Does Mr. Garamendi want to suspend the usual state interference in rate and form to create an unregulated market for natural and unnatural disasters? If this is the case it ought to apply to terrorism, flood, earth movement, fire following earth movement, and costal hurricanes. The pricing would have to reflect the quality of construction, location, and if the cost of the disaster supplement was too high for the individual then mortgages would not be provided.
Of course, if that is the case he is waiving proposition 103 and leaving it up to the market to price relativities by territory regardless of state issues.
Would not a national building code be more appropriate? Sir do you really need to build your $3mm home on the side of that mountain? Miss, a wood roof would be so much more condusive with the landscape, we will worry about next springs fires later.
Why should those of us living in areas of the United States that are not prone to the wide spread damage a hurricane or earthquake can cause be forced to help subsidize a Natural Disaster policy? I live in an area that is considered prone to tornadoes, which in no way cause as much extensive damage as one large hurricane or earthquake does. It does not make sense for us to expect the government to bail us out if we live in those areas and then expect the rest of the United States citizens to help foot the bill.
Not only that, the government currently offers Flood Insurance through a program and most people living in the areas affected by hurricanes do not obtain this coverage… Why not? The puzzle seems to be why we think people would elect to buy National Disaster coverage when they will not even buy the current coverage that is offered.
Does Mr. Garamendi want to suspend the usual state interference in rate and form to create an unregulated market for natural and unnatural disasters? If this is the case it ought to apply to terrorism, flood, earth movement, fire following earth movement, and costal hurricanes. The pricing would have to reflect the quality of construction, location, and if the cost of the disaster supplement was too high for the individual then mortgages would not be provided.
Of course, if that is the case he is waiving proposition 103 and leaving it up to the market to price relativities by territory regardless of state issues.
Is this what Mr. Garamendi really means?
Mr. Garamendi is always stirring the pot. What is his real agenda on this one?
Creative, seriously, whatever happened to the prosecution on Fremont?????
d
Would not a national building code be more appropriate? Sir do you really need to build your $3mm home on the side of that mountain? Miss, a wood roof would be so much more condusive with the landscape, we will worry about next springs fires later.
Why should those of us living in areas of the United States that are not prone to the wide spread damage a hurricane or earthquake can cause be forced to help subsidize a Natural Disaster policy? I live in an area that is considered prone to tornadoes, which in no way cause as much extensive damage as one large hurricane or earthquake does. It does not make sense for us to expect the government to bail us out if we live in those areas and then expect the rest of the United States citizens to help foot the bill.
Not only that, the government currently offers Flood Insurance through a program and most people living in the areas affected by hurricanes do not obtain this coverage… Why not? The puzzle seems to be why we think people would elect to buy National Disaster coverage when they will not even buy the current coverage that is offered.