Posted on 10/06/2013 3:54:31 PM PDT by Neidermeyer
Senator Landrieu outlines how the Biggert Waters flood insurance bill was manipulated through the legislative process without ever coming up for a vote in the Senate. This bill is nothing but a tax increase on anyone with property that requires flood insurance... People are now unable to sell property as this is driving away any and all buyers .. if you sell without disclosing the premium increases that will be levied on a new owner (rather than increased incrementally on existing property owners) you will be sued ,, bank on it. This is also impacting hurricane Sandy victims in the Northeast as they are being forced to build to higher standards that cost much more .. while their insurance only covers building to the prior standards .. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G7LptibadAE
(Excerpt) Read more at youtube.com ...
I’m not sure either, other than the coastal life is aesthetically pleasing. There’s plenty of land inland. Stay away from Colorado though.
My little town in Central Hoosierland is every bit as flood prone as those near the ocean.
This was a lake 170 years agop, but now it’s some of the richest farmland in the country.
Never needs irrigation
Don’t forget the mighty Mississippi from Montana to New Orleans. Those people are in a flood zone also.
I live up pretty high compared to the surrounding neighborhoods. When I went to refinance the house this past spring, the appraiser reported that I was in a flood zone, resulting in my having to fight to get my refinance completed. Why did the appraiser do this? Because the community I live does not have a flood zone rating available, so rather than be sensible, they decided to say I was in a flood zone. Well, come look at where I live, on a hill, no waterways near me. If the nearby creeks flood high enough to reach me, we have bigger problems than my being in a flood zone.
The appraiser redid the paperwork, but it took us finding another lender because of that mistake.
Do you realize how large they are?
It was passed 74 to 19 by the Senate.
As she, and I assume you, know.
We’re still subsidizing the insurance. At best we can only stretch out the subsidy a few more years.
I hate to see people hurt, but basing long term plans on a government subsidy is a sure way to be hurt.
“You want to discard all of New Jersey? NYC? The entire east and west coasts? All of Tampa Bay , Clearwater , Miami and a thousand other towns and cities?...”
*******************************************************************
A little bit of news for you. Making residents of those communities pay actual market rates for their insurance would not make those communities disappear. Folks would still live in those communities. It would be in their interest to make their properties as “flood-proof” (and hurricane/storm-proof) as possible and to make any necessary changes that could contribute to protecting their property THEMSELVES.
Local governments would be led to elevate building codes so most properties would be better protected.
By the way, sign me as a “Pennsylvania hillbilly” (although I’m currently stuck in the People’s Democratic Republic of Maryland.
That’s fine on private insurance, as long as only those who have flood insurance have their rates raised by payouts to those who collected on flood insurance. People have to evaluate their own risk, and if they don’t get a certain kind of insurance, don’t collect it that item happens.
The horror of people having to pay market prices for insurance... Color me completely unsympathetic. Government flood insurance should be abolished.
ok....im happy youll pay so much in new obamacare taxes...ur a jerk jumping on the graves of innocent people...this is what happens when the govt runs a business and a evil person like waters and obama get power...may ur home get eaten by a tornado
Blow me.
I live close to a flood zone and don’t require insurance but choose to buy it. If it becomes too expensive I’ll just drop it. Hurricanes don’t come to the same place every year.
I suggest that those who aren’t required by their financiers, be able to create a homeowners tax exempt account that could be used to rebuild in the event of a natural disaster. The owner would be exempt from federal assistance. Some limits would have to be put on the amount invested, but enough allowed for incentivizing self insurance.
This could be applied to all natural disasters.
Just throwing this out for freeper discussion and ideas.
Tossed this fun topic around with Dad. He and my mom still inhabit Long Island. And no, they’re not rich, just working class losers like me. We left it here:
Grandfather in all the current owners as of todays date, once, at todays dollar value. When the time comes the house is destroyed, owner takes the predetermined dollar value and goes away, and no one ever builds on that land again. You’d be limiting the govt payout to a fixed price. You’d be ending the cycle of providing services to areas where none belong. But you wouldn’t be screwing a bunch of taxpaying families all at once, today. As it is, that property becomes a huge albatross around our family’s neck. Can’t get rid of it, taxes are absurd, which one of us lives in the outdated thing for now...
Someone smart tell me how that doesn’t work, so I can call my Dad and pretend it’s coming from me:)
I carry flood, tornado, wind, fire, earthquake, gov’t crap dropping out of the sky, etc. on my home insurance. Flood, tornado, earthquake, etc. are only very small charges per year here in West Central Texas. But better to pay a little than be at FEMA’s mercy and benevolence later.
You would be amazed at where the Feds have decided flood zones exist.
Also ‘fire zones’.
The latest scam on N Calif homeowners is an extra fee annually because they live near “forests’ that MIGHT burn. Such homeowners already pay for such coverage in their homeowners insurance. The state of Calif is adding the extra fees. Last I heard, $250 a year.....with no refunds if you never get a fire impacting you.
IF this is a revenue creating bill, should it not have originated in the House?
The House passed the bill 373-52 and sent the measure to the Senate, which passed it, 74-19.
The measure is named for Reps. Judy Biggert, R-Ill., and Maxine Waters, D-Calif., the chair and ranking member of the House Financial Services Subcommittee on Insurance.
I don’t see any procedural problem, real or technical.
Landreiu might lie once in a while...
There are hazards in living anywhere. Which is the point of insurance. The premiums should reflect the hazards, Where is the government shoukd come is where a disaster upsets all reasonable calculations.
People build in flood zones because waterways and the coast are important economically, both historically and today.
Again the “too big to fail” argument?
Why should anyone get an exemption? Why should those who do not live in flood-prone areas have to subsidize those who do? Should I have to pay bigger insurance premiums so that movie stars can live on the beach in California? So that investment bankers can live in NYC?
I don’t care if it’s a hillbilly or a movie star. Pay the freight or move to a less risky area. Or flood proof your home.
The choices we make always have costs. We should accept responsibility for them. Not use OPM to pay for them.
This is one of the problems that divides conservatives. The democrats want all socialism all the time. The conservatives are against socialism -— except when they want it to pay for their pet project.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.