Maybe I am reading this wrong, but why eliminate Federal Flood for areas in the 1 in 100 year zones? Those are the better risks, and would help FEMA build up some cash.
The volume would be too low to justify a Fed program for 1/100 risks. They would be needed to justify the private insurance industry taking over NFIP. Otherwise, there would be some degree of adverse selection against the private industry.
Why does this program have to stop? Read these two lines from the article:
“Homebuilders, the real estate industry, and property owners in coastal communities have also long favored the program, which offers subsidized rates to many policyholders.”
““Right now, it’s not on a sustainable path and carries a lot of other problems with it,” Lightbody said. For example, she said, the program encourages development in flood-prone areas by making it easier to get insurance.”
Subsidized rates? Who pays for that? Taxpayers who choose not to buy properties in flood-prone areas.
And why would anybody want to encourage more development in flood-prone areas?
It’s time stop the madness and let those who choose to make bad decisions pay for their choices and not the government and other taxpayers. This is crazy!
Maybe I am reading this wrong, but why eliminate Federal Flood for areas in the 1 in 100 year zones? Those are the better risks, and would help FEMA build up some cash.
The volume would be too low to justify a Fed program for 1/100 risks. They would be needed to justify the private insurance industry taking over NFIP. Otherwise, there would be some degree of adverse selection against the private industry.
The 100 year zones are the “A” zones … they are considered high risk.
As they should be. Going to be a lot of “100-year” floods and storms in the next decade. Book it.
Why does this program have to stop? Read these two lines from the article:
“Homebuilders, the real estate industry, and property owners in coastal communities have also long favored the program, which offers subsidized rates to many policyholders.”
““Right now, it’s not on a sustainable path and carries a lot of other problems with it,” Lightbody said. For example, she said, the program encourages development in flood-prone areas by making it easier to get insurance.”
Subsidized rates? Who pays for that? Taxpayers who choose not to buy properties in flood-prone areas.
And why would anybody want to encourage more development in flood-prone areas?
It’s time stop the madness and let those who choose to make bad decisions pay for their choices and not the government and other taxpayers. This is crazy!
Bravo! Concise, well-supported reply. Risk mitigation or elimination is the only point you omitted.
Sherriff, wonder if Flood will cover looting losses going on this week and next? Perhaps a broader form is needed.
how do I get flood insurance