We’re still here. I don’t object to LOCAL governments buying out homeowners to end the cycle of flood, rebuild at taxpayer expense, flood, rebuild at taxpayer expense, etc. If it were done long ago, we wouldn’t see a $20+B debt in the NFIP. FEMA could sell those properties to LOCAL governments to be re-used as parks, ‘warehouses on stilts’, parking lots for municipal vehicles, etc.
Part, not all of this, is caused by the Federal government, with our tax dollars, subsidizing the insurance premiums, giving incentives to people to buy these properties. Were they to bear the true risks and costs of buying in danger prone areas, property values would plummet. Everybody wants a seaside, lakeside or riverside home, up until they have to assume the risks for living there. Simple, basic economics. Best that the Feds (with our tax dollars) get out of the business of incentivizing people to do dumb things.
It doesn’t matter where Dave lives. Nearly all risks in great danger of flood waters are being subsidized by the US govt or other insured property owners who AREN’T in high risk flood zones. The source of the insurance of the latter group is irrelevant; i.e. whether by NFIP or a WYO product.
The incentive to buy water front properties is based on those subsidies. If there were no subsidies, the property value would be less than it is with subsidies. If there were NO source of insurance against flood waters, the property value would be further discounted to nearly zero.
Let me tell you how this plays out when people don’t have “access” to flood insurance. And I hate using the word “access” because liberals like to use it when they are trying to spin something and say you hate people. You know like “access” to birth control – you hate women….blah blah blah.
Remember Obamacareless was created to give everyone “access” to healthcare. How did they do that? Forced everyone to buy it. How would you like to be forced to buy flood insurance so everyone could have access to it?
My solution for getting the government out of the flood insurance business is to remove the flood exclusion from all property policies and allow insurers to rate by peril. That way, everyone pays the actuarial sound rate based on the risk where the property is located. Companies could also work with state regulators to apply flood deductibles and discounts for flood mitigation, similar to wind and hurricanes.
I believe there is a free market solution, but it has to meet the 3 criteria for rates:
1. Not excessive
2. Sufficient to pay claims
3. Not unfairly discriminatory
Which is why all you people screaming about FEMA buying those properties is idiotic.
Move along now….
We’re still here. I don’t object to LOCAL governments buying out homeowners to end the cycle of flood, rebuild at taxpayer expense, flood, rebuild at taxpayer expense, etc. If it were done long ago, we wouldn’t see a $20+B debt in the NFIP. FEMA could sell those properties to LOCAL governments to be re-used as parks, ‘warehouses on stilts’, parking lots for municipal vehicles, etc.
Part, not all of this, is caused by the Federal government, with our tax dollars, subsidizing the insurance premiums, giving incentives to people to buy these properties. Were they to bear the true risks and costs of buying in danger prone areas, property values would plummet. Everybody wants a seaside, lakeside or riverside home, up until they have to assume the risks for living there. Simple, basic economics. Best that the Feds (with our tax dollars) get out of the business of incentivizing people to do dumb things.
Dave- I insure beach front homes with zero risk to “our tax dollars”. Where do you live ?
It doesn’t matter where Dave lives. Nearly all risks in great danger of flood waters are being subsidized by the US govt or other insured property owners who AREN’T in high risk flood zones. The source of the insurance of the latter group is irrelevant; i.e. whether by NFIP or a WYO product.
The incentive to buy water front properties is based on those subsidies. If there were no subsidies, the property value would be less than it is with subsidies. If there were NO source of insurance against flood waters, the property value would be further discounted to nearly zero.
Let me tell you how this plays out when people don’t have “access” to flood insurance. And I hate using the word “access” because liberals like to use it when they are trying to spin something and say you hate people. You know like “access” to birth control – you hate women….blah blah blah.
Remember Obamacareless was created to give everyone “access” to healthcare. How did they do that? Forced everyone to buy it. How would you like to be forced to buy flood insurance so everyone could have access to it?
My solution for getting the government out of the flood insurance business is to remove the flood exclusion from all property policies and allow insurers to rate by peril. That way, everyone pays the actuarial sound rate based on the risk where the property is located. Companies could also work with state regulators to apply flood deductibles and discounts for flood mitigation, similar to wind and hurricanes.
I believe there is a free market solution, but it has to meet the 3 criteria for rates:
1. Not excessive
2. Sufficient to pay claims
3. Not unfairly discriminatory
Look up who has one of, if not the largest lobbying groups in DC.
National Assn of Realtors $497,969,707