If coastal property owners aren’t paying fair premium rates; i.e. are subsidized by NFIP and US taxpayers, then they aren’t paying fair value for their coastal living lifestyle. If US taxpayers are paying anything to subsidize such private ownership, there is a wealth transfer from the poorer and middle classes to the rich which should be ended, one way or another. One way is to end NFIP subsidies from US taxpayers to highly exposed coastal properties. The other way is to eliminate NFIP by phasing it out over time, with local municipalities buying out coastal and other flood risk properties to then convert them to parks for PUBLIC use.
My prior comments on eliminating or reducing the reach of NFIP stand as previously stated on IJ.
Coastal properties are not the only properties in the country at risk for flooding. One needs only to look at hurricane Harvey to see the effects of flooding in non-coastal communities. The wealthy homeowners are typically “self-insured” because they can afford to purchase their homes without a mortgage, and therefore are not required to carry flood insurance. It is working class people in coastal communities–the service industry, teachers, police, small business owners, fisherman–who are most adversely affected by high flood insurance premiums. If everyone in the country who lives in a flood hazard zone, including those in riparian zones, were forced to carry flood insurance by their mortgage lenders, as those in Florida are, the rates would be more fair fore everyone and the risk that the NFIP bears would be greatly reduced.
If you’re implying that “rich” people are not buying insurance because they don’t have to and can afford to self-insure because they are “rich” you are wrong. Most rich people are that way because they have been smart with their money and to not buy insurance at subsidized rates is clearly dumb. They are buying the insurance, on the backs of less fortunate taxpayers.
Polar-
1.Show me a single poor person paying taxes that get “transferred” to the rich.
2. “with local municipalities buying out coastal and other flood risk properties to then convert them to parks for PUBLIC use.” – What? Spend more of the poor peoples taxes to buy the rich people’s homes like in NJ?
1. I never said there was a transfer from poor to others. The poor do not pay Federal Inc Tax. The poor do not pay large property taxes on run down beach homes.
2. I will continue to advocate that municipalities buy flood risk properties and convert them to parks, etc. rather than continue the inefficient cycle of flood, rebuild, flood, rebuild, flood, rebuild…. at the ONGOING expense of other property owners and Federal taxpayers via NFIP.
2. I will continue to advocate that municipalities buy flood risk properties and convert them to parks, etc. rather than continue the inefficient cycle of flood, rebuild, flood, rebuild, flood, rebuild…. at the ONGOING expense of other property owners and Federal taxpayers via NFIP.
EVERY property is a flood risk JACKWAGON. Proof again you don’t have a clue!
Not every flood risk is a COASTAL risk, RABBITHOLEBURROWER. No coastal risks of any significant value are owned by the poor (not ‘poorer than the rich’ – a subtle demo group distinction); those would be owned by middle class people.
Tell me why EVERY risk is a HUGE flood risk (vs a minor flood risk). Coastal risks are the subject of the article. Coastal risks are always considered to be huge risks (relative to other risks). If you want to discuss any such off-topic issue, find another such coincident article to do so.
May 2, 2018 at 11:43 am
Agent says:
Like or Dislike:
0
1
Agree Polar. The poor mostly live in subsidized housing under HUD or some other giveaway housing.
MARCH 23, 2018 AT 9:39 AM
DNCs Coll(F)usion GPShip Strzok an IceberGowdy says:
LIKE OR DISLIKE:
0
1
It’s another IJ story to bring out the George Sore-ass trolls
MARCH 26, 2018 AT 11:08 AM
PolarBeaRepeal says:
LIKE OR DISLIKE:
0
0
Don’t bother reading any of my posts. You wouldn’t understand them. Stick to Libitteral websites.
MARCH 26, 2018 AT 9:16 PM
PolarBeaRepeal says:
LIKE OR DISLIKE:
1
0
Accept responsibility for your actions, whiner.
You don’t have any room to talk, Yogi.
April 25, 2018 at 9:58 pm
UW says:
Like or Dislike:
5
2
Remember when you chased away multiple posters by threatening to chase them down with your IT department? You are hypocritical trash.
Still with the stupid plan of having the government buy the coastal property, and subsidize the rich people who bought it in the first place. 9f course this would only apply in small conservative areas because it’s too expensive, even in a fantasyworld, of doing anywhere with any population size.
Let’s see you put your pretend statistics degree to work:show how this works financially with just Houston. Ready, set, go!
You consider a plan to mitigate or eliminate risk, thus lower significantly the US taxpayer subsidies of high flood risk properties, to be a ‘stupid plan’? I consider your assessment to be naive and ill-informed.
You consider the plan to buy coastal properties to subsidize the rich because you ASSUME the govt would pay a premium over market value? I consider such an assumption to be a Straw Man Argument or a miserable attempt to discredit my plan, which is supported by many creative thinkers and experienced property insurance pros.
Let’s see you force me to comply with your request, which is based on a straw Man Argument that will lead the discussion down a rabbit hole. Ready, steady, … GO!
Houston is a terrible example. The main issue with Houston is poor zoning laws and ordinances that have allowed houses to be built in flood zones, along with too much concrete and asphalt, for many years. Houston leaders even admit this, but they won’t change.
My perspective is one of personal responsibility. If someone has built a house in a risky area, they should be responsible for paying a market rate for insurance, not rates subsidized by taxpayers. If they elect to not have insurance, FEMA should not bail them out either.
I remember our neighborhood flooding in the 70s. Affected owners were offered low interest loans, with the expectation that the money would be paid back. Not handouts as are done now.
Wait. One paragraph talks about forcing out the poor who live in mobile homes. Later on, the article talks about “reverse gentrification” (which used to be called white flight).
So which is it: climate change hates poor people or rich people run away from climate change?
Geez. Class warfare forced into every story by left-leaning numb skulls.
No one should build in flood zones unless they pay for their own insurance. Period. Get the government out of insuring bad decisions by anyone, rich or poor.
Whining that poor people move out of areas that no one should live in anyway is ridiculous. If rich people want to overpay for insurance to live somewhere, let them.
Can you state exactly why you think this is a “liberal” article, published in a pro-business, center-right publication?
If it was liberal it might state that the rich benefiting off these disasters should pay for them, and the places causing increased flooding due to climate change should pay for these externalities. Actually that suitors be traditional, center-right, textbook economics, but to the insane far righties here that counts as leftist.
Writing policies has nothing to do with knowing the difference between sane behavior and insanity. For starters, insanity was previously defined by Einstein as ‘repeating a previously failed action, expecting a different outcome.
NO ONE HERE IS SUGGESTING ANYTHING OF THE SORT. … just another Straw Man Argument by someone who avoided the main discussion because there is no reasonable objection to a requirement that EVERYONE should pay FAIR ACTUARIAL RATES for their flood risk…. or get out of HIGH risk flood zones; e.g. coastal properties.
NO ONE is discussing ALL property risks. READ THE ARTICLE AGAIN. hint; ‘coastal’.
Hmm….you claim someone is avoiding the main discussion. Interesting. I’ve been waiting for your reply on another article which you said you’d do, but it seems like you’re avoiding that discussion and posting consistently on this thread instead. Do you have any genuine interest in discussing the other thread like you originally said you did?
I just sat here and looked at a flood renewal for a home downtown Charleston SC that in 2008-09 was $2100 , the renewal 2018-19 $8400 , there’s your fair share from the rich.
As well it should be. Why should anyone other than the owner of a house that has been purposely placed in an area with abnormal flood risk be subsidized by someone else?
“Why Coastal Living Is Becoming Affordable for Only the Rich”
Yep- did some research on the writer. Completely understand now. It would be nice if IJ had someone write about insurance that wrote insurance for a change.
This isn’t a sentence. It literally doesn’t mean anything.
April 25, 2018 at 3:13 pm
PolarBeaRepeal says:
Like or Dislike:
0
5
Wrong. It doesn’t mean anything to those with closed minds.
April 25, 2018 at 8:07 pm
Captain Planet says:
Like or Dislike:
6
0
MARCH 23, 2018 AT 9:36 AM
DNCs Coll(F)usion GPShip Strzok an IceberGowdy says:
LIKE OR DISLIKE:
0
1
Got any rock-solid, blue-dress evidence? Hearsay isn’t admissible
April 25, 2018 at 8:05 pm
Captain Planet says:
Like or Dislike:
3
1
• APRIL 5, 2018 AT 3:00 PM
Agent says:
LIKE OR DISLIKE:
3
7
Shows you don’t have a clue what is going on.
Who has one of the largest lobby groups in DC? When FEMA rates were suppose to get fixed a few years ago with “actuarial sound rates” , who do you think complained the loudest to stop them? You guessed it….Real Estate agents. Why you might ask? Follow the money…it always tells the truth.
Try Ocean City, NJ’s Gold Coast section. Laughable the price of the homes. And some of the residents are up in arms that Affordable Housing might become a reality in some parts of town. They don’t think working poor people deserve to live in OC.
There is very little oceanfront property available when you consider the total population.
Living on the ocean is a luxury, no matter whether you are rich or poor.
Insurance for oceanfront property should be written only by private companies with the all premiums paid by the property owners themselves. There should never be a government bailout or subsidy, for either the companies or the property owners.
If you want to live on the shore, or run a business on the shore, you need to bear all of the related costs. If you can’t afford those costs, then you’ll just have to live and work at a location that you can afford.
If you are a rich person who owns oceanfront property then you probably have a large “carbon footprint” that is disproportionately higher than that of the average inland dweller.
It is hypocritical to expect those who rarely go to the beach to cut back on their own carbon emissions in order to save your oceanfront property, especially if you fly or drive to get there.
If coastal property owners aren’t paying fair premium rates; i.e. are subsidized by NFIP and US taxpayers, then they aren’t paying fair value for their coastal living lifestyle. If US taxpayers are paying anything to subsidize such private ownership, there is a wealth transfer from the poorer and middle classes to the rich which should be ended, one way or another. One way is to end NFIP subsidies from US taxpayers to highly exposed coastal properties. The other way is to eliminate NFIP by phasing it out over time, with local municipalities buying out coastal and other flood risk properties to then convert them to parks for PUBLIC use.
My prior comments on eliminating or reducing the reach of NFIP stand as previously stated on IJ.
Coastal properties are not the only properties in the country at risk for flooding. One needs only to look at hurricane Harvey to see the effects of flooding in non-coastal communities. The wealthy homeowners are typically “self-insured” because they can afford to purchase their homes without a mortgage, and therefore are not required to carry flood insurance. It is working class people in coastal communities–the service industry, teachers, police, small business owners, fisherman–who are most adversely affected by high flood insurance premiums. If everyone in the country who lives in a flood hazard zone, including those in riparian zones, were forced to carry flood insurance by their mortgage lenders, as those in Florida are, the rates would be more fair fore everyone and the risk that the NFIP bears would be greatly reduced.
If you’re implying that “rich” people are not buying insurance because they don’t have to and can afford to self-insure because they are “rich” you are wrong. Most rich people are that way because they have been smart with their money and to not buy insurance at subsidized rates is clearly dumb. They are buying the insurance, on the backs of less fortunate taxpayers.
Polar-
1.Show me a single poor person paying taxes that get “transferred” to the rich.
2. “with local municipalities buying out coastal and other flood risk properties to then convert them to parks for PUBLIC use.” – What? Spend more of the poor peoples taxes to buy the rich people’s homes like in NJ?
Jack;
1. I never said there was a transfer from poor to others. The poor do not pay Federal Inc Tax. The poor do not pay large property taxes on run down beach homes.
2. I will continue to advocate that municipalities buy flood risk properties and convert them to parks, etc. rather than continue the inefficient cycle of flood, rebuild, flood, rebuild, flood, rebuild…. at the ONGOING expense of other property owners and Federal taxpayers via NFIP.
2. I will continue to advocate that municipalities buy flood risk properties and convert them to parks, etc. rather than continue the inefficient cycle of flood, rebuild, flood, rebuild, flood, rebuild…. at the ONGOING expense of other property owners and Federal taxpayers via NFIP.
EVERY property is a flood risk JACKWAGON. Proof again you don’t have a clue!
Not every flood risk is a COASTAL risk, RABBITHOLEBURROWER. No coastal risks of any significant value are owned by the poor (not ‘poorer than the rich’ – a subtle demo group distinction); those would be owned by middle class people.
Tell me why EVERY risk is a HUGE flood risk (vs a minor flood risk). Coastal risks are the subject of the article. Coastal risks are always considered to be huge risks (relative to other risks). If you want to discuss any such off-topic issue, find another such coincident article to do so.
Agree Polar. The poor mostly live in subsidized housing under HUD or some other giveaway housing.
Well said Polar. And if higher rates provide disincentives to build or buy in “bad” areas, great.
Dave- you don’t have a clue either.
Jack – you don’t have any manners.
Says the guy who has posted:
MARCH 23, 2018 AT 9:39 AM
DNCs Coll(F)usion GPShip Strzok an IceberGowdy says:
LIKE OR DISLIKE:
0
1
It’s another IJ story to bring out the George Sore-ass trolls
MARCH 26, 2018 AT 11:08 AM
PolarBeaRepeal says:
LIKE OR DISLIKE:
0
0
Don’t bother reading any of my posts. You wouldn’t understand them. Stick to Libitteral websites.
MARCH 26, 2018 AT 9:16 PM
PolarBeaRepeal says:
LIKE OR DISLIKE:
1
0
Accept responsibility for your actions, whiner.
You don’t have any room to talk, Yogi.
Remember when you chased away multiple posters by threatening to chase them down with your IT department? You are hypocritical trash.
Correct.
Still with the stupid plan of having the government buy the coastal property, and subsidize the rich people who bought it in the first place. 9f course this would only apply in small conservative areas because it’s too expensive, even in a fantasyworld, of doing anywhere with any population size.
Let’s see you put your pretend statistics degree to work:show how this works financially with just Houston. Ready, set, go!
You consider a plan to mitigate or eliminate risk, thus lower significantly the US taxpayer subsidies of high flood risk properties, to be a ‘stupid plan’? I consider your assessment to be naive and ill-informed.
You consider the plan to buy coastal properties to subsidize the rich because you ASSUME the govt would pay a premium over market value? I consider such an assumption to be a Straw Man Argument or a miserable attempt to discredit my plan, which is supported by many creative thinkers and experienced property insurance pros.
Let’s see you force me to comply with your request, which is based on a straw Man Argument that will lead the discussion down a rabbit hole. Ready, steady, … GO!
Government does not have to pay over market value to be subsidizing and socializing their potential risk.
You can’t lay out even a basic outline for your “plan” in one city – it’s as fake as your statistics degree.
Houston is a terrible example. The main issue with Houston is poor zoning laws and ordinances that have allowed houses to be built in flood zones, along with too much concrete and asphalt, for many years. Houston leaders even admit this, but they won’t change.
My perspective is one of personal responsibility. If someone has built a house in a risky area, they should be responsible for paying a market rate for insurance, not rates subsidized by taxpayers. If they elect to not have insurance, FEMA should not bail them out either.
I remember our neighborhood flooding in the 70s. Affected owners were offered low interest loans, with the expectation that the money would be paid back. Not handouts as are done now.
Wait. One paragraph talks about forcing out the poor who live in mobile homes. Later on, the article talks about “reverse gentrification” (which used to be called white flight).
So which is it: climate change hates poor people or rich people run away from climate change?
Geez. Class warfare forced into every story by left-leaning numb skulls.
No one should build in flood zones unless they pay for their own insurance. Period. Get the government out of insuring bad decisions by anyone, rich or poor.
Whining that poor people move out of areas that no one should live in anyway is ridiculous. If rich people want to overpay for insurance to live somewhere, let them.
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Prove me wrong, IJ. Let’s see some articles with both perspectives, liberal and conservative. I’d also accept only politically neutral articles.
Can you state exactly why you think this is a “liberal” article, published in a pro-business, center-right publication?
If it was liberal it might state that the rich benefiting off these disasters should pay for them, and the places causing increased flooding due to climate change should pay for these externalities. Actually that suitors be traditional, center-right, textbook economics, but to the insane far righties here that counts as leftist.
I’ll sit here and watch the idiotic comments from people that have never written a single policy, home or flood, on a home on the coast. Let it begin.
Writing policies has nothing to do with knowing the difference between sane behavior and insanity. For starters, insanity was previously defined by Einstein as ‘repeating a previously failed action, expecting a different outcome.
FYI- Anyone suggesting everyone should have a flood policy , simply look at your health insurance premiums since Obama fixed that one.
EVERY home built is in a flood zone. If you don’t know that already, you may want to educate yourself before bashing us people on the coast.
NO ONE HERE IS SUGGESTING ANYTHING OF THE SORT. … just another Straw Man Argument by someone who avoided the main discussion because there is no reasonable objection to a requirement that EVERYONE should pay FAIR ACTUARIAL RATES for their flood risk…. or get out of HIGH risk flood zones; e.g. coastal properties.
NO ONE is discussing ALL property risks. READ THE ARTICLE AGAIN. hint; ‘coastal’.
Hmm….you claim someone is avoiding the main discussion. Interesting. I’ve been waiting for your reply on another article which you said you’d do, but it seems like you’re avoiding that discussion and posting consistently on this thread instead. Do you have any genuine interest in discussing the other thread like you originally said you did?
https://www.insurancejournal.com/news/national/2018/04/24/487147.htm/?comments
I just sat here and looked at a flood renewal for a home downtown Charleston SC that in 2008-09 was $2100 , the renewal 2018-19 $8400 , there’s your fair share from the rich.
As well it should be. Why should anyone other than the owner of a house that has been purposely placed in an area with abnormal flood risk be subsidized by someone else?
“Why Coastal Living Is Becoming Affordable for Only the Rich”
Yep- did some research on the writer. Completely understand now. It would be nice if IJ had someone write about insurance that wrote insurance for a change.
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Agent- If it were true, why is FEMA rezoning beach front homes from VE to AE ?
Re-zoning has NOTHING to do with HUMAN actions insignificant influence on expected, perpetual climate change on Earth.
This isn’t a sentence. It literally doesn’t mean anything.
Wrong. It doesn’t mean anything to those with closed minds.
MARCH 23, 2018 AT 9:36 AM
DNCs Coll(F)usion GPShip Strzok an IceberGowdy says:
LIKE OR DISLIKE:
0
1
Got any rock-solid, blue-dress evidence? Hearsay isn’t admissible
• APRIL 5, 2018 AT 3:00 PM
Agent says:
LIKE OR DISLIKE:
3
7
Shows you don’t have a clue what is going on.
Who has one of the largest lobby groups in DC? When FEMA rates were suppose to get fixed a few years ago with “actuarial sound rates” , who do you think complained the loudest to stop them? You guessed it….Real Estate agents. Why you might ask? Follow the money…it always tells the truth.
So, go visit the Real Estate Journal website and complain on that sites’ comment pages.
APRIL 25, 2018 AT 2:50 PM
PolarBeaRepeal says:
LIKE OR DISLIKE:
Thumb up 1Thumb down 1
you don’t have any manners.
Reply
What about all the tax revenue that is lost when a property is bought by the government and made into a park?
Try Ocean City, NJ’s Gold Coast section. Laughable the price of the homes. And some of the residents are up in arms that Affordable Housing might become a reality in some parts of town. They don’t think working poor people deserve to live in OC.
There is very little oceanfront property available when you consider the total population.
Living on the ocean is a luxury, no matter whether you are rich or poor.
Insurance for oceanfront property should be written only by private companies with the all premiums paid by the property owners themselves. There should never be a government bailout or subsidy, for either the companies or the property owners.
If you want to live on the shore, or run a business on the shore, you need to bear all of the related costs. If you can’t afford those costs, then you’ll just have to live and work at a location that you can afford.
If you are a rich person who owns oceanfront property then you probably have a large “carbon footprint” that is disproportionately higher than that of the average inland dweller.
It is hypocritical to expect those who rarely go to the beach to cut back on their own carbon emissions in order to save your oceanfront property, especially if you fly or drive to get there.