Right. Except poor people who can’t easily change and are now flooded. Echoes of a Katrina
Scuzz
5249
I been watching those HGTV show about living on the beach and you don’t have to be wealthy in many areas.
But I would assume (I know) that the wealthy probably do a good job insuring what they have whereas the others may not be able to do that.
Let’s not talk about the areas of Malibu that get screwed up every few years though.
Timex
5250
But flood insurance is massively subsidized by the federal government.
This. For horror stories and nightmares, people can look up “NFIP.” It’s a cluster.
Ok, but flood insurance only pays out up to like 250,000 dollars, iirc. An regular homeowners insurance won’t cover a cent of it. So, for the kind of person you are talking about, it won’t begin to cover replacement cost of a fancy home and the belongings.
This is a valid point, although rebuild cost for a home is typically far less than the sale price. Still, there’s significant subsidization by the public at large. Katrina put the fund in the hole for over $20 billion to be paid off by taxpayers.
edit - to be clear, I’m not against the idea of the system, just how it’s currently comprised
What’s the alternative, given that private insurance companies have been known to pull out completely from states like Florida, or even worse, just declare bankruptcy to avoid paying after a major calamity (think this happened after Andrew but maybe I’m misremembering).
That’s the thing that’s always bugged me about insurance companies in general. They love to take your money then don’t want to meet their end of the deal (not all companies…I’ve had good experiences before).
JoshL
5255
Flooding is not a good candidate for insurance, particularly on a regional basis, because either everybody gets flooded or nobody does. Same with earthquake insurance, which is why nobody does it unless they are heavily subsidized by the government. (This is as opposed to, say, health insurance, because not everybody gets sick, and not all at the same time).
Since insurance companies which do offer flood and earthquake insurance are generally rip-offs (i.e. they collect the premiums but the government pays the claims), it’s almost as if we should have some kind of, I dunno, federal management of emergencies. But naahhh, that’d be socialism.
Enidigm
5256
The cause is that in the US unrestricted development is seen as a way to make lots and lots of money. You do the bare minimum, you kick the can down the road, you walk away with millions and don’t really give a thought to what happens 10, 20, 50 years from now, because not my problem. Texas is really, really bad about this because hurray Texas, boo taxes, git yer hands off my land, and i’ll argue/sue your piss-ant city or county agency until I get what I want (which is to be released from all those burdensome requirements which cost me money).
Unrestricted development and state managed (and guaranteed) insurance sounds an even worse recipe for disaster. There’s no quick fix here. So many issues are tied together.
Enidigm
5258
Funny thing about that though is that as soon as you “code up” you get gentrification, because a well managed city and that controls growth and/or maintains housing standards is the most desirable city to live in. San Franscisco and Sana Fe NM are both neat places with outrageous housing prices because they have strong city councils that restrict what can and can’t be built. Cities that “eminent domain” density have parallel and similar issues.
The “real” answer for many cities are large scale planned developments along European lines, and that’s the answer most unlikely to ever happen.
Pretty much this. As it stands, only people who think they need flood insurance buy it (adverse selection) and their premiums are greatly reduced from what they should be due to the subsidizing. Instead of this system, I’d basically want to give flood insurance to everyone with a higher tax and a lower cap to inhibit over-investment in higher-risk coastal areas (essentially using the banks as limiters when determining whether they’d invest in a new property where it could be underwater and they’d only recoup a smaller percentage of value). I don’t know if this would work as intended, but the current system seems neither fair (not everybody gets the coverage even though we all pay the subsidy via taxes) nor particularly viable (the massive debt the fund falls into after major calamities).
I won’t claim to understand all that, but it sounds a bit like suggesting a “sin tax” where those living in more dangerous areas (I.e more likely to need flood insurance) would pay more for it. Certainly sounds reasonable if that’s what you meant.
Clay
5262
Here’s a good piece on flood insurance exaggerating the problem we are seeing now.
The scary thing is I remember when that report was released two decades ago. It’s not news to me.
Timex
5264
Eh, 250k will almost certainly rebuild even a super fancy home. Most of the fancy home’s value comes from its land in some fancy location.
There are exceptions of course, but you could totally demolish and rebuild a really epic home for 250k, if you already own the land. Then the flood insurance also covers another 100k in personal property.
I mean, it’s not like it’s gonna be a field day, but you are getting a ton of coverage and it’s heavily subsidized by the tax dollars of other folks.
Honestly, if you want to live in a flood zone, that’s cool… but I seriously don’t think that my tax dollars should be subsidizing your insurance. That should be on you.
I don’t know about the Florida or N. Carolina coast, but 250K won’t even get close to rebuilding a home in the major areas of California. It’s roughly 250-300/ sq. ft. for reasonably high quality new construction throughout the greater SF Bay Area, for example.
This.
Poor Urban Planning and Lack Of Regulations are as much to blame for a large portion of the damage caused by Harvey as the rains themselves. Despite being a coastal city in the path of numerous storms on a regular basis, Houston has no regulations on impervious cover, creating a situation where water has no place to go. Lack of regulation on zoning, housing development and a mishmash of utilities ordinances means that stormwater management is more of an afterthought than a priority in much of the area, creating those roads turned to rivers that the news is so fond of showing
What’s happening in Houston is a tragedy, and I feel terrible for all the people who have lost their homes and will have their lives permanently impacted because of the storm. None of this is their fault. However, some blame does lie with the governments of Texas and Houston for their inability to and disinterest in controlling, regulating and moderating their urban development.
This is an extreme example of the effects of “individual’s rights” and “smaller government” that the far right is so enamored of. They don’t want the government telling them where they can build a house, how they should build it, or putting any restrictions or regulation on their developments, and yet when something like this happens, you can be damn sure they’ll expect the government to pay for the damages.
Lol. Your idea of epic is…not so epic.
