Think Tank Urges Flood Insurance Program to Stop Enabling Building in High Risk Areas

February 20, 2020

  • February 20, 2020 at 1:43 pm
    Jack says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 4
    Thumb down 6

    I wont even shoot the holes in this I could. I’ll simply state a couple of things that even Captain Obvious knows.
    1. Flood maps are not really “flood” maps. They are political maps!
    2. Given the wealthy politicians involved in the “flood” maps own waterfront (lake, river, ocean) properties, do you really think they will do what this article suggest?
    3. Who has the largest lobby in DC? You guessed it, real estate agents. Do you think for one minute they want to lose a sale because of high flood premiums?
    4. FEMA can not fix what it broke.
    5. To be continued

    • February 20, 2020 at 2:07 pm
      PolarBeaRepeal says:
      Like or Dislike:
      Thumb up 4
      Thumb down 5

      Bravo, Jack! You covered several points with which I agree. And you added a few I didn’t consider; e.g. #3.

      FEMA needs to get out of the way of those who understand and practice risk reduction or avoidance. With some legislation, insurers can certainly ‘recover’ this line of insurance from the inefficient Federal Government, assuming adequate rates are allowed and a municipality based egress from high risk flood zones commences soon. The egress I envision would occur over a 50 year period.

      • February 20, 2020 at 2:30 pm
        Jack says:
        Like or Dislike:
        Thumb up 4
        Thumb down 3

        Polar- they already tried the adequate rates route- Biggert- Waters 2012. Waters got beat up so bad by her constituents that she wanted out of what she sponsored. One of those we have to pass it to see what’s in it deals.

        • February 20, 2020 at 8:07 pm
          PolarBeaRepeal says:
          Like or Dislike:
          Thumb up 3
          Thumb down 3

          Yes, I know the fiasco created by Biggs-Waters in 2012, largely resulting in the 2014 revision by Congress to reverse some of it.

          The rate adequacy adjustment should have been achieved by incremental changes over 3 or 4 years, rather than immediately. Hindsight is 20-20, but if I were in Product Management again, I’d phase in any large rate increases so as to not piss off customers in good standing with my company. States typically cap rate changes at +20% or another number, so why didn’t those two dummies do the same?

          On your ACA reference, did you realize that the tax penalty in it was incremented annually so as to not ‘shock’ those who chose not to insure and pay the penalty? THAT was by design so as to incrementally lead to the collapse of ACA, leading to pleadings by citizens for ‘MediCare 4 All’.

          • February 20, 2020 at 8:09 pm
            PolarBeaRepeal says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 3
            Thumb down 3

            In 1st paragraph above, ‘largely resulting in’ should be ‘yielding’. Bear culpa.

    • February 21, 2020 at 10:11 am
      Rosenblatt says:
      Like or Dislike:
      Thumb up 4
      Thumb down 1

      Jack – as a group, real estate lobbyists came in 7th in 2018.

      1: Pharma @ $281M
      2: Insurance @ $158M
      3: Electronics @ $146M
      4: Business Associations @ $142M
      5: Oil & Gas @ $125M
      6: Electric @ $122M
      7: Real Estate @ $117M

      https://www.statista.com/statistics/257364/top-lobbying-industries-in-the-us/

      When you post something that is easily verified as being false, it makes one wonder about the veracity of the rest of your arguments.

      • February 21, 2020 at 12:40 pm
        Craig Cornell says:
        Like or Dislike:
        Thumb up 3
        Thumb down 5

        Ah, never leave it to Rosenblatt to actually agree with someone. 7th is PRETTY DAMN big, no Rosenblatt? Which means his POINT is valid, if not the exact nitpicked fact you took the time to try to discredit for no reason other than the fact you are a boringly predictable busy body.

        (Let me know the next time you sealion or fact check a liberal. It will be the first time, of course.)

        • February 21, 2020 at 12:58 pm
          Rosenblatt says:
          Like or Dislike:
          Thumb up 4
          Thumb down 1

          7th is not big when it’s less than half of #1. Jack said “Who has the largest lobby in DC? You guessed it, real estate agents.” It’s not the biggest. It’s not even in the top 5. Words matter when you present something as fact which is not true.

          • February 21, 2020 at 1:01 pm
            Craig Winston Cornell says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 2
            Thumb down 5

            Are you truly that dense? His point was political influence. And the real estate agents have massive political influence. Man, you are boring.

          • February 21, 2020 at 1:50 pm
            Rosenblatt says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 4
            Thumb down 3

            (asking the question, not putting words in your mouth) Are you arguing that it is okay to post something that is demonstrably false?

          • February 21, 2020 at 1:51 pm
            Craig Winston Cornell says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 3
            Thumb down 6

            Name ONE Uber driver who wants to remain independent. Just ONE!
            I repeat several times, name ONE!

          • February 21, 2020 at 2:13 pm
            Rosenblatt says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 4
            Thumb down 3

            What’s your point? After 20+ posts asking you to prove your argument, you finally posted a link that proved you were right and I apologized and admitted you supported your argument. I did not ask Jack to post a link to support his argument because I already proved him wrong.

          • February 25, 2020 at 11:59 am
            PolarBeaRepeal says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 3
            Thumb down 1

            Why does being in the top 5 matter / count as ‘credible’?

            Why not the top 10?

            Is there NO influence created by $117M of contributions?
            If so, why wouldn’t those contributions dry up over a short time period?

          • February 25, 2020 at 1:50 pm
            Rosenblatt says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 1
            Thumb down 2

            Why does the ranking matter?

            Jack said “Who has the largest lobby in DC? You guessed it, real estate agents.”

            The ranking matters because he lied about it.

          • February 25, 2020 at 4:20 pm
            Craig Cornell says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 3
            Thumb down 1

            Man, calling someone a liar. How do you know he didn’t just make a mistake? You don’t. And your navel gazing comments are just so boring. Real estate agents have lots of clout, the point he was making.

          • February 25, 2020 at 4:41 pm
            Rosenblatt says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 1
            Thumb down 3

            That’s actually a great question, Craig. (no sarcasm!) He certainly could have made a mistake, but he didn’t admit it here and in fact posted this in another thread

            JACK says:
            Select year:
            All (1998-2019)
            Top Spenders
            Lobbying Client Total Spent
            US Chamber of Commerce $1,583,370,680
            National Assn of Realtors $587,357,089
            American Medical Assn $423,394,500
            …..
            https://www.insurancejournal.com/news/national/2020/02/20/558943.htm?comments

            This comment indicated he was “proving” the real estate industry tops the lobbying list, but he did not post the INDUSTRY lobby numbers – just single donors. The industry lobby numbers from his source actually puts the industry at #11.

            I know he’s lying because when he finally posted the data to “prove” his argument, he did not look at the industry as a whole like he initially argued.

            So he got called out for saying something inaccurate and, instead of admitting he was wrong, he moved the goalposts. You should be quite familiar with this argument fallacy.

    • February 21, 2020 at 3:33 pm
      Rosenblatt says:
      Like or Dislike:
      Thumb up 3
      Thumb down 1

      Jack – since you posted a reply with Opensecret data trying to prove Real Estate Lobbyists were #1, here’s what the real data from them looks like by INDUSTRY:

      All (1998-2019)
      Industries
      Industry Total
      Pharmaceuticals/Health Products $4,364,027,980
      Insurance $2,933,953,510
      Electric Utilities $2,533,528,960
      Electronics Mfg & Equip $2,459,289,371
      Business Associations $2,413,566,841
      Oil & Gas $2,283,987,513
      Misc Manufacturing & Distributing $1,848,081,275
      Hospitals/Nursing Homes $1,766,977,576
      Education $1,752,530,517
      Securities & Investment $1,695,571,084
      Real Estate $1,680,307,488

      So now Real Estate is out of the top 10. Still going to try to argue that they have the largest lobby in DC or are you willing to admit the Real Estate Industry is not even one of the top 10 biggest?

  • February 20, 2020 at 2:20 pm
    Jack says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 4
    Thumb down 4

    “There is no argument to be made that you’re pricing people out of their homes if those homes do not currently exist.”

    6. Forcing people to build in other areas will only increase the risk of flood in those areas given PAVEMENT normally follows construction and causes the risk to increase.
    7. The “Private” flood market will, and I repeat WILL create a product that solves the problem for those people that want waterfront views. Example: CBRA flood zones- FEMA will not insure those and the private market will. Therefore, only the rich and famous will be able to afford those properties. See number 2 above.
    8. To be continued

  • February 20, 2020 at 2:56 pm
    Jack says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 3
    Thumb down 4

    He points to investigations by several federal agencies that confirm the NFIP’s maps are woefully out of date. Moreover, sea-level rise will require even more extensive changes to those maps in the future. To keep pace with those updates, for all new construction, Lehmann further argues that the NFIP should end its practice of “grandfathering,” or allowing properties to retain lower rates when assessments of their flood risk increase.

    9. I’m sitting here looking at updated preliminary (not yet approved) FEMA flood maps for barrier islands that are putting properties in lower risk flood zones and lower base flood elevations. The average income on those barrier islands would blow your minds.

    10. Why should the practice of “grandfathering” be ended when the only people that would be hurt, would be the ones without political influence that can’t get done, what’s being done in #9?

    11. to be continued

    • February 20, 2020 at 8:19 pm
      PolarBeaRepeal says:
      Like or Dislike:
      Thumb up 3
      Thumb down 4

      Answer to #10: the lower rate tier assignment of the barrier isle risks could LATER IN TIME be raised higher if the risk increased or the experience data indicated such.

  • February 26, 2020 at 9:57 am
    JaxAgent says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 1

    Why in this world would it take a “think tank” to come to this conclusion ? LOL That’s funny.

    Think Tank Member #1: Yeah, the national flood program is a bazillion dollars in debt and having another losing year.
    Think Tank Member #2: Gosh, golly gee whiz, I wonder what they should do ?
    Think Tank Member #3: You know what, I’ll bet that if they took steps to stop operating at a loss that they could then turn things around……like a real company that doesn’t have the luxury of losing money every year and still being in business. Just sayin……



Add a Comment

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

*