Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Sen Landrieu on Senate Floor Biggert Waters 'Never Voted On' 'Went Dark', 'Tucked into Transportat
C-Span via Youtube ^ | 05/11/2013 | Landrieu

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 ...


TOPICS: Business/Economy; Constitution/Conservatism; Extended News; Government
KEYWORDS: senate; taxation
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-57 next last
This is as big of a mess as Obamacare ,, just being visited on fewer people .. This needs to be struck down.. If the senator is correct this should be something we CAN GET REVERSED QUICKLY. Anyone who has contacts in conservative legal activist groups please pass this on ..
1 posted on 10/06/2013 3:54:31 PM PDT by Neidermeyer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Neidermeyer

You’re gonna have a tough time rounding up support since a vast majority of Americans do not live in flood zones with beaches outside their back doors.


2 posted on 10/06/2013 3:57:06 PM PDT by jwalsh07
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Neidermeyer

I’m for people who need flood insurance paying market price for their flood insurance! (MUCH higher than they currently pay!)


3 posted on 10/06/2013 3:57:28 PM PDT by Onelifetogive (I tweet, too... @Onelifetogive)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Neidermeyer

Good analysis.

We need to get the federal government out of the Flood Insurance business and let the people in Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama Florida and coastal Texas pay the full amount it cost to insure their property in flood prone areas.


4 posted on 10/06/2013 4:00:56 PM PDT by Oliviaforever
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Neidermeyer

Why do people build in a flood zone anyway? Because the government backed insurance is so cheap?


5 posted on 10/06/2013 4:02:04 PM PDT by CPOSharky (Democrats must love the poor, they just keep making more and more of them.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Onelifetogive

“I’m for people who need flood insurance paying market price for their flood insurance! (MUCH higher than they currently pay!)”

I agree. Would love to use that against Boxer, Menendez, and all coastal senators.

Heck, let the use their campaig funds to defend it.


6 posted on 10/06/2013 4:02:24 PM PDT by EQAndyBuzz (Make today a great day. Insult a liberal.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Onelifetogive

I’m for people who need flood insurance paying market price for their flood insurance! (MUCH higher than they currently pay!)
**************************
This shouldn’t be a gov’t program .. in Florida in the last 40 years the payout has been about 27% ,, a 73% profit margin ... and peoples rates are going up in most cases 400==>500% ...


7 posted on 10/06/2013 4:04:06 PM PDT by Neidermeyer (I used to be disgusted , now I try to be amused.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Neidermeyer
I have always been against this insurance, but I would have wanted to grandfather it so that current policy holders didn't get hurt.

Make a replacement bill, and attach it to the funding bills that are not passing the senate.

8 posted on 10/06/2013 4:06:44 PM PDT by Vince Ferrer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Onelifetogive

I’m for people who need flood insurance paying market price for their flood insurance! (MUCH higher than they currently pay!)
******************************************************************
I’m also in favor of NOT subsidizing those who choose to live in flood zones also. Market rates for insurance would help adjust properties in flood zones to their REAL market values over time. That is in contrast to the ARTIFICIALLY inflated values that stem from the subsidized insurance.

I always pay an amount for my insurance company based upon the actual risks to which I’m exposed. I expect those who live in flood zones to do the same. And there IS NOTHING UNFAIR about that approach. Nothing at all.


9 posted on 10/06/2013 4:08:12 PM PDT by House Atreides ( D)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: CPOSharky

Why do people build in a flood zone anyway?
**************************
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?

I agree with you 1000% when we’re talking about hillbillies who’s shack in the gulch gets flooded EVERY SINGLE YEAR when the snow melts... and they never do anything proactive because they can see the snow on the mountain and just buy insurance when the snow is too high...


10 posted on 10/06/2013 4:08:53 PM PDT by Neidermeyer (I used to be disgusted , now I try to be amused.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Neidermeyer
Those in the flood zones should pay what it costs to insure them. In addition to that, once the house has been paid for the owner should not be abloe to get flood insurance again for a house on that property. The payout for any one house, over the years, should not add up to more than the assessed value of the house. In that case, the owner could stay there, but never collect for flood damage again.

The reason the feds subsidize flood insurance is that it's not profitable for the insurance companies. Maybe people and communities should adjust and build smaller houses along the coast, so the owners can absorb losing the house to a flood. Why should be subsidize zillionaires who build palaces in areas that are going to flood at some point or another?

11 posted on 10/06/2013 4:11:17 PM PDT by grania
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: grania

This isn’t a “gazillionaire” tax , this is a tax on everyone that lives near any water.. In Florida historically the Insurance premiums have been about 4x the payouts on claims. So reduce our premiums.. we’ve been subsidizing the rest of the country for many decades.


12 posted on 10/06/2013 4:15:31 PM PDT by Neidermeyer (I used to be disgusted , now I try to be amused.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: jwalsh07

It is now affecting people in CO that just survived a 1000 year flood. Including property owners that were not in “flood zones” prior to this event. Doesn’t require beach front property.


13 posted on 10/06/2013 4:18:13 PM PDT by ican'tbelieveit
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Neidermeyer

Well government subsidized flood insurance had created a moral hazard. Now when people get flooded out the taxpayers bail them out. Then they rebuild right back in the same flood plane. What we should do is eliminate the insurance subsidy and the tax. Just let the market set both the land prices and the insurance rates.


14 posted on 10/06/2013 4:21:06 PM PDT by SeeSharp
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ican'tbelieveit

Who should pay for my insurance? My healthcare? My groceries? For plowing my road? Roofing my house?


15 posted on 10/06/2013 4:21:46 PM PDT by jwalsh07
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Neidermeyer
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?

No. But is it right that the taxpayers should have to subsidize your flood insurance? Live wherever you want. Just don't ask me to pay for it.

16 posted on 10/06/2013 4:23:57 PM PDT by SeeSharp
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: jwalsh07

Hey, I am not saying that people shouldn’t pay for their choices, I just wanted to point out that many people in CO are now facing a sudden bill increase for an event that happens almost never, and they are not on “big rivers” or have “beach front property”. And many of these people didn’t carry flood insurance at all because they were not in a designated flood zone. Several of these rivers rerouted themselves in this flood, going through “safe” neighborhoods.

Most local to me was the St. Vrain creek. I have walked across it, getting no more than the tops of my shoes wet many times.


17 posted on 10/06/2013 4:25:52 PM PDT by ican'tbelieveit
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: SeeSharp

The biggest problem with this bill ... let me list them..

1.) TAX BILL , REVENUE! , started illegally in the senate banking comittee not the house
2.) NEVER VOTED ON in Senate!
3.) replots flood plains , increases zones by huge amounts of acreage .
4.) Just as with other taxes huge waste ,,, can’t speak for other states but flood insurance would be FREE in Florida right now if just half of the profits were re-invested.
5.) This is grandfathered in for existing owners with 25% yearly increases (until they can’t pay and the gov’t siezes the property) ,, but an approx 500% increase is immediate if the property is sold... You’ll never sell another house in Tampa again ... this will lead to a few hundred thousand abandoned houses .. just what we need..


18 posted on 10/06/2013 4:27:53 PM PDT by Neidermeyer (I used to be disgusted , now I try to be amused.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: ican'tbelieveit

I live on top of a 1500 ft hill in inland Ct. First year I was here I had two feet of water in the basement. Nobody from the government came to help, which was fine by me, but I understand your point.


19 posted on 10/06/2013 4:29:51 PM PDT by jwalsh07
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: grania
once the house has been paid for the owner should not be abloe to get flood insurance again for a house on that property.

Why? If there is a private insurance company willing to sell him insurance and he is willing to pay for it then let him have it. It is only government subsidized flood insurance that he shouldn't be able to buy again. But then, I don't think the government should have been subsidizing flood insurance in the first place.

20 posted on 10/06/2013 4:30:06 PM PDT by SeeSharp
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: CPOSharky

I’m not sure either, other than the coastal life is aesthetically pleasing. There’s plenty of land inland. Stay away from Colorado though.


21 posted on 10/06/2013 4:30:28 PM PDT by Viennacon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: jwalsh07

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


22 posted on 10/06/2013 4:34:06 PM PDT by digger48
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Neidermeyer

Don’t forget the mighty Mississippi from Montana to New Orleans. Those people are in a flood zone also.


23 posted on 10/06/2013 4:37:22 PM PDT by Lurkina.n.Learnin (If global warming exists I hope it is strong enough to reverse the Big Government snowball)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: jwalsh07

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.


24 posted on 10/06/2013 4:42:08 PM PDT by ican'tbelieveit
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: CPOSharky

Do you realize how large they are?


25 posted on 10/06/2013 4:50:15 PM PDT by scrabblehack
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Neidermeyer

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.


26 posted on 10/06/2013 5:02:46 PM PDT by mrsmith (Dumb sluts: Lifeblood of the Media, Backbone of the Democrat Party!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Neidermeyer

“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.


27 posted on 10/06/2013 5:04:51 PM PDT by House Atreides ( D)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: SeeSharp

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.


28 posted on 10/06/2013 5:05:22 PM PDT by grania
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Neidermeyer

The horror of people having to pay market prices for insurance... Color me completely unsympathetic. Government flood insurance should be abolished.


29 posted on 10/06/2013 5:07:36 PM PDT by Lurker (Violence is rarely the answer. But when it is it is the only answer.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Lurker

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


30 posted on 10/06/2013 5:23:50 PM PDT by Understand the stimulus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Understand the stimulus

Blow me.


31 posted on 10/06/2013 5:42:56 PM PDT by Lurker (Violence is rarely the answer. But when it is it is the only answer.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Neidermeyer

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.


32 posted on 10/06/2013 6:44:53 PM PDT by Hurricane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Neidermeyer

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:)


33 posted on 10/06/2013 6:50:02 PM PDT by ToastedHead
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ican'tbelieveit

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.


34 posted on 10/06/2013 7:32:57 PM PDT by RetiredTexasVet (A civilian forece funded and equal to the military ... Obama/DHS & Hitler/Gestapo & Stalin/KGB)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: jwalsh07

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.


35 posted on 10/06/2013 7:39:45 PM PDT by ridesthemiles
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: mrsmith

IF this is a revenue creating bill, should it not have originated in the House?


36 posted on 10/06/2013 7:43:04 PM PDT by ridesthemiles
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: ridesthemiles

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...


37 posted on 10/06/2013 8:06:42 PM PDT by mrsmith (Dumb sluts: Lifeblood of the Media, Backbone of the Democrat Party!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: Viennacon

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.


38 posted on 10/06/2013 8:34:38 PM PDT by RobbyS (quotes)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: CPOSharky

People build in flood zones because waterways and the coast are important economically, both historically and today.


39 posted on 10/06/2013 8:37:40 PM PDT by Styria
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Neidermeyer; CPOSharky

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.


40 posted on 10/06/2013 8:55:17 PM PDT by generally (Don't be stupid. We have politicians for that.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Neidermeyer
I don't understand what you are asking me/us to do.

But I do understand that building on the beach (or in a flood zone)is not the brightest thing to do.
People do it anyway.

It's an oddly immoral scam, from my viewpoint.
The property owner, the insurance company and the government keep inflating the “value” of a property guaranteed to be destroyed, and when it does get destroyed, the owner is “made whole” via tax dollars.

Tiny bubbles bursting all the time!

41 posted on 10/06/2013 9:29:47 PM PDT by sarasmom (Extortion 17. A large number of Navy SEALs died on that mission. Ask why.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Onelifetogive
Good Post sir:

We need to get the federal government out of the Flood Insurance business and let the people in Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama Florida and coastal Texas pay the full amount it cost to insure their property in flood prone areas.

I do not live in a flood prone area. I do not have insurance for flood as I do not need it. However, my insurance policy reflects the companies liabilities for clients that do live in flood prone areas. In effect I am subsidizing the insurance policy of those that do build in flood prone areas.

42 posted on 10/06/2013 10:42:10 PM PDT by cpdiii (Deckhand, Roughneck, Mud Man, Geologist, Pilot, Pharmacist. THE CONSTITUTION IS WORTH DYING FOR!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Neidermeyer

anyone whose home is within distance of a body of water, even a creek that floods every 100 years, could be subject to this

plus businesses


43 posted on 10/07/2013 2:04:47 AM PDT by silverleaf (Age takes a toll: Please have exact change)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: CPOSharky

Look, my FL “FEMA flood zone” property is at 42’ elevation and 16 miles from the coast. It sits 3’ above the high-water mark of an adjacent swamp. For the water to reach my house it would need to be standing 2’ over the roads, fields and orchards, all the way out to the sea and that just ain’t never gonna happen.

Our ground is porous limestone which makes all of FL an aquafer so lots of folks get tagged for ‘flood insurance’ who don’t need it. This year was the wettest in memory and the water never reached higher than 3’ below my property.

I’d love to get rid of my $700 year flood insurance. Won’t ever use it.


44 posted on 10/07/2013 2:54:53 AM PDT by Justa
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Lurker

The horror of people having to pay market prices for insurance...
*******************************************
Your sarcasm is appreciated , however it is greatly misplaced.. This , like every government program is HIGHLY inefficient , insurance normally nets the issuer a 5-10% gain with a 90% payout on the premiums ... We in Florida , with a 40+ year sample to give you the most accurate overview have paid in 4X what we have received... and are being assessed 4x that amount again ,, we can therefore expect a return of 1/16th of the premium over time ... ridiculous ..

These aren’t rich people with oceanside mansions (they can pay the premium increase) , many are far inland , most are typical households where an additional $10,000.00 in MANDATORY expenses will crush them ,, we will have abandoned properties everywhere which will not be able to be resold because nobody will pay a $800 mortgage AND a $1200/month insurance bill.


45 posted on 10/07/2013 3:29:43 AM PDT by Neidermeyer (I used to be disgusted , now I try to be amused.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: sarasmom

I don’t understand what you are asking me/us to do.
************************************************
Repeal an illegally implemented tax increase for one.. notify your congressman.

Second , this isn’t an immoral scam ,,, this is a taking of property..


46 posted on 10/07/2013 3:31:42 AM PDT by Neidermeyer (I used to be disgusted , now I try to be amused.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: Justa

I’d love to get rid of my $700 year flood insurance. Won’t ever use it.
********************************
Wait til you get your rate increase ,, it’ll be capped at 25% since ownership hasn’t changed ,,, but it’ll likely be in the $3,000/year range which means that if you sell your house the buyer will be paying $250/month for the insurance ,, that will greatly reduce what your property sells for ...

BTW for all here , I am not directly affected by this , I am not required to buy flood insurance in my area (high ground overlooking areas any water would drain into) but this will crush hundreds of thousands of Floridians and millions (5 million) homeowners across the country ..


47 posted on 10/07/2013 3:36:34 AM PDT by Neidermeyer (I used to be disgusted , now I try to be amused.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: Neidermeyer

“This shouldn’t be a gov’t program .. in Florida in the last 40 years the payout has been about 27% ,, a 73% profit margin ... and peoples rates are going up in most cases 400==>500% ...”

Please, PLEASE!

Post some sources, as this will have an effect on the argument.

Ironically, the hard data for many social engineering arguments is available, but not in a form most can either find or understand.

Your sources are a good case in point.


48 posted on 10/07/2013 6:19:40 AM PDT by GladesGuru (Islam Delenda Est - Because of what Islam is and because of what Muslims do.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Neidermeyer

Everyone living in a flood plain should be mandated to pay for my health insurance.


49 posted on 10/07/2013 9:48:13 AM PDT by teeman8r (Armageddon won't be pretty, but it's not like it's the end of the world.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GladesGuru

Post some sources, as this will have an effect on the argument. best I can find is this ==> http://www.tampabay.com/news/business/banking/anxiety-spreads-over-soaring-flood-insurance-rates/2140996 many other (newspaper) sources seem to have paywalls..
**************************************
I’d be glad to but as with most government programs getting things broken out is difficult ,, they specialize in obfuscation.
**************************************
copied from Matt Weidners website (Tampa Lawyer)
**************************************

The 2014 Biggert Waters Flood Insurance Ripoff, 10 Key Facts And URGENT Advice For Consumers!
September 28, 2013
by Matt Weidner
Flood Insurance- The Biggert Waters Flood Act
No Comment

The reporting is becoming more and more persistent…people are starting to realize that they’ve lost everything. All the equity in their homes is gone. Entire sectors of the economy have been devastated. Realtors that worked Florida marketplaces can kiss their jobs and livelihoods goodbye.

And while there are whispers of solutions or ways to work around this catastrophe, I can tell you that the changes are here and this problem is not going away. With talk of a complete federal government shutdown, there is zero chance that Congress will do any thing to address this catastrophe and the state is completely incapable of doing so.
florida flood insurance

Photo credit: Val Huffman www.noframes.ca
With that in mind, I wanted to provide 10 Flood Insurance Key Facts that all consumers need to know:

1. Flood insurance rates will rise 25% per year….indefinitely.

2. Florida has 4 times the policies of any other state

3. Florida paid $16 Billion, received just under $4 billion over the 35 year life of the program

4. Florida alone would be paying 60% of the premiums for the entire country.

5. Florida has approximately 2 million flood policies

6. 270,000 Florida properties could face huge flood insurance rate hikes, three times more than the next most-affected state, New Jersey.

7. Pinellas County accounts for 51,000 of the policies impacted by the Biggert-Waters changes
8. 14,484 Hillsborough County properties could lose their subsidized rates over time. In Pasco, the number is 11,413; in Hernando, 1,044; in Citrus, 2,882.
9. Whether you pay a premium of $4500 or $45,000, the maximum payout for flood insurance is $250,000 and paid coverage events are very limited.
And the most important fact:
10. The Biggert Waters Flood Act Will Cause Complete Devastation of Florida Real Estate!


50 posted on 10/07/2013 10:34:01 AM PDT by Neidermeyer (I used to be disgusted , now I try to be amused.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-57 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson