are rising. Rain events are intensifying and occurring more frequently. And once-in-a-lifetime flooding events are becoming commonplace. We need to deal with the facts.
7
It's time to put climate change on the front page and in a way to get everyone's attention. Thank you.
As the hundred-year flood becomes the five-year flood or the annual flood, costs just might make some deniers in Washington pay attention.
2
And just what might you do about it, restrict development and adapt to those changes.
I noticed the Center for New York City Neighborhoods map shows an intersection near me as being "high risk" while another a block away at a lower elevation is "moderate risk." I was under the impression that water ran downhill.
5
I first visited the NC Outer Banks in 1980. It seemed an endless strip of sand with mostly weather beaten one story bungalows on either side, some on stilts and some not. The ad hoc nature of these humble structures fit the landscape and lent a great deal of charm to the area. They were built in recognition of the reality of periodic hurricanes and flood prone.
My next visit was 30 years later. I was shocked by the development. Three and four story balloon construction of condos for miles on end. The invested capital had to have 50-100x of thirty years earlier. This only could have happened with enormous subsidy in the form of public insurance of a building boom that is so out of place as to ruin much of the area's appeal.
Property insurance should be privatized. Health insurance should be public.
We have it backward.
44
Half right, of course the risk of flooding must be included in the rates. And most health insurance is run by the government. That would be Medicare, Medicaid, and all those associated with the military or government.
1
Non-greedy breeding habits and profits derived from quality should come into focus, all the while maintaining affordability as a pricey quart of organic milk will not make the necessary impact.
Residents want a coastal view, but don't want to pay for the true cost to have one.
I looked at flood insurance several years ago. I live two blocks outside the 500 year flood (on the revised FEMA maps). If I was right on the 500 year line, I should expect to pay $200 / yr on a $100k house, but the cost of insurance was much higher - $800 / yr. I realized I would be subsidizing those that flood every 10 years in my 1:1000 year rates.
I wish the article discussed how the flood insurance trust is insolvent - not collecting enough premiums to cover the expenses they are seeing, and the federal government isn't restricting re-building houses in areas that will flood again. Those with a coastal view aren't paying the true cost, and those of us 600 feet above sea level are asked to pay 4x our risk, and we still aren't collecting enough.
16
The truth, whether we want to admit or not, is that with sea level rises we are going to lose coastal areas which will include cities or at least portions of them.
Flood insurance is underwritten by the federal government. How many times are the tax payers of the nation going to be expected to fork out payments to recover damaged/destroyed areas? The costs of policies are nowhere near what it will cost as the 100 year floods become more common with the rise of sea levels. It's science; we can't stop it no matter how much we wish we could.
The US and other nations will need to start triage when it comes to regions and cities. What to protect at great costs, what to abandon, where to build replacement cities (expanding inland ones), and when to kill flood insurance to areas and offer only money to abandon and move.
Wish with all my heart it wasn't so; but if wishes were horses...
6
I seem to remember a country in Europe that has a large amount of land below sea level, we can adapt in some instances if those areas want to pay for it. Start with NYC and Boston for example.
4
The region stretching from North Williamsburg up to Greenpoint Landing will soon comprise an almost unbroken, mile long wall of luxury development along the East River, all having proceeded since Sandy. It all resides in the primary flood zone but at least now, when you take the East River ferry, it can pick you up at your doorstep. Now that's luxury!
1
From what I understand, Greenpoint Landing is being built around a toxic site that though has been declared a Superfund, the EPA is looking the other way regarding its possible intermingling with the rising water table, as it's not a drinking source... so oh well...
This is another example - as most arguments about climate change, endangered species, etc - where the only battles should be about methodology. An animal is endangered no matter how much it inconveniences a person, just as a flood zone is a flood zone, no matter how much it affects your insurance rate. Argue about the consequences if you want, or point out errors in the calculations, but you shouldn't be able to argue your way out of a flood zone.
12
After Hurricane Katrina, scientists stated without a doubt that people should not be living in New Orleans. That message went in one ear and out the other.
5
If you consider the rising sea levels that climate change is bringing, it may be necessary to red tag much of New York City, preventing any new construction or mortgages. Eventually, people will need to move to higher ground. Investments made in New York City will be literally underwater.
3
Although not a New Yorker, I remember well a television documentary of perhaps 10 years ago showing 2/5 of Manhattan under water. And in 2005 insurance rates for buildings in lower Manhattan were like those of Miami.
It is time to cease insuring buildings in flood zones beyond abandon and move. Even if real work on diminishing the effects of climate change begins tomorrow, the floods we have seen this year will continue for the rest of the 21st century.
1
Or as others have done adapt!!!
A "game" of inches it isn't. A grab for national taxpayer dollars it is. But not to worry, if you buy next to the Royal Family's properties you are protected. Or you could move to Florida where climate change doesn't exist (legally).
2
Unless climate change starts existing very soon in Florida, Marco Rubio won't have much of a state to be from.
1
The idea that the homeowners can't afford their property if they have to pay for flood insurance is being presented as a reason not to change flood maps to reflect reality?
I can't accept that - what happens in the next flood if they don't have flood insurance? Do they not want fire insurance either? What about theft? How irresponsible!
FEMA dollars don't grow on trees - these homeowners need to sharpen their pencils and pay for flood insurance or sell their properties and move.
13
As someone who owns property on the water I understand the risk involved. My question to Trump and the republicans is who write you a mortgage when you live in a flood plane? And just who will write your flood insurance? And without flood insurance how do you qualify for a mortgage? There is trillions of dollars at risk in the flood planes from New York to Boston. Business and homes.
5
Yes they will need to pay and have remediation as everyone should.
1
Gordon, I am not sure you understand the risk.
As a professional geologist, I can tell you that most of these homes will suffer flooding or other storm damage in a typical owner lifetime. Unless you are prepared to walk away from a wrecked home or business, or have insurance (at market prices, not subsidized), you do not beong there.
1
So long as humans insist on polarizing land and sea by consuming waterfronts for themselves, we will continue to be environmental hazards.
8
Nobody knows about ignorance.
NYTimes, please write a tutorial on "expected value" and the elements of risk and loss. Use words of one syllable or less (pictures, videos).
Nobody cares about apathy.
NYTimes, please write an article about "my brother's keeper". What happens in New York could be a replay of Hurricane Betsy. Insurance companies being "too big to fail". Only to find out that, yes they will fail if they have to pay loses. Then the Feds bail out the insurance companies without controls to make sure the same thing doesn't happen again next year. Taxpayers unknowingly become the reinsurers. The AIGs, the Res, the Lloyds of London.
What happens to insurance companies when they pay out losses for hurricane damage in Texas and Puerto Rica, fire losses in California, flood losses in coastal areas? Not to worry, increase the rates. Get buyers to initial a disclosure statement that says the bury recognizes that they assume liability for loss.
8
Man proposes, but nature disposes. As climate change continues, we will see more of this - and primarily because people seem to want to live in unsafe areas. If you choose to live in a high-risk area, and likewise choose not to have flood insurance, there is no reason for the government (which translate to "the rest of us") to subsidize your losses. The only exceptions would be in cases like those we're seeing in Houston - where homeowners were lied to about floodplains and safety.
9
We really need a task force to separate greenwashing efforts from the real thing.
1
No we need employees to do their job correctly, no expensive task force needed or desired.
When one is standing in inches or feet of water and filth in one's home or business, one realizes that reality comes in a spectrum of significance and that scientific reality trumps politics and even economics. One reality is subordinate to another.
7
If you can't afford flood insurance then you can't afford to live there. I remember an old woman with a paid off home in the rockaways who did not have flood insurance and her house was destroyed by Sandy. She was angry that FEMA only gave her $32,000. She whined that her family loved that house and now it was destroyed - if her family loved it they should have helped her pay for the flood insurance. I don't want to sound cruel - but I have no patience for people that roll the dice
17
Deidre, I will go further: if you can't afford insurance at market prices (not subsidized) you can't afford to live there. It is one thing to spread the risk where the distributed cost is realistic, but not where people not even "in the game" have to underwrite bad choices.
1
As always is the case with redoing FEMA maps there will be intense political pressure to make sure "my" property is not mapped as being in a high risk area to "I" am not forced to buy flood insurance. As is always the case after a flood of "my" property "I" will scream for federal $s to repair "my" property that was outside the high risk area. Catch my drift so to speak. Mapping is simple what's hard is determining the base flood elevation of XXX year storm and fighting the politics. Floods don't care about politics - if the flood elevation is +5' a simple topographic map can be used to determine high risk areas that WILL flood regardless of politics. Everywhere Sandy flooded is by definition high hazard absent specific steps to prevent Sandy elevation flooding from happening again.
13
We can learn from the Dutch to build high. We can learn from the Japanese to downsize.
But as we are "exceptional," will we learn from others?
2
The photo in this article that claims it is of the Greenpoint Landing Project is actually a photo of further development in the flood-prone southernmost area in Long Island City.
4
People are going to have to get used to the idea of abandoning areas damaged by floods and prone to more flooding. The floodwaters don't care if you've lived there safely for decades, whether you can or can't afford flood insurance, or how politically connected you are.
21
And what of the human flood of inland development threatening what little there is left of area natural habitats?
3
You are welcome to come here, we have a lot of empty land and lots of natural habitats as well.
2
One of the ideas NYC should explore is to give residents a $ for $ credit on their property tax if they buy flood insurance. Think about how much better for the city that would be, and what would they be giving up? Maybe $1,000 a house for everything that would normally flood?
If city leaders cared, they'd stop arguing with the science and accept reality, and then help their citizens pay their way out of it.
WR
That's absurd. These people pay practically no property taxes to begin with (NYC has absurdly low prop taxes on outer boro single family homes), they pay no personal prop taxes on the hulking SUVs they insist on driving around in, and, worst of all, they refuse to take public transit, driving into Manhattan on the TOLL-FREE East River crossings to foul our streets and run over seniors in crosswalks in their monster cars, only to whine and complain every time it is suggested they might pay a toll to use the bridges. The last thing they need is a break on prop taxes or flood insurance.
There's a confusion here over "reality" vs "legalisms" ... and legalism seems to be winning ... except it never does.
A "flood zone" is what a flood does. They happen. Reality is often sadly defined as what happens even though people try to ignore it.
The legalism here is that some collection of empowered people get to draw lines on a map that define "flood zones" and then various things happen about insurance, building rules, and as a result property values.
The disconnect from reality is evident in statements like "Just 26 buildings were in the 1983 FEMA flood zone; under the revised maps, that would have skyrocketed to 5,000 buildings" ... that "would have."
How many buildings will flood is how many buildings will flood. The idea that political pressure can change that number is ridiculous -- but that seems to be the case here.
3
It’s going to take real leadership and compromise to get this done and no one will be 100% happy with the end result. Reality is here people. You live on the ocean you have to adapt and take accountability for your choices, which may mean moving. We shouldn’t have to continually bail people out because of their failure to adapt.
3
There was a time when beach houses were simple and expendable. Are we capable of retuning there?
1
"The collision of science with political and economic realities"?
How about the collision of politics and economics with scientific reality?
4
New York city is special. They don't need no stinkin' flood insurance.
Down heah in Loosiana the people of St Bernard Parish, down river from New Orleans, were not required to have flood insurance but during Katrina those houses were flooded with 12 feet of water. The hospital was flooded as was city hall. Everything was flooded with many feet of water. After that a lot of people moved over to my neck of the woods, north east of New Orleans and mostly, sort of, at a higher elevation. If it flooded once, it will flood again. There were parts of my town, on the north shore of Lake Pontchartrain that had NEVER flooded before from a storm surge but got 3-4 feet of water. The schools in that part of town have been rebuilt, at least four feet higher and heavily fortified with ICF concrete construction.
It's a curiosity that the vast majority of high price properties are in this flood plain, built on reclaimed marsh of the lake. The parish is spending mass quantities of tax dollars to build a levee around these 'exclusive' homes. During Katrina those levees worked. Those homes weren't flooded, but they were surrounded by water. Even that south side of town, which was previously run down and not very inspirational is seeing a new influx of money and construction. It's as if people are openly defying nature, and the government, and building there anyway, with big dollars. It was only one flood. If it doesn't flood again in 30 years it will be worth it.
1
FEMA's numbers are modest. Yet the Netherlands continues to feed the world, as does our trickle down economy. If only oil were indeed the problem!
If you can't afford $500 for flood insurance then you shouldn't own a home. Yes, it's one more cost to bear but my god if $42 a month is going to break you then something is fundamentally wrong.
11
The trade off between caution and risk regarding flood prone areas has been around long before Dear Leader came into being. In some communities, the flooding has increased along creeks and drainage channels due to development upstream that reduces the absorption of water. The cities want less flood plain to increase development area. It seems like FEMA takes a cautious approach in designating flood plains-- maybe overly cautious. But given the trend toward more flooding and larger storms, we may be really short-sighted in rolling the dice by developing land area that has flood potential. if I want to roll the dice, then how is it reasonable to expect the feds to bail me out? I have no personal experience. My assumption is that if you do not have flood insurance, you are SOL. You cover the entire cost of re-building or buying a new residence plus you pay off your mortgage or default on it. No thanks.
5
Not unlike the 2008 financial crisis with bank behavior, those in flood zones (especially those who have experienced prior flooding) hate the government telling them what to do, but surely want their recovery socialized and rebuild yet again.
At some point, these folks need to bear the brunt of their rebuilding choices if they want to remain where they are.
8
Superstorm Sandy was a fluke that turned to the west instead of the east, and arrived at high tide during a full moon. It had nothing to do with climate changes. These storms, which happen all the time, usually turn east.
And had it arrived at low tide, it would have been cleaned up in a week.
4
And If I had drawn and ace instead of a duce I would be rich. Who would have imagined that gambling could be so risky.
4
Erik is right, Hurricane Sandy was an incredible combination of rare events that happened at the same time. It’s not really related to global warming.
Moreover, I’ve lived on the Long Island sound for more than 20 years and high tide is at exactly the same height now as it was when we moved here. If the seas are rising I certainly haven’t noticed.
1
No previously flooded homeowner deserves to get continued taxpayer funded flood insurance. They should procure it in the private market, or else face the risk on their own dime. If you want to live by the water, you should take 100% of the flood risk. Anything else is theft.
14
Not only do they not deserve taxpayer funded flood insurance, they don't deserve taxpayer-funded rebuilds when they don't have flood insurance, or not enough flood insurance. The City of New York undertook to rebuild -- at taxpayer expense -- every single home, and in some cases those "repairs" or "rebuilds" cost twice as much as the pre-storm market value of the home. One million dollar repair jobs on very modest homes were not uncommon. Furthermore, these people pay some of the lowest property taxes around -- taxes on single family homes in NYC's outer boroughs are a tiny fraction of the taxes on comparable homes in the suburbs.
3
For a thoughtful as well as entertaining novel exploring the effects on New York City and environs of rising sea levels due to climate change as well as socio-economic responses to zones that become permanently flooded, read Kim Stanley Robinson's "New York 2140".
2
It is amazing that the government of Donald Trump whose official policy is that "climate change" is a hoax accounts for "climate change" in official planning documents.
FEMA considers climate change as being real and is planning for it in its planning documentation and the Pentagon considers climate change as real as it plans for it as a serious national security concern.
3
Interesting. Republicans deny climate change. Democrats negotiate it.
4
Everybody wants to avoid risk..............but nobody wants to pay for it. Like health insurance, even though the probability is low, you better have it if you get a heart attack.
Greed seems to drive nearly all flood plain development, and without the flood mitigation due to the high cost. We see it time and time again in the Midwest with floodplain development along the rivers.
My sense is that as a property owner, insurance should be a issue between the owner and the mortgage lender. However, the root cause problem is not addressed.........DO NOT BUILD IN FLOODPLAINS. (see above comment on greed).
7
Flood insurance should incent people not to live in flood zones not the other way around. Every other form of insurance penalizes for risky behavior and flood insurance should be no different. This is one of those sad examples of the government interfering in the free market to the detriment of the taxpayer. Mortgage issuers are guilty here too, they should be prohibited from making loans in floodplains.
10
Venice will submerge gracefully, whereas NYC will not.
2
I have a few thoughts on this subject.
First, the map of what is or is not in a flood zone should be based on what is or is not in a flood zone. What rules are then invoked, including whether to grant exceptions, those are politics. But the map should first be constructed accurately, not fudged for financial gain.
Second, the government should not subsidize flood insurance in areas that private insurers will not insure because they are likely to flood repeatedly.
Third, the federal government should not be bailing out those who choose to not have flood insurance, especially today while subsidized federal flood insurance is available. . If state or local governments choose to do so I do not object.
7
I'm reading about reclassification of waterfront homes in New York City, and I'm learning about the effects on the working class. Nowhere is it mentioned that the average home value in the City is about $1 million, and that the big decisions here will all be made by Trump's little brothers.
2
Those people who didn't have flood insurance and got bailed out by the city at the expense of the rest of us -- like "repairs" that cost twice the house's market value -- if they don't want to be on the flood map, fine, but the city should make a record of every single house and neighborhood that flooded during Sandy and specifically exclude them from any city-provided assistance in any future flood events.
7
The east and south shores of Staten Island and the Rockaways in Queens were hit the hardest by Sandy yet are not mentioned in your article. New York State bought out nearly the entire community of Oakwood Beach on Staten Island. The state of course can't do that everywhere but it some cases it might be cheaper that rebuilding after every major storm. NY state also purchased properties in Ocean Breeze and other SI shore front areas. The state does not pay any NYC property taxes on any of it's acquired properties.
The 559 SI flood area properties acquired by NY state (pdf): https://files.acrobat.com/a/preview/9c03c7f4-f560-4404-a40f-bc514d372974
1
Noteworthy, the construction of the Fukushima nuclear facility, built to support unsustainable growth, ignored the old flood stone markers. Floodplains are yesterday's problem we chose to ignore. Instead, we really should be considering the weight of rising ocean levels on the thin ocean floor.
I would perhaps consider our present condition is a result of the decision to ignore gravity by electrically pumping sewage to subsidize irresponsible population growth, placing quantity before quality.
Our new Brooklyn waterfront is not up to snuff and perpetuates the myth that growth is good.
2
The turning point may've been when the Outer Boroughs began to fancy themselves Manhattan. High density development will not be our saving grace, even if it were to become a catalyst for sustainable energy. Essentially, we denied ourselves legitimate boundaries, bedrock, high elevations and so on.
Strange, it seems human rights may well be the culprit.
Civilization is on the cusp of huge changes. Climate change and automation will make us re-conceive everything: how we make a living, transportation, food, and shelter. I can think of many good ideas for housing of the future, but how to get there from here is the problem. If you live in a nice house in a flood zone, you should probably be prepared to abandon it when it's ruined instead of rebuilding. I can see how you might resist that eventuality.
3
Hard to resist the many ironies here.
As many point out, the US President denies scientific observation and common interpretation, almost certainly motivated by political implications--and pandering to his base. However, it seems like the administration of NYC also denies science for similar political and pandering reasons.
At the grass roots level, some homeowners also want to dismiss physical reality and risk, but are happy to pile on climate change deniers in a more abstract (or somewhere else) context.
7
One example about flood assessment that I can share with readers is that I had friends whose house in Bay Saint Louis, MS flooded in Hurricane Katrina.
When they bought the house in 2004, flood insurance was difficult to get, so they did not get it. But the house was on a bluff at 26 feet, and sitting a quarter mile inland from the Gulf. Thus, at 26 feet, it was entirely reasonable to think that their house would not flood.
During Katrina, the house took on 4 feet of water. Correct, that means that their location took a 30 foot storm surge.
Not to get flood insurance on their house was a calculated risk by those homeowners. It's best to be liberal in an individual's assessment of storm damage to his or her property, and to expect the worst.
5
After the new flood maps appeared in MA the residents whose homes were affected demanded that the state pick up their dime for their increased insurance rates. Socialized home insurance for privately owned coastal homes? Sure that sounds about right. Especially when most of these homes are second or third ones.
8
Defining the limits of the flood is part science, part intuition, and part trying to figure out the nature of the landscape. No matter where these maps are, they merely give you guidance on what may happen with a specific event. The evidence from past events, gives an indication of what might happen in the future. Some of those things can be mitigated by what people do with drainage and flood structures. Specific events have the character of throwing out all the assumptions people might have made about the nature of the flooding. People like to live along the water. If you make that choice, you better be prepared to get water at one time or another.
2
Informative writing by David Chen. It's a statistical determination whether one's property will get flooded. An owner has to conduct his or her very own risk analysis on that score. So if FEMA guidelines are relaxed, absolving a particular owner from flood insurance, one still has to be sure that that his or her place *really is* safe. That is a matter of probability.
Unless there is a systemic error in the analysis, e.g. it erroneously included a house at 500 feet on the flood plain, then relaxing the probability of flooding relaxes the building/insurance requirements. But there still is a probability to flood. That becomes an individual responsibility to confront.
Additionally, there is the social burden of large-scale flooding. Missing the flood plane by a few thousand feet could increase the cost of flooding dramatically. This produces a tension between the home owner and the city. It is in the city's interest to be liberal in the analysis to know the worst possible outcome. But that analysis produces burdensome costs on the homeowner.
Given the maps shown in David's sobering article, it's inevitable that all of those shaded areas are at risk of flooding. We might as well address this now rather than wait for the next Hurricane Sandy. And don't forget, Sandy was a Category 1 hurricane at about 80 mph. That means that there is a probability that the next one will be larger.
4
This article leaves a mistaken impression, I believe. I've lived in two flood zones in my life. When FEMA produced new maps for the first one (in North Carolina) existing structure and policy rates were grandfathered. And, in fact, that flood zone had endured a 100-year flood with no damage to any structure in the community—the maps rely on hydrological engineering estimates rather than on actual history. The only properties affected, in such cases, are those that move from a non-flood zone into a flood zone, and even then flood insurance is not obligatory unless one holds a mortgage.
My current flood zone changed to "X" from "AE," because the building I live was built for "AE." But the property turns out to be a good deal higher (about 6 feet) than the surrounding area (the result of excavation to build the structure).
Our most general problem lies in the fact that the Flood Insurance program is broke, coupled with a refusal to forbid building in high-risk areas.
4
If your property is significantly higher than the flood zone base flood elevation you can ask for an exemption. You will have to get a surveyor to establish the elevation of the lowest floor.
ANd in New York you have a city government that insists on bailing out every fool living in one of these areas and too cheap to buy flood insurance. Some of the "rebuilding"the city financed cost twice as much as the pre-storm market value of the homes that were repaired. All at NY taxpayer expense.
What flooded is reality on the ground. The future does not improve the outcomes for those homes in future events. For this risk they need insurance, or by law we need a signed declaration of their self insurance, that will prevent them from petitioning for support when the waters come again.
14
New FEMA MAPS? Why, after all our Fearless leader Donald Trump says, "There is no Global Warming"?
8
The financial implications of re-zoning are potentially a real hardship for home and property owners, but hopefully that financial hardship will result in a few more people taking flood risk, and the climate change from which it stems, more seriously.
I closed on my first home in Jersey City in summer 2011 and part of what dragged that process out was the case I was trying to make to my flood insurer (a requirement of my mortgage) that I was in a "100 year" flood zone vs. the slightly higher risk zone which was literally just the other side of 2 of my property lines. It was the difference between around $500/year in additional insurance and $2000/year (more than my homeowners' insurance). I successfully made my case. Two months after closing the remnants of Hurricane Irene blew through and our finished basement flooded. We prepared well in advance, had no permanent damage and therefore no claims. We were lucky. Many of our neighbors were not. A scant year later during Sandy my neighborhood was half under water and we all know what happened to the immediate waterfront in JC, Hoboken, downtown NYC, and a good chunk of the NJ coastline.
This is an unfortunate reality, largely of our own collective making, that we all have to face up to now.
13
Let me see. The federal government is taking preventive steps for sea level rise from global warming (at least in part caused by man) that, according to our self proclaimed genius president, is Chinese propaganda and really isn't a problem.
4
"We're from the government and we're here to help."
2
Look at what just happened in Boston. The water does not care where "you think you should be".
And look what happened in Houston, where they foolishly think flooding will never happen (and we are all footing their bill).
11
I want to live just long enough to see a republican, any republican, standing in the Mar a Lago parking lot, chest deep in the Atlantic Ocean with his child on his shoulders, explaining that he doesn't know what is happening because he isn't a scientist.
16
What are the criminal socio ecopth religious & atheist citizens, corporate leaders and politicians doing in your nation?
An article about NC I believe was about the real estate industry suppressing scientific research about the risks posed by sea level flooding.Does such conduct open them to litigation for failing to reveal the risk of flooding of coastal property.
Do the corporations using the Trump admin climate change policies open them to litigation as there is growing concern about his conduct to assess evidence in good faith, perform critical assessment of scientific research & respond accordingly?
The signatories of the International Criminal Court are being called upon by the legal team lead by Polly Higgins a UK barrister to take action to protect humanity from those causing extensive damage to our environment ecocide What constitutes negligence, willful blindness ref national security human ecological scientific &economic impact as it pertains to damaging our planet's atmosphere, oceans and ecosystem with CO2 & greenhouse gases by politicians.
The yet released book Unprecedented Crime:Climate Science Denial and Game Changers for Survival by Dr. Peter Carter Elizabeth Woodworth , Dr. James E. Hansen (Foreword) Outlines the immoral criminal negligent conduct of those with a duty to protect citizens from the barbarians damaging our planets atmosphere. I suggest conscious citizens take a serious look at their atmosphere & ask what are the barbarians up to now? #MAGA
1
I'm pretty sure the image labeled "Greenpoint Landing Project in Brooklyn" is really the Hunter's Point South project in Long Island City.
2
In Hawaii the real estate industry successfully pressured the US Geological Survey to redraw their Lava Inundation Hazard Risk maps. Politics and Profit beat logic and science.
7
I grew up in New Jersey and for many years certain streams flooded and caused extensive damage. It was entirely predictable. I know a big part of the solution was to condemn the homes and turn the area next to the streams into parks. The cost of rebuilding a damaged home doesn't include the true cost, such as the emergency services during the flood, all the efforts by volunteers to save people while endangering their own lives., lost time from work for the victims, etc. Too bad the money that will be wasted on endless studies instead of buying some of these homes up and building parks to be enjoyed by everyone.
9
Let us not provide Government subsidized flood insurance to the ultra-wealthy. They, after all, don't believe in government assistance. Oh, wait. They only believe in government assistance to them.
8
Ain't this the truth. Socialized insurance for private home owners. Many of these coastal homes are second and third homes too. Ya know, for about 2 or 3 weeks out of the year.
1
No one, regardless of wealth, deserves subsidized flood insurance. The whole program should be discontinued.
1
It's sure going to make those 3rd and 4th floor apartments more valuable now, seeing 1st and 2nd floors will no longer be available. I only hope the water taxis are more accomodating, and Uber canoes are careful of wake waters.
3
Nice thought, except that the electrical service to the building is usually in the basement or first floor.
When I returned to NYC in 2007 after having lived outside of the city for nearly two decades, I wanted to buy renters' insurance for my apartment in Queens. I was told by one of the country's largest insurance companies that they did not sell policies for homes in flood zones. After Sandy hit, I took it upon myself to look up those FEMA maps so that when it came time to buy a place, I knew which areas of the city to avoid.
9
Intervention by NYC to modify the maps involves the usual blowback by economic forces against purely scientific analysis. This is a difficult matter, because the maps involve many assumptions that can be challenged. However, it is clearly beneficial to the public to have info from FEMA that is not warped by commercial considerations. How is this different from avoiding reference to climate change in planning coastal interventions in VA and NC?
5
Here in Louisiana we had the Great Flood of 2016. One hundred thousand properties flooded, most with no flood insurance because they were deemed by the Federal Government not to be in a flood zone. We will see more of these "outlier" events as Global Warming increases.
7
Insurance and re-insurance companies do their own risk analysis. Those analyses are based on their responsibilities to shareholders, not political ideologies on the "left" or "right." Let's base our maps on their maps, not on political negotiations. If people don't want flood insurance, fine. Let them pay for repairs in case of a flood, not the taxpayers. Let's put the individual responsibility mantra to the test. Or people can ante up and pay for insurance. Or they can move. But taxpayers shouldn't have to enable political expediency in NY or anywhere else.
16
It's interesting that the phrase "sea level rise" or "climate change" is referenced only once in the body of the City's 180 page technical challenge, in a footnote no less. I understand the desire to maintain existing affordable housing, but the equitable solution is not to challenge the FEMA floodplain mapping, which over time will only result in more low income people living in unmapped high risk areas, with no physical or financial protection. Instead, perform an honest assessment of future flood risk using the best available science. It is what it is. Then put in place programs to relocate or strengthen affordable housing in high risk areas. Then low income people can enjoy affordable housing that is sustainable.
9
Econ. 101, subsidize something and you'll get more of it. National Flood Insurance has been encouraging development in unsuitable locations since its' inception. It should stop writing new policies and over the course of several generations, go down in the history books as the big mistake it was.
12
Why don't they draw the lines where the water went. That's a pretty accurate assessment of where flooding will occur.
21
Unfortunately, not in a real event. For hurricanes, for example, inundation involves at least four factors:
--forces on water bodies from winds (in the northern hemisphere, where cyclonic winds are counter clockwise, a landfall would have strong winds from the east on the northern edge, the west on the southern edge)
--forces on water bodies from pressure (the eye of the hurricane has very low pressure: since it is surrounded by areas with higher pressure/weight, the water stands up higher
--runoff from rainfall, perhaps transported by gravity form higher areas
-gravitational tides
So the SLOSH maps (Sea, lake, overland surges from hurricanes) reflect extensive analysis of the shape (and smoothness/resistance) of the land (including the sea floor) and a representative cross-section of probable storm paths. Any given event (like Sandy) basically occurred in one time frame, with one track/intensity of the storm. Very unlikely that the next hurricane would involve the identical combination of tides, wind-speeds, approach, landfall, rain etc
3
Issuing building permits in property adjacent to wetlands is a major factor adding to flooding problems. Cooper Union studied Staten Island's water management and discussed the problems created by over-development after the opening of the Verrazano Bridge. http://cooper.edu/isd/news/waterwatch/statenisland Flooding is still a constant concern in many areas and yet the City still issues building permits for small and large scale developments bordering wetlands. WHY?
9
Many of us have been wondering, "What will it take to get people to notice?" How large do the floods, hurricanes, droughts, fires, earthquakes and tornadoes have to get before we really notice what these climatic changes mean? Seems like BAU for most. Carbon footprints are going up when they need to go down, rapidly.
1
Good luck with either compelling New Yorkers to relocate away from flood prone neighborhoods, or to purchase flood insurance. It's not going to happen. But these same homeowners who are tempting the weather gods will be the first to demand government assistance to rebuild when the next Sandy hits.
14
The problem is that many of these people are in a financial quandry. The only places they can afford to relocate to are likely to be other places in the flood plain, because that's where the affordable housing is. They can't afford the insurance either. What else can they do? Many retired seniors live in these communities. The solution is not that simple.
What we need to do is get the city to draw up a map that covers every single neighborhood and house that flooded in Sandy and specifically exclude owners of those properties from any future assistance program the city comes up with as it did after Sandy, which cost NY taxpayers bilions.
The Trump admin, far right Congress, and the EPA under Scott Pruitt have practically made denial of climate change a federal policy. These decision makers can kill new flood mapping in New York by cutting FEMA and NFIP funding. The situation might change after the 2018 and 2020 elections. I wouldn't count on new maps, however, until we no longer have a president who made his fortune developing NYC real estate. In the meantime, buy flood insurance or sell. Human ingenuity can't stop storm surge.
4
All this new seaside construction has with it a kind of generational arrogance. We contemporary New Yorkers feel as if we are the first to appreciate living by the sea, as if our forbearers (going back to the Native Americans) had some unenlightened indifference to it. They knew, well before climate change, that the seaside might be a nice place to visit but not to live. That's why the major thoroughfares, be they Broadway in Manhattan, Metropolitan Avenue in Queens, or even Rockaway Parkway in Canarsie tend to traverse higher ground. Water is dangerous which has a lot to do with why these littoral areas now the focus of development, both high end and low, were wisely consigned as suitable locations for all those factories and warehouses now being replaced.
15
“They’re more afraid of the regulations and the flood insurance because they’re getting the bill, and they’ve got to pay that bill.”
...which of course is far worse for them than the current system where they get to live in a quaint, unsustainable, "seaside village", hope Jesus saves them from flood damage, and then everyone else has to pay for it when the inevitable occurs.
11
As a person with long experience with flooding, FEMA, flood maps, the Army Corps of Engineers and flood insurance, let me keep this simple.
1).Flood insurance only covers the first $250,000 of structural damage to a home; therefore...
2) It is really cheap, even if you live in a zone that floods. Too cheap by far.
3) You can spend more and get another $100,000 in contents coverage, but that's it.
I suspect most of the resistance is coming from folks who have paid-off houses, are on fixed incomes, and are getting absolutely smashed by property tax rates in NY and the surrounding areas. And what are they getting for those tax $'s?
Not my fight. But worth asking.
WR
9
Actually, in the five boroughs of New York City property taxes on single family homes absurdly low, especially compared to taxes on comparable properties outside the city limits - often just a quarter of what they would be in burbs. I don't know whose brilliant idea this was -- somehwere along the line someone decided these people needed a "break."
Why are developers allowed to build all these high rises along the flood plains of the East River? Are they going to be held financially responsible if the properties inevitably flood and they failed to disclose the potential to buyers and renters? At most they will be given a slap on the wrist and continue to build in inappropriate locations, with no consequences, while taxpayers foot the bill for the damage? With rising seas and catastrophic weather events increasingly occurring, NYC should be thinking of ways to mitigate the damage instead of pretending that floods and storm surges will happen somewhere else. The pandering to real estate de elopes needs to stop now.
7
Shouldn't buyers and renters take the time to assess the property and it's hazards as part of the decision making process? Every home I've ever purchased has been researched for weather patterns, local industry and Super Fund sites. It's just commonsense before putting money into one of the largest investments you'll ever make.
My current home isn't in a FEMA flood plane yet because we have a stream on our property and live in hilly country where runoff is carried by said stream, we bought flood insurance.
3
Unfortunately, many homeowners don't have your common sense.
1
alas, a hand drawn line, based rather on an estimate than a measurement, around a non-tidal lake, touches the very tip of a corner of a porch on a home situated on a rise 12 feet above the lake (with a spillway, btw) and, so, has created just such a circumstance, requiring expensive flood insurance that promises both a financial hardship per se and by extension, a limit on the use of equity to obtain home improvement loans.
FEMA refuses to review its line, even FEMA officials, in town to discuss the revisions would not look or order a look, instead making it the homeowner's responsibility to hire and pay (approx 1000.00) for a surveyer to verify the elevation...this diktat was delivered in person and in replies to letters from the bottom to the top of the ladder, including the then-head of FEMA.
the error and the intransigence, if not arrogance of FEMA in this matter is both harmful to the homeowner and the collective trust we are to have in taxpayer funded agencies.
4
"The collision of science with political and economic realities means that the battle over how many more people will fall in the flood zones will be fought house by house, block by block, with millions of dollars at stake."
Only political hacks and pompous bureaucrats could muster sufficient hubris to believe they are in a position to decide such matters of such importance to the lives of millions of real people. If there was a truly free market in property and insurance, a free market would have no trouble whatsoever in deciding such matters, and its decisions would be, a priori, true and just.
Restore freedom: abolish government! Live a peaceful, productive, compassionate life in necessary cooperation and respect for your neighbors. And who is your neighbor, you ask?
"A certain man was going down from Jerusalem to Jericho; and he fell among robbers, who both stripped him and beat him, and departed, leaving him half dead. ..." And a Good Samaritan came by after a Democrat and Republican passed by ignoring the poor fellow lying there, and the Samaritan saved the man's life by ministering to him and succoring his welfare entirely by with his own resources. He did not slough off his responsibility to the state, nor demand that the state take money from some of his neighbors to help the poor, beaten fellow. He did not use OPM to pay the fellow's hospital bills (RE: OPM: sounds like opium, is equally addicting, stands for Other People's Money--forcibly extorted.
3
We have seen Sandy literally destroy homes near the water and anyone who can say these weather events will not be the new normal is a climate change denier.
I don’t believe people should be barred from the waters edge but any new building should not be subsidized by taxpayers and must incur the costs in full when the expected catastrophic event now occurs.
Ignorance is bliss but if you have the wealth build near the ocean enjoy while you can, at your own risk!
6
The tone is as if people's financial needs could somehow negate the fact that flooding is a high likelihood in some areas. Either it will flood or will not AND either people can afford required fixes or not. Logically those two premises have nothing, except superficially, to do with each other. The conflict is an anti-science, anti-intellectual trend of the country. As if the desire for there not to be a flood would preclude flooding. Oh yes it will flood, and the residents will blame the City of New York for "not doing anything" and will come running for national assistance. But they WANT there not to be a flood and they WANT the flood maps to represent their desires, not reality.
14
I get it that people do not want to retroactively be pushed into the flood plain they had been outside of and made to pay insurance or bear the risk alone. But denial is not the solution. The global weather picture is changing and denial will not push it back. Like it or not people have to pay up or move. Yes, easy for me to say- but what other choice is there? Make someone else pay- Of course! Socialize the risk and let government pay? That comes back to me. We live in an age when people do not want to be grown ups and shoulder their own responsibility. It's...SAD.
12
Trying and failing to make sense of the difference Canarsie maps. Even in Map 3 (the proposed 100 year map) the area covered seems to be only a subset of that covered in Sandy (map 2). Do we really believe that Sandy was a 1-in-500 year storm?
I don't think so, and thus the 100 year map should cover every inch covered by Sandy (and perhaps more).
The evidence is that FEMA's model is wrong, but not in the direction the City thinks--FEMA's model still underestimates the effect of flooding, and the City's model (4) criminally underestimates it.
17
What is necessary is for New York to be doing more to be protective. Flood protective measures will be increasingly necessary.
This happened to us when they redrew the maps in Arizona a few years ago. Despite living in the middle of the Sonoran Desert, bureaucrats in FEMA decided our neighbourhood was at risk of flooding and required flood insurance from most of the residents. People did fight it, but most of them lost. The insurance offered by banks was incredibly expensive and worrisome for people. We kept looking and eventually found flood insurance for 300 per year, because when our house was actually viewed in person, it was obvious there was no danger of flooding. I would suggest to New Yorkers in this position, to find a local insurance agent who understands the neighbourhood and will work for you to find the best plan at a price you can afford.
7
The problem is, few experts who look at these properties in person will be able to say there is not danger of flooding, at least not with a straight face and not without a large gratuity being paid.
The image of "Green Point Landing" is actually the Phase 2 of "Hunters Point South" in Queens. The design of that particular project is by Thomas Balsley Associates, Weiss Manfredi, and ARUP, not Field Operations. Thanks.
4
People saying they can't afford flood insurance after Sandy destroyed their house & feds rebuilt it. That right there, that's America.
35
Actually, most of the substantial rebuilding -- like the million dollar per house rebuilds -- were at city/state expense. Some people who didn't want to rebuild had their homes bought by the state at pre-storm market value!
1
Reality is a harsh mistress....
This is the effect of climate change...
Is it cheaper to buy flood insurance or to replace everything you own and pay yourself for the clean up?
Or perhaps the climate change diaspora should begin
12
It is what it is. Global warming will exacerbate the problem. You cannot negotiate reality. Those that insist they don't live in a flood zone should sign a waiver that if their property gets flooded, they will have NO expectation of assistance from FEMA or any other governmental agency. The Federal government could take some of the money proposed for a stupid wall along the Mexican border to offer flood proofing or relocation assistance to those whose primary residence is found to be in a newly designated flood zone. Some properties will just not be worth the expense of keeping them where they are. Yes it may cost you sme now financially or emotionally but is still far less traumatic to losing everything including your life in a flood.
35
A question, not a comment: Is the new mapping confined to New York City only or to all of New York state? It's not clear from the article.
1
It's just for New York City, though other cities in NY state may be undergoing a FEMA flood map processs separately. Different cities have different FEMA flood maps.
1
The "Greenpoint Landing Project in Brooklyn" photograph is a photograph of the Hunters Point South development in Long Island City. Heckuva job with your accuracy, NYT...keep up the good work.
7
A picture worth 31 words.
1
Ultimately, nature decides where the flood zones lie, v. the wishful representations of the developer.
Sandy forced many lower Manhattan buildings to rethink where they put the bulk of their HVAC, phone and data lines, and power feeds. Then there is always the question of where to put out the garbage . . .
Many areas pre-exist zoning, street width requirements and rational logic. Manhattan was built to take advantage of its relatively small (stable) tidal fluctuations in comparison to London or Amsterdam. That is why it was among the first of the New World's cities to expand its buildable real estate using landfill in boat slips (like Schermerhorn and Front Streets). To say the least, that advantage is fleeting in the world of new weather. Some of the newer (and uglier) construction proposed for New York's waterfront areas are fated to encounter the greatest chances of challenges both during and post construction.
13
Unfortunately ,most of the coastal development during the last century in NYC and New Jersey was built upon fill. The ocean shore in other words was filled in. Much of JFK and the huge warehouses of coastal NJ were built ,literally in the tide waters and marshes.Hundreds of sq. miles of coastal tideland water regions have been excavated of the natural barriers and filled in from NY to the Carolinas ,dont forget florida,a great percentage of our development all the way back to plantations were drained and filled. So , the first few hundred years of returning ocean tides will just only be the reclaiming of what we have artificially filled in. Politicians may tell you different but the facts cannot be denied.
42
When Trump and company stand to make money, or avoid paying for anything he'll claim anything including climate change like he did in his Scotland resort. Of course, that will only apply to him and his particular scheme. For the rest of us...vaya con Dios.
9
Unless people are building like the Dutch, continuing to subsidize people living in known flood-prone areas is an exercise in waste and futility. If NYC is really serious about preserving low-income/middle-income homeowners, then the assistance should be to (1) move them to a equivalent property; (2) provide low-cost loans to retrofit and adapt the existing structures to withstand floor damage (like the Dutch have been doing). Otherwise, it's kicking the can down the road for the next administration to deal with and hitting the same tax paying base with the fiscal problem.
16
The fossil fuel industry which is exacerbating the problem should be made to assist in paying for it.
9
"The city has already pushed back against FEMA. The city, in an unusual move, successfully challenged the scientific assumptions underlying the new maps."
Gee, I thought that "denying science" is reportedly solely the exclusive territory of ignorant GOP voters?
42
Denial is the first refuge of most political scoundrels regardless of party.
So there are 50,000 homeless persons in New York yet every time legislation comes along that would lower the cost of housing people have a cow. Anybody see something ironic in this?
5
My family has been ripped off by FEMA ever since Obama told FEMA to remap the same areas that were already in 100-year flood plains. They simply changed the words from 100-year to "special" then force us to pay insurance companies to protect five square feet of grass on our property dozen of meters from any of value. It is a scam to flush insurance companies with cash that they will never fairly distribute to people that trust them. Sound familiar New York?
4
New York is the first major metropolis to be mapped? The 2014 maps added 9000 properties to the flood zone in Boston.
4
The previous flood maps were based on a joint probability method that relied on estimates of probabilities of precipitation, tides, pressure anomalies, wind speed and direction, etc, and was anything but certain. In the end it probably underestimated the spatial extent of the 1% flood risk. Newer models may be better but we still need to recognize we are using an estimate to establish a hard line between paying and not paying.
9
True... but since we have seen so may extreme weather conditions appear maybe erring on the side being too inclusive is not a bad way to go. Dissing 'the model' is another form of denial that these risks have gone up and no one really knows what is at risk. Is the answer really because you don't know where to draw the line precisely you don't draw it at all?
1
The bottom line is, of course, that there are many homes and businesses in areas that are at significant risk, even danger. The question is what to do and, so, who pays?
At some point, hopefully soon, flood insurance will reflect actual and reasonably projected risks not only in New York City, but throughout the U.S.
Climate change is real and its impacts are real. People need to be protected from impending disasters and they need to take responsibility to protect themselves from impending disasters.
It may well be necessary for many to move to less threatened areas. How we help them do this is the key question. But compensating them for continuing to live in these dangerous areas when a disaster does strike makes no sense either in the short term or in the long term.
92
Maranan--I would support compensation for the less well off to move to higher, safer ground, but the wealthy, and corporations, should be on their own, with these choices. Also, flood insurance, offered from the government, should end. Anybody to parks themselves next to large bodies of water, especially in this day and age, should be ready to handle whatever may occur. Like the stock market, you decide what you can afford to lose. You speculate, at your own risk. No reason, at all, for taxpayers to foot the bill for such risky choices.
79
I only hope that the city of New York doesn't attempt to suppress actual scientific data because it is inconvenient to housing prices.
154
Why is FEMA wasting taxpayer dollars "to account for climate change"? Hasn't it gotten the message yet that there is no such thing? I can assure you the good people of North Carolina aren't worried about such things, thanks to their state Republican-controlled legislature declaring global warming to be a phrase which no one can use in municipal planning.
76
I assume you are joking, but very good deadpan.
Got it-- it's a "negotiation", not science. And they wonder why people have zero faith in Government to do anything anymore.
56
"With its 520 miles of coastline and thousands of acres of waterfront development, New York has more residents living in high-risk flood zones than any other city in the country. Hurricane Sandy, the devastating October 2012 storm, did $19 billion in damage to the city, and the pace of development along the water has only increased."
and
"The city has already pushed back against FEMA. The agency proposed preliminary maps in 2013 — soon after Hurricane Sandy — that would have doubled both the area of flood zones and the number of people inside them. The city, in an unusual move, successfully challenged the scientific assumptions underlying the new maps."
Sounds likes there's a real problem. Hiding from reality and postponing the day of reckoning is only going to make things worse - much worse - when the next storm hits.
149
From the period 1966 (Hurricane Betsy) through 2005 (Hurricane Katrina), FEMA and the Army Corps of Engineers attempted to re-evaluate the flood plain in and around New Orleans many times, while we all watched. Each time, local officials and levee boards were able to shame ACE into withdrawing their updates by pointing to the levee systems and pumps that ACE had built, and saying "If your work is no good, why should we take the blame with higher flood prices? Make the levees higher, make the pumps stronger, don't blame us!" Everyone in the area participated in suppressing reality: local government, real estate developers, tourism officials and the industry, historic and homeowners associations, everyone.
After Katrina flooded 100,000+ homes and killed thousands of people, we found out that only 28% of the property in the flooded areas (most of which were actually NEGATIVE elevations i.e. below sea level) had flood insurance. In fact, some of the actual elevation markers in the ground around the City when tested for accuracy after the storm, had sunk 12 feet since they were planted in the 1930's (mostly after the 1927 floods).
So, New York, is THIS the game you really want to play? Ignore reality and bet that the Fed will bail you out when reality strikes?
I don't advise it. New Orleans actually depopulated by 50% after Katrina for years. 13 years on, it still has fewer people in it than it did in 2005.
WR
8
Trump and Republicans have accelerated us toward the worst case climate change scenario in which no one, no matter how rich or powerful, has a decent healthy life even remotely resembling what humans experienced during the past few centuries. People can fight the science, the flood maps and economic realities all they want, but they can not escape increasingly extreme and more frequent severe weather events, salt water intrusion of drinking water supplies and the destruction of ocean and land based food systems. There’s no happy ending for anyone and that includes the children of the Trumps, Murdochs, Kochs, Mercers.
1
As an authorized insurance agent with FEMA to sell the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP), I can tell New Yorkers that this article is spot on. I have already run into issues with re-drawn flood maps and clients trying to fight FEMA over it (they lost). The NFIP has been in trouble for a long time and the new flood maps are one attempt to bring premiums up to match losses. As the article states, thousands of New Yorkers are going to suddenly find themselves in a high risk flood zone at a cost of thousands of dollars a year. The problem is basically that for far too long, folks in high risk flooding areas have gotten away with having their properties restored numerous times after floods. In many cases homes have been replaced so many times that the cost far outweighed the original value of the homes. That's ridiculous and one of the many reasons the NFIP has been plagued with problems. Bottom line is that if you own a home or building in a high flood risk area, the costs in the next few years are going to sky rocket.
152
I hope the rates increase for a much broader area- we keep developing areas that should be left wild that will help minimize flooding naturally. If you want to be by the water that's great, but don't expect me to foot the bill when your house is flooded. It is not sustainable. I know it's hard on people who live near water, but you have a choice or move! I'm tired of paying for these people. If your house gets wiped out once, you can rebuild, but twice you should make major modifications or give them money for the house and tear it down and let it revert back to wetlands.
31
Agreed that taxpayers should not be repairing properties every time that properties flood. But people will continue to live in vulnerable areas, so the City should plan on ways to protect those properties. Look at the Netherlands...
The NFIP ran into problems because of the massive payouts needed by the massive storms of Katrina and Rita, followed by Sandy and this year by Harvey and Irma. It's obvious storms are more powerful than they were when the flood insurance program was initiated. Combine that with the significant rain events which flooded so many homes and there will be problems paying for so much damage. Repetitive loss is a problem but that is not the reason the NFIP is in trouble.
1
FEMA’s maps are so outdated that they literally do not show half of Riverside Boulevard or the new large buildings that line the street. The result has cost us a ridiculous amount of money for flood insurance we don’t need. When contacted about this FEMA agreed maps were woefully but said they would get around to it when they got around to it. Once the new maps are drawn, they will be a horror to deal with.
4
Insurance is something you don't need until you need it.
1
I feel for the people who live in these areas, mainly the long-term residents who purchased their properties long before the climate change catastrophe became apparent. But to essentially lie about which locations where it is obvious that flooding will now be a chronic problem expecting the rest of us to keep bailing them out every time it floods is wrong. FEMA should be realistic about the flood plane maps and the government should also be realistic about relocation or one-time compensation. This isn't a just a NewYork City predicament as seen by the flooding in Boston this past week during "Grayson". I would hope that the universality of this problem would precipitate action but I'm not holding my breath.
64
“fair is fair” was a most interesting comment. People who live in New York Flood Zones should not expect the federal government and taxpayers from Iowa or Oregon to to pay for their choice of where to live.
40
But we should go on paying agriculture subsidies to Iowa farmers. Right.
2
For the longest time, the major losses from Flood Insurance were not the coastlines, but the flood plains of the rivers, like in Iowa and Oregon. Now that Global Warming is causing problems for the Coastline lets just forget about the Riverine flooding issues.
2
Same goes for Texas.
2
Insurance companies are greatly hiking our rates on NC coast citing rising tides, but fail to take into account the fact that our house is on the high point of our neighborhood on the intracoastal waterway and has been through a number of hurricanes, never flooded, the worst damage losing a few roof shingles. Since our house is long paid-for and we've no mortgage, we don't bother with home insurance.
1
"Since our house is long paid-for and we've no mortgage, we don't bother with home insurance."
Is this a joke?
I've been to Wrightsville Beach, and I have family there. I assure you they have homeowners insurance.
Just because your house is paid off doesn't mean that you can't have a fire or a busted water pipe or wind damage. If you have a fire and your house is destroyed, will you walk away, or do you have, say, $400,000 to rebuild? And then more to refurnish? If so, good for you.
9
Glad you're lucky to have family at Wrightsville Beach. Best place on earth. If I lived on the island, or on low land adjacent to the Intracoastal, I would have homeowners insurance because of hurricanes But I live on the mainland, at Bradley Creek Point, with view of Intracoastal. We have fire insurance and wind insurance, but dropped flood insurance, which is the main reason rates are going up. Thank you for your concern about our wellbeing, but my husband is an architect who designed our home and he knows what he is doing.
1
I guess you must be pretty well off, but I'd recommend you rethink your "no insurance" position in light of the devastating hurricanes Irma and Maria. You don't want to lose $200,000 at this stage in life over a $2000 a year insurance policy. Can you afford to lose the house?
1
Given the number of co-ops in NY, it would be helpful to point out the differences in how co-ops are treated under the FEMA flood insurance program, versus single family homes or condominiums. Co-ops are capped at $500,000 of coverage, which is woefully inadequate, and owners are barred from buying coverage for their individual unit.
23
May also be worth noting that coops pay property taxes at a higher rate -- in some cases a much higher rate -- than single family homeowners.
1
'They’re more afraid of the regulations and the flood insurance because they’re getting the bill, and they’ve got to pay that bill.”'
Ah, but if coastal homeowners do not pay their flood-insurance bills, then the rest of us, who live inland, must pay their bills when the next disaster strikes.
Not that I'm not sympathetic. If I were lucky enough to have found a house on the water, and lived in it and loved it, I also would be loath to give it up.
I wonder how many waterfront homeowners hated Michael Bloomberg. As an engineer, and someone worried about global warming and rising seas, he was interested in constructing islands and swamplands that would absorb floodwaters and mitigate waves.
I wonder how many waterfront homeowners voted for Donald Trump, who made it to the presidency in part by disdaining science and scorning the concept of climate change -- all the while making noises about Britain's picking up the tab for his golf courses, under threat by rising water.
20
A 1% risk of flood during one year does not equate to a flood every 100 years as implied by the "100 flood". A compounded failure fate of 1% per year (year after year after year of dry feet), has an expected failure at about 75 years (the piano floating out the front door).
2
Satellites can measure elevation with accuracy less than an inch. The debate here is entirely political, as it translates to $$$$.
Floodplain data should be entirely informational. Those who choose to build or buy in a floodplain should do so at their own risk. No government bail-out is they lose. This would eliminate the debates and politics. Here's the elevation data. gamble if you wish.
39
I was wondering if someone would bring the GPS data. If you leave a GPS receiver on in one location for several days there is that 1 inch accuracy.
1
I thought our president and EPA chief said this isn't happening.
24
It’s bizarre when the president of the federal
Government says there is no climate change , but a branch of the same government makes you buy flood insurance because there is climate change.
Heed what this article says, FEMA works as secretively as possible. One day out of the blue you’ll get a letter stating you have to pay hundreds a year for Insurance you didn’t need the day before.
FYI my house had no flooding during hurricane Andrew and a flood zone of D for hurricane Irma (only a and b were needlessly evacuated). FEMA casts a wide net to pay for their expenses.
2
"Their expenses."
More like people's expenses. You know, your neighbors' expenses, and your cousins' closer to the shore. People.
As for "insurance you didn't need the day before": Yes, you did need it, only the storm which would have washed away your house hadn't happened yet, but there's a good probability, given our rising seas, that next year it will.
9
I see you life in Homestead, FL; near the southern tip of Florida and the eastern coast. It's hard to understand why you haven't always been required to buy flood insurance!
1
NANCY. I think it works this way. If you don't buy flood insurance and you live in a flood plain,, and you get flooded, you get no compensation....or at least that's the way I see it. If you have a mortgage on you property, the issuer of the mortgage will require that you buy flood insurance. If you own the property outright, you can opt out of buying flood insurance. Some insurers will not provide any homeowner insurance unless you purchase flood insurance.
Boston really missed a bomb cyclone last week, because the eye of the storm stayed far offshore. The barometric pressure there was down to 28 inches of mercury, which alone, with no wind effects added, raised a 4 foot storm surge. If the eye had followed the coastline, the damage would have run well into the $billions.
6
I was watching that, too. I believe I heard a report of a tunnel or subway getting flooded due to storm surge. That gets into big dollars to fix the damage caused by these storms that all the taxpayers will have to pay. There are going to be some real problems of affordability ahead for residents.
1
And everyone that builds in a high risk area causes the insurance premiums to go up for all of us including those in low risk areas.Insurance companies spread the pain
5
The 10% chance of a fire over the course of a 30 year mortgage cited in this article sure seems high. That is a 90% chance you would not have a fire.
But if I take a look at the collection of houses around me, easily numbering into the 100s, there have been no fires over 3 decades. Given the statistics cited here, a couple of fires among them would seem to be a near certainty.
Fire safety has come a long way. Most fire departments near me handle medical calls.
Affordability should not be a consideration in drawing the new flood maps. Use the best science to draw the maps, and leave affordability and other political considerations for the phase in which we decide how to set policy based on the maps.
56
With increase in number of flood zone sited buildings, there will be more money to pay for damages, especially as the premiums will be set at market rates.
2
All well and good, but my 20+ years experience in Geographic Information Systems (GIS) always comes back to the fact that your models are only as good as the baseline data, namely the actual topography of the earth's surface. All too many areas outside of metro areas (and many metro areas) do not have adequate or accurate baseline data, mostly because local, state and federal governments do not have adequate funding to actually map an area in sufficient detail.
40
Tom, while uncertainty in topography is true, NYC has the results of an unfortunate experiment: hurricane Sandy. Scientists, politicians, and property owners and developers can argue all day, but if the flood risk prediction maps do not resemble the Sandy flood history maps, then at least some of the stakeholders are deceiving others (and maybe themselves).
29
As Bob points out above, we can get topo at +/- 1". How is that not a baseline?
1
It is now years since the announcement of a new flood map - yet none has been released. This makes no sense. How can one take protective measures if we are not provided with the best available information?
9
The protective measures are known but there is no political will to implement them. The measures are walls tall enough to hold back the flood waters. But NYC residents do not want to lose their views of the river. Therefore, the wall will not be built. With a predicted 3 Sandy-level hurricanes per 100 years, it is only a question of time before more and larger floods occur.
4
One can only hope the the ongoing denial of climate change by the administration and the pressure of real estate interests does not dim the prospects of a real solution. it will require the acknowledgement that some places are simply uninhabitable and that we must get people and commerce out of harm's way sooner, rather than later.
50
Republicans like to sneer at the exaggerated idea of New York being underwater, and fail to think(!) of the consequences like this: New flood map requirements, moving existing businesses, bridge infrastructure, etc.
Climate change isn't like a blockbuster American movie. There's no drama, just relentless incremental change impacting everything.
7
Seems like redrawing the map isn't "denial" at all.
Re Greenpoint Landing where I live, you mentioned they are doing something about the flood problem.
It would be nice if they also did something about the lack of public transportation in the area with 5,500 new units. With this plus the countless other building projects going on, tens of thousands of new residents will pour in with very little addition to public transportation.
17
Additional public transportation?
Gondolas perhaps?
Quite romantic, no?
Imagine- a Venice with skyscrapers!
The tourists will absolutely love it.
p.s.
You do have recent transit additions in your area my friend- new and expanded ferry service, a new Franklin street bus line, and the proposed BQX trolley that might include a new and easily accessible bridge to LIC and its numerous transportation options. This in addition to three other exisiting bus routes and the G train (which will be expanded to handle the influx of L train refugees). Do you really expect something like a new subway line in this area?
p.p.s.
The article does not mention other measures that new developments are taking- such as raising critical infrastructure elements to higher floors (i.e heating electrical and elevator mechanics). Of course these new developments have both the resources and motivation to do this. It's the many thousands of small home owners along the coast that need to be addressed and aided. In Staten Island following Sandy some homeowners most at risk were bought out by the State or CIty- but that's not a feasble option for many other shore areas in NYC without Federal assistance.
2
Thank you for your reply Stan, well written, but transportation planning like beauty is in the eyes of the beholder.
Bottom line, there are just too many units going up here to handle the transportation load, despite the "improvements".
I am a long term resident here and proof of it is back in the day when I took the G train to work, it was crowded but always got the first train that came by.
The new people in the area tell me in rush hrs. they have to wait for several trains.
1
Who cares? You will all be underwater soon. Why invest in unsustainable infrastructure?
1