If these folks want to rebuild, fine, but isn’t it reasonable to mandate that taxpayers shouldn’t have to bear the cost of repeated rebuilds in areas where destruction and damage are most likely to recur? Enough is enough.
After a given amount of floods resulting in insurance payouts, and IF they are offered a buyout, but choose to remain and rebuild, then the property and owner should not be eligible to buy a flood policy, nor should they qualify for low costs government sponsored loans or grants when the property floods again. You choose to live there at your own risk.
It’s time for FEMA and Obamalanders to get realistic. The economy is falling apart under Obama and no one should be required to continually foot the bill for these kinds of damages knowing that it’s going to happen again and again. Maybe those living in these ravaged areas should help me make my house payment so I can look at retiring before age 70!
I’m confused. Obama invented the National Flood Insurance Program? That’s an amazing feat since he may have been in nursery school at the time. A real prodigy, huh?
If you live in Seabright, NJ on land no wider than a football field (yes, that’s an acurate statement) and someone is willing to offer to buy your property, take it. Don’t confuse the so-called “Jersey mentality” with pure stupidity. Seabright’s sea wall is almost 2 stories tall and the town still got wacked. It’s one thing to fight against someone or a group of people. It’s another thing to try to fight nature. No government program should support this kind of behavior. The only way people have been able to continually loose their property to nature and rebuild over and over is due to the flood insurance program. It’s not an Obama thing. It’s been going on for years. Change the rules. Please!
This same argument has been happening for the floods every spring on the Mississippi River. I remember in the 90’s that the govt paid a small town in Illinois to move the entire town to higher ground on the bluff overlooking the river. If you didn’t move, you weren’t eligible for any flood insurance or government assistance for any future floods. Almost all of the residents took up the offer.
If these folks want to rebuild, fine, but isn’t it reasonable to mandate that taxpayers shouldn’t have to bear the cost of repeated rebuilds in areas where destruction and damage are most likely to recur? Enough is enough.
That’s what taxpayers do. After all, are we going to rebuild our country after the Obama years are over?
Stick to the subject.
After a given amount of floods resulting in insurance payouts, and IF they are offered a buyout, but choose to remain and rebuild, then the property and owner should not be eligible to buy a flood policy, nor should they qualify for low costs government sponsored loans or grants when the property floods again. You choose to live there at your own risk.
It’s time for FEMA and Obamalanders to get realistic. The economy is falling apart under Obama and no one should be required to continually foot the bill for these kinds of damages knowing that it’s going to happen again and again. Maybe those living in these ravaged areas should help me make my house payment so I can look at retiring before age 70!
I’m confused. Obama invented the National Flood Insurance Program? That’s an amazing feat since he may have been in nursery school at the time. A real prodigy, huh?
If you live in Seabright, NJ on land no wider than a football field (yes, that’s an acurate statement) and someone is willing to offer to buy your property, take it. Don’t confuse the so-called “Jersey mentality” with pure stupidity. Seabright’s sea wall is almost 2 stories tall and the town still got wacked. It’s one thing to fight against someone or a group of people. It’s another thing to try to fight nature. No government program should support this kind of behavior. The only way people have been able to continually loose their property to nature and rebuild over and over is due to the flood insurance program. It’s not an Obama thing. It’s been going on for years. Change the rules. Please!
Um, can you stop being logical? I am pretty sure that isn’t allowed on this site.
This same argument has been happening for the floods every spring on the Mississippi River. I remember in the 90’s that the govt paid a small town in Illinois to move the entire town to higher ground on the bluff overlooking the river. If you didn’t move, you weren’t eligible for any flood insurance or government assistance for any future floods. Almost all of the residents took up the offer.