This is a classic case study of why the government should keep it’s nose out of just about everything. Government subsidized flood insurance incentivized people to build homes where they probably shouldn’t have. And now that the government wants to lower or stop the subsidies and reduce the incentive to build or re-build where people should not, all these people are crying foul. Had the government not stuck it’s nose into this in the first place none or at least fewer homes would have been built where they should not have and those who chose to do so would have borne the cost of that decision intead of innocent tax-payers.
Dave- the homes getting killed with the new laws are homes built prior to flood maps being established (PRE-FIRM) so they didn’t get incentivized to build, they were already built. They have been getting subsidized rates because when they were built they didn’t have a base flood elevation to know how high to build. Now that they know the base flood elevation and it’s a negative elevation FEMA has decided to get actuarial correct rates.
The EXACT same thing is going to happen with Obumacareless. The government is going to subsidize pre-existing conditions by raising your health insuance premiums and taking tax dollars.
for the people that dislike this comment, at least have the balls to argue the point…but then again its hard to deny the truth unless you are a democrat.
I didn’t bother disliking your comment, but I will say something. I don’t think the government should have given subsidies for flood insurance. I understand your point – but life isn’t fair. In fact, it frequently sucks.
jw- who said life should be fair except for Obama?
November 22, 2013 at 10:23 am
Ron says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Jack,
You really need to grow some thicker skin. People dislike my posts as well as many other people’s without comment all of the time. It is part of the blogosphere culture.
Get over yourself or go away.
For the record, I only thumb down a post after I have already posted my reply.
Jack, I have the balls to call most of your comments asinine and extreme. “FEMA has decided to get actuarial correct rates” is not a correct statement. Agree that rates need to be adjusted on Pre-Firm homes, but what makes you think the rates are actuarially correct? I have no confidence that a FEMA official has the ability to set rates properly. Do you? The rates, with respect to coverage amounts, don’t make sense in many cases.
I’m a Democrat and I don’t disagree with your first paragraph. I think the thumbs down are for the second paragraph – not for what it says, but because people are just sick and tired of hearing about Obamacare. It’s being brought up in every article these days.
Libby- I know you don’t like my 2nd comment, but please tell me how exactly the same thing wont happen? Are we disliking comments now that simply remind us how bad Obamacare is really going to get in the future? We have the perfect comparison right in front of us. FEMA subsidies vs. Obamacare subsidies. If it’s not stopped now the middle class is in serious trouble.
Jack – for one thing, I don’t think you can compare flood insurance to Obamacare. There was no independent market willing to take on the catastrophic peril of flood – that’s when the government steps in to provide cover (TRIA, Flood, Medicare etc.) So it is apples and oranges.
Regarding the thumbs down, I think people are just sick of Obamacare comments on topics that are totally unrelated. There are enough articles on Obamacare we don’t need to talk about it on every single thread.
November 27, 2013 at 7:30 pm
ET says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Jack is absolutely correct.
People should log in to “Stop FEMA Now” if they want to know how the government is in the process of screwing a large percentage of homeowners in the United States by destroying the equity in their homes.
Most people are under the misnomer that The Biggert-Waters Act (passed in the summer of 2012) and the application of FEMA Base Flood Elevations applies only to properties immediately along the shoreline. The studies done by FEMA, along with the new Base Flood Elevations (“BFE”) that require homes to be lifted 14 feet in the air to qualify for old flood insurance rates, are based on the discredited “religion” of Global Warming/Climate Change.
The new BFEs are going to impact properties along the entire coastal United States and probably up to 10 miles inland. MILLIONS of homes will be impacted. They are going to impact properties in every river valley from east to west and north to south. They are going to impact properties built on and around the Great Lakes. They are even going to impact properties in places like Boulder, Colorado which are thousands of feet above sea level.
Many people who NEVER thought their homes were in a flood zone will suddenly find themselves in a flood zone. Your mortgage holders will come to you and hand you a bill for flood insurance. If you are in a low risk area (Zone X), it might ONLY cost you $500 to $1,000 annually. If you were previously in a low risk flood zone (Zone X), many will find themselves in high risk flood zones (Zone A or Zone AV)) and your flood insurance premiums will increase from a current $500 to $1,000 annually to $6,000 to $36,000 annually to get the maximum coverage afforded by the National Flood Insurance Program (“NFIP”)which is $250,000 Structure and $100,000 Contents. One woman in St. Petersburg, Florida just learned that her new flood insurance premium is $62,000 annually!!!
So if you purchased your home before Biggert-Waters for, say, $500,000 with either no flood insurance or a small flood insurance premium required by your mortgage lender, what do you think will happen to the value of your home when the flood insurance premium rises to say $9,000 annually from either zero or $500 annually? Exactly, it’s going to DECREASE probably by 50 percent in value. Who is going to purchase your house for the pre-Biggert Waters price when ownership now requires an extra $750 per month (or more) to pay for unsubsidized flood insurance?
One fellow in Toms River, New Jersey saw the assessment value of his house decrease from $400,000 pre-Hurricane Sandy to $10,000. If people put down 20 percent to purchase their homes pre-Biggert Waters, and their homes have declined by 50 percent in value, they will no longer have any incentive to stay in their homes. Many in New York and New Jersey are negotiating with their lenders to exit their properties by signing over the deed to the lender.
This has the potential to create a housing catastrophe worse than the 2008/2009 housing collapse. That’s because the homes near the coast are some of the most valuable real estate in the world.
For all of those “kind” folks out there who currently are not (and will not be) in flood zones, and don’t give a crap, you will be impacted too. When my assessment is decreased by half, I am going to pay lower property taxes to the city where I reside. And so it will go with every homeowner faced with staggering increases in flood insurance premiums. People will grieve their property taxes year in and year out and the end result is cities, counties, towns, villages, and other municipalities will be faced with large holes blown in their budgets. They will be faced with either laying off police, fire, sanitation, teachers and other municipal workers and lowering the salaries and benefits of those workers that remain OR (if they are able)making up for the budget gaps by raising the property taxes of homes in non-flood zone properties.
When flood zone homes are sold (or abandoned), government entities will lose hundreds of billions of dollars in capital gains taxes that otherwise would have been owed.
If Biggert Waters is not undone (repealed), it has the potential to destroy the economy. The present so called “recovery” will look like the “Roaring Twenties” compared to what comes after.
The other point is that the Water in Biggert-Waters is Maxine Waters of Los Angeles. She is literally a Communist lunatic. Even she has repudiated the legislation which bears her name.
Just like Obama-Care, Biggert-Waters was brought to us by politicians who didn’t read the legislation before they passed it. Biggert-Waters was buried deep inside a Transportation Funding bill and no debate was allowed. Typical.
Well said, Dave. The only thing I would disagree with is the “just about” in your first sentence. I can’t think of anything the US government has taken over that it hasn’t made a mess of. What a shame that so many decent, hardworking people are harmed by it.
it’s funny… all these concerned politicians wanting to keep Biggert Waters just like it is yet they will not lift a finger to investigate unjustified Letters of Map Revision that corrupt government mapping contractors are submitting and getting approved. Talk about two faced politicians… giving the truly wealthy condominum owners rediculous premium breaks while making innocent homeowners pay the penalty. THE NFIP IS CORRUPT AND NEEDS TO BE SHUT DOWN IMMEDIATELY. Private insurance carriers would correct this problem in no time.
Unjustified – I haven’t written NFIP in years, but I have a question. Shouldn’t high-rise condo units get a better rate since they are not at ground level and not subject to as much flooding as a single family dwelling?
Libby- high rise condo buildings on front beach can be washed away with a 20-30 foot storm surge. Just because they are 50-100 feet off the gound does not mean the foundation and 1st floor can’t be washed out from under them. When that happens and everyone in the building does not have flood coverage, the association will hit every owner with a huge assessment to rebuild the condos. People without the funds to pay the assessment will walk away from their mortgage.
Have there been alot of high rise condo buildings that have been washed away? I haven’t heard that. But regardless, flood insurance will only provide $500,000 coverage max. That’s not enough to rebuild the building, let alone the interior owners units. Where do these condo owners go for excess cover? Or are you saying they should just be washed away and everyone still walks away from their mortgage?
In 2004 Hurricane Ivan left 28 condominium buildings completely washed away or condemed from flooding on a 10 mile stretch of beach front in Gulf Shores and Orange Beach, Alabama. These are written as RCBAP so the NFIP insures the buildings for full limits. I have 10 story condominium buildings valued at $45MM that are paying 12,000 annual premium for NFIP flood coverage while many of my individual homeowners pay more for maximum coverage available to them ($250,000 / NFIP)
November 22, 2013 at 2:33 pm
Libby says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
You sound like you know alot about flood insurance. I don’t know what an RCBAP is. Can you explain?
November 22, 2013 at 2:48 pm
Unjustified Flood Rates says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Libby – Residential Condominium Building Association Policy (RCBAP). Mortgage guidelines dictate that these buildings are written to full replacement cost so the NFIP allows them to be written as RCBAP
November 22, 2013 at 2:54 pm
Libby says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Thanks, I learned something. (Check that off for today!) Does NFIP have similar programs for other commercial business?
November 22, 2013 at 5:09 pm
unjustifiedfloodrates says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
RCBAP is the only exception to the $500,000 limit for commercial
November 22, 2013 at 9:53 am
unjustified flood rates says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Libby – I have no problem with approving a “V” zone risk factor and giving mitigation credits to condos sitting in “V” zones. In most cases these buildings are elevated and deserve rating credits that would lower their premiums by 20% to 30%. My problem is with approval of LOMR’s that completely remove these REPETITIVE LOSS condos from “V” zones when they have received millions of dollars in NFIP claim payments. FEMA approved 81 of 83 submissions on the Alabama coast over the last two years and those condos received an average of 93% rate reductions. Alabama was hit with eight hurricanes over a nine year period from 1994 to 2004. Regardless of that fact FEMA even approved frame buildings that experienced major flood damage during every one of those storms. Flood mapping contractors submit the buildings and FEMA allows other government mapping contractors to approve the submissions. The mapping contractors are all very friendly with one another. The program stinks of corruption.
I have a question for everyone… if FEMA approves almost every beach front LOMR submission where storm surge and wave wash cause severe flood damage, what exactly is a (velocity “V”) flood zone and where are they?
I thought NFIP had to take all comers. Am I wrong? Again, I haven’t written NFIP coverage for ages because it’s an E&O waiting to happen. (I refer all that business to a flood specialist or only write DIC coverage.)
I think rates do need to be adjusted, but it needs to be a gradual increase over several years and they should allow you to write higher limits. They could justify higher premiums with higher limits & co-insurance penalties. Just like a REAL insurance company does.
This is like the government comming in and selling you health insurance after a heart attack at a subsidized rate and then figuring out those people have higher doctor’s bills than a 27 year old. Oh wait….thats ACA.
Private insurance will not correct the problem for the majority. They will charge even higher premiums or totally decline since the cat exposure is too high and they want to make a profit.
Also – cannot turn back time. Best would be to charge appropriate rates (very high) for any new construction…and to transition the premium increases for the existing over a 5 to 10 year period. Won’t solve it entirely but will give time for people to make other arrangements.
In our area, they remapped twice in a two year period. Places that had never flooded or had ever been considered a flood zone were deemed flood zones after these two remappings of our area. And just to show you how stupid some of these are…inside the levy–which is basically the entire town–it is not a special flood hazard zone. Outside the levy we have several new flood zone areas including an area that has a 16 ft higher elevation than the town. The area is higher than the levy itself, but it is considered a flood zone. This town did flood back in 1990 and in 1998, but it was a creek inside the levy that caused the flooding, not the river outside the levy. So, FEMA spent millions rerouting the creek and rebuilding the levy system. And if this situation isn’t crazy enough–I have people who has called and told me that they are getting a better rate through other places. I called the South East Region Director (FEMA) and inquired about that and she told me that some insurance companies used different map reading/assessment firms and sometimes they get different results. It is not suppose to work that way–but sometimes it does.
The statement, “The quandary is especially felt by conservative Republicans torn between their philosophy of limited government and helping constituents facing sharply higher flood insurance premiums.” outlines the hypocrisy and is the core of my dislike of Republicans, especially Conservatives. They are steadfast in their beliefs until they negatively impact their constituents and, therefore, their chances for re-election. I thought their job was to do what is best for the country, not to keep their jobs.
I already know that Democrats also make decisions to keep their jobs more than what is good for the country. So, if that is your rebuttle, save your breath.
Provide one example of a Republican, especially a Conservative, who has pushed for a law that would benefit the country as a whole, but harm their constituents.
Christians have killed thousands of people, and done it in the name of Christianity. Do you, therefore, think that Christianity should be outlawed, or are you just a hypocrite?
November 22, 2013 at 2:31 pm
Libby says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Jack – if you are against abortion, by all means, don’t have one. However, you have no right to deny that choice to others. Pro-choice means pro-choice. Not pro-abortion.
You don’t want to own an AR15, don’t have one
You don’t want to carry a concealed weapon, don’t have one
You don’t want to read the 10 commandments on the wall of the court house, don’t read them
You don’t want to say the pledge of allegiance, don’t say it
You don’t want to sing Christmas songs at school, dont sing them
You don’t want to send your kids to charter schools, don’t send them
You don’t want to eat at chick-fil-a, don’t eat there
You see Libby? It’s not about choice now is it.
November 22, 2013 at 4:14 pm
Libby says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Sure it is. I don’t want or like an AR15, but I don’t tell you you shouldn’t. I don’t want to carry a concealed weapon and don’t think anyone should, but I’m not telling you you can’t. I say the Pledge of Allegience at the VFW at 8:00 every time I’m there. I don’t have any kids, so don’t worry about where to send them. I don’t like chick-fil-a, but go there all you want if you do. Personally, I don’t think the 10 commandments belong on the wall of the courthouse because of that pesky little separation of church and state thingy in the Constitution. You see? It IS about freedom.
November 22, 2013 at 1:32 pm
Libby says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
jack – nobody is killing babies. A baby is a living, breathing human being. A fetus is not a baby. And that is the core of my dislike for Republicans. You guys talk a big game about freedom, but want to take women’s freedoms away. Where are you when the unwanted or unplanned baby appears and the woman can’t work AND take care of it? They need help with medical expenses, help with food, help with housing. Then you’re calling her a no good, worthless deadbeat with her hand out sucking on the tit of the American government.
Do see any hypocrisy at all with that position? And don’t just tell me she should keep her legs closed. I’m sure you remember back when the hormones still flowed. Especially if you’re young and stupid (is that redundant?).
Jack – If bloody baby bodies are being pulled from the womb, that is not what I am talking about. I am against late-term abortions.
You seem to think that abortion is a casual choice, which speaks more to your ignorance as a man and your inability to understand a woman’s view rather than any insight into the real issues.
If you really want abortion to be as rare as possible then do the work necessary in sex education and birth control availability and stop treating pregnancy as some punishment for sexual activity.
“IF” what the hell is that? Aint no f-ing “IF”. Its done every day. For you to sit there and say “IF” is a true sign of ignorance or denial Libby. Bloody babies are thrown in the trash every day. “IF”??
Pregnancy is a gift from God. PERIOD. Not a “punishment”.
“aint’s going to punish them with a baby”- Barack Obama
i think everyone agrees the rates have to be actuarially(sp) correct. The biggest issue is housing built prior to modern maps, that have been getting subsidized rates. the solution is to allow customers to finance the premium. if the customer does not pay in full, they are not allowed to reapply for coverage till previous policy is paid in full. it is not easy or perfect, but fair to all involved.
If you can’t afford the payments, financing will not solve your problem. You could have the premium in escrow to pay over 12 months, but if your mortgage payment increases by $1,000 per month you won’t be able to pay it.
It is sad that the Feds don’t make a distinction between frequent claim offenders and second home owners . Having had coverage since the FEMA program began for a second home with absolutely no losses it seems I am being penalized and subsidizing those with repetitive losses who live in equally flood prone areas. Raise the rates to actuarial ,but for all homes. In auto insurance poor drivers with poor loss history get penalized. The ownership of the house is not a valid actuarial determinant but a good example of social meddling by the government. No real actuary will say because a house is not occupied more than 3/4 of the year by the owner it is more flood prone. This is political Our DC representatives are more intent on getting reelected than doing what is fair!
On the topic of flood insurance rates, I own a home in a FEMA-identified flood zone in California. The homes were built six or more decades ago before there was any government involvement as far as I know. I’ve owned the place three decades, and flood insurance rates have risen from a few hundred to about $2400. Under this new policy, they could rise to $6,000. The home has never flooded and has no realistic prospect of flooding. Yet I am now expected to make up the deficit created by tropical storms in the eastern and southern states. If this policy stands, the ramifications for property values and ability of fixed-income people to retain their homes are daunting at best. It will bring truckloads of misery to people who can ill bear it.
I live in a community on the Raritan Bay in New Jersey. We have an Army Corps of Engineers designed and installed levee and pump system in place that was built in the late 60’s in response to Hurricane Donna. In 2009 FEMA “decertified” our levee system as inadequate, yet we survived Irene and Superstorm Sandy without 1 single home of 1400 flooding. As a result of the dercertification, we went from no flood insurance requirement to a potentially massive one. The vast majority of the homes in our community have been here for decades. Before I bought my house, the first thing I asked was “does this property require flood insurance?”. It didn’t in 2006 but now it will require $10,000 a year on a home worth $280K? The historical data doesn’t support such as increase. I’m all for the NFIP being fiscally solvent, but not on the backs of homeowners who haven’t had any flooding in 50 years. Obviously, our levee system saved us during these most recent storms. In fact, it held back MORE water than the ACOE projected it could yet FEMA decertified it. Forgive me if I think that’s unfair. My rates should be based on historical risk. History proves that this is NOT a repetitive flood zone yet we are being squashed by the federal government. I’m against the government changing the rules whenever it suits them. Nobody in my community is looking for a handout. We just want our rates to reflect our risk. Biggert Waters makes sweeping changes in a typical one size fits all model the federal government is famous for. Trying to get FEMA to change a map designation is next to impossible. Delaying BW will give communities like mine time to fight to make changes to the map.
Thanks Joe; that is very interesting. Unfortunately, “changing the rules whenever it suits them” is precisely what politicians do. They cannot be trusted with any of this stuff. I say privatize it all. I can’t imagine any for-profit company suddenly jacking up rates in your community and losing all of that profitable business, can you?
Rep. Lynn Westmoreland is full of beans when he talks about fairness. If his house happens to be anywhere near a stream and FEMA comes in and announces he is on a flood plain even if in 100 years the place has never been flooded just so they can rack up money let’s see how fair he thinks that is. What those b..s have done for me is ruin the value of my property at a time when I may need it to go to a nursing home. Thanks a lot!
This is a classic case study of why the government should keep it’s nose out of just about everything. Government subsidized flood insurance incentivized people to build homes where they probably shouldn’t have. And now that the government wants to lower or stop the subsidies and reduce the incentive to build or re-build where people should not, all these people are crying foul. Had the government not stuck it’s nose into this in the first place none or at least fewer homes would have been built where they should not have and those who chose to do so would have borne the cost of that decision intead of innocent tax-payers.
Dave- the homes getting killed with the new laws are homes built prior to flood maps being established (PRE-FIRM) so they didn’t get incentivized to build, they were already built. They have been getting subsidized rates because when they were built they didn’t have a base flood elevation to know how high to build. Now that they know the base flood elevation and it’s a negative elevation FEMA has decided to get actuarial correct rates.
The EXACT same thing is going to happen with Obumacareless. The government is going to subsidize pre-existing conditions by raising your health insuance premiums and taking tax dollars.
for the people that dislike this comment, at least have the balls to argue the point…but then again its hard to deny the truth unless you are a democrat.
I didn’t bother disliking your comment, but I will say something. I don’t think the government should have given subsidies for flood insurance. I understand your point – but life isn’t fair. In fact, it frequently sucks.
jw- who said life should be fair except for Obama?
Jack,
You really need to grow some thicker skin. People dislike my posts as well as many other people’s without comment all of the time. It is part of the blogosphere culture.
Get over yourself or go away.
For the record, I only thumb down a post after I have already posted my reply.
Jack, I have the balls to call most of your comments asinine and extreme. “FEMA has decided to get actuarial correct rates” is not a correct statement. Agree that rates need to be adjusted on Pre-Firm homes, but what makes you think the rates are actuarially correct? I have no confidence that a FEMA official has the ability to set rates properly. Do you? The rates, with respect to coverage amounts, don’t make sense in many cases.
I’m a Democrat and I don’t disagree with your first paragraph. I think the thumbs down are for the second paragraph – not for what it says, but because people are just sick and tired of hearing about Obamacare. It’s being brought up in every article these days.
Feel free to correct me if I’m wrong.
Libby- I know you don’t like my 2nd comment, but please tell me how exactly the same thing wont happen? Are we disliking comments now that simply remind us how bad Obamacare is really going to get in the future? We have the perfect comparison right in front of us. FEMA subsidies vs. Obamacare subsidies. If it’s not stopped now the middle class is in serious trouble.
Jack – for one thing, I don’t think you can compare flood insurance to Obamacare. There was no independent market willing to take on the catastrophic peril of flood – that’s when the government steps in to provide cover (TRIA, Flood, Medicare etc.) So it is apples and oranges.
Regarding the thumbs down, I think people are just sick of Obamacare comments on topics that are totally unrelated. There are enough articles on Obamacare we don’t need to talk about it on every single thread.
Jack is absolutely correct.
People should log in to “Stop FEMA Now” if they want to know how the government is in the process of screwing a large percentage of homeowners in the United States by destroying the equity in their homes.
Most people are under the misnomer that The Biggert-Waters Act (passed in the summer of 2012) and the application of FEMA Base Flood Elevations applies only to properties immediately along the shoreline. The studies done by FEMA, along with the new Base Flood Elevations (“BFE”) that require homes to be lifted 14 feet in the air to qualify for old flood insurance rates, are based on the discredited “religion” of Global Warming/Climate Change.
The new BFEs are going to impact properties along the entire coastal United States and probably up to 10 miles inland. MILLIONS of homes will be impacted. They are going to impact properties in every river valley from east to west and north to south. They are going to impact properties built on and around the Great Lakes. They are even going to impact properties in places like Boulder, Colorado which are thousands of feet above sea level.
Many people who NEVER thought their homes were in a flood zone will suddenly find themselves in a flood zone. Your mortgage holders will come to you and hand you a bill for flood insurance. If you are in a low risk area (Zone X), it might ONLY cost you $500 to $1,000 annually. If you were previously in a low risk flood zone (Zone X), many will find themselves in high risk flood zones (Zone A or Zone AV)) and your flood insurance premiums will increase from a current $500 to $1,000 annually to $6,000 to $36,000 annually to get the maximum coverage afforded by the National Flood Insurance Program (“NFIP”)which is $250,000 Structure and $100,000 Contents. One woman in St. Petersburg, Florida just learned that her new flood insurance premium is $62,000 annually!!!
So if you purchased your home before Biggert-Waters for, say, $500,000 with either no flood insurance or a small flood insurance premium required by your mortgage lender, what do you think will happen to the value of your home when the flood insurance premium rises to say $9,000 annually from either zero or $500 annually? Exactly, it’s going to DECREASE probably by 50 percent in value. Who is going to purchase your house for the pre-Biggert Waters price when ownership now requires an extra $750 per month (or more) to pay for unsubsidized flood insurance?
One fellow in Toms River, New Jersey saw the assessment value of his house decrease from $400,000 pre-Hurricane Sandy to $10,000. If people put down 20 percent to purchase their homes pre-Biggert Waters, and their homes have declined by 50 percent in value, they will no longer have any incentive to stay in their homes. Many in New York and New Jersey are negotiating with their lenders to exit their properties by signing over the deed to the lender.
This has the potential to create a housing catastrophe worse than the 2008/2009 housing collapse. That’s because the homes near the coast are some of the most valuable real estate in the world.
For all of those “kind” folks out there who currently are not (and will not be) in flood zones, and don’t give a crap, you will be impacted too. When my assessment is decreased by half, I am going to pay lower property taxes to the city where I reside. And so it will go with every homeowner faced with staggering increases in flood insurance premiums. People will grieve their property taxes year in and year out and the end result is cities, counties, towns, villages, and other municipalities will be faced with large holes blown in their budgets. They will be faced with either laying off police, fire, sanitation, teachers and other municipal workers and lowering the salaries and benefits of those workers that remain OR (if they are able)making up for the budget gaps by raising the property taxes of homes in non-flood zone properties.
When flood zone homes are sold (or abandoned), government entities will lose hundreds of billions of dollars in capital gains taxes that otherwise would have been owed.
If Biggert Waters is not undone (repealed), it has the potential to destroy the economy. The present so called “recovery” will look like the “Roaring Twenties” compared to what comes after.
The other point is that the Water in Biggert-Waters is Maxine Waters of Los Angeles. She is literally a Communist lunatic. Even she has repudiated the legislation which bears her name.
Just like Obama-Care, Biggert-Waters was brought to us by politicians who didn’t read the legislation before they passed it. Biggert-Waters was buried deep inside a Transportation Funding bill and no debate was allowed. Typical.
Well said, Dave. The only thing I would disagree with is the “just about” in your first sentence. I can’t think of anything the US government has taken over that it hasn’t made a mess of. What a shame that so many decent, hardworking people are harmed by it.
it’s funny… all these concerned politicians wanting to keep Biggert Waters just like it is yet they will not lift a finger to investigate unjustified Letters of Map Revision that corrupt government mapping contractors are submitting and getting approved. Talk about two faced politicians… giving the truly wealthy condominum owners rediculous premium breaks while making innocent homeowners pay the penalty. THE NFIP IS CORRUPT AND NEEDS TO BE SHUT DOWN IMMEDIATELY. Private insurance carriers would correct this problem in no time.
Unjustified – I haven’t written NFIP in years, but I have a question. Shouldn’t high-rise condo units get a better rate since they are not at ground level and not subject to as much flooding as a single family dwelling?
Libby- high rise condo buildings on front beach can be washed away with a 20-30 foot storm surge. Just because they are 50-100 feet off the gound does not mean the foundation and 1st floor can’t be washed out from under them. When that happens and everyone in the building does not have flood coverage, the association will hit every owner with a huge assessment to rebuild the condos. People without the funds to pay the assessment will walk away from their mortgage.
Have there been alot of high rise condo buildings that have been washed away? I haven’t heard that. But regardless, flood insurance will only provide $500,000 coverage max. That’s not enough to rebuild the building, let alone the interior owners units. Where do these condo owners go for excess cover? Or are you saying they should just be washed away and everyone still walks away from their mortgage?
In 2004 Hurricane Ivan left 28 condominium buildings completely washed away or condemed from flooding on a 10 mile stretch of beach front in Gulf Shores and Orange Beach, Alabama. These are written as RCBAP so the NFIP insures the buildings for full limits. I have 10 story condominium buildings valued at $45MM that are paying 12,000 annual premium for NFIP flood coverage while many of my individual homeowners pay more for maximum coverage available to them ($250,000 / NFIP)
You sound like you know alot about flood insurance. I don’t know what an RCBAP is. Can you explain?
Libby – Residential Condominium Building Association Policy (RCBAP). Mortgage guidelines dictate that these buildings are written to full replacement cost so the NFIP allows them to be written as RCBAP
Thanks, I learned something. (Check that off for today!) Does NFIP have similar programs for other commercial business?
RCBAP is the only exception to the $500,000 limit for commercial
Libby – I have no problem with approving a “V” zone risk factor and giving mitigation credits to condos sitting in “V” zones. In most cases these buildings are elevated and deserve rating credits that would lower their premiums by 20% to 30%. My problem is with approval of LOMR’s that completely remove these REPETITIVE LOSS condos from “V” zones when they have received millions of dollars in NFIP claim payments. FEMA approved 81 of 83 submissions on the Alabama coast over the last two years and those condos received an average of 93% rate reductions. Alabama was hit with eight hurricanes over a nine year period from 1994 to 2004. Regardless of that fact FEMA even approved frame buildings that experienced major flood damage during every one of those storms. Flood mapping contractors submit the buildings and FEMA allows other government mapping contractors to approve the submissions. The mapping contractors are all very friendly with one another. The program stinks of corruption.
I have a question for everyone… if FEMA approves almost every beach front LOMR submission where storm surge and wave wash cause severe flood damage, what exactly is a (velocity “V”) flood zone and where are they?
I thought NFIP had to take all comers. Am I wrong? Again, I haven’t written NFIP coverage for ages because it’s an E&O waiting to happen. (I refer all that business to a flood specialist or only write DIC coverage.)
I think rates do need to be adjusted, but it needs to be a gradual increase over several years and they should allow you to write higher limits. They could justify higher premiums with higher limits & co-insurance penalties. Just like a REAL insurance company does.
This is like the government comming in and selling you health insurance after a heart attack at a subsidized rate and then figuring out those people have higher doctor’s bills than a 27 year old. Oh wait….thats ACA.
Time to return to topic. Having trouble concentrating?
Private insurance will not correct the problem for the majority. They will charge even higher premiums or totally decline since the cat exposure is too high and they want to make a profit.
Also – cannot turn back time. Best would be to charge appropriate rates (very high) for any new construction…and to transition the premium increases for the existing over a 5 to 10 year period. Won’t solve it entirely but will give time for people to make other arrangements.
Make other arrangements? And what would that be? A tent under a highway pass?
In our area, they remapped twice in a two year period. Places that had never flooded or had ever been considered a flood zone were deemed flood zones after these two remappings of our area. And just to show you how stupid some of these are…inside the levy–which is basically the entire town–it is not a special flood hazard zone. Outside the levy we have several new flood zone areas including an area that has a 16 ft higher elevation than the town. The area is higher than the levy itself, but it is considered a flood zone. This town did flood back in 1990 and in 1998, but it was a creek inside the levy that caused the flooding, not the river outside the levy. So, FEMA spent millions rerouting the creek and rebuilding the levy system. And if this situation isn’t crazy enough–I have people who has called and told me that they are getting a better rate through other places. I called the South East Region Director (FEMA) and inquired about that and she told me that some insurance companies used different map reading/assessment firms and sometimes they get different results. It is not suppose to work that way–but sometimes it does.
The statement, “The quandary is especially felt by conservative Republicans torn between their philosophy of limited government and helping constituents facing sharply higher flood insurance premiums.” outlines the hypocrisy and is the core of my dislike of Republicans, especially Conservatives. They are steadfast in their beliefs until they negatively impact their constituents and, therefore, their chances for re-election. I thought their job was to do what is best for the country, not to keep their jobs.
I already know that Democrats also make decisions to keep their jobs more than what is good for the country. So, if that is your rebuttle, save your breath.
Provide one example of a Republican, especially a Conservative, who has pushed for a law that would benefit the country as a whole, but harm their constituents.
Ron- Biggert-Waters passed 406-22 in the House. I bet you could find a conservative that voted for it.
Killing babies is the core of my dislike of Democrats.
Jack,
Please name the Conservative(s) that voted for it whose constituents will actually feel the impact of the rate increases.
Democrats do not kill babies, they just allow women to have the freedom to make choices that affect their bodies.
For the record, I am against abortion personally, but do not feel I should force my beliefs upon nor judge others.
Kermit Gosnell killed thousands of babies. I am truely sorry you and Libby are blind to that.
And the BS about forcing your beliefs or judging others, what a total crock of crap.
Was Kermit Gosnell operating within the law?
Christians have killed thousands of people, and done it in the name of Christianity. Do you, therefore, think that Christianity should be outlawed, or are you just a hypocrite?
Jack – if you are against abortion, by all means, don’t have one. However, you have no right to deny that choice to others. Pro-choice means pro-choice. Not pro-abortion.
You don’t want to own an AR15, don’t have one
You don’t want to carry a concealed weapon, don’t have one
You don’t want to read the 10 commandments on the wall of the court house, don’t read them
You don’t want to say the pledge of allegiance, don’t say it
You don’t want to sing Christmas songs at school, dont sing them
You don’t want to send your kids to charter schools, don’t send them
You don’t want to eat at chick-fil-a, don’t eat there
You see Libby? It’s not about choice now is it.
Sure it is. I don’t want or like an AR15, but I don’t tell you you shouldn’t. I don’t want to carry a concealed weapon and don’t think anyone should, but I’m not telling you you can’t. I say the Pledge of Allegience at the VFW at 8:00 every time I’m there. I don’t have any kids, so don’t worry about where to send them. I don’t like chick-fil-a, but go there all you want if you do. Personally, I don’t think the 10 commandments belong on the wall of the courthouse because of that pesky little separation of church and state thingy in the Constitution. You see? It IS about freedom.
jack – nobody is killing babies. A baby is a living, breathing human being. A fetus is not a baby. And that is the core of my dislike for Republicans. You guys talk a big game about freedom, but want to take women’s freedoms away. Where are you when the unwanted or unplanned baby appears and the woman can’t work AND take care of it? They need help with medical expenses, help with food, help with housing. Then you’re calling her a no good, worthless deadbeat with her hand out sucking on the tit of the American government.
Do see any hypocrisy at all with that position? And don’t just tell me she should keep her legs closed. I’m sure you remember back when the hormones still flowed. Especially if you’re young and stupid (is that redundant?).
You can’t kill them until they’re old enough to be sent to war to die. Then it’s ok.
Libby- I’m truely sorry you think that way. Google abortion instruments.com and watch the video of the bloody baby bodies pulled from the womb.
Funny how every body for killing babies has already been born.
Jack – If bloody baby bodies are being pulled from the womb, that is not what I am talking about. I am against late-term abortions.
You seem to think that abortion is a casual choice, which speaks more to your ignorance as a man and your inability to understand a woman’s view rather than any insight into the real issues.
If you really want abortion to be as rare as possible then do the work necessary in sex education and birth control availability and stop treating pregnancy as some punishment for sexual activity.
“IF” what the hell is that? Aint no f-ing “IF”. Its done every day. For you to sit there and say “IF” is a true sign of ignorance or denial Libby. Bloody babies are thrown in the trash every day. “IF”??
Pregnancy is a gift from God. PERIOD. Not a “punishment”.
“aint’s going to punish them with a baby”- Barack Obama
I said if bloody babies were being pulled out of wombs, I am against that. That is not the same thing as an early term abortion.
And BABIES are a gift from God. Not pregnacies. All those women who have had miscarriages will tell you that.
Again, if you don’t want an abortion, don’t have one. But you’re not going to dictate to me that I can’t.
Come on guys- an abortion argument on an article about flood insurance? Let’s try to keep on topic.
Sincerely, the young (and therefore “stupid”) reader of this article.
Your god doesn’t exist. You are brainwashed.
i think everyone agrees the rates have to be actuarially(sp) correct. The biggest issue is housing built prior to modern maps, that have been getting subsidized rates. the solution is to allow customers to finance the premium. if the customer does not pay in full, they are not allowed to reapply for coverage till previous policy is paid in full. it is not easy or perfect, but fair to all involved.
If you can’t afford the payments, financing will not solve your problem. You could have the premium in escrow to pay over 12 months, but if your mortgage payment increases by $1,000 per month you won’t be able to pay it.
It is sad that the Feds don’t make a distinction between frequent claim offenders and second home owners . Having had coverage since the FEMA program began for a second home with absolutely no losses it seems I am being penalized and subsidizing those with repetitive losses who live in equally flood prone areas. Raise the rates to actuarial ,but for all homes. In auto insurance poor drivers with poor loss history get penalized. The ownership of the house is not a valid actuarial determinant but a good example of social meddling by the government. No real actuary will say because a house is not occupied more than 3/4 of the year by the owner it is more flood prone. This is political Our DC representatives are more intent on getting reelected than doing what is fair!
On the topic of flood insurance rates, I own a home in a FEMA-identified flood zone in California. The homes were built six or more decades ago before there was any government involvement as far as I know. I’ve owned the place three decades, and flood insurance rates have risen from a few hundred to about $2400. Under this new policy, they could rise to $6,000. The home has never flooded and has no realistic prospect of flooding. Yet I am now expected to make up the deficit created by tropical storms in the eastern and southern states. If this policy stands, the ramifications for property values and ability of fixed-income people to retain their homes are daunting at best. It will bring truckloads of misery to people who can ill bear it.
I live in a community on the Raritan Bay in New Jersey. We have an Army Corps of Engineers designed and installed levee and pump system in place that was built in the late 60’s in response to Hurricane Donna. In 2009 FEMA “decertified” our levee system as inadequate, yet we survived Irene and Superstorm Sandy without 1 single home of 1400 flooding. As a result of the dercertification, we went from no flood insurance requirement to a potentially massive one. The vast majority of the homes in our community have been here for decades. Before I bought my house, the first thing I asked was “does this property require flood insurance?”. It didn’t in 2006 but now it will require $10,000 a year on a home worth $280K? The historical data doesn’t support such as increase. I’m all for the NFIP being fiscally solvent, but not on the backs of homeowners who haven’t had any flooding in 50 years. Obviously, our levee system saved us during these most recent storms. In fact, it held back MORE water than the ACOE projected it could yet FEMA decertified it. Forgive me if I think that’s unfair. My rates should be based on historical risk. History proves that this is NOT a repetitive flood zone yet we are being squashed by the federal government. I’m against the government changing the rules whenever it suits them. Nobody in my community is looking for a handout. We just want our rates to reflect our risk. Biggert Waters makes sweeping changes in a typical one size fits all model the federal government is famous for. Trying to get FEMA to change a map designation is next to impossible. Delaying BW will give communities like mine time to fight to make changes to the map.
Thanks Joe; that is very interesting. Unfortunately, “changing the rules whenever it suits them” is precisely what politicians do. They cannot be trusted with any of this stuff. I say privatize it all. I can’t imagine any for-profit company suddenly jacking up rates in your community and losing all of that profitable business, can you?
Rep. Lynn Westmoreland is full of beans when he talks about fairness. If his house happens to be anywhere near a stream and FEMA comes in and announces he is on a flood plain even if in 100 years the place has never been flooded just so they can rack up money let’s see how fair he thinks that is. What those b..s have done for me is ruin the value of my property at a time when I may need it to go to a nursing home. Thanks a lot!