Link: Houses wrecked repeatedly by sea rebuilt with taxes (Flood insurance on risky homes)

chanson78 · Mar 10, 2014

What is your guys' opinion on this?

http://www.bostonglobe.com/lifestyle/health-wellness/2014/03/09/sea-level-rose-government-paid-nine-flood-claims-scituate-home/P9PvgncnRm3pjdQYt8mxuK/story.html

Article said:
Over and over again, the Atlantic has taken aim at 48 Oceanside Drive. Almost four decades ago, it slammed the seafront house clear off its foundation. Thirteen years later, ocean water poured through the roof during a nor’easter. So often has the sea catapulted grapefruit-sized rocks through the vacation home’s windows that a former owner installed bulletproof glass.

In all, the property has sustained significant flood damage from coastal storms at least nine times. And each time, the federal government helped owners rebuild with National Flood Insurance Program payouts — a sum estimated to total more than three-quarters of a million dollars over the years.

TideEngineer08 · Mar 10, 2014

I do not approve of it. I understand there is weather risk to houses almost anywhere in this country. But at some point, people have to acknowledge that there are places that are simply uninhabitable. And I am vehemently opposed to paying for this with taxpayer funds.

Islander · Mar 10, 2014

I have a house on he coast. The rules for flood insurance now limit your claims to half of the value. After that, you can't get insurance anymore. The next hurricane puts me over the limit and I will have to tear it down or raise it above flood level. Difficult and expensive to do with a slab foundation.

TexasBama · Mar 10, 2014

Are there no building codes here?

92tide · Mar 10, 2014

TexasBama said:
Are there no building codes here?

building codes are burdensome regulations foisted upon us by tyrannical socialists

tidefanbeezer · Mar 10, 2014

I say end the premium subsidy and grants. There are financial consequences to building property in high risk areas and those consequences should be borne by the homeowner who chose to purchase the property, not the tax paying public.

Ideally, I'd rather see flood insurance privatized. However, having worked at an insurance company for 10+ years, I can assure you no private insurer will touch this stuff unless the regulations around it (i.e. coverage required, premiums charged, cancellation provisions, etc) are changed significantly. Too much downside for the company, which is why the government handles it.

92tide · Mar 10, 2014

BamainBoston said:
And you wouldn't need them if you weren't subsidizing construction with taxpayer dollars.

yes, you would.

92tide · Mar 10, 2014

BamainBoston said:
No, you wouldn't. Not when it comes to this kind of construction. You distort the market and remove consequences through government interference, so you bring in more government interference to try and fix it. Typical.

it really is simple isn't it.

Bodhisattva · Mar 10, 2014

Is providing flood insurance an enumerated power? Should be a simple yes/no answer.

92tide · Mar 10, 2014

Bodhisattva said:
Is providing flood insurance an enumerated power? Should be a simple yes/no answer.

nothing is simple. it depends on whether we are using your definition of enumerated power, or the one that exists.

personally, i think flood insurance is absurd.

92tide · Mar 10, 2014

BamainBoston said:
It really is.

building codes exist for many reasons. just because they may distort does not render them useless or un-necessary.

Bodhisattva · Mar 10, 2014

92tide said:
nothing is simple. it depends on whether we are using your definition of enumerated power, or the one that exists.

personally, i think flood insurance is absurd.

It's not my definition of enumerated powers. I don't believe the Founders wrote anything about flood insurance, and I don't recall seeing a flood insurance amendment.

And yes, the concept of the federal government being in the flood insurance business is absurd.

TideEngineer08 · Mar 10, 2014

Is it un-necessary or unnecessary?

Bodhisattva · Mar 10, 2014

TideEngineer08 said:
Is it un-necessary or unnecessary?

I prefer ill-necessary.

TideEngineer08 · Mar 10, 2014

BamainBoston said:
I thought unnecessary, but I am trying to be open-minded...

Bi-partisanship at its finest.

Bamaro · Mar 10, 2014

The Biggert-Waters Flood Insurance Reform Act was to address some financial issues, especially section 207. I dont know how much has been implemented though.

exiledNms · Mar 10, 2014

TideEngineer08 said:
Is it un-necessary or unnecessary?

C'mon, TE...be more tolerant! Surely you can't expect people to spell words correctly. That suggests that there's a right & a wrong way to do it, which could damage some the self-esteem of those of us who dont spel sew gud..

Displaced Bama Fan · Mar 10, 2014

92tide said:
building codes are burdensome regulations foisted upon us by tyrannical socialists

Building codes are one of those state/local governmental issues not covered by the Constitution...like welfare, social security, education, just to name a few.

Displaced Bama Fan · Mar 10, 2014

Bamaro said:
The Biggert-Waters Flood Insurance Reform Act was to address some financial issues, especially section 207. I dont know how much has been implemented though.

Anything that has Maxine Waters name on it can't be good.

jthomas666 · Mar 10, 2014

92tide said:
building codes exist for many reasons. just because they may distort does not render them useless or un-necessary.

If certain plumbing codes had been in place when my house was built, I would not have been faced with this when my water heater failed over the weekend:

Link: Houses wrecked repeatedly by sea rebuilt with taxes (Flood insurance on risky homes)

All-American

TideFans Legend

1st Team

TideFans Legend

TideFans Legend

All-American

TideFans Legend

TideFans Legend

Hall of Fame

TideFans Legend

TideFans Legend

Hall of Fame

TideFans Legend

Hall of Fame

TideFans Legend

TideFans Legend

Hall of Fame

Hall of Fame

Hall of Fame

Hall of Fame

TideFans.shop - NEW Stuff!