Government Overhaul of National Flood Insurance Cheered by Climate Resilience Experts

By | March 18, 2019

  • March 18, 2019 at 1:38 pm
    Charles Ford says:
    Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 18
    Thumb down 5

    Article is typical claptrack from a local liberal. You want improvement? Eliminate this useless subsidy and boondoggle. Then people an busienss will not concentrate on the coast and along flood plains. Or is that too much like common sense? If you accept the hazard of beachfront them you accept the certainty of the loss to follow. Not my porblem and I am tired of my tax dollars being allocated to sunsidize fools who make this choice then want me to treat them as entitled victoims. They are not. Any questions?

    • March 18, 2019 at 1:45 pm
      Jack King says:
      Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
      Thumb up 15
      Thumb down 0

      Last week (I believe) IJ ran basically the same article and saying TRUMP’S plan will raise premiums for homeowners. Now the climate change people like the plan and no negative comments about TRUMP.

      The article also asks what the lower income people living on the flood frontlines are supposed to do if premiums rise. Here are a couple of suggestions: Sell the house. Buy flood Insurance to protect your most valuable asset until it floods, then take the insurance money and rebuild elsewhere. Many of the flood frontline homes are on the ocean or river or lake, prime properties!

      • March 18, 2019 at 2:47 pm
        Agent says:
        Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
        Thumb up 19
        Thumb down 4

        DiBlasio, the commie environmentalist mayor of NYC wants to spend $10 Billion to make NYC flood proof. He can start by not dumping NYC garbage in the Atlantic ocean.

    • March 18, 2019 at 4:19 pm
      SWFL Agent says:
      Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
      Thumb up 13
      Thumb down 0

      I’m all for pricing the risk based on the exposure and I can only hope that the attempts to make the fix this time will work better that 2012. Maybe smooth it out better than before. My only comments are that many homes that are built in flood zones are not waterfront mansions. The majority of the homes are modest, or worse, and several blocks away from the coast. Additionally, as our population grows (Florida is a great example) and we build more, pave more, some low risk zones become SFHA’s. Doesn’t matter which administration is holding office, it’s an very tough sell to increase rates to adequate levels and/or make people move.

      • March 18, 2019 at 7:38 pm
        PolarBeaRepeal says:
        Like or Dislike:
        Thumb up 8
        Thumb down 0

        I’m all in for incentives to mitigate the risks…. until municipalities buy out residences in flood zones over 50 + years and convert the land into parks, resistant warehouses, etc. Another approach to mitigating the risk is retro rating, individual risk rating, etc. which will surcharge risks after one flood claim, leading to deeper thought and introspection by the property owner about rebuilding and remaining or selling to their local government for re-purposing of the land.

        • March 18, 2019 at 8:08 pm
          Rosenblatt says:
          Like or Dislike:
          Thumb up 0
          Thumb down 2

          “surcharge risks after one flood claim, leading to deeper thought and introspection by the property owner about rebuilding and remaining or selling to their local government for re-purposing of the land.”

          A) raising rates after a covered loss already happens
          B) By the time the insured sees the new rate, they’ve likely already repaired the home (unless the payout happened less than 30 days before the policy end date = very rare)

          • March 19, 2019 at 8:13 am
            PolarBeaRepeal says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 6
            Thumb down 1

            Trying to earn a stronger grip on your troll status?

            A. Of course rates increase after losses. I am unable to state exactly how much they should rise, but the retro and experience rating process ALSO yields credits for risk mitigation, and the SWINGS in individual rates should be enlarged to create greater incentive to control / mitigate risk.

            B. Not true in most cases. A provisional rate may be charged, and it would be adjusted on a RETRO basis if RR is selected by the risk. IF ER is selected, RR is rejected, AND a loss occurs too close to the anniversary rating date, when the 2nd year after the loss rolls around, the risk will see the hyuuuuuge rate increase. What’s your hurry? – – I proposed several times here on http://www.marIJuana legalization.com a 50+ year phase out of flood plain residences via muni buyouts of such properties.

          • March 19, 2019 at 2:26 pm
            Perplexed says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 2
            Thumb down 0

            Rosenblatt – you’ve never heard of retro rating? It’s not a new concept.

          • March 19, 2019 at 4:07 pm
            Rosenblatt says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 2
            Thumb down 2

            Polar: prey tell, which insurance companies — by name — offer retro rating on personal-lines homeowners insurance policies?

          • March 22, 2019 at 9:44 pm
            PolarBeaRepeal says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 1
            Thumb down 0

            NFIP coverages could be retro-rated, but aren’t due to lack of credible volumes of experience per risk. So, personal lines are typically experience rated, but could also be subject to a form of retro-rating. EITHER of the two (ER, RR) achieve the objective of increasing rates after a loss…. thus discouraging the risk from engaging in the risky behavior (i.e. continuing to live in a flood prone zone).

  • March 18, 2019 at 6:52 pm
    Flooding says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 3
    Thumb down 4

    Contrary to popular belief, the great majority of flooded properties are not coastal or even waterfront, and as climate change progresses more properties will become vulnerable to flooding. So what are people to do when they can’t afford exorbitant flood insurance premiums, and they can’t sell their home, their largest asset, because no buyer wants a high-risk property?

    • March 19, 2019 at 8:19 am
      PolarBeaRepeal says:
      Like or Dislike:
      Thumb up 6
      Thumb down 0

      Sell it to their municipality, to be re-purposed for uses that are NOT adversely impacted by flood waters.

      Municipalities buying the properties eliminates PERPETUAL government subsidies of flood risk. Pay once, not multiple times via the FEDERAL NFIP. The Federal government can offer tax credits to risk to sell out, and payments to munis that buy out those risks.

      • March 19, 2019 at 9:04 am
        SWFL Agent says:
        Like or Dislike:
        Thumb up 3
        Thumb down 0

        One of the issues we’re seeing is that when new areas are developed, and built to new flood specifications, the adjacent areas that have lower elevations are adversely affected. It sounds like a great idea to have municipalities to buyout property owners but that will create a huge dogfight between owners and Gov’t.

        • March 22, 2019 at 9:47 pm
          PolarBeaRepeal says:
          Like or Dislike:
          Thumb up 2
          Thumb down 0

          Not so if the rates are raised after losses. Who would opt to ‘stay to pay and pay and pay’ when they could be bailed out (I couldn’t resist the pun) once and for all by their municipal government, backed by the Fed Govt.?

  • March 20, 2019 at 12:08 pm
    pagesk says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 2
    Thumb down 0

    Although I applaud the efforts by FEMA to price policies according to risk, I think that just like in 2012, there will be out cry and congress will squash it. I don’t quite know why the climate change people are so excited as most FEMA map products are significantly out of date, the methods used for mapping don’t consider future conditions, and the uncertainty in future conditions essentially kills any reasonable discussion of what should be assumed.



Add a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*