New York, New Jersey Want Washington to Pay More Storm Costs

By Edith Honan and Susan Cornwell | November 1, 2012

  • November 1, 2012 at 9:01 am
    youngin' says:
    Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 21
    Thumb down 0

    “They have greater resources. They can print money; we can’t do that here. And given the fact this is not just a New York disaster, it’s really a national disaster, it’s probably for the federal goverment to step up and play a significant role.”

    I . . . I . . . don’t even know where to start with this quote. Somebody please help me.

  • November 1, 2012 at 1:59 pm
    reader says:
    Hot debate. What do you think?
    Thumb up 14
    Thumb down 6

    WOW! I’ve got news for you. The state, city and property owners are or have the ability to be insured. What’s with all this BAIL OUT mentality of you bleeding heart liberals? Catastrophic damage resulted from the wrath of the storm. Reparations, on the other hand, were and are your responsibility. If you’ve paid your insurance premiums, fine- file a claim with your carrier and go forward. If not, your burden of irresponsibility shouldn’t be pushed off on we taxpayers who continue to take responsibility for securing and insuring our property. I love you like a brother but, I’m not your mother!

  • November 1, 2012 at 2:02 pm
    bob says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 9
    Thumb down 4

    I believe the 75% participation by the Feds is far too liberal. Zero sounds like a better number to me.
    It is typical that the hue and cry for “somebody else’s money” starts going out after an event like this.

    • November 1, 2012 at 2:28 pm
      reader says:
      Like or Dislike:
      Thumb up 4
      Thumb down 2

      The government’s benevolence with taxpayers’ money is nothing short of mockery of its people!

      • November 1, 2012 at 3:00 pm
        GETREAL says:
        Like or Dislike:
        Thumb up 7
        Thumb down 3

        If B.O. can foot the taxpayer’s bill to buy more emotional votes between now and next week, count on your taxpayer money well spent. What’s a few more billion to the deficit anyhow. Who cares what cost if re-election is the game. What’s new here?

        • November 1, 2012 at 4:45 pm
          youngin' says:
          Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
          Thumb up 11
          Thumb down 1

          You seem to be implying that the federal response would somehow be different if we had a different president. If that is what you believe, you are extremely mistaken.

  • November 1, 2012 at 2:09 pm
    caffiend says:
    Hot debate. What do you think?
    Thumb up 11
    Thumb down 14

    Ahh hear the call of the flipocrit conservative. If it happens to someone else too bad, but just let it happen at home and see who screams the loudest for help.

    Bit of news for you all… We are one nation, and what damages one damages us all. If you don’t think that the damages in NY, NJ and the surrounding areas won’t affect you, then think again. A HUGE amount of trade moves through ports and railways in that area. Trade = economic power = jobs = you earning a wage.

    • November 1, 2012 at 2:32 pm
      AJ says:
      Like or Dislike:
      Thumb up 9
      Thumb down 7

      That’s what insurance is for caffiend! And if you are too stupid to buy it, it’s your own fault. Don’t ask me to bail your but out. Of course we all know Democrats are good at that.

      • November 1, 2012 at 3:25 pm
        caffiend says:
        Like or Dislike:
        Thumb up 8
        Thumb down 2

        Lets talk cost. Repeat after me 6 BILLION dollars. That’s just about what FLORIDA (which is prone to hurricanes) has purchased in reinsurance at a cost in $750 million in bonds. Read this article
        http://www.insurancejournal.com/news/southeast/2012/05/03/246145.htm

        New York isn’t exactly a region that has been known to be hit by massive storms of this nature, thus the local and state governments didn’t see the need to purchase coverage at that level. Thus we have FEMA and the federal government to help.

        What the Governer is asking for is not help for individual home owners, he’s asking for help with cleanup and rebuilding civic infrastructure. You know, roads, sewers, mass trasportation repairs, power & communication grids, and other large projects.

        We can look to the Bush Jr era to see what happened when the government didn’t assist right after Katrina.

        • November 2, 2012 at 1:21 am
          Former Status Quo says:
          Like or Dislike:
          Thumb up 3
          Thumb down 0

          Bush didn’t assist Louisiana after N.O. because legally he was not allowed to. The Federal government cannot go into a state and provide assistance until the governor requests it – the exceptions to this are the Posse Comitatus Act and the Insurrection Act. Florida, Alabama, and Mississippi all received help within 72 hours of Katrina because the governors asked. The Louisiana governor refused the request for help and as a result Bush couldn’t enter.

        • November 2, 2012 at 1:48 pm
          don't skim the article says:
          Like or Dislike:
          Thumb up 5
          Thumb down 0

          Thank you! I was beginning to wonder if I was the only one who read the article, individual homeowners are not asking for handouts, the states are. Politics aside, I think we will see the cost of a lot of our commodities rise very quickly if we are not able to get the ports and railways back and trade flowing.

    • November 1, 2012 at 3:07 pm
      perplexed says:
      Like or Dislike:
      Thumb up 9
      Thumb down 2

      this truly is what insurance is for. If my house burned I wouldn’t expect the government to pay for it or subsidize me in any way. that’s LIFE! Same thing for people who rebuild after they have experienced a flood in the flood plane. Buy your own insurance and rebuild your own homes. If you build in a forest, buy insurance and rebuild your own home after the forest fire takes it out. I don’t care if it’s my house or yours, take responsibility.

  • November 1, 2012 at 2:25 pm
    Ernie says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 6
    Thumb down 0

    Interesting – NJ wants the federal government to absorb the costs of the disater-related cleanup yet they want to reserve the right to rebuild on the same shore that just washed away in Sandy?

  • November 1, 2012 at 2:43 pm
    youngin' says:
    Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 14
    Thumb down 0

    Are all the costs for which the states are asking for help actually insurable? I don’t mind helping with disaster-related costs for protecting citizens and repairing public infrastructure, but demolition and rebuilding of insurable property should be the responsibility of the insurance companies and the property owners whether they be public or private.

    • November 1, 2012 at 3:08 pm
      Katie says:
      Like or Dislike:
      Thumb up 0
      Thumb down 2

      I’d venture to say a solid chunk isn’t insurable. What private insurers are offering coverage for this region? I’m not familiar – so I’m asking a serious question. If residents have no option to insure themselves (other than NFIP), are just going to tell them to pound sand when disasters strike? Telling them to move out of the state isn’t really a fair option either. Not sure there is a win-win situation out there when disasters like this happen.

  • November 1, 2012 at 3:52 pm
    paul says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 3
    Thumb down 0

    i don’t understand the thinking of the state officials when they say the feds should pay for this damage. why is the fed responsible for their damage? i think it is time to have another look at a national disaster fund for all states for all weather events such as this. everyone pays in, everyone gets paid when the bad ju ju happens.

    • November 1, 2012 at 4:01 pm
      caffiend says:
      Like or Dislike:
      Thumb up 2
      Thumb down 0

      I believe it’s called FEMA?

      • November 1, 2012 at 5:30 pm
        AJ says:
        Like or Dislike:
        Thumb up 3
        Thumb down 7

        FYI- look at the 5 year ext of the flood ins program signed into law by King Obama. Flood premium prices WILL double by law over the next 5 years for most. FEMA is the perfect example of what will happen with your health care when the gov takes over. FEMA has subsidized pre-FIRM properties for years, now everyone will pay for it. Sound familiar? Cover pre-existing conditons then stick it to the rest. Wake up America.

        • November 2, 2012 at 4:42 pm
          caffiend says:
          Like or Dislike:
          Thumb up 4
          Thumb down 0

          Ah, the NFIP.
          First.
          It took both the Senate and the House to pass a flood bill before it got to Obama. To do that it took both Republicans and Democrats to pass there first before it ever got to the President.

          Second.
          The bill signed has been something that almost every agent, company, and realtor has wanted to get passed for years. Ever since they started that whole 30 day or several month extension thing that caused quite a few disruptions in the business of writing coverage and the buying/selling of homes. So a 5 year extension is a welcome relief. I personally had several clients whoms home closings were delayed by the lapses in coverage.

          Third.
          As the NFIP has had inadequate rates for the past decade (if not longer), this rate increase has been a long time coming. That doubling of rate is the phasing out of subsidies on homes that should never have been built where they were in the first place. Specifically it will gradually increase the cost of coverage in Special hazard flood zones. Everyone in a non-flood area might see a few dollars change but nothing significant. (I read the bill. Did you?)

          Fourth.
          That rate increase you’re complaining about is partially required to cover the massive deficit run up after hurricane Katrina (and likely Sandy). The money that the NFIP got was in the form of a loan from the government which was and is to be repaid. So no, we the people will not be required to shoulder the costs of others as much as you think.

          Fifth.
          When did this article become a healthcare article? Let’s keep a little more on topic.

          • November 5, 2012 at 3:55 pm
            AJ says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 2
            Thumb down 2

            fifth-It’s about not looking to me the tax payer to bail your ass out everytime you make a poor decision (smoking,drugs for health ins and not buying flood coverage for property ins)

            fourth- NFIP getting a loan from the Gov and it being repaid is funny and very telling. Where does the “Gov” get it’s money? Where do you think the “Gov” will get it’s money when healthcare is in the same boat with FEMA? My point is big GOV is not the solution.

            third- “Everyone in a non-flood area” thats funny too and the reason a lot of agents in NJ and NY will be sued by their clients. Agents like you said they were in “non-flood area” Maybe before you read the bill you should take the time to learn a little about flood. EVERYONE is in a flood zone. You are either in a high hazard area or a low-moder hazard area. FEMA does NOT have “non-flood areas”.

            The subsidies are not on “homes that should never have been built…” They are on older homes that were built prior to FEMA establishing the FIRM (flood insurance rate map). So a person building an older home did not know what BFE (base flood elevation)was when it was built. So now FEMA is going to charge a lot higher rate for prexisting buildings. See the correlation between prexisting building conditions and prexisting health conditions?

            Put this in your pipe and smoke it. FEMA does NOT establish BFE in low-mod hazard areas. So when you build a house without knowing how high to build it and then FEMA comes in a few years later and puts your property in a high hazard area that now has a BFE higher than your first floor elevation, you are screwed.

            second-I would suggest you call all those clients you told were in “non-flood areas” and at least offer them flood. I had to deal with disruptions a lot more than you.

    • November 1, 2012 at 5:24 pm
      AJ says:
      Like or Dislike:
      Thumb up 5
      Thumb down 6

      If the 47% of people that don’t pay taxes start paying some, maybe I’d go for that. But we all know it wont. So don’t ask me to pay into a natural disaster fund unless EVERYONE does. NY and NJ could have insured for this. There are companies like Lloyds of London that will insure just about anything for a price. They decided to roll the dice because “it will never happen to me”. I get that all the time with flood insurance here in Charleston SC. Can you say HUGO. They made their bed, you know the rest. Suck it up NY and NJ.

      • November 2, 2012 at 5:14 pm
        caffiend says:
        Like or Dislike:
        Thumb up 3
        Thumb down 1

        Hmm… For a quick breakdown of that “47%”
        http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2012/09/18/161337343/the-47-percent-in-one-graphic

        On a side note, I was once part of that “47%” for about 5 years. At the time, I was a full-time college student, working part time and earning less then 5k a year. That was for spending money, gas, and food. My parents had planned ahead and saved for school, and since I opted for a community college vs a big name school, the difference I was able to use for rent.

        Also, if I recall right, the pay of most military personel that are in combat zones is non-taxable. Care to ask them to pay additional taxes along with putting their life on the line for you?

        • November 5, 2012 at 9:32 am
          AJ says:
          Like or Dislike:
          Thumb up 1
          Thumb down 1

          What part of EVERYONE don’t you understand? Unless EVERYONE has some skin in the game there will always be those that say tax the rich. EVERYONE means EVERYONE. As far as the military in combat zones, I think their pay should be doubled (maybe even tripled).

          • November 5, 2012 at 2:43 pm
            caffiend says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 1
            Thumb down 1

            I was going to make a snide comment, but I’ll just leave it at the point that there’s some people that don’t have any money to spare for anything but day to day survival.

        • November 5, 2012 at 3:57 pm
          AJ says:
          Like or Dislike:
          Thumb up 1
          Thumb down 1

          Funny how we all spend what we make. Except the GOV!



Add a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*

More News
More News Features