Regarding the fourth point, I tend to agree. But a significant clarification is needed on this important point….
There is NO indisputable evidence that MAN directly or significantly causes the climate to change. It is agreed that the Earth’s climate changes over time, as scientists (NOT ‘Climate Scientists’) have observed through verifiable, unedited, uncensored data.
There is clear evidence, however, that MAN has used flood prone zones for domicile structures, commercial structures, and roadways, for centuries after settling in them in Colonial times, and in times dating back to the start of civilization. Some men have realized the peril associated with such settlements and migrated away from the flood zone hazard after repeated flooding of the same locations. Others remained like zombies, unable to comprehend the fate they endured. Some, like NFIP critics, have pointed to one key solution to the problem which has previously been used by more astute people; i.e. migration out of flood zones as a means of avoidance of risk.
In fact, NFIP subsidies of risks in flood zones has helped perpetuate the flooding risk rather than mitigate or avoid it. Thus, NFIP was poorly designed ca. 1968. It should have included MORE extensive plans for migration of exposures OUT of flood zones, and MORE extensive regulation models to PREVENT accumulation (i.e. building) of structures in flood zones.
One point that is not mentioned anywhere recently is the need for ongoing analysis of waterflows that shift over time, causing shifts in flood zones. The technology now exists, whereas it was not as well developed in 1968, nor were computers as powerful then.
Clarification: In reference to migration of exposures out of flood zones, it would occur over decades, with dwellings in flood zones becoming ineligible for repairs / expansion, so as to encourage their owners to sell them to local municipalities, which would salvage the materials to offset the costs of acquisition, and then convert them to parks or roadways. Commercial warehouses could be built in some such areas as long as they are designed to be water impervious.
How much money will it take to buy up all that land? Where are the municipalities getting the money to make those purchases? Where are they getting the money to maintain those lands and parks after they buy them?
Some of the money would come from homeowners while other contributions would come from the NFIP as it changes into a much smaller safety net over a half century.
Commercial businesses would fund over a half century or more the purchase of private property to be converted into warehouses, etc. This buyout for commercial takeover would, too, take decades.
Using objective data to create metrics that measure historical flood, loss, recurrence, and efforts made to reduce loss (building code enforcement, infrastructure investment, etc.) seems like a no-brainer for a start. The problem, like most issues involving money, is politics and allocation . . . . without accountability.
Billions are spent, many millions are wasted or fraudulent, funds are not used to rebuild/rehab property or infrastructure, politicians change, next disaster strikes.
Here it comes…the liberal case for forcing people to buy stuff…flood insurance.
Yes I write a ton of flood insurance and make good money doing it, but forcing people to buy it is….well…kinda Obamacareless like isn’t it. We see what that did to health insurance premiums didn’t we. At least 50% of us saw.
Jack, I think this is less of a partisan thing than you make it out to be. When it comes to flood coverage, there are areas that get flooded in events like this that weren’t in a flood zone. Nashville a few years back is another good example.
Most people don’t live in flood zones and therefore do not purchase insurance for it. Those that do live in flood zones can’t afford private market prices a lot of times which is why the NFIP exists (and loses billions btw). A lot of cheaper housing gets built in low lying areas which in turn encourages lower and lower-middle income families to move in. When they see the cost of flood insurance they decide to risk it due to the cost.
So if places not traditionally recognized as flood zones sometimes flood and the vast majority of people don’t buy flood because of cost, the principal of insurance called spread of risk could assist with the issue. Imagine if every policy had flood insurance. This would bring the cost down substantially for coverage so that it’s affordable for both those in flood zones and those not in flood zones. Yet with the large amount of policy holders paying for flood coverage, a healthy fund will be available to help those in the highest risk regions get their lives back.
That being said, it would behoove governments to purchase the land from destroyed homes to offset an insurance carrier’s losses or mandate rebuilds that have elevations to prevent floods again. It’s dumb to keep rebuilding in locations that flood regularly and not modify the rebuild.
Yes, I did see my percentage of rate increase diminish greatly after the PPACA took effect. I also see more people with actual health care. And, people who were previously turned away for a pre-existing condition are now benefiting from their coverage. Not to mention, they aren’t running out of limits when they find out something is terminal. Imagine if “Breaking Bad” would have been based on a character who had such coverage. The show would be over after 2 minutes, no reason to cook meth and kill people. “Sorry, Walter, you have terminal cancer. But, you have Obamacare so your coverage limit is endless.” Boom, show over.
Let’s not mistake what I’m saying, this law definitely needs some tweaking, though. Hopefully, both sides can work together to make the necessary adjustments.
We’ve already, several times, dis-proven the wort of individual stories of rate decreases as contrasted with hyuuuuge rate increaes for the entire poulation.
Underwriter 4Life & Jack
We all live in flood zones. I think you both know that residential lenders require Flood coverage in what are considered Higher Risk Zones (A, V etc), My guess is that Flood claims in the non high hazard zones are in the area of 20 to 35% annually. If you add in the flood damage to the non insured buildings in the non high hazard zones, the total losses could be in the area of 40% annually. One big problem is when a community’s zone is changed to a high hazard zone, many will hire an engineer & get the zone amended to the non high hazard zones. Why should taxpayers have assist the communities where this is done? The Banks are going take a big hit on Harvey, why not require Flood insurance on all Goverment insured loans?
Regarding the fourth point, I tend to agree. But a significant clarification is needed on this important point….
There is NO indisputable evidence that MAN directly or significantly causes the climate to change. It is agreed that the Earth’s climate changes over time, as scientists (NOT ‘Climate Scientists’) have observed through verifiable, unedited, uncensored data.
There is clear evidence, however, that MAN has used flood prone zones for domicile structures, commercial structures, and roadways, for centuries after settling in them in Colonial times, and in times dating back to the start of civilization. Some men have realized the peril associated with such settlements and migrated away from the flood zone hazard after repeated flooding of the same locations. Others remained like zombies, unable to comprehend the fate they endured. Some, like NFIP critics, have pointed to one key solution to the problem which has previously been used by more astute people; i.e. migration out of flood zones as a means of avoidance of risk.
In fact, NFIP subsidies of risks in flood zones has helped perpetuate the flooding risk rather than mitigate or avoid it. Thus, NFIP was poorly designed ca. 1968. It should have included MORE extensive plans for migration of exposures OUT of flood zones, and MORE extensive regulation models to PREVENT accumulation (i.e. building) of structures in flood zones.
One point that is not mentioned anywhere recently is the need for ongoing analysis of waterflows that shift over time, causing shifts in flood zones. The technology now exists, whereas it was not as well developed in 1968, nor were computers as powerful then.
Clarification: In reference to migration of exposures out of flood zones, it would occur over decades, with dwellings in flood zones becoming ineligible for repairs / expansion, so as to encourage their owners to sell them to local municipalities, which would salvage the materials to offset the costs of acquisition, and then convert them to parks or roadways. Commercial warehouses could be built in some such areas as long as they are designed to be water impervious.
How much money will it take to buy up all that land? Where are the municipalities getting the money to make those purchases? Where are they getting the money to maintain those lands and parks after they buy them?
You, and you alone, will experience a hyuuuuge tax increase.
Some of the money would come from homeowners while other contributions would come from the NFIP as it changes into a much smaller safety net over a half century.
Commercial businesses would fund over a half century or more the purchase of private property to be converted into warehouses, etc. This buyout for commercial takeover would, too, take decades.
Using objective data to create metrics that measure historical flood, loss, recurrence, and efforts made to reduce loss (building code enforcement, infrastructure investment, etc.) seems like a no-brainer for a start. The problem, like most issues involving money, is politics and allocation . . . . without accountability.
Billions are spent, many millions are wasted or fraudulent, funds are not used to rebuild/rehab property or infrastructure, politicians change, next disaster strikes.
Wash. Rinse. Repeat.
Here it comes…the liberal case for forcing people to buy stuff…flood insurance.
Yes I write a ton of flood insurance and make good money doing it, but forcing people to buy it is….well…kinda Obamacareless like isn’t it. We see what that did to health insurance premiums didn’t we. At least 50% of us saw.
Jack, I think this is less of a partisan thing than you make it out to be. When it comes to flood coverage, there are areas that get flooded in events like this that weren’t in a flood zone. Nashville a few years back is another good example.
Most people don’t live in flood zones and therefore do not purchase insurance for it. Those that do live in flood zones can’t afford private market prices a lot of times which is why the NFIP exists (and loses billions btw). A lot of cheaper housing gets built in low lying areas which in turn encourages lower and lower-middle income families to move in. When they see the cost of flood insurance they decide to risk it due to the cost.
So if places not traditionally recognized as flood zones sometimes flood and the vast majority of people don’t buy flood because of cost, the principal of insurance called spread of risk could assist with the issue. Imagine if every policy had flood insurance. This would bring the cost down substantially for coverage so that it’s affordable for both those in flood zones and those not in flood zones. Yet with the large amount of policy holders paying for flood coverage, a healthy fund will be available to help those in the highest risk regions get their lives back.
That being said, it would behoove governments to purchase the land from destroyed homes to offset an insurance carrier’s losses or mandate rebuilds that have elevations to prevent floods again. It’s dumb to keep rebuilding in locations that flood regularly and not modify the rebuild.
Yes, I did see my percentage of rate increase diminish greatly after the PPACA took effect. I also see more people with actual health care. And, people who were previously turned away for a pre-existing condition are now benefiting from their coverage. Not to mention, they aren’t running out of limits when they find out something is terminal. Imagine if “Breaking Bad” would have been based on a character who had such coverage. The show would be over after 2 minutes, no reason to cook meth and kill people. “Sorry, Walter, you have terminal cancer. But, you have Obamacare so your coverage limit is endless.” Boom, show over.
Let’s not mistake what I’m saying, this law definitely needs some tweaking, though. Hopefully, both sides can work together to make the necessary adjustments.
We’ve already, several times, dis-proven the wort of individual stories of rate decreases as contrasted with hyuuuuge rate increaes for the entire poulation.
Underwriter 4Life & Jack
We all live in flood zones. I think you both know that residential lenders require Flood coverage in what are considered Higher Risk Zones (A, V etc), My guess is that Flood claims in the non high hazard zones are in the area of 20 to 35% annually. If you add in the flood damage to the non insured buildings in the non high hazard zones, the total losses could be in the area of 40% annually. One big problem is when a community’s zone is changed to a high hazard zone, many will hire an engineer & get the zone amended to the non high hazard zones. Why should taxpayers have assist the communities where this is done? The Banks are going take a big hit on Harvey, why not require Flood insurance on all Goverment insured loans?