Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 21 to 24 of 24

Thread: Is it always smart to rebuild storm areas?

  1. #21
    Senior Member jp1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    San Francisco
    Posts
    3,281
    People who live in flood zones should be mandated to buy NFIP flood insurance or be inelligible for any bailouts afterwards. Homes that have had multiple payments for flooding well beyond the hope of ever being an actuarially viable location should not be rebuilt. The person being interviewed in this episode of Planet Money has had 3 large checks from the NFIP program. Records show that before he purchased the house there were 2 more large payouts. He bought the house knowing, or at least could/should have known, that it routinely goes underwater because he loves the neighborhood. Grew up there, blah blah blah. He actually pays for flood insurance ($4,800/year) but lots of people don't. His premiums would be sufficient if he lived in a 100 year flood zone. Clearly he doesn't. He lives in more like a 1 year flood zone.

    http://www.npr.org/sections/money/20...97-flood-money

    And honestly, terrorist destruction of property isn't the same thing. Since 2002 everyone who buys property insurance has had a small chunk of their premiums going towards TRIA, the terrorism risk insurance act. If another 9/11 event happens and it gets declared an act of terror the money that we've all been paying will get used for rebuilding, not government handouts.

  2. #22
    Senior Member awakenedsoul's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    2,632
    I don't think it's always smart to rebuild storm areas. I bought my cottage in 1998, and never had any flooding problems, even though it's in a flood zone. It was only after years of drought that it started happening. The soil wasn't absorbing the water after we finally got some rain. They have built a few new neighborhoods of large homes across the highway since that time. I have to put down straw in the front yard, in front of the house, and on the porch. It soaks up the water like a sponge. If I don't, the water comes in through the front door.

    There's a lot more development happening in this area, and so I will probably need to build some sort of a wall. I feel for the people in those areas that had the hurricanes and flooding. There are so many variables.

  3. #23
    Senior Member Williamsmith's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Location
    Penns Woods
    Posts
    2,037
    Quote Originally Posted by jp1 View Post
    People who live in flood zones should be mandated to buy NFIP flood insurance or be inelligible for any bailouts afterwards. Homes that have had multiple payments for flooding well beyond the hope of ever being an actuarially viable location should not be rebuilt. The person being interviewed in this episode of Planet Money has had 3 large checks from the NFIP program. Records show that before he purchased the house there were 2 more large payouts. He bought the house knowing, or at least could/should have known, that it routinely goes underwater because he loves the neighborhood. Grew up there, blah blah blah. He actually pays for flood insurance ($4,800/year) but lots of people don't. His premiums would be sufficient if he lived in a 100 year flood zone. Clearly he doesn't. He lives in more like a 1 year flood zone.

    http://www.npr.org/sections/money/20...97-flood-money

    And honestly, terrorist destruction of property isn't the same thing. Since 2002 everyone who buys property insurance has had a small chunk of their premiums going towards TRIA, the terrorism risk insurance act. If another 9/11 event happens and it gets declared an act of terror the money that we've all been paying will get used for rebuilding, not government handouts.
    Should the people in California who have been wiped out by the fires.....receive FEMA subsidy? And should they rebuild? After all, it’s being connected to climate change!

  4. #24
    Senior Member jp1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    San Francisco
    Posts
    3,281
    Quote Originally Posted by Williamsmith View Post
    Should the people in California who have been wiped out by the fires.....receive FEMA subsidy? And should they rebuild? After all, itís being connected to climate change!
    While FEMA will undoubtedly have some role in dealing with the aftermath of the fires most of the heavy lifting of the rebuilding cost will be born by the property insurance that the owners of the buildings carry. California is a Standard Fire Policy state so insurers can't exclude things like wildfires. And at least at this point property insurance is still readily available thanks to CA's FAIR plan that requires all property insurers in the state to contribute to a pool for high risk properties.
    Last edited by jp1; 10-20-17 at 3:10pm.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •