I don’t know if this is Trump slamming, but by reading the headlines, one would think President Trump is doing wrong. I further don’t know if this was intentional, however much of the media is going out of the way to slam anything the President does and this is why people need to be careful what they read in the media.
We are 20 Trillion in debt and when a home builder builds in a flood zone, they know that they don’t have to take extra measures to mitigate for flood because of flood insurance. This is killing the taxpayers because the taxpayers fund the flood claims since the premiums alone are not enough to make that solvent.
This is easy, if a builder or someone else wants to build a new home, stop doing it on the taxpayers dime and either pay for your own full flood insurance or take measures to minimize your flood risk (such as raising the property a certain number of feed above ground).
We can’t keep having a culture inviting people to take advantage of the government because this is killing us financially and it needs to stop. President Trump is spot on and he is doing it for the right reasons.
Not really because lenders won’t lend to homes in flood zones without insurance, so builders will have to do the right thing and either flood proof it or raise the structure of the home. Hence this will force the builders and the buyers to mitigate this issues rather than relying on flood insurance to solve the issue. Also at some point, there will be no FEMA money available since the debt will eventually hit a brick wall.
It hard to tell what the article is implying, if anything is slightly implies that he is doing wrong (I said he is doing it for the right reasons). Keep in mind, the media slams him everyday by only looking at one side of any issue. I think the Insurance Journal cannot do that because they know their readers overwhelmingly supported President Trump.
No. It’s not hard to tell from the article that the motive is to FIX things, not change them for the sake of change. Re-read it. Yes, the article’s interpretation may be misleading. Read through it for the intent that is embedded in the action.
I agree in personal responsibility. Therefore I think climate change deniers who continue to exacerbate the problem and increase funding should be paying more in taxes and be open to civil liability, not just in the US, but worldwide since it’s a global problem and close to 100% of climate scientists and their published work confirm it’s caused by Man.
The only problem is that there is zero evidence of climate change. Zero. There are some man-made models that are biased and likely incorrect in their forecasting of something 75 years out.
Is there anything you would accept s contrary evidence?
I’ve already shown enough that shows a few things:
A: Even the studies say there could be NO climate change adjusting for margins of error.
B: Numerous people in the climate science community have been caught using models that either hide warming periods, or, cooling periods (see when the NOAA included ocean temperatures, then consolidated multiple different methods of measurement from sea temperatures, which makes an extremely high margin of error, even when trying to make math that corrects for the error).
C: Leading green peace folks as I have shown have spoken up on this, and it’s very clear there is a narrative at play here. What will it take for you to admit this and balance your argument to be open to the possibility of truth and objective reason? Nothing I have seen so far proves climate change, and definitely nothing proves we will destroy the planet, or there will be disastrous consequences. If there were evidence I would indeed accept it. However, the suggested actions here, which are extreme, would affect lives right now. You don’t consider that either, which brings me to d:
D: Should we just believe all end of the world prophecies to be safe? Is that safe? Or is it really just opening ourselves up to disaster? You act like conservatives just won’t listen to science on this one if they don’t subscribe to this belief because it could be bad. How is that different from a doomsday prophecy? You’re not the superior person here for doing so, and you constantly talk down to climate change deniers, whereas they typically just tell you they don’t buy it. You’re being a brat. Knock it off. Scientific objectivity is not a party exclusive item, and don’t lie to me or others here and pretend you haven’t implied just that.
October 6, 2017 at 2:56 pm
bob says:
Like or Dislike:
7
5
Or better question for you Ron:
Is it ok for someone to not believe?
You’re asking them what it would take to believe as if disbelief is unacceptable. That type of mindset is not ok.
The question should be: Is climate change real. Not what would it take you to believe. The latter goes after character as in the assumption they would never believe it even if true, and you have no reason to believe that. The former allows someone’s character to remain intact, and doesn’t assume they have a bias which makes them not believe no matter what.
October 6, 2017 at 3:29 pm
bob says:
Like or Dislike:
3
7
There are those who would trust Trump more if he sold some of his golf courses.
Neither him selling his golf courses nor Al Gore selling his properties would make me believe either of them. I was going to say more, but I don’t go for belief based on the person as it is. This is dangerous. I go based on the data.
A crucial flaw of the data now, which wasn’t a flaw before, is there are multiple theories as to how carbon trapped in the ocean affects temperature and what the max is, or if the oceanic temperatures here even matter, or, for that matter, if the increasing ocean temperatures might come with lowering atmospheric temperatures, and they cycle back and forth as the Earth regulates it’s temperature. I am sure Ron nor UW have looked this up by the way, but I have, and the reason this is crucial is because: If the surface temperature is stagnant as we have seen, including inflated oceanic temperatures is not an indication of climate change. It’s an indication of “potential” climate change. I have seen no studies from Ron or UW on actual studies of total climate disasters, which would seem to then be the important element.
It’s very clear there is little known about oceanic temperature handling.
htt ps://news.osu.edu/news/2016/02/10/tara/
This even says, and it is a .edu mind you, from OSU, that very little research is done here.
And, people who quote the surface temperature, often use the NOAA,
Which specifically has to basically guess, and use a model to make up for the fact that older water temperature models are not in line with current, and were in less locations. That model is prone to huge error, which is why they even admit with the margin of error there might be no warming.
It even says “This animation is based on an interpolation of the official NOAA global temperature monitoring data set (the Merged Land and Ocean Surface Temperature data)”
but the title is “surface temperatures”. I’m pretty sure that land surface temperatures is how most people would take this, or basically that the world is hotter and would think of say droughts in CA, and that is not accidental Ron. It is intentional. Just like when they added ocean temperatures, and they did this when it became clear the land temperatures were in fact not out of control. So you need to realize, that most important part of what I said above: This is about potential warming when the ocean reaches it’s peak (which is unknown) as opposed to current day warming and heat globally (which is not happening), as right now the ocean is handling the temperature just fine.
If however, you go to NASA, they have the whole database, you can put just the land temps side by side.
I put 2016 near 2000 for say February comparing, and we can see there isn’t a huge difference here.
In fact, Australia is clearly colder, Africa is clearly in aggregate a little colder, North America in aggregate is a little colder, and, all of Northern Europe is a little colder, the rest of the map is so close I can’t even believe it.
Go to 2001 vs 2014 for the same months, and both are dramatically cooler than 2000 and 2016, and both those are extremely similar.
Take the same ones and go 6 months forward to August:
2000 and 2016 are absurdly similar.
2001 and 2014 are also oddly similar.
The only way you come to the conclusion of any explosion is including Oceanic temperatures, which have not been actualized on land yet.
All the data is there for you at NASA. Play with the numbers and charts.
Natural disaster studies which claim more people have been victims of climate disasters due to climate change, neglect to take into account which disasters didn’t hit major cities, a hurricane which passes over the Atlantic in now land is still an Earth based disaster based on climate. I have seen no studies that have taken all global total hurricanes and compared severity over any long period of time, nor tornadoes, barring hurricanes that hit major cities and do damage. More damage is not synonymous with more climate change in other words.
Am I still anti science? When I come in I force people like Confused to REACT to my data. He then goes after what he finds are flaws (I’m not insulting Confused on that basis, that should happen) but my question here is, why is this a “reaction” and not a proactive action?
Can any of you here honestly state you have looked up these numbers?
I want a serious answer on this.
October 9, 2017 at 8:23 am
PolarBeaRepeal says:
Like or Dislike:
4
7
@Ron; bob asked if you think it is OK to NOT believe in Climate Change (caused by MAN?). Are you going to reply?
October 9, 2017 at 1:19 pm
Ron says:
Like or Dislike:
3
2
If you have not noticed, I no longer read nor reply to his posts. He is just a long winded bully.
I am still waiting for wayne’s answer.
How about you? Is there any evidence you would accept that there is climate change and that it could be at least partially attributed to man?
In my opinion, climate change has been proven to be occurring. Where I have not committed is the extent man has contributed to said change.
My position is that we should do everything we can to mitigate any changes and put the Earth and her environment before profits. Jesus would want us to take care of our Father’s gift to us.
October 9, 2017 at 1:25 pm
bob says:
Like or Dislike:
3
5
“If you have not noticed, I no longer read nor reply to his posts. He is just a long winded bully.”
This is precisely what makes you lack knowledge.
Selective reason, selective facts, based on who you select is reasonable to listen to.
Also, the only bully here is you. Why have you literally never commented regarding UW?
October 11, 2017 at 8:04 am
Ron says:
Like or Dislike:
2
0
Polar,
If there are any questions posed by someone other than Bob that I have not answered, please post. He has proven to be a bully unworthy of my replies.
Ironic that you posted that message without answering my question to you.
That’s what I was just saying to my staff. STOP subsidizing. STOP repetitive loss building. REQUIRE new construction to be elevated. Charge sound rates. No coverage for investment properties or non-primary residences. (If you can afford a second home, you can afford to self insure or buy private flood coverage.)
The ONLY subsidy should be for Primary Occupancy residents that have maintained their policy without lapse. But if they have a total loss or sell, the new buyer will have to pay correct rates or demolish and rebuild to current code.
Biggert Waters actually tried to do a lot of these things and the builders and real estate markets went crazy. And look where we are now! Yes…older homes & homes on barrier islands will see a significant decrease in the market demographic for the purchase of high flood risk homes. Wah! Sometimes the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few. I don’t care how much they scream.
People of wealth have a lot of things out of reach for the rest of us. Society should be used to that by now. Life ain’t fair!
And before you go crawling up my backside, I live in a SFHA and brought in 2 extra feet of fill dirt over and above what was required for the Base Flood Elevation. My NFIP rate is $600. Ran a rate with a private market carrier that didn’t look at my elevation. $2,000!!! And I am faaaaaarrrr from wealthy by any stretch of the imagination.
Build for the risks that you face. It’s not a difficult concept to grasp.
Excellent post! {sound of muffled bear paws clapping}
The main problem with Biggert-Waters (ironic name) is the time frame for implementing adequate, actuarially set rates. If they were phased-in slowly, the resistance would have been much less than it was, and some risks would have taken some measures to mitigate their risks, while others would avoid new construction in flood zones.
At some point in time, actuarial rates must be charged instead of subsidized rates, with the exceptions you mentioned. At such time, an organized exodus of risks away from flood zones would be in progress, with properties at risk being torn down after purchase by local communities. The only remaining risks might be eligible for flood insurance in the PRIVATE market, in a high risk pool, which could be subsidized by other risks IF SUCH POOLS WERE SMALL ENOUGH to generate an insignificant subsidy load to voluntary risk rates.
Involving the FEDERAL govt only GREW the risk counts to the point where the NFIP deficit grew to $24B, with little that can be done to reduce it now.
Why should I in Michigan (900 ft above sea level), subsidize some rich persons dream house, so they can live next to the water. This is not aimed just at Florida, but all states. New construction can have anti flood measures built into them. Now I’ll hear from the rich and construction trades. The NFIP, should not be subsidized, my car insurance is not. The law should be if you live in a flood prone area you MUST obtain, NFIP. Theroy of large numbers. This way all flood home owners support other flood home owners.
Russell, just curious to find out how many flood policies you have written in the last 12 months? My guess is ZERO.
Being 900 ft above sea level has NOTHING to do with your chances of flooding. Example: it rains 50 inches at 1000 ft above sea level, it has to come down hill, you are flooded at 900 ft above sea level. Here endth the lesson.
@SWFL Agent: Russell wasn’t referring to people who have little choice in their housing. Rich people buy rich homes in flood zones along the coast and get subsidies. Poor / middle class people live in homes they can (barely) afford, some of which are in flood zones. Some of the latter inherited their homes from their parents and can’t afford to move away.
Nine months in to complete chaos, reason is not necessary from this one. In this case, it make no sense to underwrite absurd risk. Stop funding terrible ideas like: combustible buildings in wild fire zones, buildings with no shelters in tornado zones, buildings in flood zones with no back up power that house incapacitated people, and certainly buildings not designed to be flooded in updated (500 year floods are in some cases now yearly floods) flood zones.
“Those homes could instead seek private coverage, which is often prohibitively expensive — if it’s available at all.”
While the private market may likewise be unwilling to write certain structures with a high risk of flooding, it seems inaccurate to suggest that the private market would offer rates any more expensive than the NFIP where the NFIP charges full actuarial (i.e. unsubsidized) rates – such as new construction in special flood hazard areas.
tamika- I don’t write in TX and Florida, just SC. Charleston, Isle of Palms, Sullivans Island, Edisto Beach, Pawley’s Island.
I have a few clients that have flooded for 3 years in a row. SC’s 1000 year flood event in 2015, Matthew in 2016 and now Irma in 2017. I might add that these home have not flooded since Hugo.
And unless the taxpayers want to pay these clients $1mil for them to move to another home, FEMA will have to continue to pay for the flood damage. Their premiums range from $2500 to $3500 a year. Do the math.
@Mike; private insurers would / do put greater restrictions / limits on coverage than NFIP terms. Thus, they can write flood risks cheaper. Want more coverage? You have to pay more. Want to avoid paying for flood coverage? Move out of a recognized flood zone, as TrumPresident’s statement suggests.
As it stands right now, private flood coverage for a property in a special flood hazard area with a loan needs to be at least as broad as the NFIP’s standard flood insurance policy.
Regardless, the NFIP’s rates for new structures built in a special flood hazard area are their best estimate of full-risk (actuarial) rates. Newly built structures do not receive what are known as “pre-FIRM” rates. Unless I am mistaken on this, I believe the reporter err’d when suggesting that private coverage would be prohibitively more expensive.
Oh, sure, that’s the status quo in private. But if they were given free reign, they could set rates lower with lesser coverage. THAT would force risks to consider their overall cost; i.e. self-insuring above the limits, the larger deductibles, co-participations, etc.
The reporter may be anticipating private markets moving to greater coverage levels; e.g. higher covg A limits.
Why? Give a specific reason instead of bashing. I don’t understand how not having government subsidize flood is anything but smart? Let the private sector figure it out and be smart about construction place and structures. We are in huge amount of debt because of things like this.
@carlos well stated. I would also support a FEMA one and done program change. If you own property in a high hazard area you get bailed out once by the government. After that you are simply on your own. We as a country cannot and should not have to bail people out of trouble year after year. I would certainly like to have beach front views but the costs and risks that go with this are greater than I chose to accept.
Instead of this plan, why not leave new construction alone…new homes are built to FEMA’s mapping requirements and go after the older homes built to NO code, this will force them to be torn down and new homes built that are highly elevated. Let’s fix the problem (homes built on low level foundations) and let new construction flourish! Jobs for everyone, and risk is lowered substantially.
There is NO need to tear down homes. But migration out of flood plains by a systematic abandonment of old homes in floodplains over 5-6 decades makes complete sense. Only someone in the home building industry would push to destroy viable homes immediately so as to create demand for home building services. THAT is artificial demand, and cannot do anything but upset market equilibrium in home and related industries … i.e. PRICES to consumers.
Yes, the old “Systematic Abandonment of old homes” Program also known as SAP. Sounds like that might be a really big, poorly run, inefficient, and costly government run government run program.
FINALLY! stop rebuilding in areas prone to flood damage. if builder want to build there, then yes, THE BUILDERS will have to provide the flood insurance. Let’s see if they will put their money were their mouth is. We need to stop relying on our government for bailouts. Flood insurance should just be for those already there, before we truly knew about flood mappings. I am not a Trump supporter, but this is a no brainer.
“Home builders warned it could stifle the economy while climate activists, who have battled Trump, called the idea smart”. I wonder which one Trump will end up listening to – builders or climate activists? Any guesses? And another thing: The problem with NFIP is not just the low rates; the deductibles are pathetically low. Commercial insurers generally would want to offer those terms. We are stuck with NFIP taking our tax dollars. It’s basically an entitlement program for people who want to live near the coast………and our history of taking away entitlements in this country is not good.
Since we are so far in debt now it would be the right thing to do for the future. Homebuilders just care about selling homes. Once the sale is over and has closed escrow they could care less what happens afterwards!! They should not be able to build homes in the coastal area’s right in the path of potential hurricanes.
Maybe our moron-in-chief can just shoot some paper towels at the flood victims which they can use to absorb the excess water. “You’re gonna love these paper towels, believe me, they’re great. My butler uses them, they’re fantastic I’m told. Have fun.”
No, because s/he spends time trolling here and makes NO significant contribution to these discussions of insurance issues among adults. In fact, s/he hinders conversation with rabbit holes, insults, and Straw Man arguments.
Re-posted because of BOT censors, by which I mean actual BOTS or multiple user names or multiple IP addresses – take your pick:
Maybe our moron-in-chief can just shoot some paper towels at the flood victims which they can use to absorb the excess water. “You’re gonna love these paper towels, believe me, they’re great. My butler uses them, they’re fantastic I’m told. Have fun.”
Capt, it was a dumb comment the first time, and now the second. If President TRUMP tossed cans of tuna to the crowd, you would complain that he could hurt someone. Also, did you ever see the movie, The Butler? Well, Obama had one too…
Build in a flood zone at your own risk, with private flood insurance as can be obtained, or not. Continuing government sponsored flood insurance for those that newly build in high hazard flood zones with taxpayers “holding the bag”, does not make sense. Why should it be any other way?
In the case of the USPS, that government waste is on Republican hands for its attempts to bust that union. It’s not necessary to fund retirement for employees who haven’t been born yet. But, that is what the R’s demanded in hopes to dismantle the service. I personally think it’s great having someone come to my door to pick up a letter to be taken across the country for less than fifty cents. And our mailman rocks – great guy!
Unions are a dying institution. They’ll hang on for a few more decades, when everyone who still belongs to one finally looks themselves in the mirror and asks “why?”.
When nobody is out there looking out for the welfare of the workers, workers’ rights will erode.
October 9, 2017 at 8:31 am
PolarBeaRepeal says:
Like or Dislike:
2
4
Workers Comp laws and OSHA, albeit on a scaled-down level, can handle ANY worker concern/ issue/ problem, and courts or arbitration panels can rule on/ adjudicate the very few worker’s complaints that may fall outside of their (WC, OSHA) authority.
October 9, 2017 at 2:26 pm
Ron says:
Like or Dislike:
2
1
While I do not believe unions serve the same purpose as when they were first implemented, they still serve as the unified voice of the workers.
Funny how the right tries to claim they are for the working man, yet their ideology opposes unions, OSHA, NLRB, minimum wage, etc. that are in place mainly to protect the working class.
October 9, 2017 at 2:45 pm
bob says:
Like or Dislike:
1
1
“Funny how the right tries to claim they are for the working man, yet their ideology opposes unions, OSHA, NLRB, minimum wage, etc. that are in place mainly to protect the working class.”
In place in order to, is not synonymous with the actual affect.
We could make the same argument for republicans who are against guaranteed housing laws, as the nations who have those housing rates and poverty are increased.
There is no irony here, they have seen that more often than not the government’s role in these aspects do not improve the end result for the worker.
October 9, 2017 at 4:32 pm
Agent says:
Like or Dislike:
1
2
Correct Polar. This was exactly the right thing to do by our POTUS. Let the progressives scream.
October 11, 2017 at 7:51 am
PolarBeaRepeal says:
Like or Dislike:
0
2
@ Doug: Reagan only started to bust the USPS. But the effect was to cause a ripple effect on that specific service industry; e.g. DHL, Fedex, and UPS, to name a few. Where did those three find many of its pro staff and administrators? Yup, USPS.
October 6, 2017 at 3:44 pm
Captain Planet says:
Like or Dislike:
1
1
Funny, as an Independent, I don’t have a side. Doing just fine here in Iowa, buddy. I don’t care what color it is or isn’t. But, thanks for yet again…trying out! Don’t ever give up, one of these days you might make the squad. Remember when times get tough, yesterday was the easiest day, Agent. Feel that? That was an E-hug from me to you, pal.
You are not an independent by any means, have literally never said anything good about a single conservative policy, and you only say this to make people listen to you, given your personality.
I just today went over the EIC, basically a liberal program, and how it was good to expand it, and we need to expand it further. I also of course criticized it based on the cut offs, combined with spending programs, which make this a moral hazard if it isn’t given to the upper income echelons. That is independent. Show your work. Show something similar.
Go ahead and state something you support that is even remotely conservative, or, bi partisan in nature, and no, the ACA you claim is bipartisan is not an example.
Psst: Planetarium: the topic of this article is flood plain, floods, NFIP, homes in flood zones no longer able to receive NFIP covers per a TrumProposal, and such. It is NOT UNIONS in the USA. The latter is an off-topic, rabbit hole.
Yogi,
I was merely responding to Jack’s comment, “ITS GOVERNMENT WASTE JUST LIKE THE BANKRUPT US POSTAL SERVICE.” And frankly, your obsession with rabbit holes is getting a little disturbing.
October 6, 2017 at 1:54 pm
Jackwagon McStoopid Jr says:
Like or Dislike:
2
0
Why are y’all already arguing over this story?? LMAO, sounds like certain someone’s aren’t too busy writing insurance right now…..maybe you should be marketing rather than blogging…..
Because some people are subsidized, while others are subsidizers. The involvement of the Federal Govt in taxing to achieve that transfer of wealth is ALWAYS worthy of polite discussion / debate.
Hooray for President Trump. As a Flood Management Consultant, it’s about time that the taxpayers stop subsidizing new high risk development in known flood-prone areas. We can’t take care of the buildings that are currently in the floodplain. We don’t need any new ones.
All land subject to rain is a flood zone. There are minimal risk zones X, B and C and even D. Then there are the SFHA’s (Special Flood Hazard Areas)A, AE, AO, AH, AH/R and V with and the A zones and V zones have sub-classifications. Even in the minimal risk zones there can be flooding so do not jump to conclusion that just because a home is not in an SFHA that there is not a need to purchase flood insurance. The Baton Rouge LA flooding of 2016 was a predominantly affecting Zone X properties and approximately 70% did not carry flood insurance. It is true that future development can minimize the risk of flooding by constructing to a greater standard, that being higher than the BFE (Base Flood Elevation) or the 1% chance each and every year of equaling or exceeding the 100 year flood plain determined by a Flood Insurance Study. SMH answered fantastically by advising that he had 2 feet of fill brought in so as to construct the foundation of the foundation in a way that the lowest floor was higher than the BFE. Kudos to you sir. Developers may sometimes do that however if the land changes increase the flood depth due to altering the way in which water flows or rises may hold liability for such development. To avoid such liability local floodplain managers should require a Flood Insurance Study, an expensive proposition, but it would provide feedback on what compensatory storage measures can be performed so as to not increase risk for homes that are already existing in the floodplain. Needless to say we cannot stop development. We can only do it in a more responsible manner. Certainly over development in coastal areas is a risky proposition and with that goes the risk that flood insurance will be expensive. I would also recommend that NFIP policies be only for principal residences occupied for no less than 80% of the year. If it is a secondary home it should be left to the private insurance market.
I agree with the federal limitation – it’s folly to keep building and rebuilding on the shoreline, where it’s pretty much guaranteed to get flooded every few years. Lots of those mansions are second or third homes never lived in.
… hence the Global Warming Hoax perpetuated by Liberals like Al Gore-ithm, who helps drive costs of beach front properties lower so rich, elite liberals can buy them at a discount and sell at a profit once he Hoax has been fully exposed as such.
My 1st post on a daily Insurance Journal feed I value and enjoy. I have primarily avoided reading and posting comments due to the childish, unprofessional and unrelated responses. Now to my points…
1. A majority of the nation’s commerce is located in a flood zone. NFIP backdrop has enabled national prosperity and thriving tourist industry we all enjoy today.
2. NFIP is not subsidized by tax dollars. They borrow and pay via the Treasury. One of the few agencies trying to pay their own way (other than congressional mandates on USPS).
3. Congress no longer understands the specific meaning of “subsidy.” There is no direct transfer of funds from one rate group to another. “A sum of money granted by the government or a public body to assist an industry or business so that the price of a commodity or service may remain low or competitive.” Source: Bing.
4. Beware the flag of social justice & progressive redistribution in analyzing actuarial issues. The Biggert-Waters bill assumed that business owners, rental owners, or those with second homes are clearly wealthy. Not true for all and especially in my coastal region known as the Eastern Shore of VA.
5. I welcome, yet fear private flood insurance. It reminds me of the health insurance industry skimming the top groups for decades and ultimately leaving the door open to governmental intervention. On the other hand, product innovation options abound and NFIP is too bureaucratic to nimbly address change in general. Why? Requires Congress to act.
6. I advocate Elevation Certificate (EC) surveys to rate all policies in AE & VE Zones. That will hasten actuarial accuracy and potentially let some of air out of the wealth redistribution arguments.
7. Combining Zone X & X-500 was a major actuarial mistake and understates the very real exposures faced in X-500. I would advocate mandatorily requiring coverage in that zone for federally backed mortgages (while still applying substantial discounting). Without larger participation, no rating approach will ever cover the losses. Ex: ACA.
8. Coverage for Zone X is undersold by our industry. Further proof that we are overly dependent on mapping and under utilizing our own skills to foresee a problem. Water flows down hill. If the land isn’t flat, it was probably shaped by floods. We apply a standard of asking the customer how their lot would handle 24″ of rain in 3 days, 12″ in a day, etc. Amazing what we learn… drainage ditches that routinely overflow, being in a highly elevated land “bowls” (EX: Franklin, VA flood), and more. Learned by merely asking the question.
9. Want to reduce the risk of NOLA and coastal Lousiana from flooding? Dismantle the dike and dam system along the entire Mississippi. They prevent the natural flow of sediment that replenishes the marshes. Marshes dimish the strength of tidal surges. Would prompt massive relocation of a population a mile or 2 back from harms way. Too much damage to national commerce? Pay me now or pay me later.
10. Stop blaming coastal dwellers and tidal surge as the primary source of insurance woes. Accumulated rainwater runoff kills more that tidal surge every year worldwide.
11. Greatest understated flood catastrophe waiting to happen? Sacramento, CA. After Katrina the Army Corp. of Engineers was tasked to assess the national dike and damn systems. Congress shelved the report. Too expensive and let’s just not think about it approach applied. Everyone vulnerable to dikes/dams breaching should buy flood coverage.
12. Don’t wait for the Feds to generate solutions. Even with the new LiDAR accuracy being applied to flood maps, our local governments on the Eastern Shore of VA raised the requirement for lowest floor elevations on new construction. Accomack Co. adds 2′ above Base Flood Elevation (BFE) for new construction. Wachapreague, VA added 3′ above BFE requirement on new structures since 2015. Our localities previously applied a 1′ above BFE requirement until the new maps were published.
13. Ask your municipalities why they have neglected addressing the issue. Most subdivisions only have to meet 10-25 year probabilities. Oh my… the folly of man. Ex: Hampton Roads, VA.
14. Hats off to FEMA and the post Katrina impetus to remap the nation for flood risk. LiDAR (LaDAR)has greatly enhanced our flood insurance sales and encouraged many Pre-FIRM (built prior to flood insurance maps were issued for a specific location)owners to obtain an EC. It places value on marshes and other important factors other than just elevation.
15. Repetitive losses are being pooled under NFIP and removed from WYO for handling. Smells of an essential baby step to separate this issue from rate making for lower risk dwellings. Stay tuned. I only hope that Congress is told and not asked on how to best address the issue.
16. Sea level rise leads to land sinking. Funny, the most expensive and vulnerable targets were built on landfill. Miami is a manmade island, once destroyed and rebuilt. Half of Boston is built on dirt, trash, and mud fill. Manhattan is overdue for a CAT 3 storm. And on and on.
17. The entire nation is in a flood zone, whether mapped or not. The only difference is degree of risk. We are too focused on the 100 year zones vs. 500 year (or more) zones.
18. We all have a geographic bias towards those receiving the benefit of flood insurance. No “robbing Peter to pay Paul” philosophies should be tolerated on this issue. As the pledge of allegiance begins… “One nation…”
P.S. This exhale took less than 30 minutes and is only the tip of iceberg for me on the topic of flood insurance. All legislators and governmental administrators are welcome to contact me to learn more about which they oversee.
P.S.S. I would love to stay and edit my comments, but we are closed 1/2 day in honor of Columbus and Indigenous Peoples Day!
Why is any of this a partisan issue? Is there climate change? Of course there is, but to what degree? Not sure. Do we need to build anything in areas that are prone to flood or if you checked the news today, wildfires? Probably not. But to anyone who write home or flood insurance, haven’t the carriers flip flopped on what qualifies as “coastal?” As some point, every state along the east cost is going to be considered coastal, and therefore, a flood zone by default. If these changes are being made, aren’t they being made for a reason? An increase is total losses, perhaps? Is that just a coincidence or is there something going on in nature and possibly man-made causes, that are part of the increase? You don’t have to be partisan or a pro-climate change believer to know that something is going on. What is happening right now, today is abnormal at best.
Christine- So the government (tax payers) buy the people out of their homes and land that own it in flood and fire prone areas?
Again- EVERYONE is already in a flood zone. You are either in a low-moderate flood zone or a high hazard flood zone. Given EVERYONE is already in a flood zone, how do you stop construction everywhere?
FEMA will never be “funded”. Waste is government, government is waste.
I agree with most of your comments. Hence, an up vote by me.
But your observation of carriers ‘flip-flopping’ is merely their survivalist reaction to increased exposures through man-made flood risk by building in flood plains.
Every ocean coast is coastal. So are coasts of Great Lake states.
Carriers are monitoring exposures much better with newer tech and expanded datasets. Management is being monitored by stockholders (SHs) for their ability to mitigate insurance portfolio risks to acceptable levels. Follow the money, … all the way back to the source (SHs).
What Granger MacDonald actually meant to say was “It would simply prevent home builders from being able to provide safe and affordable ‘summer rental’ and ‘secondary beach’ housing,” the association’s chairman, Granger MacDonald, said in a statement. “Why does OMB needlessly propose to penalize new construction?”
This proposal does not penalize new construction. It merely takes the taxpayer off of the hook and places the financial burden where it belongs, on the new home building owner. This isn’t a huge change, but it is a small step in the right direction.
I am thankful to hear this as I am not one of those Grandfathered in people who pay $300 for their flood insurance while I pay 3,400. for only $250k worth of coverage, which means I need another policy to cover my house. ;( I love my house and I love the river, but there is something not fair in the charges. I believe Trump is wanting fairness for everyone.
I don’t know if this is Trump slamming, but by reading the headlines, one would think President Trump is doing wrong. I further don’t know if this was intentional, however much of the media is going out of the way to slam anything the President does and this is why people need to be careful what they read in the media.
We are 20 Trillion in debt and when a home builder builds in a flood zone, they know that they don’t have to take extra measures to mitigate for flood because of flood insurance. This is killing the taxpayers because the taxpayers fund the flood claims since the premiums alone are not enough to make that solvent.
This is easy, if a builder or someone else wants to build a new home, stop doing it on the taxpayers dime and either pay for your own full flood insurance or take measures to minimize your flood risk (such as raising the property a certain number of feed above ground).
We can’t keep having a culture inviting people to take advantage of the government because this is killing us financially and it needs to stop. President Trump is spot on and he is doing it for the right reasons.
Agree completely. Only one concern: Is FEMA going to pay for damages anyway? If so, might as well get premium for it.
Not really because lenders won’t lend to homes in flood zones without insurance, so builders will have to do the right thing and either flood proof it or raise the structure of the home. Hence this will force the builders and the buyers to mitigate this issues rather than relying on flood insurance to solve the issue. Also at some point, there will be no FEMA money available since the debt will eventually hit a brick wall.
Agree this makes sense but don’t know how you can tell from the article that Trump did it “for the right reasons”.
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
It hard to tell what the article is implying, if anything is slightly implies that he is doing wrong (I said he is doing it for the right reasons). Keep in mind, the media slams him everyday by only looking at one side of any issue. I think the Insurance Journal cannot do that because they know their readers overwhelmingly supported President Trump.
No. It’s not hard to tell from the article that the motive is to FIX things, not change them for the sake of change. Re-read it. Yes, the article’s interpretation may be misleading. Read through it for the intent that is embedded in the action.
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
The only problem is that there is zero evidence of climate change. Zero. There are some man-made models that are biased and likely incorrect in their forecasting of something 75 years out.
Is there anything you would accept as evidence?
Is there anything you would accept s contrary evidence?
I’ve already shown enough that shows a few things:
A: Even the studies say there could be NO climate change adjusting for margins of error.
B: Numerous people in the climate science community have been caught using models that either hide warming periods, or, cooling periods (see when the NOAA included ocean temperatures, then consolidated multiple different methods of measurement from sea temperatures, which makes an extremely high margin of error, even when trying to make math that corrects for the error).
C: Leading green peace folks as I have shown have spoken up on this, and it’s very clear there is a narrative at play here. What will it take for you to admit this and balance your argument to be open to the possibility of truth and objective reason? Nothing I have seen so far proves climate change, and definitely nothing proves we will destroy the planet, or there will be disastrous consequences. If there were evidence I would indeed accept it. However, the suggested actions here, which are extreme, would affect lives right now. You don’t consider that either, which brings me to d:
D: Should we just believe all end of the world prophecies to be safe? Is that safe? Or is it really just opening ourselves up to disaster? You act like conservatives just won’t listen to science on this one if they don’t subscribe to this belief because it could be bad. How is that different from a doomsday prophecy? You’re not the superior person here for doing so, and you constantly talk down to climate change deniers, whereas they typically just tell you they don’t buy it. You’re being a brat. Knock it off. Scientific objectivity is not a party exclusive item, and don’t lie to me or others here and pretend you haven’t implied just that.
Or better question for you Ron:
Is it ok for someone to not believe?
You’re asking them what it would take to believe as if disbelief is unacceptable. That type of mindset is not ok.
The question should be: Is climate change real. Not what would it take you to believe. The latter goes after character as in the assumption they would never believe it even if true, and you have no reason to believe that. The former allows someone’s character to remain intact, and doesn’t assume they have a bias which makes them not believe no matter what.
There are those who would trust Trump more if he sold some of his golf courses.
Neither him selling his golf courses nor Al Gore selling his properties would make me believe either of them. I was going to say more, but I don’t go for belief based on the person as it is. This is dangerous. I go based on the data.
A crucial flaw of the data now, which wasn’t a flaw before, is there are multiple theories as to how carbon trapped in the ocean affects temperature and what the max is, or if the oceanic temperatures here even matter, or, for that matter, if the increasing ocean temperatures might come with lowering atmospheric temperatures, and they cycle back and forth as the Earth regulates it’s temperature. I am sure Ron nor UW have looked this up by the way, but I have, and the reason this is crucial is because: If the surface temperature is stagnant as we have seen, including inflated oceanic temperatures is not an indication of climate change. It’s an indication of “potential” climate change. I have seen no studies from Ron or UW on actual studies of total climate disasters, which would seem to then be the important element.
It’s very clear there is little known about oceanic temperature handling.
htt ps://news.osu.edu/news/2016/02/10/tara/
This even says, and it is a .edu mind you, from OSU, that very little research is done here.
And, people who quote the surface temperature, often use the NOAA,
htt ps://www.climate.gov/news-features/videos/history-earths-surface-temperature-1880-2016
Which specifically has to basically guess, and use a model to make up for the fact that older water temperature models are not in line with current, and were in less locations. That model is prone to huge error, which is why they even admit with the margin of error there might be no warming.
It even says “This animation is based on an interpolation of the official NOAA global temperature monitoring data set (the Merged Land and Ocean Surface Temperature data)”
but the title is “surface temperatures”. I’m pretty sure that land surface temperatures is how most people would take this, or basically that the world is hotter and would think of say droughts in CA, and that is not accidental Ron. It is intentional. Just like when they added ocean temperatures, and they did this when it became clear the land temperatures were in fact not out of control. So you need to realize, that most important part of what I said above: This is about potential warming when the ocean reaches it’s peak (which is unknown) as opposed to current day warming and heat globally (which is not happening), as right now the ocean is handling the temperature just fine.
If however, you go to NASA, they have the whole database, you can put just the land temps side by side.
ht tps://neo.sci.gsfc.nasa.gov/analysis/configure.php
I put 2016 near 2000 for say February comparing, and we can see there isn’t a huge difference here.
In fact, Australia is clearly colder, Africa is clearly in aggregate a little colder, North America in aggregate is a little colder, and, all of Northern Europe is a little colder, the rest of the map is so close I can’t even believe it.
Go to 2001 vs 2014 for the same months, and both are dramatically cooler than 2000 and 2016, and both those are extremely similar.
Take the same ones and go 6 months forward to August:
2000 and 2016 are absurdly similar.
2001 and 2014 are also oddly similar.
The only way you come to the conclusion of any explosion is including Oceanic temperatures, which have not been actualized on land yet.
All the data is there for you at NASA. Play with the numbers and charts.
Natural disaster studies which claim more people have been victims of climate disasters due to climate change, neglect to take into account which disasters didn’t hit major cities, a hurricane which passes over the Atlantic in now land is still an Earth based disaster based on climate. I have seen no studies that have taken all global total hurricanes and compared severity over any long period of time, nor tornadoes, barring hurricanes that hit major cities and do damage. More damage is not synonymous with more climate change in other words.
Am I still anti science? When I come in I force people like Confused to REACT to my data. He then goes after what he finds are flaws (I’m not insulting Confused on that basis, that should happen) but my question here is, why is this a “reaction” and not a proactive action?
Can any of you here honestly state you have looked up these numbers?
I want a serious answer on this.
@Ron; bob asked if you think it is OK to NOT believe in Climate Change (caused by MAN?). Are you going to reply?
If you have not noticed, I no longer read nor reply to his posts. He is just a long winded bully.
I am still waiting for wayne’s answer.
How about you? Is there any evidence you would accept that there is climate change and that it could be at least partially attributed to man?
In my opinion, climate change has been proven to be occurring. Where I have not committed is the extent man has contributed to said change.
My position is that we should do everything we can to mitigate any changes and put the Earth and her environment before profits. Jesus would want us to take care of our Father’s gift to us.
“If you have not noticed, I no longer read nor reply to his posts. He is just a long winded bully.”
This is precisely what makes you lack knowledge.
Selective reason, selective facts, based on who you select is reasonable to listen to.
Also, the only bully here is you. Why have you literally never commented regarding UW?
Polar,
If there are any questions posed by someone other than Bob that I have not answered, please post. He has proven to be a bully unworthy of my replies.
Ironic that you posted that message without answering my question to you.
I like this one, it makes sense.
Local governments won’t stop it….
Smart ones will.
Agency wins the internet today!
That’s what I was just saying to my staff. STOP subsidizing. STOP repetitive loss building. REQUIRE new construction to be elevated. Charge sound rates. No coverage for investment properties or non-primary residences. (If you can afford a second home, you can afford to self insure or buy private flood coverage.)
The ONLY subsidy should be for Primary Occupancy residents that have maintained their policy without lapse. But if they have a total loss or sell, the new buyer will have to pay correct rates or demolish and rebuild to current code.
Biggert Waters actually tried to do a lot of these things and the builders and real estate markets went crazy. And look where we are now! Yes…older homes & homes on barrier islands will see a significant decrease in the market demographic for the purchase of high flood risk homes. Wah! Sometimes the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few. I don’t care how much they scream.
People of wealth have a lot of things out of reach for the rest of us. Society should be used to that by now. Life ain’t fair!
And before you go crawling up my backside, I live in a SFHA and brought in 2 extra feet of fill dirt over and above what was required for the Base Flood Elevation. My NFIP rate is $600. Ran a rate with a private market carrier that didn’t look at my elevation. $2,000!!! And I am faaaaaarrrr from wealthy by any stretch of the imagination.
Build for the risks that you face. It’s not a difficult concept to grasp.
Common sense really is a superpower
Excellent post! {sound of muffled bear paws clapping}
The main problem with Biggert-Waters (ironic name) is the time frame for implementing adequate, actuarially set rates. If they were phased-in slowly, the resistance would have been much less than it was, and some risks would have taken some measures to mitigate their risks, while others would avoid new construction in flood zones.
At some point in time, actuarial rates must be charged instead of subsidized rates, with the exceptions you mentioned. At such time, an organized exodus of risks away from flood zones would be in progress, with properties at risk being torn down after purchase by local communities. The only remaining risks might be eligible for flood insurance in the PRIVATE market, in a high risk pool, which could be subsidized by other risks IF SUCH POOLS WERE SMALL ENOUGH to generate an insignificant subsidy load to voluntary risk rates.
Involving the FEDERAL govt only GREW the risk counts to the point where the NFIP deficit grew to $24B, with little that can be done to reduce it now.
it was not started for homeowners, it was started for banks that lend in flood areas to protect their collateral
… and equity of the co-owner, mortgagee residents. No?
Why should I in Michigan (900 ft above sea level), subsidize some rich persons dream house, so they can live next to the water. This is not aimed just at Florida, but all states. New construction can have anti flood measures built into them. Now I’ll hear from the rich and construction trades. The NFIP, should not be subsidized, my car insurance is not. The law should be if you live in a flood prone area you MUST obtain, NFIP. Theroy of large numbers. This way all flood home owners support other flood home owners.
Did the flood victims in Houston look “rich”? I didn’t think so.
Russell, just curious to find out how many flood policies you have written in the last 12 months? My guess is ZERO.
Being 900 ft above sea level has NOTHING to do with your chances of flooding. Example: it rains 50 inches at 1000 ft above sea level, it has to come down hill, you are flooded at 900 ft above sea level. Here endth the lesson.
@SWFL Agent: Russell wasn’t referring to people who have little choice in their housing. Rich people buy rich homes in flood zones along the coast and get subsidies. Poor / middle class people live in homes they can (barely) afford, some of which are in flood zones. Some of the latter inherited their homes from their parents and can’t afford to move away.
Nine months in to complete chaos, reason is not necessary from this one. In this case, it make no sense to underwrite absurd risk. Stop funding terrible ideas like: combustible buildings in wild fire zones, buildings with no shelters in tornado zones, buildings in flood zones with no back up power that house incapacitated people, and certainly buildings not designed to be flooded in updated (500 year floods are in some cases now yearly floods) flood zones.
Great post and well stated.
“Those homes could instead seek private coverage, which is often prohibitively expensive — if it’s available at all.”
While the private market may likewise be unwilling to write certain structures with a high risk of flooding, it seems inaccurate to suggest that the private market would offer rates any more expensive than the NFIP where the NFIP charges full actuarial (i.e. unsubsidized) rates – such as new construction in special flood hazard areas.
Mike- I write low,moderate,high and very high(CBRA) flood risk in the Private flood markets EVERY DAY and write it cheaper than FEMA.
Get the government out of flood, medical, higher education, etc.! They always screw it up.
just out of curiosity how did your company do in the hard hit areas such as Houston TX & FL
tamika- I don’t write in TX and Florida, just SC. Charleston, Isle of Palms, Sullivans Island, Edisto Beach, Pawley’s Island.
I have a few clients that have flooded for 3 years in a row. SC’s 1000 year flood event in 2015, Matthew in 2016 and now Irma in 2017. I might add that these home have not flooded since Hugo.
And unless the taxpayers want to pay these clients $1mil for them to move to another home, FEMA will have to continue to pay for the flood damage. Their premiums range from $2500 to $3500 a year. Do the math.
Do you know of anyone who covers an AE flood zone?
@Mike; private insurers would / do put greater restrictions / limits on coverage than NFIP terms. Thus, they can write flood risks cheaper. Want more coverage? You have to pay more. Want to avoid paying for flood coverage? Move out of a recognized flood zone, as TrumPresident’s statement suggests.
As it stands right now, private flood coverage for a property in a special flood hazard area with a loan needs to be at least as broad as the NFIP’s standard flood insurance policy.
Regardless, the NFIP’s rates for new structures built in a special flood hazard area are their best estimate of full-risk (actuarial) rates. Newly built structures do not receive what are known as “pre-FIRM” rates. Unless I am mistaken on this, I believe the reporter err’d when suggesting that private coverage would be prohibitively more expensive.
Oh, sure, that’s the status quo in private. But if they were given free reign, they could set rates lower with lesser coverage. THAT would force risks to consider their overall cost; i.e. self-insuring above the limits, the larger deductibles, co-participations, etc.
The reporter may be anticipating private markets moving to greater coverage levels; e.g. higher covg A limits.
PS; you mentioned loans. Private insurance isn’t bound to those homes only.
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Why? Give a specific reason instead of bashing. I don’t understand how not having government subsidize flood is anything but smart? Let the private sector figure it out and be smart about construction place and structures. We are in huge amount of debt because of things like this.
@carlos well stated. I would also support a FEMA one and done program change. If you own property in a high hazard area you get bailed out once by the government. After that you are simply on your own. We as a country cannot and should not have to bail people out of trouble year after year. I would certainly like to have beach front views but the costs and risks that go with this are greater than I chose to accept.
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
There is NO need to tear down homes. But migration out of flood plains by a systematic abandonment of old homes in floodplains over 5-6 decades makes complete sense. Only someone in the home building industry would push to destroy viable homes immediately so as to create demand for home building services. THAT is artificial demand, and cannot do anything but upset market equilibrium in home and related industries … i.e. PRICES to consumers.
Yes, the old “Systematic Abandonment of old homes” Program also known as SAP. Sounds like that might be a really big, poorly run, inefficient, and costly government run government run program.
… not if I write the rules.
“Let’s fix the problem (homes built on low level foundations) and let new construction flourish! Jobs for everyone…”
Broken window fallacy.
FINALLY! stop rebuilding in areas prone to flood damage. if builder want to build there, then yes, THE BUILDERS will have to provide the flood insurance. Let’s see if they will put their money were their mouth is. We need to stop relying on our government for bailouts. Flood insurance should just be for those already there, before we truly knew about flood mappings. I am not a Trump supporter, but this is a no brainer.
All politics aside please… This makes perfect business sense. And I say this as a coastal homeowner who has a boat parked behind my house in NYC.
Just curious as too who that’s posted on this page has written a flood policy in the last 12 months?
“Home builders warned it could stifle the economy while climate activists, who have battled Trump, called the idea smart”. I wonder which one Trump will end up listening to – builders or climate activists? Any guesses? And another thing: The problem with NFIP is not just the low rates; the deductibles are pathetically low. Commercial insurers generally would want to offer those terms. We are stuck with NFIP taking our tax dollars. It’s basically an entitlement program for people who want to live near the coast………and our history of taking away entitlements in this country is not good.
Typo. Should be: Commercial insurers generally would not want to offer those terms.
I agree with you Mr. President.
Since we are so far in debt now it would be the right thing to do for the future. Homebuilders just care about selling homes. Once the sale is over and has closed escrow they could care less what happens afterwards!! They should not be able to build homes in the coastal area’s right in the path of potential hurricanes.
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
I have a great personal life, actually. Truly blessed! It’s just too easy to make fun of this jackwagon.
Why? Because he does not just submit to the POTUS like a good little sheep?
No, because s/he spends time trolling here and makes NO significant contribution to these discussions of insurance issues among adults. In fact, s/he hinders conversation with rabbit holes, insults, and Straw Man arguments.
Boy the hate just keeps on coming.
Re-posted because of BOT censors, by which I mean actual BOTS or multiple user names or multiple IP addresses – take your pick:
Maybe our moron-in-chief can just shoot some paper towels at the flood victims which they can use to absorb the excess water. “You’re gonna love these paper towels, believe me, they’re great. My butler uses them, they’re fantastic I’m told. Have fun.”
Capt, it was a dumb comment the first time, and now the second. If President TRUMP tossed cans of tuna to the crowd, you would complain that he could hurt someone. Also, did you ever see the movie, The Butler? Well, Obama had one too…
Build in a flood zone at your own risk, with private flood insurance as can be obtained, or not. Continuing government sponsored flood insurance for those that newly build in high hazard flood zones with taxpayers “holding the bag”, does not make sense. Why should it be any other way?
jtownagent- Again, how many flood policies have you written this year? My guess again- ZERO.
EVERYONE IS IN A FLOOD ZONE- ITS SAYS THAT ON FEMA’S WEBSITE
FEMA being bankrupt is not because of the risk vs premiums!!
ITS GOVERNMENT WASTE JUST LIKE THE BANKRUPT US POSTAL SERVICE.
In the case of the USPS, that government waste is on Republican hands for its attempts to bust that union. It’s not necessary to fund retirement for employees who haven’t been born yet. But, that is what the R’s demanded in hopes to dismantle the service. I personally think it’s great having someone come to my door to pick up a letter to be taken across the country for less than fifty cents. And our mailman rocks – great guy!
Unions are a dying institution. They’ll hang on for a few more decades, when everyone who still belongs to one finally looks themselves in the mirror and asks “why?”.
When nobody is out there looking out for the welfare of the workers, workers’ rights will erode.
Workers Comp laws and OSHA, albeit on a scaled-down level, can handle ANY worker concern/ issue/ problem, and courts or arbitration panels can rule on/ adjudicate the very few worker’s complaints that may fall outside of their (WC, OSHA) authority.
While I do not believe unions serve the same purpose as when they were first implemented, they still serve as the unified voice of the workers.
Funny how the right tries to claim they are for the working man, yet their ideology opposes unions, OSHA, NLRB, minimum wage, etc. that are in place mainly to protect the working class.
“Funny how the right tries to claim they are for the working man, yet their ideology opposes unions, OSHA, NLRB, minimum wage, etc. that are in place mainly to protect the working class.”
In place in order to, is not synonymous with the actual affect.
We could make the same argument for republicans who are against guaranteed housing laws, as the nations who have those housing rates and poverty are increased.
There is no irony here, they have seen that more often than not the government’s role in these aspects do not improve the end result for the worker.
Correct Polar. This was exactly the right thing to do by our POTUS. Let the progressives scream.
@ Doug: Reagan only started to bust the USPS. But the effect was to cause a ripple effect on that specific service industry; e.g. DHL, Fedex, and UPS, to name a few. Where did those three find many of its pro staff and administrators? Yup, USPS.
Funny, as an Independent, I don’t have a side. Doing just fine here in Iowa, buddy. I don’t care what color it is or isn’t. But, thanks for yet again…trying out! Don’t ever give up, one of these days you might make the squad. Remember when times get tough, yesterday was the easiest day, Agent. Feel that? That was an E-hug from me to you, pal.
You are not an independent by any means, have literally never said anything good about a single conservative policy, and you only say this to make people listen to you, given your personality.
I just today went over the EIC, basically a liberal program, and how it was good to expand it, and we need to expand it further. I also of course criticized it based on the cut offs, combined with spending programs, which make this a moral hazard if it isn’t given to the upper income echelons. That is independent. Show your work. Show something similar.
Go ahead and state something you support that is even remotely conservative, or, bi partisan in nature, and no, the ACA you claim is bipartisan is not an example.
Psst: Planetarium: the topic of this article is flood plain, floods, NFIP, homes in flood zones no longer able to receive NFIP covers per a TrumProposal, and such. It is NOT UNIONS in the USA. The latter is an off-topic, rabbit hole.
Yogi,
I was merely responding to Jack’s comment, “ITS GOVERNMENT WASTE JUST LIKE THE BANKRUPT US POSTAL SERVICE.” And frankly, your obsession with rabbit holes is getting a little disturbing.
Why are y’all already arguing over this story?? LMAO, sounds like certain someone’s aren’t too busy writing insurance right now…..maybe you should be marketing rather than blogging…..
Because some people are subsidized, while others are subsidizers. The involvement of the Federal Govt in taxing to achieve that transfer of wealth is ALWAYS worthy of polite discussion / debate.
Hooray for President Trump. As a Flood Management Consultant, it’s about time that the taxpayers stop subsidizing new high risk development in known flood-prone areas. We can’t take care of the buildings that are currently in the floodplain. We don’t need any new ones.
How could building in a flood zone be called safe?
MAHDA;
Make American Homes Dry Again!
All land subject to rain is a flood zone. There are minimal risk zones X, B and C and even D. Then there are the SFHA’s (Special Flood Hazard Areas)A, AE, AO, AH, AH/R and V with and the A zones and V zones have sub-classifications. Even in the minimal risk zones there can be flooding so do not jump to conclusion that just because a home is not in an SFHA that there is not a need to purchase flood insurance. The Baton Rouge LA flooding of 2016 was a predominantly affecting Zone X properties and approximately 70% did not carry flood insurance. It is true that future development can minimize the risk of flooding by constructing to a greater standard, that being higher than the BFE (Base Flood Elevation) or the 1% chance each and every year of equaling or exceeding the 100 year flood plain determined by a Flood Insurance Study. SMH answered fantastically by advising that he had 2 feet of fill brought in so as to construct the foundation of the foundation in a way that the lowest floor was higher than the BFE. Kudos to you sir. Developers may sometimes do that however if the land changes increase the flood depth due to altering the way in which water flows or rises may hold liability for such development. To avoid such liability local floodplain managers should require a Flood Insurance Study, an expensive proposition, but it would provide feedback on what compensatory storage measures can be performed so as to not increase risk for homes that are already existing in the floodplain. Needless to say we cannot stop development. We can only do it in a more responsible manner. Certainly over development in coastal areas is a risky proposition and with that goes the risk that flood insurance will be expensive. I would also recommend that NFIP policies be only for principal residences occupied for no less than 80% of the year. If it is a secondary home it should be left to the private insurance market.
Thank you for that excellent discussion, with some concrete examples.
Please add paragraphs, for ease of reading.
Could adjacent/ contiguous communities cost-share on Flood Insurance Studies?
I agree with the federal limitation – it’s folly to keep building and rebuilding on the shoreline, where it’s pretty much guaranteed to get flooded every few years. Lots of those mansions are second or third homes never lived in.
… hence the Global Warming Hoax perpetuated by Liberals like Al Gore-ithm, who helps drive costs of beach front properties lower so rich, elite liberals can buy them at a discount and sell at a profit once he Hoax has been fully exposed as such.
My 1st post on a daily Insurance Journal feed I value and enjoy. I have primarily avoided reading and posting comments due to the childish, unprofessional and unrelated responses. Now to my points…
1. A majority of the nation’s commerce is located in a flood zone. NFIP backdrop has enabled national prosperity and thriving tourist industry we all enjoy today.
2. NFIP is not subsidized by tax dollars. They borrow and pay via the Treasury. One of the few agencies trying to pay their own way (other than congressional mandates on USPS).
3. Congress no longer understands the specific meaning of “subsidy.” There is no direct transfer of funds from one rate group to another. “A sum of money granted by the government or a public body to assist an industry or business so that the price of a commodity or service may remain low or competitive.” Source: Bing.
4. Beware the flag of social justice & progressive redistribution in analyzing actuarial issues. The Biggert-Waters bill assumed that business owners, rental owners, or those with second homes are clearly wealthy. Not true for all and especially in my coastal region known as the Eastern Shore of VA.
5. I welcome, yet fear private flood insurance. It reminds me of the health insurance industry skimming the top groups for decades and ultimately leaving the door open to governmental intervention. On the other hand, product innovation options abound and NFIP is too bureaucratic to nimbly address change in general. Why? Requires Congress to act.
6. I advocate Elevation Certificate (EC) surveys to rate all policies in AE & VE Zones. That will hasten actuarial accuracy and potentially let some of air out of the wealth redistribution arguments.
7. Combining Zone X & X-500 was a major actuarial mistake and understates the very real exposures faced in X-500. I would advocate mandatorily requiring coverage in that zone for federally backed mortgages (while still applying substantial discounting). Without larger participation, no rating approach will ever cover the losses. Ex: ACA.
8. Coverage for Zone X is undersold by our industry. Further proof that we are overly dependent on mapping and under utilizing our own skills to foresee a problem. Water flows down hill. If the land isn’t flat, it was probably shaped by floods. We apply a standard of asking the customer how their lot would handle 24″ of rain in 3 days, 12″ in a day, etc. Amazing what we learn… drainage ditches that routinely overflow, being in a highly elevated land “bowls” (EX: Franklin, VA flood), and more. Learned by merely asking the question.
9. Want to reduce the risk of NOLA and coastal Lousiana from flooding? Dismantle the dike and dam system along the entire Mississippi. They prevent the natural flow of sediment that replenishes the marshes. Marshes dimish the strength of tidal surges. Would prompt massive relocation of a population a mile or 2 back from harms way. Too much damage to national commerce? Pay me now or pay me later.
10. Stop blaming coastal dwellers and tidal surge as the primary source of insurance woes. Accumulated rainwater runoff kills more that tidal surge every year worldwide.
11. Greatest understated flood catastrophe waiting to happen? Sacramento, CA. After Katrina the Army Corp. of Engineers was tasked to assess the national dike and damn systems. Congress shelved the report. Too expensive and let’s just not think about it approach applied. Everyone vulnerable to dikes/dams breaching should buy flood coverage.
12. Don’t wait for the Feds to generate solutions. Even with the new LiDAR accuracy being applied to flood maps, our local governments on the Eastern Shore of VA raised the requirement for lowest floor elevations on new construction. Accomack Co. adds 2′ above Base Flood Elevation (BFE) for new construction. Wachapreague, VA added 3′ above BFE requirement on new structures since 2015. Our localities previously applied a 1′ above BFE requirement until the new maps were published.
13. Ask your municipalities why they have neglected addressing the issue. Most subdivisions only have to meet 10-25 year probabilities. Oh my… the folly of man. Ex: Hampton Roads, VA.
14. Hats off to FEMA and the post Katrina impetus to remap the nation for flood risk. LiDAR (LaDAR)has greatly enhanced our flood insurance sales and encouraged many Pre-FIRM (built prior to flood insurance maps were issued for a specific location)owners to obtain an EC. It places value on marshes and other important factors other than just elevation.
15. Repetitive losses are being pooled under NFIP and removed from WYO for handling. Smells of an essential baby step to separate this issue from rate making for lower risk dwellings. Stay tuned. I only hope that Congress is told and not asked on how to best address the issue.
16. Sea level rise leads to land sinking. Funny, the most expensive and vulnerable targets were built on landfill. Miami is a manmade island, once destroyed and rebuilt. Half of Boston is built on dirt, trash, and mud fill. Manhattan is overdue for a CAT 3 storm. And on and on.
17. The entire nation is in a flood zone, whether mapped or not. The only difference is degree of risk. We are too focused on the 100 year zones vs. 500 year (or more) zones.
18. We all have a geographic bias towards those receiving the benefit of flood insurance. No “robbing Peter to pay Paul” philosophies should be tolerated on this issue. As the pledge of allegiance begins… “One nation…”
P.S. This exhale took less than 30 minutes and is only the tip of iceberg for me on the topic of flood insurance. All legislators and governmental administrators are welcome to contact me to learn more about which they oversee.
P.S.S. I would love to stay and edit my comments, but we are closed 1/2 day in honor of Columbus and Indigenous Peoples Day!
Why is any of this a partisan issue? Is there climate change? Of course there is, but to what degree? Not sure. Do we need to build anything in areas that are prone to flood or if you checked the news today, wildfires? Probably not. But to anyone who write home or flood insurance, haven’t the carriers flip flopped on what qualifies as “coastal?” As some point, every state along the east cost is going to be considered coastal, and therefore, a flood zone by default. If these changes are being made, aren’t they being made for a reason? An increase is total losses, perhaps? Is that just a coincidence or is there something going on in nature and possibly man-made causes, that are part of the increase? You don’t have to be partisan or a pro-climate change believer to know that something is going on. What is happening right now, today is abnormal at best.
Christine- So the government (tax payers) buy the people out of their homes and land that own it in flood and fire prone areas?
Again- EVERYONE is already in a flood zone. You are either in a low-moderate flood zone or a high hazard flood zone. Given EVERYONE is already in a flood zone, how do you stop construction everywhere?
FEMA will never be “funded”. Waste is government, government is waste.
No, EVERYONE isn’t in a flood zone. False.
You stop construction everywhere a high risk flood zone exists.
I agree with most of your comments. Hence, an up vote by me.
But your observation of carriers ‘flip-flopping’ is merely their survivalist reaction to increased exposures through man-made flood risk by building in flood plains.
Every ocean coast is coastal. So are coasts of Great Lake states.
Carriers are monitoring exposures much better with newer tech and expanded datasets. Management is being monitored by stockholders (SHs) for their ability to mitigate insurance portfolio risks to acceptable levels. Follow the money, … all the way back to the source (SHs).
What Granger MacDonald actually meant to say was “It would simply prevent home builders from being able to provide safe and affordable ‘summer rental’ and ‘secondary beach’ housing,” the association’s chairman, Granger MacDonald, said in a statement. “Why does OMB needlessly propose to penalize new construction?”
This proposal does not penalize new construction. It merely takes the taxpayer off of the hook and places the financial burden where it belongs, on the new home building owner. This isn’t a huge change, but it is a small step in the right direction.
I am thankful to hear this as I am not one of those Grandfathered in people who pay $300 for their flood insurance while I pay 3,400. for only $250k worth of coverage, which means I need another policy to cover my house. ;( I love my house and I love the river, but there is something not fair in the charges. I believe Trump is wanting fairness for everyone.