Indianapolis, IN
Increase flood protection and reduce flood insurance costs for over 300 homes.
Comments
FEMA correspondance. Read the comments from people.
-------------------------------------------------- From: "richard"
Sent: Tuesday, October 29, 2013 2:11 PM
To: "Daniel Axler" ; "angie HERMAN" ; "Aurise Randall" ; "Judith M" ; "Kate Bullis" ; "Brad Barcom" ; "Becky & Marilynn Stoops & Hunter" ; "Dick Brooke" ; "Fred Bok" ; "Joseph Britton" ; "Carla Gaff Clark" ; "Dhyana Raynor" ; "Indiana Democratic Party Chair Dan Parker" ; "Rebuild the Dream Van Jones" ; "Harriet L Lowe" ; "Heather Handley" ; "Bart Herriman" ; "Cathy Hurt" ; "SUE HYATT" ; ; "Obama for America" ; "Jeff Lowe" ; "Jeni Pacala" ; "Jennifer Lowe" ; "Jim Poyser" ; "KENNETH KAVANAGH" ; "Bruce Oakley" ; "Robert Tomey" ; "Pat Delaney" ; "Steve lehrer"
Subject: FLOOD INSURANCE - FEMA - New policies!
Just had a lengthy conversation with my insurance agent and the way it stands now every home that is not grandfathered in, had in force flood insurance prior to Nov 2012, will have to get an elevation certificate, provided by a licensed surveyor at a cost of about $600, before being able to renew their flood insurance policy or selling their property to a new owner. This creates another predicament he gave me on a house in Whitestown on the river selling for $500,000 on 6 foot stilts. Current owner paying $1200/yr never been flooded in 20 years. New owner can only get the max of $250,000 flood insurance for $3500/yr and who pays the $600. The seller and the buyer walks or the buyer?
Flood insurance coverage should be a mandatory inclusion on every property insurance policy! Nobody know where it will flood next. Property in mapped flood zones has not flooded in 100's of years, yet Colorado flooded this year. This ruling will make Detroits out of every flood zone in the US. We all need to contact our state representatives for the state to join the lawsuit against the Federal Government and all our Congressional members to make insurance what insurance is just like for autos, and healthcare. Spread the risk!
Read the following articles and especially the comments:
View this article online: http://www.insurancejournal.com/news/national/2013/10/24/309110.htm
Flood Insurance Price Increases Affecting Home Sales
Rangel Dockery and her husband bought a waterfront house in Florida four months ago, assuming their $2,000-a-year flood-insurance premium would remain about the same. After reading recently about a change in the federal flood program, they checked on next year's rates and were stunned: Their bill will grow to $14,000 annually.
Now the elementary school teacher and her husband, Clint, an information technology specialist, are considering selling their two-bedroom St. Pete Beach home, probably at a loss, because she said they can't afford the bill, and their mortgage requires flood coverage.
"It was very frustrating to finally have what we've worked hard for all of our life," Rangel Dockery, 52, said. "I feel like the rules were changed in the middle of the game. And unfortunately, we can't play by the new rules."
Monthly premiums for more than 1 million homeowners are set to increase due to a rewrite by the U.S. Congress last year of the federal flood insurance program. As a result, home prices in flood zones around the country are declining as potential buyers balk at the premiums, said Moe Veissi, a Miami real estate agent who led the Chicago-based National Association of Realtors last year.
Federal flood insurance covers $1.3 trillion of property in all 50 states, with Florida, Texas, Louisiana, California and New Jersey making up two-thirds of all policies, according to Federal Emergency Management Agency, which runs the program.
Seeking Repeal
About 85 private insurance companies contract with FEMA to administer the flood program, including Northbrook, Illinois- based Allstate Corp. and Columbus, Ohio-based Nationwide Mutual Insurance Co.
Consumer groups, governors and mortgage bankers are calling on Congress to reverse the law, which was designed to reduce the National Flood Insurance Program's growing debt. The measure, called the Biggert-Waters Flood Insurance Reform Act of 2012, phases in rate increases for the 20 percent of policyholders who have been receiving federal subsidies on premiums.
Some of those subsidies began disappearing or shrinking on Oct. 1, 15 months after the law passed with bipartisan support.
States are searching for ways to reduce homeowners' bills. In Florida, home to 37 percent of the nation's 5.6 million flood policies, state lawmakers are trying to attract private companies to write flood policies and are considering starting a state-based flood insurance pool.
'Appropriate' Measure
Mississippi sued the federal government to stop the rate increases, saying the U.S. failed to study the economic impact. Louisiana is preparing to sue. Massachusetts Attorney General Martha Coakley proposed legislation this month to cap the amount of insurance lenders can require.
Bills pending in the U.S. House and Senate to delay rate increases have bipartisan support, mostly from lawmakers in coastal states.
Research groups that advocate market-based policies, such as Heritage Action for America and the R Street Institute, have urged members of Congress to leave the measure in place.
The law is an an "appropriate" way to restore financial viability to the program, and it makes sense to ask those with the greatest risk to pay more, said R.J. Lehmann, senior fellow for the Washington-based R Street Institute, in a statement. Lehmann helped write the law sponsored by Representatives Maxine Waters, a California Democrat, and Judy Biggert, an Illinois Republican, who lost the November election.
Reaping 'Heartache'
Waters, who said she never expected the bill she sponsored to cause large rate increases, is now working to delay its implementation.
"When I agreed to coauthor this legislation, our goal was to create a bipartisan solution to repair our National Flood Insurance Program," Waters said in a Sept. 30 statement. "Neither Democrats nor Republicans envisioned it would reap the kind of harm and heartache that may result from this law going into effect."
Louisiana property assessments on homes in flood zones have already dropped by as much as 30 percent because of the new flood rules, said Michael Hecht, president of Greater New Orleans, Inc., an economic development organization. Hecht's group has been using such stories to warn lawmakers to change the law.
"Owners will lose everything, values of unsellable properties will plummet, bank mortgages will go into default, local tax bases will erode, and economies will be eviscerated," according to material distributed by Greater New Orleans.
Rejecting Contracts
Homebuyers are walking away from contracts when they see the insurance costs, said Ross Miller, who owns a mortgage brokerage in Metairie. In parts of Plaquemines Parish, a coastal community on the Gulf of Mexico, neighborhoods will have insurance premiums of $10,000 to $25,000 a year, Miller said.
"What do they think people are going to do?" he said.
Rangel Dockery said she and her husband moved from a 2,200- square-foot home inland to a property half its size in June, drawn to the barrier island on Florida's west coast.
Their son had moved out of the old house for college and they expect to retire in the next five to 10 years, she said.
"We absolutely love it, and it would be very difficult to have to sell," she said. "It's the lifestyle we were looking forward to."
Rapid Increase
Dockery said they never would have bought the $400,000 home if they knew insurance rates would increase so rapidly. The property is assessed by Pinellas County, which includes St. Pete Beach, at about $521,600.
Some house hunters in the area have already begun blacklisting neighborhoods where rates are rising, said Wendy Lockhart, a St. Petersburg, Florida, real estate agent. Lockhart is struggling to sell her own home after quotes for the insurance premium went from about $1,000 to $8,105.
"We were getting five or six showings a week," she said. "Then when all this started hitting the front pages about three weeks ago, we've had no showings."
Realtors in the St. Petersburg area, which has more than 50,000 subsidized policies, have taken up a marketing pitch for homes that don't lie in flood zones: "No flood insurance required!"
Karen Hoyt, a physical therapist who is preparing to move from Colorado to St. Pete Beach, said the insurance rates she's seen have discouraged her from buying.
"We're going to rent for a year and see what happens," Hoyt said.
No Subsidy
Under the law, those who bought homes after July 2012 became ineligible for subsidies after Oct. 1.
The flood insurance program amassed more than $20 billion in debt after Hurricane Katrina slammed into New Orleans in 2005 and it borrowed more after superstorm Sandy hit the East Coast in 2012.
Under the law, owners of vacation homes began to lose federal subsidies in January, with annual rate increases of 25 percent until reaching full price. Beginning Oct. 1, subsidies for businesses and primary homes began being phased out. Those who buy homes in flood zones or sign up for new policies won't be eligible for subsidies.
Subsidies have kept rates as low as 10 percent of the actual cost. FEMA is reassessing its risk calculations, drawing flood maps that will bring higher rates to some areas.
If the Florida legislature finds ways to give homeowners more options for flood insurance, that may pressure lawmakers in Washington to reduce rates, said Florida State Senator David Simmons, the Republican chairman of the Banking and Insurance committee. Florida policyholders have paid $16 billion into the federal program over the last 35 years, while taking out about $4.5 billion in claims, he said.
"We're the ones who are subsidizing the entire National Flood Insurance Program," Simmons said.
-Editors: Justin Blum, Dan Kraut
. Two Cents says:
LIKE OR DISLIKE:
8
0
I think that the price increases are capped at 25% per year, but even so a $3,000 price increase per yet until they get to the $14,000 rates is still a bitter pill to swallow.
I've been seeing a lot of private flood insurance offerings out there. The feedback I've heard thus far is some of these carrier have premiums lower than NFIP as base elevation certificates may not be part of the underwriting process. Some of these programs is copying the NFIP forms to make it an easier approval with lenders.
As insurane professionals, we could be seen as heros if we take a proactive approach and shop the marketplace for alternative private flood insurance.
Just my two cents.
Reply
. OCTOBER 24, 2013 AT 1:43 PM
Jeff says:
LIKE OR DISLIKE:
4
2
Unfortunately one the the new realities of a changing FEMA WYO flood program. This is where FEMA believes it can pass on the increased risk expense to the property owners.
The property owners understand the economics and are looking to sell to avoid calamity. Very sorry to see these hard working people forced into abandoning their dream.
Reply
. OCTOBER 24, 2013 AT 1:44 PM
UW says:
HOT DEBATE. WHAT DO YOU THINK?
12
13
First, I suggest that we require flood coverage on every home, renters and business insurance policy sold in the USA, not just ones in flood prone areas. Let's spread out the risk like we do for fire or other natural perils. Premiums would increase, yes, but every homeowner has some level of flood risk.
Story from my past: 15 years ago the agency I was at sent out letters encouraging all homeowners to consider flood insurance. Almost no one bought it. That winter we had heavy rains while the ground was frozen and lots of homeowners tried to call in claims, all of which were denied since it was ground/surface water. I live on a hill and had the same thing happen last year to me: heavy rains during the spring thaw flooded my basement. Did not bother calling my carrier, just got out the shop vac.
On to this situation: let's say the house is worth $300,000, probably low for beach property in Florida. $2,000 a year for flood coverage sounds artificially low when you consider that there's probably going to be a flood event every decade. At $2,000 per year you would have to have 150 years between events just to break even to cover a limits claim.
Reply
. OCTOBER 24, 2013 AT 1:56 PM
Becky says:
LIKE OR DISLIKE:
9
1
The problem is when consumers think 'flood insurance' they picture events they see in the media, like a rushing river, hurricane surge, tsunamis, etc. What they don't realize is that (like you said) hard rain can flood a basement with a couple inches of water and cause hundreds or thousands in damage. That's not sensational enough to end up in the news, so people don't think about it.
Reply
. OCTOBER 24, 2013 AT 1:57 PM
KentU says:
WELL-LOVED. LIKE OR DISLIKE:
21
9
Requiring anyone to have flood insurance that isn't in or near a flood zone is just plain wrong - period - no debate should be necessary. Two primary reasons the flood program is having funding problems is (1) it never should have been a subsidized program in the first place and (2) over development (putting concrete over bare earth) has caused runoff flooding. I have a substanial number of my customers that have been rezoned to an AE even though their property has never come even close to being flooded. The rezoning program currently underway is unfair and is being done simply to bring in funding.
Reply
. OCTOBER 24, 2013 AT 2:20 PM
Jay says:
LIKE OR DISLIKE:
12
4
KentU-Everyone is in a flood zone. Some high hazard some low hazard.
Would not have thought that those homeowners in Colorado would have wished their agents sold them flood insurance.
Reply
. OCTOBER 24, 2013 AT 6:28 PM
KentU says:
LIKE OR DISLIKE:
6
7
By the very definition of a 'flood zone' by the NFIP - NO not everyone is in a flood zone. The Colorado situation was a runoff problem and I would guess they were in either flood zones B, C or X - but, not an A. Unless, you are referring to the Great Flood in the Bible or earth crust displacement then, everyone is not in a flood zone.
Reply
. OCTOBER 24, 2013 AT 6:58 PM
Take another looksays:
LIKE OR DISLIKE:
8
0
Your comment about zones B, C or X puts them in a flood zone. Given that, everyone IS in a flood zone, just depends upon which one.
. OCTOBER 24, 2013 AT 3:18 PM
Becky says:
LIKE OR DISLIKE:
7
0
KentU, you're absolutely correct about over development causing a lot of the runoff flooding that leads to flash floods in areas that aren't anywhere near a body of water.
Reply
. OCTOBER 24, 2013 AT 4:18 PM
susan says:
LIKE OR DISLIKE:
7
0
When it rains for days and days and days, it doesn't matter if you're in an A or X zone. If you're low lying, you will flood. Most of the areas that flood in my city are not homes out on the key or near the beach, they are inland, in town, "regular" streets. People are uneducated about flood insurance and why they should have it.
Reply
. OCTOBER 24, 2013 AT 8:23 PM
Jason J. Marchi says:
LIKE OR DISLIKE:
1
4
The ONLY proper solution is that EVERYONE has to pay for flood insurance who owns real estate, mortgage or no mortgage, just like property tax on real estate is now paid to municipalities in many states on ALL real estate in those states; just like the tax EVERYONE pays on gasoline who buys gasoline, etc. The risk MUST be spread out. The flood insurance price per year would be on a sliding scale based on risk level, combined with a sliding scale based on fair market value of each property, and a third sliding scale based on mortgage (more expensive) verses no mortgage (less expensive). Start with a simple percentage; say .001 (1/100th of a percent) for a $400,000 house in a low risk area, or $400 a year, and a $3,000,000 home in that same location would pay $3,000 a year. THEN a risk factor percentage would be applied to those same houses if they are in a high risk area. So the low risk $400,000 house pays the $400 a year and that same house in a high risk area pays an additional .005, or an additional $2,000 a year for a total of $2,400 a year. A $3,000,000 home cost $18,000 a year in flood insurance in a high risk area. The way the law is written now the mandatory (mortgaged house) flood insurance on a $100,000 house in a high risk area will cost the home owner a min. of $4,500 a year and grow to $11,000 a year in five years for the life of the mortgage! That's just unaffordable, unsustainable, and unacceptable. The economic disaster to lost property tax revenue from abandoned homes will bankrupt many cities and towns along waterways, and will cost ALL of us when the federal government has to bail out those municipalities from those lost property tax revenues. YOU WILL pay for it now, or later.
Reply
. OCTOBER 26, 2013 AT 7:16 PM
henry says:
LIKE OR DISLIKE:
1
0
you think it is wrong, so what happens if they dont carry it, the house floods and the people walk away, and the banks or taxpayers are left footing another bill, if you live in a flood zone i think it should be required i worked with a gentleman who counted on having his house flood every few years, actually looked forward to it, he would get the money, fix it up and pocket the rest, all on the taxpayers
Reply
. OCTOBER 24, 2013 AT 1:46 PM
JAM says:
HOT DEBATE. WHAT DO YOU THINK?
13
7
Once again another genius Congress member proposed and passed a bill that she had no idea about what it contained and the ramifications. Sounds like Obama care when it was passed when another Congressional member made the statement that "we should pass it then we will know what it means"??
Until the mapping is complete and the exposures are understood with the consequences being determined, we are once again with the Wagon ahead of the Horse!
It is amazing that we are still in one piece with such morons in DC governing our lives!!
Reply
. OCTOBER 24, 2013 AT 1:46 PM
Spooky says:
LIKE OR DISLIKE:
1
6
As a property owner in Tampa, Fl. with Flood insurance, the chance of selling my home is zero. My current flood premium is approximately $1200.00 per year, the new buyer would pay $7000.00. But there is once ace up all of our sleeeves left and that is to let the banks take back all the homes. It is difficult to think that most of us have been diligent in making our payments for our homes but when it gets to be $10,000.00 per year for homeowners and flood insurance, enough is enough.
Reply
. OCTOBER 24, 2013 AT 1:51 PM
Spooky says:
LIKE OR DISLIKE:
1
8
So let's see, I pay $1200.00 for flood insurance right now and if I could sell my house the flood premium would go to $7,000.00. Don't think there is much of a demand for my little home. I do not live on the beach, I do not see the water, I just live in a 1950 home that was built before there was even a flood program. I believe the only option that I have is to eventually let the bank have the home back.
Reply
. OCTOBER 24, 2013 AT 1:56 PM
Bryan says:
WELL-LOVED. LIKE OR DISLIKE:
15
0
I am sorry these, and other people, are going to be charged closer to the full-risk rates for their policies. But, then again, I don't want to pay their claims, which is what ultimately happens when coast dwellers are underinsured.
The program is not changing, it is just moving toward charging what it should for the risk involved. Waters may have been clueless as to the results of her bill, but the bill is not wrong. In fact, it's still not enough. It won't fix the problem. I think the wagon is still very far behind the horse.
Requiring everyone to pay for flood insurance is a good idea, but it won't fix these people's problem either. They will still have a much higher premium than they currently have.
Reply
. OCTOBER 24, 2013 AT 2:08 PM
T says:
WELL-LOVED. LIKE OR DISLIKE:
10
0
City and State planners should not allow building homes in flood prone areas to begin with.
Reply
. OCTOBER 24, 2013 AT 3:54 PM
jack says:
LIKE OR DISLIKE:
1
4
When did city planners become God and be able to forcast floods?
Reply
. OCTOBER 24, 2013 AT 2:19 PM
Darla says:
LIKE OR DISLIKE:
4
6
Well, we can fix the problem, like the ACA is allegedly doing by making the whole country sign up for flood insurance by pooling the risk and the premiums will plummet. Flood zone property owners will help support flood zone property owners much like the same idea with ACA, healthy people will help support the sick. Or better yet, make flood insurance part of the basic homeowners policy and increase the rate accordingly so all are covered and paying into the system. There are properties that are not in flood zones that can have flood damage. It is called ground surface water and that can happen on hills too! The sewer overfills with torrential rain, backs up the drainage in the street and here comes the flood.
Some food for thought
Reply
. OCTOBER 24, 2013 AT 2:20 PM
Darla says:
LIKE OR DISLIKE:
1
1
Correction: Non-flood zone property owners.
Reply
. OCTOBER 24, 2013 AT 4:00 PM
jack says:
LIKE OR DISLIKE:
6
6
Yeah, lets make everybody pay so it's fair. What a flippin joke!
I just exchanged an email with a current home and flood client about the FEMA changes. He's an executive with one of the largest health ins companies in the US. He said the health ins is NOW in worse shape than FEMA. 2 major points that he made was 1. there will be a shortage of doctors and 2. the system will be bankrupt and your children will pay for it. Thanks Obumacareless!!
Reply
. OCTOBER 24, 2013 AT 2:26 PM
Again says:
WELL-LOVED. LIKE OR DISLIKE:
10
0
It's been many years ago, but I saw on the national news an elderly couple who had been flooded out of their Mississippi home. The visuals were tear jerking, but I found the interview shocking. The elderly gentleman said they are flooded out about every 5 years and the American people have always been there to help them pick up the pieces and rebuild.
To me, this said a lot about both American generosity, and the willingness of some to take it over and over again.
Reply
. OCTOBER 24, 2013 AT 2:27 PM
Enough of Forcing everyone to pick up the tab says:
LIKE OR DISLIKE:
5
2
There is a lot of socialist talk about forcing everyone to participate in the Flood Program much like our new Health Insurance laws. Is this fair? Do I not have the right to the risk? If I want to finance the risk through insurance, then I can. If I choose not to, why should the government force me?
Reply
. OCTOBER 24, 2013 AT 4:41 PM
Unjustified Flood Rates says:
LIKE OR DISLIKE:
2
5
There is nothing Socialist about making people pay for actual risk. All areas are flood zones. it's just to what extent. This is nothing like the Health Insurance Laws which are Socialist.
Reply
. OCTOBER 24, 2013 AT 2:29 PM
jw says:
LIKE OR DISLIKE:
0
0
It's been a while since I read about the NFIP, so my memory may be wrong. I thought the community had to do mitigation or something like that to be eligible to participate. I vaguely remember a few communities here not willing to do the mitigagtion, and therefore, not being allowed to participate. Is that incorrect?
Reply
. OCTOBER 24, 2013 AT 2:54 PM
Ken says:
LIKE OR DISLIKE:
3
0
I have handled flood claims. The policy has a lot of limitations and exclusions in it. A simple flooding of a basement in itself is not considered a flood claim based on the definition of what is a flood. What is covered in a basement is very limited (and the definition of a basement might surprise you.
How is forcing everyone to have flood insurance whether they need it or not any different than just taxing everyone to cover the cost? Is it better to force the value of every property in the country down than to limit it to the people who assumed the risk when they bought flood prone property?
Reply
. OCTOBER 24, 2013 AT 3:34 PM
Becky says:
LIKE OR DISLIKE:
0
0
Help me out with this real-life example, Ken (and pardon my ignorance). If a property owner has two feet of water in his basement from a flash flood (runoff from neighboring fields and subdivisions during two days of extremely heavy rain), would that be covered by a flood policy? In this example, the person did not have flood insurance.
Reply
. OCTOBER 25, 2013 AT 10:49 AM
LH says:
LIKE OR DISLIKE:
2
0
Becky, for any condition to be concidered a flood there would have to be what in the policy is concidered a "General Condition of Flooding" which means that the waters would have to cover two or more properties or two or more acres of "normally dry land". Two or more properties could yours and the neighbors house or your house and the street. If that would be the case and it meets a "General condition of Flooding" then the basement loss would be covered but coverage would be limited.
Reply
. OCTOBER 25, 2013 AT 11:00 AM
LH says:
LIKE OR DISLIKE:
4
0
Becky, i can help you with that question. In the flood policy you have to meet the definition of flood which is:
Flood, as used in this flood insurance policy, means:
1. A general and temporary condition of partial or
complete inundation of two or more acres of normally
dry land area or of two or more properties (at least one of which is your property) from:
a. Overflow of inland or tidal waters;
b. Unusual and rapid accumulation or runoff of
surface waters from any source;
What it means by two or more properties could mean yours and a neighbors property or your property and the street.
If it met the discription of Flood, then the basement would have coverage, however, as Ken stated it would be very limited.
Reply
. OCTOBER 25, 2013 AT 12:30 PM
Becky says:
LIKE OR DISLIKE:
1
1
Thank you, that was helpful!
Reply
. OCTOBER 24, 2013 AT 4:18 PM
Unjustified Flood Rates says:
LIKE OR DISLIKE:
2
1
How is forcing everyone to have flood insurance whether they need it or not
Interesting statement. Colorado 2013, Nashville 2011, Thousands of homeowners located in non-flood zones of NJ & NY during Super Storm Sandy. 40% of all flooding happens in NON-Special Flood Hazard Areas. The NFIP would not be operating at a deficit if all people that have a Federally backed mortgages were required to carry flood insurance and it wouldn't lower the property values down because the average price for homes in non special flood hazard areas is about $200 a year
Reply
. OCTOBER 24, 2013 AT 5:36 PM
Kathy says:
LIKE OR DISLIKE:
1
0
Perhaps creating jobs in the insurance industry.
Reply
. OCTOBER 24, 2013 AT 2:59 PM
JC says:
LIKE OR DISLIKE:
6
0
Explain to me again why tax payers should continue to subsidze everyone's flood insurance!
Reply
. OCTOBER 24, 2013 AT 4:53 PM
jack says:
LIKE OR DISLIKE:
1
7
You subsidize their food,housing and abortions so why not flood?
Reply
. OCTOBER 25, 2013 AT 4:37 PM
trish says:
LIKE OR DISLIKE:
1
0
don't forget all the churches we're subsidizing
I find it hard to believe this is the first you all heard of this. There is a premium to living on the ocean. There just needs to be a better way to pay for it - add it to your mortgage.
Reply
. OCTOBER 24, 2013 AT 2:59 PM
A Forst says:
LIKE OR DISLIKE:
8
1
I was wondering what insurance company help draw up the Law.
I know they didn't ask a insurance company.
That's the same company they asked about health care.
Why would you want to ask a insurance company.
We all know that congress knows more about insurance than insurance companies that have been doing it for years.
Reply
. OCTOBER 28, 2013 AT 11:16 AM
InsGuy says:
LIKE OR DISLIKE:
2
1
.for over 150+ years.
"for years" seemed a bit light.
Reply
. OCTOBER 24, 2013 AT 3:14 PM
Unjustified Flood Rates says:
LIKE OR DISLIKE:
3
1
Biggert â?" Waters Act (Long Read but Worth It)
Homeowners that have never been flooded should not be expected to make up the deficit of the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) when FEMA gives, what appear to be unjustified, massive premium reductions to gulf front condominium buildings that have been paid millions of dollars in NFIP flood claims.
July 6, 2012: The President signed the Biggert-Waters Act authorizing a five year extension of funding for the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP). It was also intended to make the program actuarially sound. Implementation of sections 205 and 207 of the Biggert Waters Act are going to create tremendous rate increases for thousands of homeowners and small businesses along the entire gulf coast along with coastal properties around the country. This action doesnâ?Tt seem to be justified when you consider the fact that over the last three years FEMA approved Letters of Map Revision (LOMR) on Alabamaâ?Ts Gulf Front condominium buildings that they had previously placed in the NFIP Repetitive Loss Program. These condominium buildings received millions of dollars in NFIP claim payments yet FEMA decided they are not in velocity flood zones and reduced their flood premiums by an average of almost 93%?
2009: In 2009 a company out of South Florida, Flood Zone Corrections (FZC), started submitting condominium buildings located in very unfavorable â?oVâ?ˇ flood zones to the NFIP/FEMA in an attempt to have them changed to more favorable â?oAâ?ˇ flood zones. FZC also operates as Flood Risk Solutions. All of these buildings were located on the beaches of Orange Beach and Gulf Shores, Alabama. FZC submitted the buildings even though they were located in high velocity flood areas. Local flood engineers said these buildings would not qualify for LOMRs and most refused to attempt any rezoning. Many of these buildings had been heavily damaged from flooding during Hurricanes Erin and Opal in 1995, Hurricane Danny in 1997, Hurricane Georgesâ?T in 1998 and all of them suffered massive flood damage during Hurricane Ivan in 2004. If approved for LOMRâ?Ts these condominium buildings would pay flood premiums that were a very small percentage of what they were currently paying.
Unbelievable: The Flood Plain Managers from Gulf Shores and Orange Beach assumed the NFIP would decline the request for LOMRâ?Ts because the NFIP was operating at an $18 billion deficit at that time and many of these buildings had already been placed in the NFIP Repetitive Loss Program. Both Flood Plain Managers disagreed with the information FZC was submitting to the NFIP and each one of them refused to sign concurrence letters that were required when applying for a LOMR. The NFIP ignored these Flood Plain Managers and approved the LOMRâ?Ts anyway.
June 6, 2011: The NFIP/FEMA approved LOMRâ?Ts for four condominium buildings located on East Beach Boulevard in Gulf Shores. One of the buildings had received over $400,000 from the NFIP for their Hurricane Ivan flood claim. The other three were new buildings that were built on lots where the prior building had been destroyed by flooding during Ivan.
June 2011: The offices of Alabama Senator Richard Shelby, Mississippi Senator Roger Wicker and Alabama House Representative Spencer Bachus were notified of the negative financial impact approval of the LOMRâ?Ts were having on the NFIP. All of these Congressmen were working on new legislation that would extend NFIP funding and each one had expressed considerable concern that the program was operating at a deficit of $18 billion. Their representatives contacted representatives of the NFIP and were assured the flood zone changes were justified. All three offices dropped the issue soon afterward.
2011: The NFIP/FEMA was approached and asked to put a moratorium on future LOMR approvals until the new flood mapping project was completed for Alabama. The NFIP said they would review the issue. No moratorium was ever put in place and now the program operates at more than a $24 billion deficit.
October 4, 2011: 14 more Gulf Shores condominium buildings are approved for LOMRâ?Ts
June 4, 2012: 7 more Gulf Shores condominium buildings are approved for LOMRâ?Ts
March 11, 2013: Although Biggert-Waters had already been passed with intent of making the NFIP actuarially sound, 41 more Gulf Shores condominium buildings are approved for LOMRâ?Ts
June 17, 2013: Another Gulf Shores condominium building is approved for a LOMR
December 6, 2013: Another Gulf Shores condominium has been approved and the LOMR will be effective on 12/6/2013
September 2013: Based on the most recent edition of NFIP/FEMA flood maps there are 72 residential condominium buildings located in very unfavorable â?oVâ?ˇ flood zones in Gulf Shores alone. As of September 2013, FZC has obtained LOMRâ?Ts on 66 of these Gulf Shores condominium buildings while 2 were declined. FZC is currently working to secure LOMRâ?Ts on the remaining 4 buildings. There were also 4 or 5 high rise condominium buildings approved for LOMRâ?Ts in Orange Beach during that time.
It appears the total combined annual revenue loss to the NFIP/FEMA for the condominium buildings in Gulf Shores and Orange Beach is somewhere between $5,500,000 and $6,000,000 a year.
If the intent of Congress is to make the program actuarially sound why did they, and do they continue to allow the NFIP/FEMA to approved these buildings for LOMRâ?Ts without investigating this issue in detail?
After LOMR approvals, the average flood premium for the approved gulf front condominiums is approximately $.069/$100. Most homes located in â?oXâ?ˇ non-hazard flood zones pay a minimum of approximately $0.12/$100. How can FEMA possibly justify charging these homes twice the rate?
The new preliminary flood maps for Alabama and NW Florida are not scheduled for release until December of 2014. The new permanent maps will not be put into effect until 2015 but we already know the stillwater elevation is going up by 4â?” along the entire Alabama Gulf Coast. With this knowledge there is no justification for FEMA to overlook the actions of the NFIP.
When you look at the facts you question how the NFIP/FEMA, with a program operating at a $24 billion deficit, can justify any premium reduction on these high risk properties then proceed with the implementation of sections 205 and 207 of Biggert Waters? Obviously FEMA officials and Congress expect innocent homeowners and small business owners that followed FEMAâ?Ts rules to make up this deficit. Why doesnâ?Tt Congress or FEMA initiate an internal investigation and get to the bottom of this issue? Why donâ?Tt they delay the implementation of sections 205 and 207 until this investigation is complete? These condominium owners are receiving what appear to be extremely low unjustified flood rates at the expense of coastal homeowners around the entire country. No individual homeowner or small business owner should have flood premiums raised until Congress and FEMA get to the bottom of this issue.
Reply
. OCTOBER 24, 2013 AT 4:44 PM
jack says:
LIKE OR DISLIKE:
2
1
unjustified flood rates - I've heard about those myself. You know some pockets got lined with those changes. Follow the money!
Reply
. OCTOBER 24, 2013 AT 5:38 PM
Kathy says:
LIKE OR DISLIKE:
1
1
Can you cite your sources for this information?
Reply
. OCTOBER 25, 2013 AT 11:54 AM
jack says:
LIKE OR DISLIKE:
2
1
Kathy- go to the FEMA flood map site and pull up LOMR for the areas. There is the only source you need. Anyone that really cares about fraud in the government has it sitting right in front of them. Fact remains- they don't care.
Reply
. OCTOBER 24, 2013 AT 4:30 PM
Bryan says:
LIKE OR DISLIKE:
9
1
Forcing flood insurance upon all property owners will not fix the problem this article states. Or using an all-perils policy form, or whatever verion of a solution you choose. Yes, there will be more premium and yes there will be some subsidizing. But, everyone will still pay actuarially justified rates. Coast dwellers will still have extremely high premium because they have extremely high exposure. That is the only way flood insurance can work. Want to live on the coast, then pay the price. I live in tornado alley, thus I pay a much higher premium for wind coverage than someone living in the Northeast (not on the coast), for example. Yes, there is pooling of premium. Yes, that is how insurance works. But everyone pays a premium amount directly related to their exposure level.
Reply
. OCTOBER 27, 2013 AT 6:45 PM
Jason J. Marchi says:
LIKE OR DISLIKE:
2
0
Bryan.
Not everyone who lives on the coast is rich. The house I'm trying to sell "on the coast" in New Haven, CT is ONLY worth $110,000. It's NOT a rich area. In fact, it is an area that is affordable for FVA, HUD, and other first time buyers who want to OWN and build equity and not throw money away making a slumlord rich. A $100,000 fair market value house SHOULD NOT have a $5,000 plus flood insurance premium, period. Add that $5,000 plus to the $5,000 a year in property tax on that house AND then add a 30 year mortgage payment and the scales are cost is unreasonable and asinine. And there is NO WHERE ELSE near good employment that one can buy a $100,000 sound, GOOD house in Connecticut. If one is a multi-millionaire "living on the coast" that person should be on his or her own when it comes to flood insurance, but the little guy HAS to be protected and subsidized.
Reply
. OCTOBER 28, 2013 AT 9:52 AM
jw says:
LIKE OR DISLIKE:
2
0
Jason J. Marchi - I don't see that Bryan stated or even implied that all coastal dwellers are rich. In fact, Bryan just pointed out that people should pay the rate that reflects the risk.
If you live near the coast, the risk is higher, therefore, the rate is higher. I understand the rates seem excessive to you. I don't know if they are or aren't.
Sadly, you probably won't find much sympathy in the comments on IJ. The majority of insurance people understand the rating process and why rates go up the more risk you face.
Reply
. OCTOBER 28, 2013 AT 11:21 AM
InsGuy says:
LIKE OR DISLIKE:
2
0
The fact is that private insurance won't work either. In order to use actuarially justified risk-based rates, they'll likely have to be filed/approved. It might work for a few years but eventually, no one will be able to get approval for their actuarially justified rateincreases and the the market would eventually fracture (again) and drive the private carriers out. And this process will start all over again.
Reply
. OCTOBER 24, 2013 AT 4:31 PM
Unjustified Flood Rates says:
LIKE OR DISLIKE:
2
1
Spooky is a prime example of why sections 205 and 207 should be repealed. Spookys home was built well before the NFIP was established. Spooky did nothing wrong. There are much better ways to make the program actuarially sound.
Reply
. OCTOBER 24, 2013 AT 4:36 PM
Unjustified Flood Rates says:
LIKE OR DISLIKE:
3
1
Bryan I agree with some of what you say but forcing people to pay rates that are 10% to 15% of the residential value is wrong. I'm an agent and I make a lot more commission if they leave Biggert Waters alone but the fact is it's wrong to force people out of their homes when they did nothing wrong.
Reply
. OCTOBER 24, 2013 AT 4:51 PM
jack says:
LIKE OR DISLIKE:
4
0
Unjustified- i feel the same way but you are leaving out the most important part of the equation. It's a government program full of fraud and waste that will never change! It will never be actuarilly sound, never!
Reply
. OCTOBER 24, 2013 AT 4:40 PM
Michael says:
LIKE OR DISLIKE:
10
2
How long before subsidies are going to disappear for ObamaCare.
"A GOVERNMENT BIG ENOUGH TO GIVE YOU EVERYTHING YOU WANT IS A GOVERNMENT BIG ENOUGH TO TAKE FROM YOU EVERYTHING YOU HAVE."
Gerald R Ford address to a Joint Session of Congress, August 12, 1974
Reply
. OCTOBER 24, 2013 AT 4:48 PM
jack says:
LIKE OR DISLIKE:
3
3
You are correct Michael. But only 50% of the people care because only 50% pay taxes. Stick a fork in Freedom,Common Sense,Personal Responsibility!
Reply
. OCTOBER 28, 2013 AT 7:49 AM
Ron says:
LIKE OR DISLIKE:
0
0
Jack,
It is up to 57% that pay taxes. Keep up.
Reply
. OCTOBER 24, 2013 AT 6:22 PM
KentU says:
LIKE OR DISLIKE:
4
1
Kathy, are you asking me for my information sources? If so, just read the article under 'Subsidy'. Any agent that has had active involvement with NFIP or WYO should be aware that flood insurance as been subsidized for decades by the federal government - that's no secret. The justification was that it helped encourage development. The runoff flooding problem has been mentioned in almost every flood class (given by NFIB instructions) that I've attended the last ten years. The Dallas Morning News also mentioned it in their article about runoff flooding along Ten Mile Creek in Lancaster, Texas a few years ago - they got their information from NFIB. Flooding wasn't that big of a problem until developers starting putting concrete slabs down for Walmart, Home Depot, etc., etc.. Rain water that would have taken hours or days to reach Ten Mile Creek now gets there within minutes because the water is now moving across concrete rather an grass. The rezoning areas that have never flooded was on the channel 4 daily newscast about two months ago when everyone in a neighborhood in Midlothian, Texas got notification from their mortgage company that they were now living in a flood zone. The newscast reported that this is a widespread situation. This has also been a topic of numerous discussions in the IJ over the past years involving agents like myself that write flood policies on a regular basis. I think the mindset of Congress is that they should expand the areas where people living close to flood zones are now listed as living in flood zones and must buy flood insurance (moving them into an A zone). FEMA won't be taken by surprise if and when it floods in thoses area and those people will already be contributing into the pot of money that pays the flood claims vs seeking aid from the government because they didn't have flood insurance.
Reply
. OCTOBER 25, 2013 AT 2:02 PM
Furrie Princess says:
LIKE OR DISLIKE:
1
1
There is one way many of the people in special hazard zones can keep their rates down. They can meet the elevation requirements (and for FL and wind areas-the hurricane construction requirements). I just had a client who is in an AE zone build a guest cottage on his property. It is properly elevated with adequate venting and qualified for a 0.28 rate on the new structure while his main home (over 50 years old)has a 0.77 rate which will be rising 20% a year.
By the way, not everyone is in a flood zone. Those communities who have not participated in NFIP or who have left because they did not want to pay for flood control measures, are not in flood zones and don't show up on FEMA's flood zone maps.
Reply
. OCTOBER 25, 2013 AT 3:10 PM
jack says:
LIKE OR DISLIKE:
4
0
Furrie- just because you dont participate in the program does not mean you are NOT in a flood zone.
Reply
. OCTOBER 25, 2013 AT 4:36 PM
Unjustified Flood Rates says:
LIKE OR DISLIKE:
0
0
Furrie Princess: I thought the same as you until a few years ago when a couple built a 2 story home on the side of a very steep hill in Daphne, Alabama. There was a lake about 30â?” below them at the bottom of the hill. They didnâ?Tt carry flood insurance because there was no way for them to flood. Turns out the lake was fed by natural underground springs. Two years later a natural spring burst through the ground on the hill 20â?” above the home. The bottom floor of the home had 5â?” of water by the time the spring was controlled. The home was not located in a FEMA flood zone.
I never said all homes are in FEMAâ?Ts flood zones. I said all homes are in flood zonesâ?œ itâ?Ts just to what extent. I donâ?Tt believe the so called FEMA flood experts have a clue when it comes to flood zones.
Reply
. OCTOBER 25, 2013 AT 2:30 PM
David W. D. Haynes says:
LIKE OR DISLIKE:
4
1
Dear "Unjustified Flood Rates" - you say "There is nothing Socialist about making people pay for actual risk. All areas are flood zones. it's just to what extent. This is nothing like the Health Insurance Laws which are Socialist.". when you make people that don't want to purchase the coverage buy the coverage in order to bring down the prices over everyone, then it is socialist. Okay EVERYWHERE is a flood zone. But I should I be forced to buy if I don't want. If I have a loss, it should be MY loss not the tax payers. Can the poor, who usually don't have Renter's insurance, be forced to buy Flood? Or will the tax payers pick up the tab when there is a loss? I'm told to eat healthy, then shouldn't everyone be forced to buy heathier food? It will bring the costs down below junk food. I need transportation to work, shouldn't everyone be forced to buy an automobile so auto cost come down?
The socialists statement is about mandating for everyone and taking away my right to Assume the Risk. If not, it is just another tax that is not called a tax.
Reply
. OCTOBER 25, 2013 AT 4:52 PM
Unjustified Flood Rates says:
LIKE OR DISLIKE:
1
0
David W. D. Haynes: I've read many of the statements on here concerning my idea as being socialist. I understand why people feel that way but as long as the federal government is going to declare these so called non-flood zones disaster areas, I'll be in favor of requiring flood insurance for everyone with federally backed mortgages. When the federal government quits using taxpayer money to bail out homeowners that refuse to carry flood insurance then I'm strongly in favor of everyone making their own decision.
Reply
. OCTOBER 25, 2013 AT 8:27 PM
Paul says:
LIKE OR DISLIKE:
1
0
Most people think you have to buy flood insurnace with FEMA. They are not the only game in town.
There is other flood insurance available in most states with Lloyds with better coverage and less $ than the FEMA Program (IMAGINE THAT) ):
Reply
. OCTOBER 26, 2013 AT 12:30 AM
Rolf Vicker says:
LIKE OR DISLIKE:
0
0
My advice to Mr. Dockery is to sue the real estate agents and the prior owner for failure to disclose an issue that had a material effect on yhe value of the property.
Agents may claim that they were unaware of the flood insurance issue but ignorance of the law is no excuse.
Settle out of court for whatever the value that has been lost.
Reply
. OCTOBER 28, 2013 AT 10:07 AM
David W. D. Haynes says:
LIKE OR DISLIKE:
3
0
Dear Unjustified Flood Rates. I hear and understand the issues. But we have a $5M building in an "X" zone insured through a standard insurance company, not the NFIP. In order for the NFIP to become more financially stable, people are calling for everyone to be forced to buy flood insurance. But that only works if we all are forced to buy from the NFIP. We pay $1,000 for the full $5M limit. Through the NFIP it would cost $2,000+ for just $500,000 limit. I will have to pay more if forced to buy some of the insurance through the NFIP. Is that fair? I agree, the government needs to stop throwing out money everytime there is a claim/situation. But they do it for two reasons: 1) protect their jobs by buying votes from the people that didn't take care of their own property; 2) it's not their money they are spending, it is ours and as a country, we keep electing these people.
Reply
. OCTOBER 28, 2013 AT 11:15 AM
Unjustified Flood Ratessays:
LIKE OR DISLIKE:
0
0
David W.D. Haynes: I couldn't agree more with your statement
"the government needs to stop throwing out money everytime there is a claim/situation. But they do it for two reasons: 1) protect their jobs by buying votes from the people that didn't take care of their own property; 2) it's not their money they are spending, it is ours and as a country, we keep electing these people."
I agree there are much better options than writing through the NFIP I would strongly support eliminating the NFIP all together. This program serves no purpose other than to create unnecessary jobs within the federal government. Private insurance companies have no problem writing this coverage on an actuarially sound basis but they are not going to compete with a government that overcharges some people yet pratically gives coverage to others.
Reply
. OCTOBER 28, 2013 AT 12:22 PM
John H says:
LIKE OR DISLIKE:
0
0
I had a certificate of elevation done, I am -10 at a 16â?” base level. My insurance quote as of this week, went to $15.957.00 annually, for a $125,000.00 structure and $10,000.00 on contents, with a $2,000.00 deductable on both.
Reply
. OCTOBER 28, 2013 AT 2:31 PM
ljf says:
LIKE OR DISLIKE:
2
0
Let me guess.Maxine Waters didn't think health insurance premiums would rise as a result of the requirement to insure for 'essential health benefits' coverage under the ACA?
Reply
. OCTOBER 28, 2013 AT 4:12 PM
Celtica says:
LIKE OR DISLIKE:
1
0
IJF: How clever of you to tie government flood insurance to government ACA insurance. Yet one is supported by the GOP and one is not. Makes me wonder if Florida is still a swing state.
Reply
Bunch of articles here and valid comments! How about if you were told to rebuild after Katrina and now face this?
In flood insurance rate fight, banding with other states could help: Editorial
isaac madisonville.jpg
Aerial view of flooding in Madisonville in the aftermath of Hurricane Isaac on Aug. 30, 2012. (NOLA.com | The Times-Picayune archive)
The Editorial Board, NOLA.com | The Times-Picayune By The Editorial Board, NOLA.com | The Times-Picayune
Follow on Twitter
on October 25, 2013 at 7:40 AM, updated October 25, 2013 at 7:41 AM
Frustrated by a lack of action in Congress, Louisiana lawmakers are looking to build a coalition with other states to push for a reprieve from excessive flood insurance premium increases. They should find plenty of kindred spirits. The drastic changes in the Biggert-Waters Flood Insurance Reform Act will be felt in hundreds of communities along our nation's coast and inland waterways.
At a hearing Wednesday in Baton Rouge, lawmakers got a briefing on the ramifications of the act and searched for ways to get more support in Congress for delaying the increases.
With 480,000 households participating in the flood insurance program, Louisiana ranks behind only Texas and Florida. Not all of those policyholders will see their rates spike, but some are facing 1,000 percent or even 3,000 percent increases.
This is not only a Gulf Coast issue, though. The ramifications of Biggert-Waters are already being felt in New York and New Jersey, where residents are recovering from Hurricane Sandy's deadly storm surge. And in Massachusetts, the Boston Globe reported last week that in coastal zones deemed by FEMA to be at high risk, premiums are going to skyrocket. One 27-unit condominium complex will see its annual premiums jump from $4,300 to $45,000 in the next year and then rise to an estimated $600,000 in subsequent years, the Globe reported. The condo association has never made a flood insurance claim.
"The premium is not reflective of the risk," a condo owner told the Globe. "Because we had weathered so many storms, we thought there must be an error."
South Louisianians understand that feeling all too well.
In some cases new FEMA flood maps didn't credit local or private levees and pumps that reduce flooding. That is a problem in St. Charles Parish and parts of Jefferson Parish, for example. Biggert-Waters also did away with the grandfather clause that used to protect property owners from rate hikes that are driven by changes in rules or new maps.
The loss of the grandfather clause could be devastating to tens of thousands of people in Louisiana and Mississippi who rebuilt, with FEMA's OK, after Hurricanes Katrina and Rita in 2005. It's simply not fair to dramatically change the rules after the fact.
There is a sizable contingent in Congress who recognizes that and sees the potential economic damage to families and communities. But legislation to delay Biggert-Waters has yet to gain traction, despite the efforts of Louisiana's delegation and others.
Don Cravins, who is U.S. Sen. Mary Landrieu's chief of staff, suggested at Wednesday's hearing that lawmakers and parish presidents should contact their counterparts in other states. That is a smart idea -- for legislators and Gov. Jindal's administration. Some members of Congress don't understand how many people will be affected and what the insurance hikes will do to home values.
"We have to tell people that this isn't some beachfront vacation destination. This is a working coast in Louisiana," Mr. Cravins said. And to keep the coast working, people have to be able to afford to live here and be able to buy or sell a home.
In St. Charles Parish, assessors are marking home values down 18 to 30 percent, officials said. Representatives from St. Bernard Parish told lawmakers that new home building has come to a halt because of fears about higher premiums.
Some residents across coastal Louisiana are seeing their premiums rise from a few hundred dollars to more than $10,000 this year. The situation is only going to get worse, as rates are ratcheted up for more property owners over the next four years.
Garrett Graves, director of the Coastal Protection and Restoration Authority of Louisiana, put things in perspective: "If you can't sell your house, you lose everything."
When Congress passed Biggert-Waters in 2012, no thought was given to whether residents would be able to afford the higher premiums. The talk was all about making the flood insurance program self-sustaining.
But putting an unbearable financial burden on coastal residents is not the way to do that. All of us -- from here to Maine -- need to band together to get that message across to Congress.
© 2013 NOLA.com. All rights reserved.
KC King4 days ago
Every one is subsidized to some degree or other - farmers, wealthy tax payers, students, etc. The real ethical outrage is that residents are not given a realistic or usable assessment of the risk and uncertainty they face.
If there is a Professional Engineer anywhere in the loop for flood risk assessment, he or she is ethically bound to portray risk realistically. What the do is certify that a property meets a elevation standard that is primarily there to promote growth and conformity rather than safet. Just look at the proposed Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance and it's position against safe elevation.
In the end, each resident must make their own safety ashes bent. At president there are no ethically motivated Professional Engineers, let alone parish safety inspectors to assist them.
LikeReplyShare
Pot-o-Gold4 days ago
I live in a flood zone and my home has never flooded. My subdivision as well as surrounding subdivisions have never flooded. But due to mapping changes, my insurance is expected to go up drastically. I don't feel that the astronomical increase is an accurate reflection of any increase in risk. I didn't do anything wrong. Ignorant commenters seem to think I deserve to be punished with unaffordable premiums, and I 'should have known better'. I don't expect a free ride and am willing to pay more if that's what needs to be done to keep the program running. I have a problem with paying thousands upon thousands more every year. P.S. Does anyone honestly think a program run by the federal government operates in an efficient and cost effective manner? I didn't think so.
LikeReplyShare
CrowBomb4 days ago
"In flood insurance rate fight, banding with other states could help," the headline reads. I say, replace the word "could" with "will."
Why is this not a no-brainer? At the risk of being redundant, all over again, flooding is not just a Gulf Coastal issue. It's not just a coastal issue. Earlier this year we saw portions of 11 upper mid-western states flooded by the Missouri River. Heck, when one of the authors of the Biggert-Waters Act, Maxine Waters, agrees that the law, as written, does not serve her intent, then it's time to scrap it!
LikeReplyShare
dickey34 days ago
"to live here and be able to buy or sell a home."
To propose that for people to be able to work along the coast they must have the assurance of low cost "socialized" flood insurance and that those rates have the added benefit of "grandfathered" premiums to assure future sale of the property at no risk to present or future homeowner is ridiculous. That the current resident knew the risk is undeniable, but to suggest continued low premiums at guaranteed expense to others who have no dog in this hunt is to suggest continued irresponsibility in making a decision which should not include a government bailout if bad weather hits, while living in a hurricane alley. That the same pols who oppose health insurance while citing future costs could shamelessly support these unknown future costs would be comedic we're it not for the cost in human lives. For so called "conservative" voter to support it is just part of the same joke.
LikeReplyShare
blackops4 days ago
If one lives in a hole and floods one ought to pay for flood insurance unsubsidized. Or pay one's mortgage off and don't get flood insurance.
LikeReplyShare
CrowBomb4 days ago
Your analogy is an awful one, Dickey, for way too many reason to list here.
LikeReplyShare
dinosore84 days ago
For those who love Obamacare, they should just love the idea of every piece of realestate having a mandate to carry flood insurance. Since we have not yet developed the Startrek shuttle craft, the vast majority of good are shipped from one place to another. Including the hundreds of billions of dollars of "stuff" we purchase from overseas. Well someone has to unload it and it has to be transported to other locations. Therefore everyone should have to pay to make it affordable. Even the guy living on top of Stone Mountain.
LikeReplyShare
holla_at_ya_boi4 days ago
Since we are being forced to subsidize the fat, jobless slobs with diabetes, we should be subsidized as well. So yes, your comment is actually on point.
LikeReplyShare
dickey34 days ago
It's always amusing to watch he transformation of the " I did it myself conservative" to the " I want mine" liberal in 30 words or less.
LikeReplyShare
holla_at_ya_boi4 days ago
If we're going to socialize healthcare, shouldn't we at least be consistent?
RICHARD LOWE
5108 RIVERVIEW DR
INDIANAPOLIS, IN 46208
317-446-4753 Cell
richard@casaflamboyan.com
Good news, someone else against the CORE's plan!
Now we need to get them all on track for RR! What happened to the comment that RR was never really considered an option that the CORE made in our last meeting?
With the FEMA insurance fiasco, now this the window is open for us to act with more at stake!
Seems to me the CORE's cost figures of $50 million are over the top! I would think $16 - $25 million would go along way towards fixing Rocky Ripple. We already have a levy! 80% of the work is done.
I think we need outsource he CORE! We should get our own contractor quotes. Dave Bond has a contact that does that kind of work. Do we know of any others? This would be a proactive move of our own. Make our own counter proposal! Who can contact Dave Bond? Who knows of any other contractors they might love some work! What's happening with the city's survey?
The Warfleigh project cost approx $19 million for 7600 feet and was done by Bowen Engineering. There was an Architect at the last meeting who lives in Warfleigh who has some good ideas, too. Who is he? Can we get him on board to help?
I'm not at all impressed with their latest project north of Rivi. All I saw was compacted soil. Am I missing something? Does anyone know the price tag on it? If we get high water from the latest storm it would be good to take some pictures to see how it performs. To use on presentations if they show anything.
Any other ideas? The WPA did a great job in 1937
On Oct 31, 2013, at 10:39 PM, Angela Herrmann wrote:
--ah
Why can't we explore a Rocky Ripple alignment that includes Butler field
(now parking lot!)? That would make the cost/benefit analysis more
justifiable. We've mentioned this before, perhaps time to revisit.
--ah
angela herrmann
Looks like there should be a solution here for the toe of the bank.
Any thoughts? I think this is where we need to start. Please forward to anyone else whom you may have contact information on.
http://www.basincommission.com/TLG/streambank/KSSWCD Inventory Report Final.pdf
Good Morning what a great sunny day on the river!
I had an epiphany this morning I want to share. Can flooding of the White River be controlled upstream by creating other dams and lakes? Indiana needs more lakes as they are a real attraction for people. Look how popular each one is!
Has this option been explored? Can anyone shed any light on this?
Here is the link for a website where we can all share ideas and comments - http://www.civicartworks.com/petitions/create-our-own-flood-protection-design
Happy Thanksgiving!
Had the opportunity to meet with Bill for several hours this morning, an excellent meeting! He is the holy grail!
Environmental mediator hired by Citizens water utility as a tech advisor to mediate with the Corps, City, Citizens Gas, Butler, DPW, RR, etc. He has been working with Bart Harriman, Zach, and Robert here. He said Bart is focused on the flood wall and Zach on FEMA. Very nice fellow 68 years old.
He said Oakley is not longer in the picture, that Ballard has hired Mike Massonne as a contractor for the DPW. He has no idea what the city's plans are for what they are doing and with the survey work PSC Engineering is currently doing.
He said FEMA’s requirements rule and they need to meet the 100 year flood level plus 2.1 feet. The 1913 flood was considered the 100 year level for here on the White River. Which is derived from the height over the Broad Ripple dam gauge station being at 12 ft..
He is in favor of the West canal path being made the levee. Canal Blvd is already at the correct height and an “I" wall could be put in on the west side of the path to make it secure and some tress would have to be removed. Overall it would not appear as if we were walled in and it would keep the water in the river on the north end and not fill us up like a water bowl as the east side of the canal would.
He is supposed to send me a link to the DNR 100 year flood level map and the Corps 1990 cost proposal which he showed me. I described to him what I would like to see - “I” wall where my deck ends with back fill to the house and paving brick on top. He said that sounds reasonable and a good plan. He was not aware of the levee history I had obtained from Wayne about how the houses were moved forward and made to be part of the levee structure. FEMA only considers our current height to be 20-25 year rating.
The issue I still am in conflict with is the 100 year flood level established by FEMA and some algorithm that covers the entire country. There is not one number above sea level that describes our entire waterfront. He said the river is 3-4 feet lower from the north end of town to the south end.
I asked him what he thought about us making a proposal to the city of what we wanted done. He said, "I was right on! That we need to get some conversation going with the city upon which we can agree.” There have been compromises made north of the dam in BR where the condos are, so why can’t we work out compromises.
Would it be possible for all of us to meet one evening next week to share our combined knowledge to determine how we can work together for the welfare of RR. I so appreciate the work that the board, Bart, and Zach are doing. We also need the input of concerned responsible citizens as well. Please give me times and dates that work. We could meet at my house or the town hall. Any week evening will work for me.
Yes I have talked about and asked for information regarding the idea of a lake, in fact there is already a plan for this around the Daleville area. This could help us, but it has run into a pretty big snag. Ravenswood's Susie (active in that community forever there) has been screaming for that (a reservoir) for a number of years, but the Corps and the city aren't into it.
Maybe we can get them into it, I don't know.
Carla
Thanks for the morning observation / river report- nice.
My information's several years old, but an upstream reservoir idea has been discussed for if memory serves, somewhere in Hamilton County. In addition to future water supply concerns, an upstream reservoir might create a wetland treatment opportunity to remove nitrates, etc. The downside is the very square one problem we face in Rocky Ripple; one of condemnation to acquire / set aside land for a proposed reservoir. Unfortunately, it sets up an "us vs. them" condemnation squabble- politicians & cronied-up developers (read also campaign contributors) like & profit from those divide & conquer squabbles (other than that, they're really nice people... not).
I received a call from a friend who's a corp officer with FC Tucker; a company which as he explained, is very concerned about this FEMA BS. When I told him about you & your efforts, he suggested that Tucker the real estate lobby would want to know more about a coherent strategy to counter property rights abuses posed as flood "policy." I'll have more update for you when we meet along the lines of coalition assistance.
Good Sunday & thanks again for the river report- Dave
While most states are removing dams, the City of Anderson is considering the creation of a reservoir. I for one would do not have faith in another community regulating the flow of water downstream. We need significant flood protection in Rocky Ripple. which I define as 100 year, FEMA certified protection. That gets us out of Biggert Waters and protects us against the 100 year flood which happened 100 years ago. My wife will be in Germany this week, so I have kid duty and cannot meet this week. Thats said, I appreciate your thoughts, Dick. In my opinion, we have a very short window of opportunity to get assistance with flood protection, so it's a good idea to share ideas, whether at RR board meetings or elsewhere.
Link to flood risk management magazines -
http://cdm16021.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/landingpage/collection/p16021coll8
Show support
Add your name to a growing list of supporters that will show decision-makers that this campaign should become a reality.
Create our own flood protection design.
Indianapolis, IN
Description:
Increase flood protection and reduce flood insurance costs for over 300 homes.
Do you know of any who can add knowledge and present good ideas for this endeavor? Please enlist they help! We welcome them!
FEMA correspondance. Read the comments from people.
-------------------------------------------------- From: "richard"
Sent: Tuesday, October 29, 2013 2:11 PM
To: "Daniel Axler" ; "angie HERMAN" ; "Aurise Randall" ; "Judith M" ; "Kate Bullis" ; "Brad Barcom" ; "Becky & Marilynn Stoops & Hunter" ; "Dick Brooke" ; "Fred Bok" ; "Joseph Britton" ; "Carla Gaff Clark" ; "Dhyana Raynor" ; "Indiana Democratic Party Chair Dan Parker" ; "Rebuild the Dream Van Jones" ; "Harriet L Lowe" ; "Heather Handley" ; "Bart Herriman" ; "Cathy Hurt" ; "SUE HYATT" ; ; "Obama for America" ; "Jeff Lowe" ; "Jeni Pacala" ; "Jennifer Lowe" ; "Jim Poyser" ; "KENNETH KAVANAGH" ; "Bruce Oakley" ; "Robert Tomey" ; "Pat Delaney" ; "Steve lehrer"
Subject: FLOOD INSURANCE - FEMA - New policies!
Just had a lengthy conversation with my insurance agent and the way it stands now every home that is not grandfathered in, had in force flood insurance prior to Nov 2012, will have to get an elevation certificate, provided by a licensed surveyor at a cost of about $600, before being able to renew their flood insurance policy or selling their property to a new owner. This creates another predicament he gave me on a house in Whitestown on the river selling for $500,000 on 6 foot stilts. Current owner paying $1200/yr never been flooded in 20 years. New owner can only get the max of $250,000 flood insurance for $3500/yr and who pays the $600. The seller and the buyer walks or the buyer?
Flood insurance coverage should be a mandatory inclusion on every property insurance policy! Nobody know where it will flood next. Property in mapped flood zones has not flooded in 100's of years, yet Colorado flooded this year. This ruling will make Detroits out of every flood zone in the US. We all need to contact our state representatives for the state to join the lawsuit against the Federal Government and all our Congressional members to make insurance what insurance is just like for autos, and healthcare. Spread the risk!
Read the following articles and especially the comments:
View this article online: http://www.insurancejournal.com/news/national/2013/10/24/309110.htm
Flood Insurance Price Increases Affecting Home Sales
Rangel Dockery and her husband bought a waterfront house in Florida four months ago, assuming their $2,000-a-year flood-insurance premium would remain about the same. After reading recently about a change in the federal flood program, they checked on next year's rates and were stunned: Their bill will grow to $14,000 annually.
Now the elementary school teacher and her husband, Clint, an information technology specialist, are considering selling their two-bedroom St. Pete Beach home, probably at a loss, because she said they can't afford the bill, and their mortgage requires flood coverage.
"It was very frustrating to finally have what we've worked hard for all of our life," Rangel Dockery, 52, said. "I feel like the rules were changed in the middle of the game. And unfortunately, we can't play by the new rules."
Monthly premiums for more than 1 million homeowners are set to increase due to a rewrite by the U.S. Congress last year of the federal flood insurance program. As a result, home prices in flood zones around the country are declining as potential buyers balk at the premiums, said Moe Veissi, a Miami real estate agent who led the Chicago-based National Association of Realtors last year.
Federal flood insurance covers $1.3 trillion of property in all 50 states, with Florida, Texas, Louisiana, California and New Jersey making up two-thirds of all policies, according to Federal Emergency Management Agency, which runs the program.
Seeking Repeal
About 85 private insurance companies contract with FEMA to administer the flood program, including Northbrook, Illinois- based Allstate Corp. and Columbus, Ohio-based Nationwide Mutual Insurance Co.
Consumer groups, governors and mortgage bankers are calling on Congress to reverse the law, which was designed to reduce the National Flood Insurance Program's growing debt. The measure, called the Biggert-Waters Flood Insurance Reform Act of 2012, phases in rate increases for the 20 percent of policyholders who have been receiving federal subsidies on premiums.
Some of those subsidies began disappearing or shrinking on Oct. 1, 15 months after the law passed with bipartisan support.
States are searching for ways to reduce homeowners' bills. In Florida, home to 37 percent of the nation's 5.6 million flood policies, state lawmakers are trying to attract private companies to write flood policies and are considering starting a state-based flood insurance pool.
'Appropriate' Measure
Mississippi sued the federal government to stop the rate increases, saying the U.S. failed to study the economic impact. Louisiana is preparing to sue. Massachusetts Attorney General Martha Coakley proposed legislation this month to cap the amount of insurance lenders can require.
Bills pending in the U.S. House and Senate to delay rate increases have bipartisan support, mostly from lawmakers in coastal states.
Research groups that advocate market-based policies, such as Heritage Action for America and the R Street Institute, have urged members of Congress to leave the measure in place.
The law is an an "appropriate" way to restore financial viability to the program, and it makes sense to ask those with the greatest risk to pay more, said R.J. Lehmann, senior fellow for the Washington-based R Street Institute, in a statement. Lehmann helped write the law sponsored by Representatives Maxine Waters, a California Democrat, and Judy Biggert, an Illinois Republican, who lost the November election.
Reaping 'Heartache'
Waters, who said she never expected the bill she sponsored to cause large rate increases, is now working to delay its implementation.
"When I agreed to coauthor this legislation, our goal was to create a bipartisan solution to repair our National Flood Insurance Program," Waters said in a Sept. 30 statement. "Neither Democrats nor Republicans envisioned it would reap the kind of harm and heartache that may result from this law going into effect."
Louisiana property assessments on homes in flood zones have already dropped by as much as 30 percent because of the new flood rules, said Michael Hecht, president of Greater New Orleans, Inc., an economic development organization. Hecht's group has been using such stories to warn lawmakers to change the law.
"Owners will lose everything, values of unsellable properties will plummet, bank mortgages will go into default, local tax bases will erode, and economies will be eviscerated," according to material distributed by Greater New Orleans.
Rejecting Contracts
Homebuyers are walking away from contracts when they see the insurance costs, said Ross Miller, who owns a mortgage brokerage in Metairie. In parts of Plaquemines Parish, a coastal community on the Gulf of Mexico, neighborhoods will have insurance premiums of $10,000 to $25,000 a year, Miller said.
"What do they think people are going to do?" he said.
Rangel Dockery said she and her husband moved from a 2,200- square-foot home inland to a property half its size in June, drawn to the barrier island on Florida's west coast.
Their son had moved out of the old house for college and they expect to retire in the next five to 10 years, she said.
"We absolutely love it, and it would be very difficult to have to sell," she said. "It's the lifestyle we were looking forward to."
Rapid Increase
Dockery said they never would have bought the $400,000 home if they knew insurance rates would increase so rapidly. The property is assessed by Pinellas County, which includes St. Pete Beach, at about $521,600.
Some house hunters in the area have already begun blacklisting neighborhoods where rates are rising, said Wendy Lockhart, a St. Petersburg, Florida, real estate agent. Lockhart is struggling to sell her own home after quotes for the insurance premium went from about $1,000 to $8,105.
"We were getting five or six showings a week," she said. "Then when all this started hitting the front pages about three weeks ago, we've had no showings."
Realtors in the St. Petersburg area, which has more than 50,000 subsidized policies, have taken up a marketing pitch for homes that don't lie in flood zones: "No flood insurance required!"
Karen Hoyt, a physical therapist who is preparing to move from Colorado to St. Pete Beach, said the insurance rates she's seen have discouraged her from buying.
"We're going to rent for a year and see what happens," Hoyt said.
No Subsidy
Under the law, those who bought homes after July 2012 became ineligible for subsidies after Oct. 1.
The flood insurance program amassed more than $20 billion in debt after Hurricane Katrina slammed into New Orleans in 2005 and it borrowed more after superstorm Sandy hit the East Coast in 2012.
Under the law, owners of vacation homes began to lose federal subsidies in January, with annual rate increases of 25 percent until reaching full price. Beginning Oct. 1, subsidies for businesses and primary homes began being phased out. Those who buy homes in flood zones or sign up for new policies won't be eligible for subsidies.
Subsidies have kept rates as low as 10 percent of the actual cost. FEMA is reassessing its risk calculations, drawing flood maps that will bring higher rates to some areas.
If the Florida legislature finds ways to give homeowners more options for flood insurance, that may pressure lawmakers in Washington to reduce rates, said Florida State Senator David Simmons, the Republican chairman of the Banking and Insurance committee. Florida policyholders have paid $16 billion into the federal program over the last 35 years, while taking out about $4.5 billion in claims, he said.
"We're the ones who are subsidizing the entire National Flood Insurance Program," Simmons said.
-Editors: Justin Blum, Dan Kraut
. Two Cents says:
LIKE OR DISLIKE:
8
0
I think that the price increases are capped at 25% per year, but even so a $3,000 price increase per yet until they get to the $14,000 rates is still a bitter pill to swallow.
I've been seeing a lot of private flood insurance offerings out there. The feedback I've heard thus far is some of these carrier have premiums lower than NFIP as base elevation certificates may not be part of the underwriting process. Some of these programs is copying the NFIP forms to make it an easier approval with lenders.
As insurane professionals, we could be seen as heros if we take a proactive approach and shop the marketplace for alternative private flood insurance.
Just my two cents.
Reply
. OCTOBER 24, 2013 AT 1:43 PM
Jeff says:
LIKE OR DISLIKE:
4
2
Unfortunately one the the new realities of a changing FEMA WYO flood program. This is where FEMA believes it can pass on the increased risk expense to the property owners.
The property owners understand the economics and are looking to sell to avoid calamity. Very sorry to see these hard working people forced into abandoning their dream.
Reply
. OCTOBER 24, 2013 AT 1:44 PM
UW says:
HOT DEBATE. WHAT DO YOU THINK?
12
13
First, I suggest that we require flood coverage on every home, renters and business insurance policy sold in the USA, not just ones in flood prone areas. Let's spread out the risk like we do for fire or other natural perils. Premiums would increase, yes, but every homeowner has some level of flood risk.
Story from my past: 15 years ago the agency I was at sent out letters encouraging all homeowners to consider flood insurance. Almost no one bought it. That winter we had heavy rains while the ground was frozen and lots of homeowners tried to call in claims, all of which were denied since it was ground/surface water. I live on a hill and had the same thing happen last year to me: heavy rains during the spring thaw flooded my basement. Did not bother calling my carrier, just got out the shop vac.
On to this situation: let's say the house is worth $300,000, probably low for beach property in Florida. $2,000 a year for flood coverage sounds artificially low when you consider that there's probably going to be a flood event every decade. At $2,000 per year you would have to have 150 years between events just to break even to cover a limits claim.
Reply
. OCTOBER 24, 2013 AT 1:56 PM
Becky says:
LIKE OR DISLIKE:
9
1
The problem is when consumers think 'flood insurance' they picture events they see in the media, like a rushing river, hurricane surge, tsunamis, etc. What they don't realize is that (like you said) hard rain can flood a basement with a couple inches of water and cause hundreds or thousands in damage. That's not sensational enough to end up in the news, so people don't think about it.
Reply
. OCTOBER 24, 2013 AT 1:57 PM
KentU says:
WELL-LOVED. LIKE OR DISLIKE:
21
9
Requiring anyone to have flood insurance that isn't in or near a flood zone is just plain wrong - period - no debate should be necessary. Two primary reasons the flood program is having funding problems is (1) it never should have been a subsidized program in the first place and (2) over development (putting concrete over bare earth) has caused runoff flooding. I have a substanial number of my customers that have been rezoned to an AE even though their property has never come even close to being flooded. The rezoning program currently underway is unfair and is being done simply to bring in funding.
Reply
. OCTOBER 24, 2013 AT 2:20 PM
Jay says:
LIKE OR DISLIKE:
12
4
KentU-Everyone is in a flood zone. Some high hazard some low hazard.
Would not have thought that those homeowners in Colorado would have wished their agents sold them flood insurance.
Reply
. OCTOBER 24, 2013 AT 6:28 PM
KentU says:
LIKE OR DISLIKE:
6
7
By the very definition of a 'flood zone' by the NFIP - NO not everyone is in a flood zone. The Colorado situation was a runoff problem and I would guess they were in either flood zones B, C or X - but, not an A. Unless, you are referring to the Great Flood in the Bible or earth crust displacement then, everyone is not in a flood zone.
Reply
. OCTOBER 24, 2013 AT 6:58 PM
Take another looksays:
LIKE OR DISLIKE:
8
0
Your comment about zones B, C or X puts them in a flood zone. Given that, everyone IS in a flood zone, just depends upon which one.
. OCTOBER 24, 2013 AT 3:18 PM
Becky says:
LIKE OR DISLIKE:
7
0
KentU, you're absolutely correct about over development causing a lot of the runoff flooding that leads to flash floods in areas that aren't anywhere near a body of water.
Reply
. OCTOBER 24, 2013 AT 4:18 PM
susan says:
LIKE OR DISLIKE:
7
0
When it rains for days and days and days, it doesn't matter if you're in an A or X zone. If you're low lying, you will flood. Most of the areas that flood in my city are not homes out on the key or near the beach, they are inland, in town, "regular" streets. People are uneducated about flood insurance and why they should have it.
Reply
. OCTOBER 24, 2013 AT 8:23 PM
Jason J. Marchi says:
LIKE OR DISLIKE:
1
4
The ONLY proper solution is that EVERYONE has to pay for flood insurance who owns real estate, mortgage or no mortgage, just like property tax on real estate is now paid to municipalities in many states on ALL real estate in those states; just like the tax EVERYONE pays on gasoline who buys gasoline, etc. The risk MUST be spread out. The flood insurance price per year would be on a sliding scale based on risk level, combined with a sliding scale based on fair market value of each property, and a third sliding scale based on mortgage (more expensive) verses no mortgage (less expensive). Start with a simple percentage; say .001 (1/100th of a percent) for a $400,000 house in a low risk area, or $400 a year, and a $3,000,000 home in that same location would pay $3,000 a year. THEN a risk factor percentage would be applied to those same houses if they are in a high risk area. So the low risk $400,000 house pays the $400 a year and that same house in a high risk area pays an additional .005, or an additional $2,000 a year for a total of $2,400 a year. A $3,000,000 home cost $18,000 a year in flood insurance in a high risk area. The way the law is written now the mandatory (mortgaged house) flood insurance on a $100,000 house in a high risk area will cost the home owner a min. of $4,500 a year and grow to $11,000 a year in five years for the life of the mortgage! That's just unaffordable, unsustainable, and unacceptable. The economic disaster to lost property tax revenue from abandoned homes will bankrupt many cities and towns along waterways, and will cost ALL of us when the federal government has to bail out those municipalities from those lost property tax revenues. YOU WILL pay for it now, or later.
Reply
. OCTOBER 26, 2013 AT 7:16 PM
henry says:
LIKE OR DISLIKE:
1
0
you think it is wrong, so what happens if they dont carry it, the house floods and the people walk away, and the banks or taxpayers are left footing another bill, if you live in a flood zone i think it should be required i worked with a gentleman who counted on having his house flood every few years, actually looked forward to it, he would get the money, fix it up and pocket the rest, all on the taxpayers
Reply
. OCTOBER 24, 2013 AT 1:46 PM
JAM says:
HOT DEBATE. WHAT DO YOU THINK?
13
7
Once again another genius Congress member proposed and passed a bill that she had no idea about what it contained and the ramifications. Sounds like Obama care when it was passed when another Congressional member made the statement that "we should pass it then we will know what it means"??
Until the mapping is complete and the exposures are understood with the consequences being determined, we are once again with the Wagon ahead of the Horse!
It is amazing that we are still in one piece with such morons in DC governing our lives!!
Reply
. OCTOBER 24, 2013 AT 1:46 PM
Spooky says:
LIKE OR DISLIKE:
1
6
As a property owner in Tampa, Fl. with Flood insurance, the chance of selling my home is zero. My current flood premium is approximately $1200.00 per year, the new buyer would pay $7000.00. But there is once ace up all of our sleeeves left and that is to let the banks take back all the homes. It is difficult to think that most of us have been diligent in making our payments for our homes but when it gets to be $10,000.00 per year for homeowners and flood insurance, enough is enough.
Reply
. OCTOBER 24, 2013 AT 1:51 PM
Spooky says:
LIKE OR DISLIKE:
1
8
So let's see, I pay $1200.00 for flood insurance right now and if I could sell my house the flood premium would go to $7,000.00. Don't think there is much of a demand for my little home. I do not live on the beach, I do not see the water, I just live in a 1950 home that was built before there was even a flood program. I believe the only option that I have is to eventually let the bank have the home back.
Reply
. OCTOBER 24, 2013 AT 1:56 PM
Bryan says:
WELL-LOVED. LIKE OR DISLIKE:
15
0
I am sorry these, and other people, are going to be charged closer to the full-risk rates for their policies. But, then again, I don't want to pay their claims, which is what ultimately happens when coast dwellers are underinsured.
The program is not changing, it is just moving toward charging what it should for the risk involved. Waters may have been clueless as to the results of her bill, but the bill is not wrong. In fact, it's still not enough. It won't fix the problem. I think the wagon is still very far behind the horse.
Requiring everyone to pay for flood insurance is a good idea, but it won't fix these people's problem either. They will still have a much higher premium than they currently have.
Reply
. OCTOBER 24, 2013 AT 2:08 PM
T says:
WELL-LOVED. LIKE OR DISLIKE:
10
0
City and State planners should not allow building homes in flood prone areas to begin with.
Reply
. OCTOBER 24, 2013 AT 3:54 PM
jack says:
LIKE OR DISLIKE:
1
4
When did city planners become God and be able to forcast floods?
Reply
. OCTOBER 24, 2013 AT 2:19 PM
Darla says:
LIKE OR DISLIKE:
4
6
Well, we can fix the problem, like the ACA is allegedly doing by making the whole country sign up for flood insurance by pooling the risk and the premiums will plummet. Flood zone property owners will help support flood zone property owners much like the same idea with ACA, healthy people will help support the sick. Or better yet, make flood insurance part of the basic homeowners policy and increase the rate accordingly so all are covered and paying into the system. There are properties that are not in flood zones that can have flood damage. It is called ground surface water and that can happen on hills too! The sewer overfills with torrential rain, backs up the drainage in the street and here comes the flood.
Some food for thought
Reply
. OCTOBER 24, 2013 AT 2:20 PM
Darla says:
LIKE OR DISLIKE:
1
1
Correction: Non-flood zone property owners.
Reply
. OCTOBER 24, 2013 AT 4:00 PM
jack says:
LIKE OR DISLIKE:
6
6
Yeah, lets make everybody pay so it's fair. What a flippin joke!
I just exchanged an email with a current home and flood client about the FEMA changes. He's an executive with one of the largest health ins companies in the US. He said the health ins is NOW in worse shape than FEMA. 2 major points that he made was 1. there will be a shortage of doctors and 2. the system will be bankrupt and your children will pay for it. Thanks Obumacareless!!
Reply
. OCTOBER 24, 2013 AT 2:26 PM
Again says:
WELL-LOVED. LIKE OR DISLIKE:
10
0
It's been many years ago, but I saw on the national news an elderly couple who had been flooded out of their Mississippi home. The visuals were tear jerking, but I found the interview shocking. The elderly gentleman said they are flooded out about every 5 years and the American people have always been there to help them pick up the pieces and rebuild.
To me, this said a lot about both American generosity, and the willingness of some to take it over and over again.
Reply
. OCTOBER 24, 2013 AT 2:27 PM
Enough of Forcing everyone to pick up the tab says:
LIKE OR DISLIKE:
5
2
There is a lot of socialist talk about forcing everyone to participate in the Flood Program much like our new Health Insurance laws. Is this fair? Do I not have the right to the risk? If I want to finance the risk through insurance, then I can. If I choose not to, why should the government force me?
Reply
. OCTOBER 24, 2013 AT 4:41 PM
Unjustified Flood Rates says:
LIKE OR DISLIKE:
2
5
There is nothing Socialist about making people pay for actual risk. All areas are flood zones. it's just to what extent. This is nothing like the Health Insurance Laws which are Socialist.
Reply
. OCTOBER 24, 2013 AT 2:29 PM
jw says:
LIKE OR DISLIKE:
0
0
It's been a while since I read about the NFIP, so my memory may be wrong. I thought the community had to do mitigation or something like that to be eligible to participate. I vaguely remember a few communities here not willing to do the mitigagtion, and therefore, not being allowed to participate. Is that incorrect?
Reply
. OCTOBER 24, 2013 AT 2:54 PM
Ken says:
LIKE OR DISLIKE:
3
0
I have handled flood claims. The policy has a lot of limitations and exclusions in it. A simple flooding of a basement in itself is not considered a flood claim based on the definition of what is a flood. What is covered in a basement is very limited (and the definition of a basement might surprise you.
How is forcing everyone to have flood insurance whether they need it or not any different than just taxing everyone to cover the cost? Is it better to force the value of every property in the country down than to limit it to the people who assumed the risk when they bought flood prone property?
Reply
. OCTOBER 24, 2013 AT 3:34 PM
Becky says:
LIKE OR DISLIKE:
0
0
Help me out with this real-life example, Ken (and pardon my ignorance). If a property owner has two feet of water in his basement from a flash flood (runoff from neighboring fields and subdivisions during two days of extremely heavy rain), would that be covered by a flood policy? In this example, the person did not have flood insurance.
Reply
. OCTOBER 25, 2013 AT 10:49 AM
LH says:
LIKE OR DISLIKE:
2
0
Becky, for any condition to be concidered a flood there would have to be what in the policy is concidered a "General Condition of Flooding" which means that the waters would have to cover two or more properties or two or more acres of "normally dry land". Two or more properties could yours and the neighbors house or your house and the street. If that would be the case and it meets a "General condition of Flooding" then the basement loss would be covered but coverage would be limited.
Reply
. OCTOBER 25, 2013 AT 11:00 AM
LH says:
LIKE OR DISLIKE:
4
0
Becky, i can help you with that question. In the flood policy you have to meet the definition of flood which is:
Flood, as used in this flood insurance policy, means:
1. A general and temporary condition of partial or
complete inundation of two or more acres of normally
dry land area or of two or more properties (at least one of which is your property) from:
a. Overflow of inland or tidal waters;
b. Unusual and rapid accumulation or runoff of
surface waters from any source;
What it means by two or more properties could mean yours and a neighbors property or your property and the street.
If it met the discription of Flood, then the basement would have coverage, however, as Ken stated it would be very limited.
Reply
. OCTOBER 25, 2013 AT 12:30 PM
Becky says:
LIKE OR DISLIKE:
1
1
Thank you, that was helpful!
Reply
. OCTOBER 24, 2013 AT 4:18 PM
Unjustified Flood Rates says:
LIKE OR DISLIKE:
2
1
How is forcing everyone to have flood insurance whether they need it or not
Interesting statement. Colorado 2013, Nashville 2011, Thousands of homeowners located in non-flood zones of NJ & NY during Super Storm Sandy. 40% of all flooding happens in NON-Special Flood Hazard Areas. The NFIP would not be operating at a deficit if all people that have a Federally backed mortgages were required to carry flood insurance and it wouldn't lower the property values down because the average price for homes in non special flood hazard areas is about $200 a year
Reply
. OCTOBER 24, 2013 AT 5:36 PM
Kathy says:
LIKE OR DISLIKE:
1
0
Perhaps creating jobs in the insurance industry.
Reply
. OCTOBER 24, 2013 AT 2:59 PM
JC says:
LIKE OR DISLIKE:
6
0
Explain to me again why tax payers should continue to subsidze everyone's flood insurance!
Reply
. OCTOBER 24, 2013 AT 4:53 PM
jack says:
LIKE OR DISLIKE:
1
7
You subsidize their food,housing and abortions so why not flood?
Reply
. OCTOBER 25, 2013 AT 4:37 PM
trish says:
LIKE OR DISLIKE:
1
0
don't forget all the churches we're subsidizing
I find it hard to believe this is the first you all heard of this. There is a premium to living on the ocean. There just needs to be a better way to pay for it - add it to your mortgage.
Reply
. OCTOBER 24, 2013 AT 2:59 PM
A Forst says:
LIKE OR DISLIKE:
8
1
I was wondering what insurance company help draw up the Law.
I know they didn't ask a insurance company.
That's the same company they asked about health care.
Why would you want to ask a insurance company.
We all know that congress knows more about insurance than insurance companies that have been doing it for years.
Reply
. OCTOBER 28, 2013 AT 11:16 AM
InsGuy says:
LIKE OR DISLIKE:
2
1
.for over 150+ years.
"for years" seemed a bit light.
Reply
. OCTOBER 24, 2013 AT 3:14 PM
Unjustified Flood Rates says:
LIKE OR DISLIKE:
3
1
Biggert â?" Waters Act (Long Read but Worth It)
Homeowners that have never been flooded should not be expected to make up the deficit of the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) when FEMA gives, what appear to be unjustified, massive premium reductions to gulf front condominium buildings that have been paid millions of dollars in NFIP flood claims.
July 6, 2012: The President signed the Biggert-Waters Act authorizing a five year extension of funding for the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP). It was also intended to make the program actuarially sound. Implementation of sections 205 and 207 of the Biggert Waters Act are going to create tremendous rate increases for thousands of homeowners and small businesses along the entire gulf coast along with coastal properties around the country. This action doesnâ?Tt seem to be justified when you consider the fact that over the last three years FEMA approved Letters of Map Revision (LOMR) on Alabamaâ?Ts Gulf Front condominium buildings that they had previously placed in the NFIP Repetitive Loss Program. These condominium buildings received millions of dollars in NFIP claim payments yet FEMA decided they are not in velocity flood zones and reduced their flood premiums by an average of almost 93%?
2009: In 2009 a company out of South Florida, Flood Zone Corrections (FZC), started submitting condominium buildings located in very unfavorable â?oVâ?ˇ flood zones to the NFIP/FEMA in an attempt to have them changed to more favorable â?oAâ?ˇ flood zones. FZC also operates as Flood Risk Solutions. All of these buildings were located on the beaches of Orange Beach and Gulf Shores, Alabama. FZC submitted the buildings even though they were located in high velocity flood areas. Local flood engineers said these buildings would not qualify for LOMRs and most refused to attempt any rezoning. Many of these buildings had been heavily damaged from flooding during Hurricanes Erin and Opal in 1995, Hurricane Danny in 1997, Hurricane Georgesâ?T in 1998 and all of them suffered massive flood damage during Hurricane Ivan in 2004. If approved for LOMRâ?Ts these condominium buildings would pay flood premiums that were a very small percentage of what they were currently paying.
Unbelievable: The Flood Plain Managers from Gulf Shores and Orange Beach assumed the NFIP would decline the request for LOMRâ?Ts because the NFIP was operating at an $18 billion deficit at that time and many of these buildings had already been placed in the NFIP Repetitive Loss Program. Both Flood Plain Managers disagreed with the information FZC was submitting to the NFIP and each one of them refused to sign concurrence letters that were required when applying for a LOMR. The NFIP ignored these Flood Plain Managers and approved the LOMRâ?Ts anyway.
June 6, 2011: The NFIP/FEMA approved LOMRâ?Ts for four condominium buildings located on East Beach Boulevard in Gulf Shores. One of the buildings had received over $400,000 from the NFIP for their Hurricane Ivan flood claim. The other three were new buildings that were built on lots where the prior building had been destroyed by flooding during Ivan.
June 2011: The offices of Alabama Senator Richard Shelby, Mississippi Senator Roger Wicker and Alabama House Representative Spencer Bachus were notified of the negative financial impact approval of the LOMRâ?Ts were having on the NFIP. All of these Congressmen were working on new legislation that would extend NFIP funding and each one had expressed considerable concern that the program was operating at a deficit of $18 billion. Their representatives contacted representatives of the NFIP and were assured the flood zone changes were justified. All three offices dropped the issue soon afterward.
2011: The NFIP/FEMA was approached and asked to put a moratorium on future LOMR approvals until the new flood mapping project was completed for Alabama. The NFIP said they would review the issue. No moratorium was ever put in place and now the program operates at more than a $24 billion deficit.
October 4, 2011: 14 more Gulf Shores condominium buildings are approved for LOMRâ?Ts
June 4, 2012: 7 more Gulf Shores condominium buildings are approved for LOMRâ?Ts
March 11, 2013: Although Biggert-Waters had already been passed with intent of making the NFIP actuarially sound, 41 more Gulf Shores condominium buildings are approved for LOMRâ?Ts
June 17, 2013: Another Gulf Shores condominium building is approved for a LOMR
December 6, 2013: Another Gulf Shores condominium has been approved and the LOMR will be effective on 12/6/2013
September 2013: Based on the most recent edition of NFIP/FEMA flood maps there are 72 residential condominium buildings located in very unfavorable â?oVâ?ˇ flood zones in Gulf Shores alone. As of September 2013, FZC has obtained LOMRâ?Ts on 66 of these Gulf Shores condominium buildings while 2 were declined. FZC is currently working to secure LOMRâ?Ts on the remaining 4 buildings. There were also 4 or 5 high rise condominium buildings approved for LOMRâ?Ts in Orange Beach during that time.
It appears the total combined annual revenue loss to the NFIP/FEMA for the condominium buildings in Gulf Shores and Orange Beach is somewhere between $5,500,000 and $6,000,000 a year.
If the intent of Congress is to make the program actuarially sound why did they, and do they continue to allow the NFIP/FEMA to approved these buildings for LOMRâ?Ts without investigating this issue in detail?
After LOMR approvals, the average flood premium for the approved gulf front condominiums is approximately $.069/$100. Most homes located in â?oXâ?ˇ non-hazard flood zones pay a minimum of approximately $0.12/$100. How can FEMA possibly justify charging these homes twice the rate?
The new preliminary flood maps for Alabama and NW Florida are not scheduled for release until December of 2014. The new permanent maps will not be put into effect until 2015 but we already know the stillwater elevation is going up by 4â?” along the entire Alabama Gulf Coast. With this knowledge there is no justification for FEMA to overlook the actions of the NFIP.
When you look at the facts you question how the NFIP/FEMA, with a program operating at a $24 billion deficit, can justify any premium reduction on these high risk properties then proceed with the implementation of sections 205 and 207 of Biggert Waters? Obviously FEMA officials and Congress expect innocent homeowners and small business owners that followed FEMAâ?Ts rules to make up this deficit. Why doesnâ?Tt Congress or FEMA initiate an internal investigation and get to the bottom of this issue? Why donâ?Tt they delay the implementation of sections 205 and 207 until this investigation is complete? These condominium owners are receiving what appear to be extremely low unjustified flood rates at the expense of coastal homeowners around the entire country. No individual homeowner or small business owner should have flood premiums raised until Congress and FEMA get to the bottom of this issue.
Reply
. OCTOBER 24, 2013 AT 4:44 PM
jack says:
LIKE OR DISLIKE:
2
1
unjustified flood rates - I've heard about those myself. You know some pockets got lined with those changes. Follow the money!
Reply
. OCTOBER 24, 2013 AT 5:38 PM
Kathy says:
LIKE OR DISLIKE:
1
1
Can you cite your sources for this information?
Reply
. OCTOBER 25, 2013 AT 11:54 AM
jack says:
LIKE OR DISLIKE:
2
1
Kathy- go to the FEMA flood map site and pull up LOMR for the areas. There is the only source you need. Anyone that really cares about fraud in the government has it sitting right in front of them. Fact remains- they don't care.
Reply
. OCTOBER 24, 2013 AT 4:30 PM
Bryan says:
LIKE OR DISLIKE:
9
1
Forcing flood insurance upon all property owners will not fix the problem this article states. Or using an all-perils policy form, or whatever verion of a solution you choose. Yes, there will be more premium and yes there will be some subsidizing. But, everyone will still pay actuarially justified rates. Coast dwellers will still have extremely high premium because they have extremely high exposure. That is the only way flood insurance can work. Want to live on the coast, then pay the price. I live in tornado alley, thus I pay a much higher premium for wind coverage than someone living in the Northeast (not on the coast), for example. Yes, there is pooling of premium. Yes, that is how insurance works. But everyone pays a premium amount directly related to their exposure level.
Reply
. OCTOBER 27, 2013 AT 6:45 PM
Jason J. Marchi says:
LIKE OR DISLIKE:
2
0
Bryan.
Not everyone who lives on the coast is rich. The house I'm trying to sell "on the coast" in New Haven, CT is ONLY worth $110,000. It's NOT a rich area. In fact, it is an area that is affordable for FVA, HUD, and other first time buyers who want to OWN and build equity and not throw money away making a slumlord rich. A $100,000 fair market value house SHOULD NOT have a $5,000 plus flood insurance premium, period. Add that $5,000 plus to the $5,000 a year in property tax on that house AND then add a 30 year mortgage payment and the scales are cost is unreasonable and asinine. And there is NO WHERE ELSE near good employment that one can buy a $100,000 sound, GOOD house in Connecticut. If one is a multi-millionaire "living on the coast" that person should be on his or her own when it comes to flood insurance, but the little guy HAS to be protected and subsidized.
Reply
. OCTOBER 28, 2013 AT 9:52 AM
jw says:
LIKE OR DISLIKE:
2
0
Jason J. Marchi - I don't see that Bryan stated or even implied that all coastal dwellers are rich. In fact, Bryan just pointed out that people should pay the rate that reflects the risk.
If you live near the coast, the risk is higher, therefore, the rate is higher. I understand the rates seem excessive to you. I don't know if they are or aren't.
Sadly, you probably won't find much sympathy in the comments on IJ. The majority of insurance people understand the rating process and why rates go up the more risk you face.
Reply
. OCTOBER 28, 2013 AT 11:21 AM
InsGuy says:
LIKE OR DISLIKE:
2
0
The fact is that private insurance won't work either. In order to use actuarially justified risk-based rates, they'll likely have to be filed/approved. It might work for a few years but eventually, no one will be able to get approval for their actuarially justified rateincreases and the the market would eventually fracture (again) and drive the private carriers out. And this process will start all over again.
Reply
. OCTOBER 24, 2013 AT 4:31 PM
Unjustified Flood Rates says:
LIKE OR DISLIKE:
2
1
Spooky is a prime example of why sections 205 and 207 should be repealed. Spookys home was built well before the NFIP was established. Spooky did nothing wrong. There are much better ways to make the program actuarially sound.
Reply
. OCTOBER 24, 2013 AT 4:36 PM
Unjustified Flood Rates says:
LIKE OR DISLIKE:
3
1
Bryan I agree with some of what you say but forcing people to pay rates that are 10% to 15% of the residential value is wrong. I'm an agent and I make a lot more commission if they leave Biggert Waters alone but the fact is it's wrong to force people out of their homes when they did nothing wrong.
Reply
. OCTOBER 24, 2013 AT 4:51 PM
jack says:
LIKE OR DISLIKE:
4
0
Unjustified- i feel the same way but you are leaving out the most important part of the equation. It's a government program full of fraud and waste that will never change! It will never be actuarilly sound, never!
Reply
. OCTOBER 24, 2013 AT 4:40 PM
Michael says:
LIKE OR DISLIKE:
10
2
How long before subsidies are going to disappear for ObamaCare.
"A GOVERNMENT BIG ENOUGH TO GIVE YOU EVERYTHING YOU WANT IS A GOVERNMENT BIG ENOUGH TO TAKE FROM YOU EVERYTHING YOU HAVE."
Gerald R Ford address to a Joint Session of Congress, August 12, 1974
Reply
. OCTOBER 24, 2013 AT 4:48 PM
jack says:
LIKE OR DISLIKE:
3
3
You are correct Michael. But only 50% of the people care because only 50% pay taxes. Stick a fork in Freedom,Common Sense,Personal Responsibility!
Reply
. OCTOBER 28, 2013 AT 7:49 AM
Ron says:
LIKE OR DISLIKE:
0
0
Jack,
It is up to 57% that pay taxes. Keep up.
Reply
. OCTOBER 24, 2013 AT 6:22 PM
KentU says:
LIKE OR DISLIKE:
4
1
Kathy, are you asking me for my information sources? If so, just read the article under 'Subsidy'. Any agent that has had active involvement with NFIP or WYO should be aware that flood insurance as been subsidized for decades by the federal government - that's no secret. The justification was that it helped encourage development. The runoff flooding problem has been mentioned in almost every flood class (given by NFIB instructions) that I've attended the last ten years. The Dallas Morning News also mentioned it in their article about runoff flooding along Ten Mile Creek in Lancaster, Texas a few years ago - they got their information from NFIB. Flooding wasn't that big of a problem until developers starting putting concrete slabs down for Walmart, Home Depot, etc., etc.. Rain water that would have taken hours or days to reach Ten Mile Creek now gets there within minutes because the water is now moving across concrete rather an grass. The rezoning areas that have never flooded was on the channel 4 daily newscast about two months ago when everyone in a neighborhood in Midlothian, Texas got notification from their mortgage company that they were now living in a flood zone. The newscast reported that this is a widespread situation. This has also been a topic of numerous discussions in the IJ over the past years involving agents like myself that write flood policies on a regular basis. I think the mindset of Congress is that they should expand the areas where people living close to flood zones are now listed as living in flood zones and must buy flood insurance (moving them into an A zone). FEMA won't be taken by surprise if and when it floods in thoses area and those people will already be contributing into the pot of money that pays the flood claims vs seeking aid from the government because they didn't have flood insurance.
Reply
. OCTOBER 25, 2013 AT 2:02 PM
Furrie Princess says:
LIKE OR DISLIKE:
1
1
There is one way many of the people in special hazard zones can keep their rates down. They can meet the elevation requirements (and for FL and wind areas-the hurricane construction requirements). I just had a client who is in an AE zone build a guest cottage on his property. It is properly elevated with adequate venting and qualified for a 0.28 rate on the new structure while his main home (over 50 years old)has a 0.77 rate which will be rising 20% a year.
By the way, not everyone is in a flood zone. Those communities who have not participated in NFIP or who have left because they did not want to pay for flood control measures, are not in flood zones and don't show up on FEMA's flood zone maps.
Reply
. OCTOBER 25, 2013 AT 3:10 PM
jack says:
LIKE OR DISLIKE:
4
0
Furrie- just because you dont participate in the program does not mean you are NOT in a flood zone.
Reply
. OCTOBER 25, 2013 AT 4:36 PM
Unjustified Flood Rates says:
LIKE OR DISLIKE:
0
0
Furrie Princess: I thought the same as you until a few years ago when a couple built a 2 story home on the side of a very steep hill in Daphne, Alabama. There was a lake about 30â?” below them at the bottom of the hill. They didnâ?Tt carry flood insurance because there was no way for them to flood. Turns out the lake was fed by natural underground springs. Two years later a natural spring burst through the ground on the hill 20â?” above the home. The bottom floor of the home had 5â?” of water by the time the spring was controlled. The home was not located in a FEMA flood zone.
I never said all homes are in FEMAâ?Ts flood zones. I said all homes are in flood zonesâ?œ itâ?Ts just to what extent. I donâ?Tt believe the so called FEMA flood experts have a clue when it comes to flood zones.
Reply
. OCTOBER 25, 2013 AT 2:30 PM
David W. D. Haynes says:
LIKE OR DISLIKE:
4
1
Dear "Unjustified Flood Rates" - you say "There is nothing Socialist about making people pay for actual risk. All areas are flood zones. it's just to what extent. This is nothing like the Health Insurance Laws which are Socialist.". when you make people that don't want to purchase the coverage buy the coverage in order to bring down the prices over everyone, then it is socialist. Okay EVERYWHERE is a flood zone. But I should I be forced to buy if I don't want. If I have a loss, it should be MY loss not the tax payers. Can the poor, who usually don't have Renter's insurance, be forced to buy Flood? Or will the tax payers pick up the tab when there is a loss? I'm told to eat healthy, then shouldn't everyone be forced to buy heathier food? It will bring the costs down below junk food. I need transportation to work, shouldn't everyone be forced to buy an automobile so auto cost come down?
The socialists statement is about mandating for everyone and taking away my right to Assume the Risk. If not, it is just another tax that is not called a tax.
Reply
. OCTOBER 25, 2013 AT 4:52 PM
Unjustified Flood Rates says:
LIKE OR DISLIKE:
1
0
David W. D. Haynes: I've read many of the statements on here concerning my idea as being socialist. I understand why people feel that way but as long as the federal government is going to declare these so called non-flood zones disaster areas, I'll be in favor of requiring flood insurance for everyone with federally backed mortgages. When the federal government quits using taxpayer money to bail out homeowners that refuse to carry flood insurance then I'm strongly in favor of everyone making their own decision.
Reply
. OCTOBER 25, 2013 AT 8:27 PM
Paul says:
LIKE OR DISLIKE:
1
0
Most people think you have to buy flood insurnace with FEMA. They are not the only game in town.
There is other flood insurance available in most states with Lloyds with better coverage and less $ than the FEMA Program (IMAGINE THAT) ):
Reply
. OCTOBER 26, 2013 AT 12:30 AM
Rolf Vicker says:
LIKE OR DISLIKE:
0
0
My advice to Mr. Dockery is to sue the real estate agents and the prior owner for failure to disclose an issue that had a material effect on yhe value of the property.
Agents may claim that they were unaware of the flood insurance issue but ignorance of the law is no excuse.
Settle out of court for whatever the value that has been lost.
Reply
. OCTOBER 28, 2013 AT 10:07 AM
David W. D. Haynes says:
LIKE OR DISLIKE:
3
0
Dear Unjustified Flood Rates. I hear and understand the issues. But we have a $5M building in an "X" zone insured through a standard insurance company, not the NFIP. In order for the NFIP to become more financially stable, people are calling for everyone to be forced to buy flood insurance. But that only works if we all are forced to buy from the NFIP. We pay $1,000 for the full $5M limit. Through the NFIP it would cost $2,000+ for just $500,000 limit. I will have to pay more if forced to buy some of the insurance through the NFIP. Is that fair? I agree, the government needs to stop throwing out money everytime there is a claim/situation. But they do it for two reasons: 1) protect their jobs by buying votes from the people that didn't take care of their own property; 2) it's not their money they are spending, it is ours and as a country, we keep electing these people.
Reply
. OCTOBER 28, 2013 AT 11:15 AM
Unjustified Flood Ratessays:
LIKE OR DISLIKE:
0
0
David W.D. Haynes: I couldn't agree more with your statement
"the government needs to stop throwing out money everytime there is a claim/situation. But they do it for two reasons: 1) protect their jobs by buying votes from the people that didn't take care of their own property; 2) it's not their money they are spending, it is ours and as a country, we keep electing these people."
I agree there are much better options than writing through the NFIP I would strongly support eliminating the NFIP all together. This program serves no purpose other than to create unnecessary jobs within the federal government. Private insurance companies have no problem writing this coverage on an actuarially sound basis but they are not going to compete with a government that overcharges some people yet pratically gives coverage to others.
Reply
. OCTOBER 28, 2013 AT 12:22 PM
John H says:
LIKE OR DISLIKE:
0
0
I had a certificate of elevation done, I am -10 at a 16â?” base level. My insurance quote as of this week, went to $15.957.00 annually, for a $125,000.00 structure and $10,000.00 on contents, with a $2,000.00 deductable on both.
Reply
. OCTOBER 28, 2013 AT 2:31 PM
ljf says:
LIKE OR DISLIKE:
2
0
Let me guess.Maxine Waters didn't think health insurance premiums would rise as a result of the requirement to insure for 'essential health benefits' coverage under the ACA?
Reply
. OCTOBER 28, 2013 AT 4:12 PM
Celtica says:
LIKE OR DISLIKE:
1
0
IJF: How clever of you to tie government flood insurance to government ACA insurance. Yet one is supported by the GOP and one is not. Makes me wonder if Florida is still a swing state.
Reply
Bunch of articles here and valid comments! How about if you were told to rebuild after Katrina and now face this?
In flood insurance rate fight, banding with other states could help: Editorial
isaac madisonville.jpg
Aerial view of flooding in Madisonville in the aftermath of Hurricane Isaac on Aug. 30, 2012. (NOLA.com | The Times-Picayune archive)
The Editorial Board, NOLA.com | The Times-Picayune By The Editorial Board, NOLA.com | The Times-Picayune
Follow on Twitter
on October 25, 2013 at 7:40 AM, updated October 25, 2013 at 7:41 AM
Frustrated by a lack of action in Congress, Louisiana lawmakers are looking to build a coalition with other states to push for a reprieve from excessive flood insurance premium increases. They should find plenty of kindred spirits. The drastic changes in the Biggert-Waters Flood Insurance Reform Act will be felt in hundreds of communities along our nation's coast and inland waterways.
At a hearing Wednesday in Baton Rouge, lawmakers got a briefing on the ramifications of the act and searched for ways to get more support in Congress for delaying the increases.
With 480,000 households participating in the flood insurance program, Louisiana ranks behind only Texas and Florida. Not all of those policyholders will see their rates spike, but some are facing 1,000 percent or even 3,000 percent increases.
This is not only a Gulf Coast issue, though. The ramifications of Biggert-Waters are already being felt in New York and New Jersey, where residents are recovering from Hurricane Sandy's deadly storm surge. And in Massachusetts, the Boston Globe reported last week that in coastal zones deemed by FEMA to be at high risk, premiums are going to skyrocket. One 27-unit condominium complex will see its annual premiums jump from $4,300 to $45,000 in the next year and then rise to an estimated $600,000 in subsequent years, the Globe reported. The condo association has never made a flood insurance claim.
"The premium is not reflective of the risk," a condo owner told the Globe. "Because we had weathered so many storms, we thought there must be an error."
South Louisianians understand that feeling all too well.
In some cases new FEMA flood maps didn't credit local or private levees and pumps that reduce flooding. That is a problem in St. Charles Parish and parts of Jefferson Parish, for example. Biggert-Waters also did away with the grandfather clause that used to protect property owners from rate hikes that are driven by changes in rules or new maps.
The loss of the grandfather clause could be devastating to tens of thousands of people in Louisiana and Mississippi who rebuilt, with FEMA's OK, after Hurricanes Katrina and Rita in 2005. It's simply not fair to dramatically change the rules after the fact.
There is a sizable contingent in Congress who recognizes that and sees the potential economic damage to families and communities. But legislation to delay Biggert-Waters has yet to gain traction, despite the efforts of Louisiana's delegation and others.
Don Cravins, who is U.S. Sen. Mary Landrieu's chief of staff, suggested at Wednesday's hearing that lawmakers and parish presidents should contact their counterparts in other states. That is a smart idea -- for legislators and Gov. Jindal's administration. Some members of Congress don't understand how many people will be affected and what the insurance hikes will do to home values.
"We have to tell people that this isn't some beachfront vacation destination. This is a working coast in Louisiana," Mr. Cravins said. And to keep the coast working, people have to be able to afford to live here and be able to buy or sell a home.
In St. Charles Parish, assessors are marking home values down 18 to 30 percent, officials said. Representatives from St. Bernard Parish told lawmakers that new home building has come to a halt because of fears about higher premiums.
Some residents across coastal Louisiana are seeing their premiums rise from a few hundred dollars to more than $10,000 this year. The situation is only going to get worse, as rates are ratcheted up for more property owners over the next four years.
Garrett Graves, director of the Coastal Protection and Restoration Authority of Louisiana, put things in perspective: "If you can't sell your house, you lose everything."
When Congress passed Biggert-Waters in 2012, no thought was given to whether residents would be able to afford the higher premiums. The talk was all about making the flood insurance program self-sustaining.
But putting an unbearable financial burden on coastal residents is not the way to do that. All of us -- from here to Maine -- need to band together to get that message across to Congress.
© 2013 NOLA.com. All rights reserved.
KC King4 days ago
Every one is subsidized to some degree or other - farmers, wealthy tax payers, students, etc. The real ethical outrage is that residents are not given a realistic or usable assessment of the risk and uncertainty they face.
If there is a Professional Engineer anywhere in the loop for flood risk assessment, he or she is ethically bound to portray risk realistically. What the do is certify that a property meets a elevation standard that is primarily there to promote growth and conformity rather than safet. Just look at the proposed Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance and it's position against safe elevation.
In the end, each resident must make their own safety ashes bent. At president there are no ethically motivated Professional Engineers, let alone parish safety inspectors to assist them.
LikeReplyShare
Pot-o-Gold4 days ago
I live in a flood zone and my home has never flooded. My subdivision as well as surrounding subdivisions have never flooded. But due to mapping changes, my insurance is expected to go up drastically. I don't feel that the astronomical increase is an accurate reflection of any increase in risk. I didn't do anything wrong. Ignorant commenters seem to think I deserve to be punished with unaffordable premiums, and I 'should have known better'. I don't expect a free ride and am willing to pay more if that's what needs to be done to keep the program running. I have a problem with paying thousands upon thousands more every year. P.S. Does anyone honestly think a program run by the federal government operates in an efficient and cost effective manner? I didn't think so.
LikeReplyShare
CrowBomb4 days ago
"In flood insurance rate fight, banding with other states could help," the headline reads. I say, replace the word "could" with "will."
Why is this not a no-brainer? At the risk of being redundant, all over again, flooding is not just a Gulf Coastal issue. It's not just a coastal issue. Earlier this year we saw portions of 11 upper mid-western states flooded by the Missouri River. Heck, when one of the authors of the Biggert-Waters Act, Maxine Waters, agrees that the law, as written, does not serve her intent, then it's time to scrap it!
LikeReplyShare
dickey34 days ago
"to live here and be able to buy or sell a home."
To propose that for people to be able to work along the coast they must have the assurance of low cost "socialized" flood insurance and that those rates have the added benefit of "grandfathered" premiums to assure future sale of the property at no risk to present or future homeowner is ridiculous. That the current resident knew the risk is undeniable, but to suggest continued low premiums at guaranteed expense to others who have no dog in this hunt is to suggest continued irresponsibility in making a decision which should not include a government bailout if bad weather hits, while living in a hurricane alley. That the same pols who oppose health insurance while citing future costs could shamelessly support these unknown future costs would be comedic we're it not for the cost in human lives. For so called "conservative" voter to support it is just part of the same joke.
LikeReplyShare
blackops4 days ago
If one lives in a hole and floods one ought to pay for flood insurance unsubsidized. Or pay one's mortgage off and don't get flood insurance.
LikeReplyShare
CrowBomb4 days ago
Your analogy is an awful one, Dickey, for way too many reason to list here.
LikeReplyShare
dinosore84 days ago
For those who love Obamacare, they should just love the idea of every piece of realestate having a mandate to carry flood insurance. Since we have not yet developed the Startrek shuttle craft, the vast majority of good are shipped from one place to another. Including the hundreds of billions of dollars of "stuff" we purchase from overseas. Well someone has to unload it and it has to be transported to other locations. Therefore everyone should have to pay to make it affordable. Even the guy living on top of Stone Mountain.
LikeReplyShare
holla_at_ya_boi4 days ago
Since we are being forced to subsidize the fat, jobless slobs with diabetes, we should be subsidized as well. So yes, your comment is actually on point.
LikeReplyShare
dickey34 days ago
It's always amusing to watch he transformation of the " I did it myself conservative" to the " I want mine" liberal in 30 words or less.
LikeReplyShare
holla_at_ya_boi4 days ago
If we're going to socialize healthcare, shouldn't we at least be consistent?
RICHARD LOWE
5108 RIVERVIEW DR
INDIANAPOLIS, IN 46208
317-446-4753 Cell
richard@casaflamboyan.com
Good news, someone else against the CORE's plan!
Now we need to get them all on track for RR! What happened to the comment that RR was never really considered an option that the CORE made in our last meeting?
With the FEMA insurance fiasco, now this the window is open for us to act with more at stake!
Seems to me the CORE's cost figures of $50 million are over the top! I would think $16 - $25 million would go along way towards fixing Rocky Ripple. We already have a levy! 80% of the work is done.
I think we need outsource he CORE! We should get our own contractor quotes. Dave Bond has a contact that does that kind of work. Do we know of any others? This would be a proactive move of our own. Make our own counter proposal! Who can contact Dave Bond? Who knows of any other contractors they might love some work! What's happening with the city's survey?
The Warfleigh project cost approx $19 million for 7600 feet and was done by Bowen Engineering. There was an Architect at the last meeting who lives in Warfleigh who has some good ideas, too. Who is he? Can we get him on board to help?
I'm not at all impressed with their latest project north of Rivi. All I saw was compacted soil. Am I missing something? Does anyone know the price tag on it? If we get high water from the latest storm it would be good to take some pictures to see how it performs. To use on presentations if they show anything.
Any other ideas? The WPA did a great job in 1937
On Oct 31, 2013, at 10:39 PM, Angela Herrmann wrote:
--ah
Why can't we explore a Rocky Ripple alignment that includes Butler field
(now parking lot!)? That would make the cost/benefit analysis more
justifiable. We've mentioned this before, perhaps time to revisit.
--ah
angela herrmann
Looks like there should be a solution here for the toe of the bank.
Any thoughts? I think this is where we need to start. Please forward to anyone else whom you may have contact information on.
http://www.basincommission.com/TLG/streambank/KSSWCD Inventory Report Final.pdf
Good Morning what a great sunny day on the river!
I had an epiphany this morning I want to share. Can flooding of the White River be controlled upstream by creating other dams and lakes? Indiana needs more lakes as they are a real attraction for people. Look how popular each one is!
Has this option been explored? Can anyone shed any light on this?
Here is the link for a website where we can all share ideas and comments - http://www.civicartworks.com/petitions/create-our-own-flood-protection-design
Happy Thanksgiving!
Had the opportunity to meet with Bill for several hours this morning, an excellent meeting! He is the holy grail!
Environmental mediator hired by Citizens water utility as a tech advisor to mediate with the Corps, City, Citizens Gas, Butler, DPW, RR, etc. He has been working with Bart Harriman, Zach, and Robert here. He said Bart is focused on the flood wall and Zach on FEMA. Very nice fellow 68 years old.
He said Oakley is not longer in the picture, that Ballard has hired Mike Massonne as a contractor for the DPW. He has no idea what the city's plans are for what they are doing and with the survey work PSC Engineering is currently doing.
He said FEMA’s requirements rule and they need to meet the 100 year flood level plus 2.1 feet. The 1913 flood was considered the 100 year level for here on the White River. Which is derived from the height over the Broad Ripple dam gauge station being at 12 ft..
He is in favor of the West canal path being made the levee. Canal Blvd is already at the correct height and an “I" wall could be put in on the west side of the path to make it secure and some tress would have to be removed. Overall it would not appear as if we were walled in and it would keep the water in the river on the north end and not fill us up like a water bowl as the east side of the canal would.
He is supposed to send me a link to the DNR 100 year flood level map and the Corps 1990 cost proposal which he showed me. I described to him what I would like to see - “I” wall where my deck ends with back fill to the house and paving brick on top. He said that sounds reasonable and a good plan. He was not aware of the levee history I had obtained from Wayne about how the houses were moved forward and made to be part of the levee structure. FEMA only considers our current height to be 20-25 year rating.
The issue I still am in conflict with is the 100 year flood level established by FEMA and some algorithm that covers the entire country. There is not one number above sea level that describes our entire waterfront. He said the river is 3-4 feet lower from the north end of town to the south end.
I asked him what he thought about us making a proposal to the city of what we wanted done. He said, "I was right on! That we need to get some conversation going with the city upon which we can agree.” There have been compromises made north of the dam in BR where the condos are, so why can’t we work out compromises.
Would it be possible for all of us to meet one evening next week to share our combined knowledge to determine how we can work together for the welfare of RR. I so appreciate the work that the board, Bart, and Zach are doing. We also need the input of concerned responsible citizens as well. Please give me times and dates that work. We could meet at my house or the town hall. Any week evening will work for me.
Yes I have talked about and asked for information regarding the idea of a lake, in fact there is already a plan for this around the Daleville area. This could help us, but it has run into a pretty big snag. Ravenswood's Susie (active in that community forever there) has been screaming for that (a reservoir) for a number of years, but the Corps and the city aren't into it.
Maybe we can get them into it, I don't know.
Carla
Thanks for the morning observation / river report- nice.
My information's several years old, but an upstream reservoir idea has been discussed for if memory serves, somewhere in Hamilton County. In addition to future water supply concerns, an upstream reservoir might create a wetland treatment opportunity to remove nitrates, etc. The downside is the very square one problem we face in Rocky Ripple; one of condemnation to acquire / set aside land for a proposed reservoir. Unfortunately, it sets up an "us vs. them" condemnation squabble- politicians & cronied-up developers (read also campaign contributors) like & profit from those divide & conquer squabbles (other than that, they're really nice people... not).
I received a call from a friend who's a corp officer with FC Tucker; a company which as he explained, is very concerned about this FEMA BS. When I told him about you & your efforts, he suggested that Tucker the real estate lobby would want to know more about a coherent strategy to counter property rights abuses posed as flood "policy." I'll have more update for you when we meet along the lines of coalition assistance.
Good Sunday & thanks again for the river report- Dave
While most states are removing dams, the City of Anderson is considering the creation of a reservoir. I for one would do not have faith in another community regulating the flow of water downstream. We need significant flood protection in Rocky Ripple. which I define as 100 year, FEMA certified protection. That gets us out of Biggert Waters and protects us against the 100 year flood which happened 100 years ago. My wife will be in Germany this week, so I have kid duty and cannot meet this week. Thats said, I appreciate your thoughts, Dick. In my opinion, we have a very short window of opportunity to get assistance with flood protection, so it's a good idea to share ideas, whether at RR board meetings or elsewhere.
Link to flood risk management magazines -
http://cdm16021.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/landingpage/collection/p16021coll8
Do you know of any who can add knowledge and present good ideas for this endeavor? Please enlist they help! We welcome them!