Flood insurance: get back to work
Published October 22, 2013
By The Daily News, Jacksonville, NC
Coastal erosion and flood protection are two pressing, persistent challenges that shape the quality of life in Eastern North Carolina.
An even more pressing problem, though, has slowly come into this region’s consciousness, and it is a problem that could pose a bigger threat to our continued ability to call this area home.
The Biggert-Waters Flood Insurance Reform Act, which was signed into law last year, contains a number of changes to the federal flood insurance program that could — if imposed as planned — strip many of our homes and businesses of their value.
The changes are extreme and affect the prices and conditions of our flood insurance, which many of us must carry and all of us should carry to protect our investments.
If you live in a flood zone, you are required to carry flood insurance as part of your mortgage agreement. So any dramatic increase in insurance cost will affect you. It will also affect your property values since any potential buyer will be affected by the higher rates.
The new law does away with grandfathering insurance policies at their current costs, which would mean that increased prices would kick in for current policyholders — even if they have paid their bills for years or decades.
It also requires updated flood elevation maps — a point that has caused much disagreement. Many flood control measures and structures have been discounted because they don’t satisfy new federal guidelines.
The federal changes are meant to control the cost of the flood insurance program, an understandable goal.
But if they go into effect and force the people who need the program the most out of it, they will defeat the purpose of the program.
It is great to see a bipartisan attempt to delay the changes and lessen their impact on coastal residents.
Let us hope they succeed in convincing their colleagues that the human impact of these changes would be catastrophic.
At least one state, Louisiana, is planning to file suit to delay or block the changes, claiming that they would amount to an illegal taking of residents’ property values.
The goal of making the flood insurance program self-sustaining is noble, particularly in these times of continuing economic difficulties in Washington. But it cannot do so at the expense of the people who need flood insurance — the very reason the program exists in the first place.
With any luck, there will be a congressional solution. At this point, that seems far more likely than finding success in the federal court system.
October 22, 2013 at 10:13 am
Norm Kelly says:
So you own beachfront property? Did you know it was beach front when you bought it? Or were you surprised one morning when you woke up and suddenly realized you could see the ocean from your breakfast nook?
I'm guessing that you knew your property was in a flood zone before you purchased it. If you didn't, it's your own darn fault. Don't blame me. I didn't force you to buy property where you bought it.
Knowing that your property was in a flood zone, knowing that you were going to be forced to buy flood insurance, did you consider the cost of flood insurance before you bought the property?
I didn't buy property in a flood zone. You did. But somehow you think it's right and, to use a liberal term, 'fair' that I should somehow subsidize the cost of your flood insurance? Why should I be forced to help you pay for your flood insurance when I bought property outside a flood zone? If you can't afford the property, in it's entirety, which includes flood insurance, then why did you buy the property in the first place? Did you assume my back pocket was going to be open to you for the rest of your natural life?
At some point liberals have to realize that just because I have a back pocket doesn't mean you have unlimited, uncontrolled, unrealistic access to it! It's MY back pocket after all. And I have a family that I'm trying to provide for. I have a retirement that I'm trying to provide for. I've tried to be responsible my whole life (for the most part) and take care of me & mine. Why don't you take care of you & yours? Why do I have to be dragged into you & yours? What gives you the RIGHT to force me to get involved in you & yours?
If you can't afford everything that's involved in owning the property where you want to live and raise a family, then you bought in the wrong place Jack! I bought a house I could afford. You should have done the same. If you enjoy the beauty of living near the beach, in a flood zone, then you need to accept FULL responsibility for your decisions. If you can't afford flood insurance, then don't buy it. If/when your property is destroyed in a storm/flood, I don't expect you to come belly-aching to me that I MUST help you out. If I'm in a position, and am willing to help you out, I will. But don't expect you can FORCE me to. Just because you have the federal government put a gun to my head & force me to pay for your luxury doesn't make it OK, doesn't mean it's right.
Liberals. Gotta love them. But their insistence on making me, forcing me, to pay for your life & lifestyle is going to kill me. Your lifestyle choices, that directly impact me, make it more difficult for me to provide for me & my family. But you don't care, because for some reason it's fair that I help provide for you & yours. What kind of stupidity is this? Liberal kind.
Of course, you could attempt to explain to the rest of us why you believe it's proper for you to assume that we are willing to provide assistance to you. In your explanation, please tell us all why you don't believe that forcing us to provide for you & yours doesn't have a negative impact on our ability to provide for us & ours.
