Reality On Flood Policies
The Market Ticker - Commentary on The Capital Markets
2017-08-31 07:36 by Karl Denninger
in Editorial , 253 references Ignore this thread
Reality On Flood Policies
[Comments enabled]  

Want to know why flood insurance coverage has decreased so much?

WASHINGTON (AP) — Houston’s population is growing quickly, but when Harvey hit last weekend there were far fewer homes and other properties in the area with flood insurance than just five years ago, according to an Associated Press investigation.

The sharp, 9 percent drop in coverage means many residents fleeing Harvey’s floodwaters have no financial backup to fix up their homes and will have to draw on savings or go into debt — or perhaps be forced to sell.

It's not hard to figure out.

It's not like every firm that sells homeowners and renters insurance doesn't know and make a commission selling flood insurance.  Nor that they don't issue warnings -- they do, on the face of every policy.

No, the problem is that if you're in other than a special-hazard area flood insurance is not required to get a mortgage and when more than 70% of the population lives paycheck to paycheck they simply can't afford it.

This is what the health scam has done to people.  It's what offshoring jobs has done to people.  It's what unlimited deficits and doubling of the national debt has done to people.

They simply don't have the damn money which makes the entire argument about whether someone "wants" to buy flood insurance moot -- they don't have the money to pay for it.

Of course it doesn't help that NFIP premiums have been going up -- quite a lot.  That has a lot to do with losses, and unfortunately rather than monkey-hammer those people who built and live in special hazard areas, where those losses are both insured and more-frequent (remember, NFIP doesn't care about uninsured losses as that doesn't hit their accounts) they have "spread the pain" to those who don't live in such special hazard areas and thus have lower risk.

My flood coverage (never flooded, and grandfathered into "no special hazard") has gone up 44% since 2011 alone!

Yes, NFIP runs at a loss today.  But it largely runs at a loss because of people inside special-hazard areas who are insured and take losses, sometimes repeated losses, because most people who are not in special-hazard areas don't buy the insurance.

Now they're whining about people who don't buy it and aren't in special hazard areas, saying they "should have" now that they're facing (probable catastrophic) losses in the greater Houston area.

Well, duh!  The program has forced those not in those special-hazard areas to subsidize those who are!

Just as with so-called "health insurance" when you force well people to pay sick people's bills they will stop if they're legally able to do so, risk be damned, because you are stealing from those who are not taking higher risks to subsidize those who are.

The utter stupidity displayed in the referenced article is astounding.  The answer to this problem is to rate the special-hazard areas appropriately, grandfather those who weren't in special risk areas (but are remapped later) so you don't force someone out of their house after they buy it and for those who do buy or build in a special hazard areas charge premiums commensurate with actuarial risk.

My risk of being flooded did not go up by 44% over the last six years and the $250,000 building / $100,000 contents insurance limit (which is all you can buy through NFIP) has not gone up either.  What has gone up (by 43%) is the forced subsidy of people who are in special-hazard zones and thus are forced to buy flood insurance in order to get a mortgage by those of us (like myself) who intentionally bought a building at or above base flood hazard elevation (in other words, no special risk) but want the coverage anyway.

This forced subsidy by people just like myself along with the repeated financial******served upon everyone for so-called "health insurance" and similar racketeering schemes has made buying NFIP policies for those who do not live in said special risk areas increasingly unaffordable and thus the rate of such insurance coverage has gone down materially.

Welcome to the capital destruction that this has resulted in and the economic impact that will come from this very government policy and forced screwing America -- it's your fault for not demanding that these financial rape-rooms be closed and those who are running them rot in prison.

Go to responses (registration required to post)
 
Main Navigation
MUST-READ Selection:
A One-Sentence Bill To Force The Health-Care Issue

Full-Text Search & Archives
Archive Access
Legal Disclaimer

The content on this site is provided without any warranty, express or implied. All opinions expressed on this site are those of the author and may contain errors or omissions.

NO MATERIAL HERE CONSTITUTES "INVESTMENT ADVICE" NOR IS IT A RECOMMENDATION TO BUY OR SELL ANY FINANCIAL INSTRUMENT, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO STOCKS, OPTIONS, BONDS OR FUTURES.

The author may have a position in any company or security mentioned herein. Actions you undertake as a consequence of any analysis, opinion or advertisement on this site are your sole responsibility.

Market charts, when present, used with permission of TD Ameritrade/ThinkOrSwim Inc. Neither TD Ameritrade or ThinkOrSwim have reviewed, approved or disapproved any content herein.

The Market Ticker content may be sent unmodified to lawmakers via print or electronic means or excerpted online for non-commercial purposes provided full attribution is given and the original article source is linked to. Please contact Karl Denninger for reprint permission in other media, to republish full articles, or for any commercial use (which includes any site where advertising is displayed.)

Submissions or tips on matters of economic or political interest may be sent "over the transom" to The Editor at any time. To be considered for publication your submission must include full and correct contact information and be related to an economic or political matter of the day. All submissions become the property of The Market Ticker.

 
Comments.......
User: Not logged on
Login Register Top Blog Top Blog Topics FAQ
Showing Page 1 of 2  First12Last
User Info Reality On Flood Policies in forum [Market-Ticker]
Flappingeagle
Posts: 2661
Incept: 2011-04-14

Report This As A Bad Post Add To Your Ignored User List
Why is there national flood insurance anyway? Another thing the government should not be doing.

The pain should fall on either the private insurers, the banks who are owed money on a now underwater (literally underwater in this instance) house, and the people who either owe on a mortgage on an underwater house or who own it outright.

A government program that encourages building in areas subject to flooding just makes no sense.

Flap

----------
Here are my predictions for everyone to see:
S&P 500 at 320, DOW at 2200, Gold $300/oz, and Corn $2/bu.
No sign that housing, equities, or farmland are in a bubble- Yellen 11/14/13
Trying to leave the Rat Race to the rats...
Whitehat
Posts: 107
Incept: 2017-06-27

New York City
Report This As A Bad Post Add To Your Ignored User List
Another subsidy for high risk areas is the massive amount of societal spending dedicated to building, maintaining, repair and disaster recovery for risky locations. Everything from the US Army Corps beach replenishment programs to the construction of seawalls systems and state maintenance programs channel massive amounts of resources disproportionately to areas that service only a very few. It is understandable that disasters can be infrequent or not expected or that areas organically grew up over centuries in hazardous areas, however the remediation should become one of never again even if at multiple higher cost and including abandonment of the affected area. In my area, oftentimes the waterfront areas were seasonal villages that gradually became cheap year-round housing. Then the real estate booms made them very valuable and a shift occurred from being perceived as less desirable, down-rent to "water view." It happens everywhere from people building on unstable hills, in fire zones and flood plains and beach areas.

In the NY Metro area after hurricane Sandy, once you moved away from the affected areas by less than a mile, often a matter of yards, it was as if there was no storm damage. The massive amount of federal money being spent to this day is a subsidy cost shifting from those of us who know better than to live there or make major investments in those areas. The funds spent in the hazard areas are not spent elsewhere and the debt belongs to everyone. I like boats, but marina subsidy by the federal government only benefits a few who do not pay fees that in any way approximate their proportionate use of the facilities. These are not commercial fishing fleets or harbors supporting them. High end beach front communities near me do not in any appreciable way pay the cost of the federal or state for that matter beach rebuilding programs that seem to be constant. The two preceding examples are things that much of the hardworking middle and working classes along with many high earners never get to use. We are too busy working.

There is a lot of cost shifting to special interest groups either through your insurance example or the warped subsidies of certain things. I am beginning to think that the best plan in life is to position oneself to benefit from the subsidies, however a "me first" attitude is not serving this culture well. Too many would consider paying their fair share an affront to their sensibilities. Maybe that "free" federal harbor mooring needs to cost a few thousand dollars a year for the federal harbor maintenance. Beachfront properties need to be assessed for the sand replenishment program and disaster recovery. I personally would rather the money be spent upgrading the third rate roads and infrastructure that us working people use to pay taxes.

----------
There are two ways to be rich: One is by acquiring much, and the other is by desiring little.
Tickerguy
Posts: 149697
Incept: 2007-06-26
A True American Patriot!
Report This As A Bad Post Add To Your Ignored User List
Quote:
A government program that encourages building in areas subject to flooding just makes no sense.

But it doesn't, really, which is (mostly) why NFIP exists.

As just one example you can't buy NFIP insurance (at all) if you're in what's called a CBRA (most barrier islands.) The problem is that many of these areas and flood maps get revised, and when they do if you leave the private market to it you'll instantly horse**** people out of their homes if they lived there before the change is made. This was one of the big issues that NFIP was intended to address.

Remember that it is GOVERNMENT that draws these maps in the first place, along with designating locations CBRAs. The impact of doing so on someone who built BEFORE said designation is made can very easily cost them their property, which the government then winds up having to pay for (under the 5th Amendment; it's a "taking") at its full value prior to the change.

It is MUCH cheaper to have the NFIP in place rather than be forced to buy up every home and business at said former market value every time you change a flood map.

The problem with the NFIP is that like nearly all government programs it's turned into a grab-bag for people who live in special hazard areas and built in them knowing they were hazard areas, or who got damaged by a flood event (and then the area was redesignated.)

A huge percentage of the losses taken by the NFIP are due to multiple-loss properties. After TWO losses you lose coverage permanently on that property, but until fairly recently after the FIRST substantial loss you were not required to mitigate (e.g. raise the base level of the building, etc.) Now you are to retain coverage, which is a GOOD change.

The difference in premium between a no-special-hazard (whether grandfathered or not) and special-hazard area is EXTREMELY high (~$550/year .vs. well north of $2k) but is still insufficient, because the risk of being in a special-hazard zone (which is all about the elevation of the BUILDING compared against the 100-year flood level) is outrageously more than 400%. If your building is under the 100-year flood level then over a lifetime of occupancy it's EXTREMELY LIKELY you will take a loss, in short -- something like 1 chance in 3 -- where if you're OVER the base elevation it's more like 1 in 30-50. The premium difference ought to thus be something like 10x, not 4x, but the way NFIP is designed those of us who are in no-special-risk areas pay double what we should to subsidize those in high-hazard areas.

Thus, the majority of those who don't have a requirement to buy it don't, because actuarially it makes no sense.

----------
Winding it down.
Whitehat
Posts: 107
Incept: 2017-06-27

New York City
Report This As A Bad Post Add To Your Ignored User List
It should also be noted that in desirable areas where total uninsured loss occurs the land itself regains value after the government subsidizes the rebuilding of the infrastructure, utilities, sewer and water, causeways, etc. Then the land is offered for sale to the next people who build on it and get a subsidized lifestyle.

----------
There are two ways to be rich: One is by acquiring much, and the other is by desiring little.
Bagbalm
Posts: 5281
Incept: 2009-03-19

Just North of Detroit
Report This As A Bad Post Add To Your Ignored User List
When I was just a lad back in 1961, we were living in New Bern, North Carolina. Every weekend we could we drove about 35 miles down to Morehead Coty and across the bridge to the Outer Banks.
Back then the road dead-ended to the south fairly quickly. There was nothing out there but a fishing pier with a restaurant. Nobody in their right mind would build anything but a tar-paper fishing shack, because they all knew that worst-case with a big hurricane you could lose not only the shack, but you might come back to find there was a new inlet where your lot used to be and the old inlet filled in.
You could walk for miles down the beach and the only reason you'd ever know Europeans had set foot on the continent was the timbers and hunks of tar on the beach from all the ship wrecks. We'd keep a bottle of kerosene in the car to clean our feet of tar before putting shoes on.
The island was dunes and wild. So empty we could all take pistols and shoot on the beach.
Now it is one half million dollar or more 'cottage' after another - shoulder to shoulder- all the way down the beach. It's ruined really.
All those people built because they know they can shift their loss off on the public if they are wiped out. It's crazy.
Yes it stimulated economic activity, but is it rational? The broken window fallacy still applies when you keep putting windows in where you know they will be busted. Just because everybody is doing it - Well, what would you mother have said to that line?
Snowman
Posts: 1931
Incept: 2009-03-09

avoiding yellow snow
Report This As A Bad Post Add To Your Ignored User List
In places like Iceland and Switzerland there are mandatory requirements to purchase catastrophe insurance (flooding, volcanos, avalanches, earthquakes etc) which varies a little, but about 0.025% of value. Since it's mandatory, the public manages the scheme to avoid private companies gauging captive customers. Works pretty well. Makes a difference I suppose when everyone is more or less in the same (risk) boat. Iceland has managed to keep the insurance fund solvent despite all its financial problems and the ground shaking every day.

Statistically, if you house is built at the 100-year flood level, than there is a 10% chance water will enter your home sometime in the next 10 years, 22% in 25 years, 40% in 50 years, and 86% in 80 years. That is, if someone can actually figure out accurate flooding records that go back hundreds of years (just relying on the past 100 years is not enough). Insurance rates are basically built on pretty scant and unreliable data. It could very well be the "100 year" flood level is actually a "25 year" level, and therefore mispriced.
Als
Posts: 546
Incept: 2010-03-12

Report This As A Bad Post Add To Your Ignored User List
What is it worth to you?

I don't have to worry about flood insurance where I live but I do have to worry about Mine Subsidence insurance. During the early 1900's through the 40's there was a lot of coal mining in the area. I'd bet at least 75% of my neighbors don't have MS insurance for their homes and it's cheap. I pay $85 a year for the full replacement cost of my home through the state. The odds of me having a claim are probably in the 100,000 or more to 1. Yet, the cost to repair damage from Mine Subsidence averages around $50,000 per claim.

Like my condo on the beach in Naples, Fl. I installed Hurricane rated windows as well as aluminum Hurricane shutters and neither one was cheap early on. Sure I have insurance for water and wind damage and no it isn't cheap but I sure don't want to deal with a claim let alone a full restoration project either. My next door neighbors who also have Hurricane rated windows and shutters got water damage when we had a Hurricane come through Everglades city over a decade ago. The people above them who hadn't upgraded their windows or installed shutters had a window literally pulled out of its frame. You should have seen the water damage in that unit, unbelievable. Since then, Hurricane rated windows and Shutters are now mandatory in my building as well most of buildings along the beach area.

Did you see story the guy in Texas that spent over $8,000 for a water barrier around his house? His neighbors all laughed at him when he bought the system.
And today his house is nice and dry while everyone of his neighbors have a couple feet of water covering their first floors.
Thorvold
Posts: 197
Incept: 2013-09-12

NY
Report This As A Bad Post Add To Your Ignored User List
I don't get hit with the forced NFIP subsidy, but do share in the costs of repairing infrastructure in flood-prone coastal areas that are damaged by storms or just plain natural erosion/sand-shifting that comes with the seasons. The Army Corps has done its share of damage by causing sand to be naturally deposited in some areas on the coast at the expense of others. I've also witnessed the disappearance of virtually all the cottages on the water and the do-it-yourself folks who used to inhabit those cottages. They've been replaced by high end housing that often occupy two or three of the lots that formerly had cottages and people who are more likely to seek subsidies than to deal with the full costs of waterfront ownership themselves. Guy Lombardo's house in Freeport used to stand out as it was one of the few good houses on the water in our area. He could afford the potential loss. Now Mr. Lombardo's house would be no more than ordinary today.
Nevertoolate
Posts: 1340
Incept: 2007-08-26
A True American Patriot!
San Antonio de Bexar de runover with illegals, Texas
Report This As A Bad Post Add To Your Ignored User List
I don't know that much about flood insurance, but with regular casualty insurance there is always an underinsured clause. If your policy is 250K, but the improvement is worth 500K the insurance will only pay 50% of the damages. So if the loss is 300K you will only get 150K (50%). I don't know if that is the case with NFIP but I doubt they are covering the first 250K of losses.


----------

Democracy is a conversation between 2 wolves & a sheep discussing what's for dinner. A Constitutional Republic is found when the sheep pulls out a gun & makes clear that his 2nd Amendment Right will be exercised should the wolves attempt to hold such a "vote."-KD 9-29-15
Sandor
Posts: 1993
Incept: 2007-08-08

Marathon,Fl
Report This As A Bad Post Add To Your Ignored User List
I live on a canal in the Florida Keys. Place is 35 years old. When I gutted it, there was no evidence of flooding in the walls.

I am uninsured as are most of my neighbors, because we don't meet code.

If I get wiped out, I will put a RV there and drive away with the next threat, or rebuild to current code. With cash. They make you build to Miami-Dade codes here. 180mph wind and at least 4 feet up. The local Home Depot does not sell any exterior window or door that is not compliant, and they are expensive.

None of us are worried about wind damage. Its about the storm surge.

Its a price you pay to boat South a half a mile to snorkel a reef, or travel 4 to catch Tuna, Mahi, Snapper, etc.

I accept this risk. Living in a **** suburb of Houston is simply not worth it.
Tickerguy
Posts: 149697
Incept: 2007-06-26
A True American Patriot!
Report This As A Bad Post Add To Your Ignored User List
That works IF you don't need a loan.

----------
Winding it down.
Sandor
Posts: 1993
Incept: 2007-08-08

Marathon,Fl
Report This As A Bad Post Add To Your Ignored User List
I don't need a loan. But looking at the long term Irma tracks, I may be able to test my theory. :)

Its a long way out, but still.
Tickerguy
Posts: 149697
Incept: 2007-06-26
A True American Patriot!
Report This As A Bad Post Add To Your Ignored User List
Yeah, that looks kinda ugly. Not that I wish it on anyone, but north is better than south as far as I'm concerned. Right up the Potomac would be perfect..... smiley

----------
Winding it down.
Mike_g
Posts: 6
Incept: 2016-04-26

Report This As A Bad Post Add To Your Ignored User List
I live in eastern South Dakota. I've heard stories from a number of folks talking about $2000-$7000 annual flood insurance premiums, for houses appraising at probably $200k - $500k. These houses typically have basements several feet below the 100-year flood elevation. The flooding dynamic around here is very slow moving water, which might result in a few feet of water in the basement. For a finished basement (typical) the furnace, water heater, drywall, carpets, furniture, etc, will be ruined. In this case, the NFIP will only cover the mechanical equipment, and possibly drywall and studs (not sure about those two) and no furniture, carpets, and other niceties, since they don't want to encourage finished basements. Our flooding and damages are vastly different than folks living near a fast moving stream (Boulder Co area) or Hurricane-prone coastal areas, where an entire house can be destroyed.

So the reality for folks in this part of the world is: if you have a mortgage and have a basement in the SFHA, you will pay high flood insurance premiums for relatively little coverage in the time of disaster. $5000 annual premium x 30 year mortgage = $150k over which time you'd have a roughly 30% chance of being flooded by 100-yr flood with probably $25k in covered losses. Heckuva deal.


Tickerguy
Posts: 149697
Incept: 2007-06-26
A True American Patriot!
Report This As A Bad Post Add To Your Ignored User List
Quote:
I live in eastern South Dakota. I've heard stories from a number of folks talking about $2000-$7000 annual flood insurance premiums, for houses appraising at probably $200k - $500k. These houses typically have basements several feet below the 100-year flood elevation.

Yes, but just as here, THERE IS A $250,000 LIMIT ON COVERAGE!

The appraised value of the house, beyond the $250k, doesn't matter. And flood coverage does NOT cover contents below grade -- period. Never has.

----------
Winding it down.
Oldno7
Posts: 2615
Incept: 2008-11-14

RECALL STATE USA
Report This As A Bad Post Add To Your Ignored User List
Well IMO there are areas in this country where if you insist on building a home you must be self insured meaning there is no insurance available to you. A couple areas come to mind like the areas in California which burn out every few years and the outer banks. You want to build there you are on your own and I have no interest in subsidizing your life style on my dime.

----------
IT'S THE SPENDING STUPID The US must become less a government of men, and more a government of LAW.When people lose everything and have nothing left to lose they lose it -Gerald Celente
Analog
Posts: 1456
Incept: 2010-12-29

arkansas ozarks
Report This As A Bad Post Add To Your Ignored User List
Story behind NFIP is here
basically it's welfare to the insurance industry

https://www.nap.edu/read/21709/chapter/1

Quote:
SUMMARY

Throughout its history, the NFIP has been asked to set premiums that are simultaneously risk-based and reasonable. Different administrations and successive sessions of the U.S. Congress have placed varied emphases and priorities on those goals for premium setting. The tensions between these goals are noted in a comment from FEMA that reflect on the early years of the NFIP (Hayes and Neal, 2011):

Providing certain statutory amounts of insurance at less than full-risk rates was justified as public policy for the following reasons:

(1) Lower premiums for existing construction made it easier to convince communities to join the NFIP. It was very important in the early years of the NFIP to increase community participation so that sound floodplain management was implemented and the nations exposure to flood would thereby be slowly but significantly reduced.

(2) It was anticipated that very high premiums would cause great resistance to insurance purchase. However, with reasonable premiums, property owners purchasing insurance at less than full-risk rates would still be funding at least part of their recovery from flood damage. This was considered preferable to the previous arrangement of disaster relief that came solely from taxpayer funding.

(3) In the public policy discussions leading to the authorization of the NFIP, it was determined to be undesirable to potentially force, through high flood insurance premiums, the abandonment of otherwise economically viable buildings.
....
Suggested Citation:"2 National Flood Insurance Program History and Objectives." National Research Council. 2015. Affordability of National Flood Insurance Program Premiums: Report 1. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/21709.


----------
Never trust a computer with anything important.
Tickerguy
Posts: 149697
Incept: 2007-06-26
A True American Patriot!
Report This As A Bad Post Add To Your Ignored User List
Well, yes and no.

There IS a decent balance there. Remember that (1) NFIP is only for RESIDENTIAL homes (NOT condos, hotels, etc) and (2) NFIP is barred from writing AT ALL in CBRAs (coastal barrier islands.)

Ed: I'm wrong on the condos and commercial - they do write it, up to $500k. That's laughable for most commercial property, however, and what makes it worse is that I assume the below applies there too -- they **** the no-special-risk people on premium to subsidize those in VE zones.

The problem is that MOST flood damage is in "no special risk" zones. It's just a land-mass area thing. But to get people to buy flood insurance there it has to be reasonably cheap, because the risk is quite low!

So when you cross-subsidize the VE zones (which are high-risk) with the no-special-risk zones what you wind up doing is horse****ing the actuarial pool through adverse selection because people who don't have to buy won't. This is the SAME thing that Obamacare "worried about" and ultimately DID; sick people bought, well people didn't because the design of the system was that it asked me to pay $10 large a year as a healthy man to subsidize the douche-nozzle who weighs 400lbs, has diabetes and is a drug addict.

----------
Winding it down.

Scottl1023
Posts: 6
Incept: 2016-02-14

NJ
Report This As A Bad Post Add To Your Ignored User List
The wheels were in motion in 2013 to have the rates be much more inline with the actual risk of the property underwritten with substantial rate changes both up or down. Bigger Waters Act: https://www.fema.gov/media-library-data/....

Renewal policies indicative of the new rating were actually issued in 10-2013. Spring of 2014, 4 months after Sandy. With tremendous effort from the likes of Chuck Schumer and Frank Lautenberg from NY and NY, HR-3370 was passed, and it all was ****canned.

As Karl so clearly points out, the passing of HR-3370 the "Homeowner Flood Insurance Affordability Act" of the screwing has been made even worse since by getting the low risk areas to pay an even greater disproportionate amount of the premiums collected.

Affordable - my ass, one big Grubbermint boondoggle. FWIW, the screwing of the low risk properties is 2 fold. One the overcharge for the rates for nothiing. Two, the excess premiums cause a decrease in property values. Add $150 to a monthly mortgage qualification for a prospective buyer and you just got a kick in the shorts on what your sale price will be.
Mtdm
Posts: 375
Incept: 2009-07-23

NH
Report This As A Bad Post Add To Your Ignored User List
whitehat wrote..
Beachfront properties need to be assessed for the sand replenishment program and disaster recovery.


Agree with your opening paragraphs, but then you went off the rails. Nobody should be forced to pay for this -- property owners should have the option to opt out of any replenishment program. For what it's worth, I've seen a privately funded (HOA) beach replenishment program where precisely this happened, one of the owners refused, and they just didn't extend the beach out in front of his property. worked out fine for all concerned.

Mike_g
Posts: 6
Incept: 2016-04-26

Report This As A Bad Post Add To Your Ignored User List
Karl, earlier you stated "And flood coverage does NOT cover contents below grade -- period. Never has.". Not true, according to FEMA: https://www.fema.gov/news-release/2017/0.... Maybe this is something that grew over time, like all federal programs?

With regard to the appraised value exceeding 250K, you're right. My point was, for houses like I described, the risk and potential covered damages (probably 25K) are out of proportion with the premium costs. However, if the goal is to subsidize rates for high risk properties by penalizing relatively lower risk properties (even if in SFHA): mission accomplished.

With regard which industry benefits: Do banks benefit? The purchase of flood insurance for houses in SFHA only is required if a mortgage is involved.
Whitehat
Posts: 107
Incept: 2017-06-27

New York City
Report This As A Bad Post Add To Your Ignored User List
@Mtdm

Thanks for your reply and example. The HOA program that you describe is very interesting. HOA's have problems when they do not enforce their rules or assessments as they can lose their ability to do both legally due to this inaction. Additionally, they are allowing one member to take an action that could and will jeopardize the other member's property use and values. One example would be a damaged and disheveled property contiguous and proximate to the other maintained beach fronts. Additionally, waterfront jurisdiction shifts to governmental according to the mean high water datum. These same homeowners will benefit from any program if things go south or there is an outcry due to some erosion event. I have actual experience here managing properties and see how the so called self-sufficient become net-takers in this regard. A lot of the multi millionaire crowd have huge leverage on their properties and do not have any approximation of the liquid cash to do what state and federal agencies can do to maintain their properties or make repairs.

Before you think that these observations and opinions are limited to the upper class owners, there are many instances in my coastal metro area were middle class families have primary residences in these type of areas, many times multi-generational inheritances that increased in value for the second group of owners who are upper middle class enough to think how nice it would be to have a secondary or primary residence in these areas. None of these owners could ever afford to pay for what is described OR has ever paid enough property taxes, personal taxes or produced economic activity to cover what society pays for their lifestyle. People like the rest of us in our counties pay the same and produce the same and have a high net contribution for many mathematical reasons.

These areas are supposed to lie fallow or have low investment properties and businesses for seasonal or at risk use. This is openly discussed as allowing such things to be natural actually allows the land to create a relatively self-maintaining storm buffer. In the Long Island New York market a few high society types like to have places on what are essentially barrier islands. They go one place when the **** hits the fan and that is to the government to clean up the mess at the cost of billions. I visit these places as I like to visit the water, not have the water visit me. Those of us who live very low impact lifestyles in terms of government services resent this and it is being discussed more and more. Will not change to a great deal, however there is one thing that will.

You can't make people like me work more than the basic amount that we need or want. You can't make me **** and make children, buy new cars, renovate my paid for house, spend money, work, work and work, spend, spend and spend. I may be one, but others are figuring it out, such as playing the taking game, strategically planing their lives, endless permutations, you name it. Every time I see this ****, I simply let someone else pay for it or assume the consequences of the societal debt such as inflation, higher taxes, crashing of the system to deflation. I visit these places as they are very nice and bring my own food in most cases, contribute as little as possible while there and laugh at the people killing themselves to pay for it. I was stupid for a time, but got wisdom later. At least you know that I take nothing but the most basic services for my property which are minimal govt maintenance for the infrastructure and no chance of disaster reconstruction need.

BTW Labor Day weekend I will stay home and not deal with traffic and crowds. Tuesday I plan on enjoying some facilities after the suckers go back to work. This weekend it will be chores and enjoying my home. Last night was a 500+ mile round trip to bring a deserving, needy family's daughter to Boston for college. They are like close family to me. This is worth more than money and high end subsidized properties, spending time with wonderful people on a nice drive and no one can tax your time doing this.

----------
There are two ways to be rich: One is by acquiring much, and the other is by desiring little.
Tickerguy
Posts: 149697
Incept: 2007-06-26
A True American Patriot!
Report This As A Bad Post Add To Your Ignored User List
Quote:
With regard to the appraised value exceeding 250K, you're right. My point was, for houses like I described, the risk and potential covered damages (probably 25K) are out of proportion with the premium costs. However, if the goal is to subsidize rates for high risk properties by penalizing relatively lower risk properties (even if in SFHA): mission accomplished.

Well, if the maximum "covered" damages are $25k and you're being charged $5k for the insurance then you do the math -- if it's less than a one year in five risk run naked.

----------
Winding it down.
Analog
Posts: 1456
Incept: 2010-12-29

arkansas ozarks
Report This As A Bad Post Add To Your Ignored User List
Another bone i pick with FEMA is their contempt for your property rights.

In the Keys
they claim the right to come into your house and inspect for "illegal use" like carpet on the floor or finished walls below flood level, and will demolish same. You have the "right" to park a car or store lawn implements there but not set up a bunkroom for your grandkids.

I wrote to ACLU , sent them newspaper articles quoting the FEMA lady who'd said with straight face "You can't have a refrigerator float out of your house and destroy your neighbor's property".
Got back a letter on ACLU letterhead saying "We believe Government has the right to enter private property when it's for the common good."

Read the fine print - once you accept federal flood insurance you give FEMA the right to decide whether you can rebuild after damage. Since they're in the building permit process abd got guy-in from your local government they can block you whether or not you need a mortgage.

I paid off my mortgage. My stilt house on Tavernier Creek was on concrete columns with poured concrete floor and poured concrete roof so i told the officious insurance clerk to keep her damned flood insurance and windstorm too.
She went apoplectic - ' how dare i defy leviathan'. I bought stronger storm shutters instead, a year's premium bought best ones my lumberyard could order.

IMHO FEMA and NFIP are useful nincompoops in the assault on concept of private property.


----------
Never trust a computer with anything important.
Login Register Top Blog Top Blog Topics FAQ
Showing Page 1 of 2  First12Last