Posted on 09/30/2013 12:13:09 PM PDT by SatinDoll
When Superstorm Sandy slammed into New York and New Jersey last fall, it sent massive floods through the streets of coastal towns and cities across the Northeast, turning areas like Toms River, N.J., into something like a war zone.
But nearly a year later, residents there and in many other coastal communities across the U.S. face a potentially far more devastating menace: a nationwide revamp of flood insurance rates, forcing premiums that were once around $500 per year into the $5,000-, $10,000- and even $20,000-a-year range and higher.
"The adverse effect of [this] would be more devastating than Hurricane Katrina," Louisiana Insurance Commissioner Jim Donelon said in an interview with weather.com, noting the crippling economic damage the historic 2005 storm left behind on the Gulf coast. "Because it will render literally thousands of properties in my state worthless."
What's prompting reactions like this is the Flood Insurance Reform Act of 2012, passed by Congress last summer and often called "Biggert-Waters" for its two Congressional sponsors: former Illinois Rep. Judy Biggert and Rep. Maxine Waters of California.
The act made sweeping changes to the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) – which has been the only provider of flood insurance for homes and businesses across the U.S. since its creation in 1968 – with the goal of raising rates to reflect the true actuarial risk of properties in flood zones.
(Excerpt) Read more at weather.com ...
Saying goodbye to government subsidized flood insurance...flood insureance that once cost $2,700 annually will be $26,000 annually.
WOWZA!
There is nothing, I believe, to prevent homeowners from staying in place and just elevating their homes above the food level. Such is the case along the coastal areas of Southern Gulf states, I have seen. This makes the ground level floor a sacrificial area (goodbye vehicles) but saves the upper floors and belongings. I guess you could park a boat alongside the vehicles for when it floods!
WOO HOO!
Now let’s stop wasting taxpayer dollars replenishing beach sand!
I’m with on that!
I’m with you on that!
Subsidize something, and you get more of it.
Someone could make a fortune building floating carport docks! Risin’ tide and all dat!
That’s true, but we generally like development. Development in places like New Orleans or Charleston, S.C. or, as mentioned in the article, the metro New York area, is generally a good thing. We do that through subsidies. What’s worse, though, is the people who bought in reliance on the subsidies only to have the rules changed halfway through, which has left them with a house that they can’t afford to own—because they can’t pay the flood insurance rates required by their bank—and they can’t sell because no one will buy it with the cost of flood insurance so high.
It’s a mess.
Taxpayers should not subsidise flood insurance. Their current insurance should pay them, but they should move out of the flood zone.
Ooh! I like that idea.
(Just so people know: I live at 1000’ elevation above the north shore of the Columbia River in southwest Washington State. We have earthquake insurance but no flood insurance.)
To paraphrase Sam Kinison; Move to where the water isn’t.
Mortgagees require flood insurance based on location and not how high a home is elevated. It will kill values.
It was a bad program to begin with; it is why FL coastal areas are crowded with homes.
I just wish equal devastation was visited on the source of our national decline, Washington DC.
IMO there is no area that could be considered 100% free from the damage of rising water. Was in the 100 year flood several years ago in Houston and now live in a hurricane prone area. My choice about where I live and I don’t mind paying for my own insurance for both water and wind. What I do mind paying for is an increase to my insurance because of damages which occur in other parts of the state. Their problem.
Warehouses or industrial areas building in a flood zone? Maybe. Residences? No unless the owner is willing to foot the total bill for the damage. Certainly in our area you could elevate all the houses but that does not protect you from wind and damage from wind driven rain.
That "whatever it takes" attitude is pretty much what gave us the subprime mortgage crisis.
I’m in California and due to FEMA changing their maps in our area, I was required by my mortgage lender to get flood insurance last year— TO HELP PAY FOR DAMAGE BEING DONE IN OTHER PARTS OF THE COUNTRY for sure. I was quoted as high as $2,200.00 for one year- 300K- $5,000 deductible or maybe it was more. Since I don’t owe that much on my mortgage, the lender allowed me to lower my coverage to my mortgage amount, still costing me around 500.00.
This year I was required to obtain an elevation certificate through a surveyor costing another $500.00, BUT the best thing to happen to me. The survey showed that my house structure was below the flood zone by several inches and now FEMA is supposed to exempt me and even get my premium back from last year. We will see- process just started.
Now, Missouri had the largest earthquake in this country. Earthquake insurance should be required by all mortgage lenders in the country!(/Sarc partly off)
I live on a hill, I only need quake and tornado insurance....
If I lived “In a Hill” I would only need quake insurance....
Owning an Insurance friendly Hobbit Hole is my dream retirement home...
It isn’t a matter of where water isn’t; it is where it can be.
Flood plains in Florida can extend over forty miles inland.
Like most everything it touches, Washington screws it up.
Error- ABOVE the flood zone, not below**
In flood zones V new construction and repairs and renovations which trigger those standards via $$$ value do have to have breakaway construction on the ground level. Which means living space can not be at that level.
A friend of mine in Brick, NJ had detached a two car garage. Sandy came and took it away completely and left a portable toll shed it its place.
Gulf and East Coast water front housing just went WAY down in value.
I’m on a hill overlooking a lake in east Texas. My house is over 65 feet above the top of the dam. A meteor would have to hit the Gulf for my house to flood... And I bought that way on purpose.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.