Posted on 02/20/2014 2:03:42 AM PST by Libloather
In order to build, I had to create a 21 page permit application that included location maps, elevation certificates, elevation plots, forms, etc. The instruction book for this permit application was 250 pages long. It took nine months for a response.
As the house was to be built on a hill (that didn't show up on the map), the first sentence of the response was "You don't need a permit". That sentence was followed by two pages of nearly incomprehensible legal reasons for the finding. That was probably the worst response I could have gotten. Many of the local authorities simply ignored it, demanding that I have a permit, anyway. It was, of course, impossible, since other bureaucrats deemed that I didn't need one. One county official declared I needed flood vents. Flood vents allow water INTO the house, to prevent it floating up out of the flood. Since the house was to be on a hill, the only place to put the flood vents would be many feet above the 100 year flood level. This particular official called my basement contractor on his cell phone while he and his crew were in trucks driving to the construction site, insisting that the work be stopped immediately, or he (the bureaucrat) would not approve any future work of the contractor.
In spite of all this, the work was finally completed, though about a year and a half late. It lies 8 feet above the 100 year flood plane, based on a flood in the 1950's before any flood control dams were placed. I am not paying Obama a penny for flood insurance, though it's only because I have no mortgage. The only leverage the government has to force you to buy flood insurance is to associate it with a mortgage.
Or you can hire an engineer or surveyor to help you fill out the appeal paperwork.
My mother in law bought a home above a lake and it within the designated flood plain and she was required to purchase flood insurance. It was a pretty simple appeals form which basically required the lowest elevation of the building and historical high water elevation.
That all makes perfect sense.
I am working on a number of projects where these FEMA changes have major implications. It’s not a big deal for the clients because we’re simply designing the new project differently than the adjacent buildings that were built under the old FEMA standards. In one case the client has no choice but to build in the flood plain, so there are special design considerations for that project.
Meaning they are predicting higher flood levels based on global warming and melted ice caps. This will pull far more homeowners into the flood insurance pool to subsidize those who truly do live in flood zones.
It's a total scam.
“Or you can hire an engineer or surveyor to help you fill out the appeal paperwork.”
That’s sort of the whole issue. It’s when politics gets involved and then you end up with lots of people living in a flood zone with insurance costs that do not reflect the actual risk, and expecting taxpayers to cough up the difference.
It’s not that difficult to not build in a flood zone.
In this particular situation her house was built on a bluff that was about 75 above the lake. Lake Kachess near Cle Elum, Washington was created after the Corps of Engineers built a dam on the river. Needless to say that the water would over top the dam before it would ever reach her homesite!
But she still had to go through the gubmint regulations to appeal.
“You can be placed in or out of a flood zone depending on who your congressman is, and how much you pay him.”
If you look at the previous article, there’s a great picture of two expensive, neighboring beach houses in Florida. One pays the max, and the other, the minimum. One guy has great lawyers and connections, and the other doesn’t.
So much for “Justice is blind.”
I bought a house on a lake (man-made lake with a dam). The house sat on a bluff about 70 feet above the waterline. Because the property “touched” the water, it was considered to be “in the flood plain”. There is NO physical way the water could ever rise to 70 feet above the dam! We challenged it and won. No flood insurance for us.
Actually it’s both...it’s people building in areas that will lead to catastrophic loss causing insurance carriers to pay claims driving up costs. Since the insurer is .gov they have the communistic option of manipulating the system to require people who don’t need the insurance to buy the insurance.
“Actually it’s both...it’s people building in areas that will lead to catastrophic loss causing insurance carriers to pay claims driving up costs. Since the insurer is .gov they have the communistic option of manipulating the system to require people who don’t need the insurance to buy the insurance.”
My flood insurance is purchased from a private corporation, not the government. If I purchase private insurance I should be subject to their zoning determination, insurance premiums, and settlement amounts, not the federal government’s. And if the fed doesn’t like FEMA paying out flood claims to the un-insured they can modify the settlment amounts by the degree a property is ‘hazard built’ into a flood plain rather than jacking up everyone’s rates to subsidize the insurance companies who aren’t even covering the uninsured.
Crony capitalism.
What’s next, car insurance?
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.