FEMA posed to raise coastal Flood Insurance

[ShokWaveRider]

Not sure how many here will be affected, but it is a concern and something to watch out for.

https://www.seattletimes.com/nation...lready-high-its-about-to-go-through-the-roof/

 

[ivinsfan]

SWR, very interesting article. I encourage everyone to read it in its entirety...


A little peak at the back door manipulating that goes in all levels and parties of government.



Should we have federal flood insurance I guess that is the question? I notice it says FEMA is 20 billion dollars in debt from flood payouts. Should the rich pay more then the poor percentage wise..


Should people buying and building in known flood areas have the rest of us help pay for their lifestyle choices.



Anybody here considering relocation in retirement should carefully about the impacted areas because they aren't where you think they are.

 

[Lewis Clark]

... Should people buying and building in known flood areas have the rest of us help pay for their lifestyle choices. ...

By the same token, should people buying and building in known earthquake areas have the rest of us help pay for their lifestyle choices? Or pick any other type of natural disaster.

 

[ivinsfan]

By the same token, should people buying and building in known earthquake areas have the rest of us help pay for their lifestyle choices? Or pick any other type of natural disaster.

Flooding is by far the biggest claim area , I guess the question should be insurance for homes be privately funded or publicly funded. And if it's publicly funded should it have to pay it's own way....


I live in an area for minor tornado risk and that's about all. I pay private non subsidized rates for my home insurance.



To be clear I'm not picking on people in flood areas..just talking about the nature of government.

 

[HF63]

This might be the tip of the iceberg as climate change brings lots of natural disasters. At some point insurance cost will become very costly and most folks that own their house will probably do with out it.

 

[VanWinkle]

I actually typed 2 replies to this thread and then erased them because I was sure someone would be offended by my opinion. Living proof that the current march towards censorship is working.

Vw

 

[ivinsfan]

I actually typed 2 replies to this thread and then erased them because I was sure someone would be offended by my opinion. Living proof that the current march towards censorship is working.

Vw

Simple yes and no answers are OK. I think since more then a few of here might be thinking of these areas are retirement locations it's OK to point out what's going on.


At the very least posters thinking of moving should be looking at the new flood zone areas.

 

[ivinsfan]

Not sure how many here will be affected, but it is a concern and something to watch out for.

https://www.seattletimes.com/nation...lready-high-its-about-to-go-through-the-roof/

There are also a lot non coastal areas that will be involved so the headline is a little misleading.

 

[Sunset]

Can't read the article as requires registration.

However, if gov't flood insurance is 20 Billion in debt, then they NEED to raise the insurance rates a LOT, to be self funding.

 

[ShokWaveRider]

Can't read the article as requires registration.

No it does not. Hit the "X".

 

[ivinsfan]

No it does not. Hit the "X".

I got in No problem.

 

[Bigdawg]

flood insurance

A little peak at the back door manipulating that goes in all levels and parties of government.-Won't touch this one. It would shut down the thread.

Should we have federal flood insurance I guess that is the question?-I say NO. But, I do have it. I notice it says FEMA is 20 billion dollars in debt from flood payouts. Should the rich pay more then the poor percentage wise..-(?)--If you believe the "rich" should pay more for flood insurance, should they pay more for absolutely everything? Milk, eggs, movie tickets...

Should people buying and building in known flood areas have the rest of us help pay for their lifestyle choices.(?) -There are natural disasters everywhere. I lived in a San Diego suburb and had to evacuate twice because of fires. Why do we keep rebuilding in those fire prone zones? Same with tornadoes and hurricanes.

Anybody here considering relocation in retirement should carefully about the impacted areas because they where you think they are.--I currently live on the shores of the Potomac/Chesapeake. I have flood insurance. Our home is 6 feet above sea level. Honestly I am more worried about my flood insurance costs than an actual fllod/rising tide. We built an additional 6 feet high so tides would have to rise pretty high to touch my house. I would be fine self insuring.

Amen.

 

[ivinsfan]

Amen.

A lot of the disaster prone areas you mentioned are considered very attractive to live in. Close to ocean, or the national forest, have a nice year round climate, etc.



With subsidized insurance and people thinking it won't happen to me this areas keep gaining in population....there is a reason people aren't moving to North and South Dakota, which are lovely in their own way.

 

[Amethyst]

Sometimes I've felt censored, too. If my comment was well-meant, and wouldn't hurt my feelings, it shouldn't hurt other people's.

Then I turn a little red, thinking of all the people who've annoyed me by making well-meant comments to me, which were never meant to hurt my feelings. Yet somehow, they did.

I guess we are never too old to learn more ways to look at it from another guy's perspective.

I actually typed 2 replies to this thread and then erased them because I was sure someone would be offended by my opinion. Living proof that the current march towards censorship is working.

Vw

 

[travelover]

By the same token, should people buying and building in known earthquake areas have the rest of us help pay for their lifestyle choices? Or pick any other type of natural disaster.

I have earthquake insurance, but it is not subsidized by the government. Nor is my fire and wind insurance.

 

[Mr._Graybeard]

I don't think the article reads as though the increases would be based on wealth, but property value. That certainly makes sense to me. A fancy car costs more to insure than a Camry.

Whether the federal gov't should be involved in insurance of any kind, I would say no. That includes crop insurance for farmers.

 

[Aerides]

Should people buying and building in known flood areas have the rest of us help pay for their lifestyle choices.

I think you mean that rhetorically, but a lot of folks who live in flood-prone areas (which can be well-inland, not just rich coastal places) didn't make that decision recently, and can't afford to just move to solve the issue.

We're in a flood zone, 2 miles or so from the ocean, along with millions of other folks. We have lived in this house for about 20 years, and I've been in this area for 40+. Never had an actual flood event. Hurricanes, sure, but no water in the house, no water that didn't recede and leave streets drivable 24 hours later.

Meanwhile, a small Tennessee town flooded this summer, for the first time in 100 years.

And there were significant flash floods in Tuscaloosa, AL, just a couple of weeks ago.

Neither of them would be considered highly attractive or communities too rich to subsidize.

(PS, I'm not debating whether subsidies should exist at all, I think that's an ideological debate that won't be won, just trying to add some "not everyone in a flood zone is a rich person with options" to the mix)

 

[JT90505]

By the same token, should people buying and building in known earthquake areas have the rest of us help pay for their lifestyle choices? Or pick any other type of natural disaster.

Earthquake insurance is extremely expensive with large deductibles for a rare event (that yes, will eventually happen. maybe tomorrow, maybe in 30 years). Flood insurance has been heavily subsidized for events that occur in the same locations on a regular basis. A better choice would have been wildfires, although insurance for that event is finally starting to better reflect probability of occurrence and risk.

 

[ivinsfan]

I think you mean that rhetorically, but a lot of folks who live in flood-prone areas (which can be well-inland, not just rich coastal places) didn't make that decision recently, and can't afford to just move to solve the issue.

We're in a flood zone, 2 miles or so from the ocean, along with millions of other folks. We have lived in this house for about 20 years, and I've been in this area for 40+. Never had an actual flood event. Hurricanes, sure, but no water in the house, no water that didn't recede and leave streets drivable 24 hours later.

Meanwhile, a small Tennessee town flooded this summer, for the first time in 100 years.

And there were significant flash floods in Tuscaloosa, AL, just a couple of weeks ago.

Neither of them would be considered highly attractive or communities too rich to subsidize.

(PS, I'm not debating whether subsidies should exist at all, I think that's an ideological debate that won't be won, just trying to add some "not everyone in a flood zone is a rich person with options" to the mix)

I agree and the headline of the story was slanted toward rich people...and maybe the people in TN didn't even have flood insurance so they would be SOL..