Sen Landrieu on Senate Floor Biggert Waters 'Never Voted On' 'Went Dark', 'Tucked into Transportat

C-Span via Youtube ^ | 05/11/2013 | Landrieu

[Neidermeyer]

Senator Landrieu outlines how the Biggert Waters flood insurance bill was manipulated through the legislative process without ever coming up for a vote in the Senate. This bill is nothing but a tax increase on anyone with property that requires flood insurance... People are now unable to sell property as this is driving away any and all buyers .. if you sell without disclosing the premium increases that will be levied on a new owner (rather than increased incrementally on existing property owners) you will be sued ,, bank on it. This is also impacting hurricane Sandy victims in the Northeast as they are being forced to build to higher standards that cost much more .. while their insurance only covers building to the prior standards .. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G7LptibadAE

[Neidermeyer]

This is as big of a mess as Obamacare ,, just being visited on fewer people .. This needs to be struck down.. If the senator is correct this should be something we CAN GET REVERSED QUICKLY. Anyone who has contacts in conservative legal activist groups please pass this on ..

[jwalsh07]

You’re gonna have a tough time rounding up support since a vast majority of Americans do not live in flood zones with beaches outside their back doors.

[Onelifetogive]

I’m for people who need flood insurance paying market price for their flood insurance! (MUCH higher than they currently pay!)

[Oliviaforever]

Good analysis.

We need to get the federal government out of the Flood Insurance business and let the people in Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama Florida and coastal Texas pay the full amount it cost to insure their property in flood prone areas.

[CPOSharky]

Why do people build in a flood zone anyway? Because the government backed insurance is so cheap?

[EQAndyBuzz]

“I’m for people who need flood insurance paying market price for their flood insurance! (MUCH higher than they currently pay!)”

I agree. Would love to use that against Boxer, Menendez, and all coastal senators.

Heck, let the use their campaig funds to defend it.

[Neidermeyer]

I’m for people who need flood insurance paying market price for their flood insurance! (MUCH higher than they currently pay!)
**************************
This shouldn’t be a gov’t program .. in Florida in the last 40 years the payout has been about 27% ,, a 73% profit margin ... and peoples rates are going up in most cases 400==>500% ...

[Vince Ferrer]

I have always been against this insurance, but I would have wanted to grandfather it so that current policy holders didn't get hurt.

Make a replacement bill, and attach it to the funding bills that are not passing the senate.

[House Atreides]

I’m for people who need flood insurance paying market price for their flood insurance! (MUCH higher than they currently pay!)
******************************************************************
I’m also in favor of NOT subsidizing those who choose to live in flood zones also. Market rates for insurance would help adjust properties in flood zones to their REAL market values over time. That is in contrast to the ARTIFICIALLY inflated values that stem from the subsidized insurance.

I always pay an amount for my insurance company based upon the actual risks to which I’m exposed. I expect those who live in flood zones to do the same. And there IS NOTHING UNFAIR about that approach. Nothing at all.

[Neidermeyer]

Why do people build in a flood zone anyway?
**************************
You want to discard all of New Jersey? NYC? The entire east and west coasts? All of Tampa Bay , Clearwater , Miami and a thousand other towns and cities?

I agree with you 1000% when we’re talking about hillbillies who’s shack in the gulch gets flooded EVERY SINGLE YEAR when the snow melts... and they never do anything proactive because they can see the snow on the mountain and just buy insurance when the snow is too high...

[grania]

Those in the flood zones should pay what it costs to insure them. In addition to that, once the house has been paid for the owner should not be abloe to get flood insurance again for a house on that property. The payout for any one house, over the years, should not add up to more than the assessed value of the house. In that case, the owner could stay there, but never collect for flood damage again.

The reason the feds subsidize flood insurance is that it's not profitable for the insurance companies. Maybe people and communities should adjust and build smaller houses along the coast, so the owners can absorb losing the house to a flood. Why should be subsidize zillionaires who build palaces in areas that are going to flood at some point or another?

[Neidermeyer]

This isn’t a “gazillionaire” tax , this is a tax on everyone that lives near any water.. In Florida historically the Insurance premiums have been about 4x the payouts on claims. So reduce our premiums.. we’ve been subsidizing the rest of the country for many decades.

[ican'tbelieveit]

It is now affecting people in CO that just survived a 1000 year flood. Including property owners that were not in “flood zones” prior to this event. Doesn’t require beach front property.

[SeeSharp]

Well government subsidized flood insurance had created a moral hazard. Now when people get flooded out the taxpayers bail them out. Then they rebuild right back in the same flood plane. What we should do is eliminate the insurance subsidy and the tax. Just let the market set both the land prices and the insurance rates.

[jwalsh07]

Who should pay for my insurance? My healthcare? My groceries? For plowing my road? Roofing my house?

[SeeSharp]

You want to discard all of New Jersey? NYC? The entire east and west coasts? All of Tampa Bay , Clearwater , Miami and a thousand other towns and cities?

No. But is it right that the taxpayers should have to subsidize your flood insurance? Live wherever you want. Just don't ask me to pay for it.

[ican'tbelieveit]

Hey, I am not saying that people shouldn’t pay for their choices, I just wanted to point out that many people in CO are now facing a sudden bill increase for an event that happens almost never, and they are not on “big rivers” or have “beach front property”. And many of these people didn’t carry flood insurance at all because they were not in a designated flood zone. Several of these rivers rerouted themselves in this flood, going through “safe” neighborhoods.

Most local to me was the St. Vrain creek. I have walked across it, getting no more than the tops of my shoes wet many times.

[Neidermeyer]

The biggest problem with this bill ... let me list them..

1.) TAX BILL , REVENUE! , started illegally in the senate banking comittee not the house
2.) NEVER VOTED ON in Senate!
3.) replots flood plains , increases zones by huge amounts of acreage .
4.) Just as with other taxes huge waste ,,, can’t speak for other states but flood insurance would be FREE in Florida right now if just half of the profits were re-invested.
5.) This is grandfathered in for existing owners with 25% yearly increases (until they can’t pay and the gov’t siezes the property) ,, but an approx 500% increase is immediate if the property is sold... You’ll never sell another house in Tampa again ... this will lead to a few hundred thousand abandoned houses .. just what we need..

[jwalsh07]

I live on top of a 1500 ft hill in inland Ct. First year I was here I had two feet of water in the basement. Nobody from the government came to help, which was fine by me, but I understand your point.

[SeeSharp]

once the house has been paid for the owner should not be abloe to get flood insurance again for a house on that property.

Why? If there is a private insurance company willing to sell him insurance and he is willing to pay for it then let him have it. It is only government subsidized flood insurance that he shouldn't be able to buy again. But then, I don't think the government should have been subsidizing flood insurance in the first place.