National Flood Insurance Program

more specifically, will pay $10,000 for the information I need. Nothing confidential, nothing illegal. Just need some public information but you need to work for the nfip to get the data I need

:popcorn:

It was advice, now it's information. File a freedom of information request.
Otherwise ask your question here publicly and get your answer for free.
Agent 007 isn't on the board, we'll get you your answer and you can donate the money to a Sowal charity. That is of course if your motives are good. LOL

Ask SWGB he knows everything!! Or knows how to find out........

It would help if you were more specific as to what you need - if you just need a flood zone map for reference or an official statement of what flood zone something is in, we can tell you how to do that. :wave:

Ok I will state the queston publicly and my intent. The intent is for research project for a university. The project is this:

To properly assess the risk the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP), and therefore the public, is bearing.

Take a look at this:

http://bsa.nfipstat.com/reports/1011.htm

The NFIP has 5,595,554 flood policies in force in the Nation. 2,189,337 or roughly 40% of the nation’s policies are in Florida alone.

I need specific policy information from the NFIP. This information is neither published nor disclosed for NO obvious reason. I will file a freedom of information request and will see where that leads. I do not want any private information at all, I do not want any names of individuals, I am only are looking at condo associations, and the premiums collected from these specific associations to properly assess the risk underwritten.

It is well known that no insurance company will underwrite flood policies in low lying areas. If you want flood insurance, you have to buy it under the NFIP program, which is underwritten by the government. Private and public insurance companies have evaluated the risk and have concluded that these is too much risk to assume for the amount of premium the NFIP charges to effectively compete for these policies.

So here the moral hazard: There are several condo's that would never have been built were it not for FEMA and the NFIP. These condos would never have qualified for flood insurance.

There will be another condo building boom in Florida, it may be 100 years from now, but it will come. It is our goal to show that the free market should be allowed to float in order to compete to offer premiums that match the risk of these flood policies. This will prevent future Condo's from being built in low lying area's and getting the public to bear the risk of flood.

So here is what I need. I need the name of the condo association, the date the policy was written and the premium charged. We have a very large team that is going to do site visits on a very large sample of condo's policies to assess the risk based on year built and flood plain analysis, so the risk can properly be assessed. The risk and probabilities will be analyzed under 100 year flood scenarios and then we will compare that to the premiums collected.

We Believe that the risk the public is bearing for these policies is grossly understated and that the NFIP, under a 100 year flood scenario is not a viable entity.

I would be interested in knowing how many of those condos covered could not be built today.

I assume that many are older buildings and that it is not possible to build the same structure in the same location because of more recent codes etc.

My guess is not that they were not able to build in those locations because of the NFIP & FEMA, but that due to changes in codes and liability assessments, those are now the only ways they can get insurance.

so the NFIP should raise it's premiums to properly reflect the risk? Is that what your premise is, or did the insurance companies fund this research and come up with this idea to eliminate the competition from the NFIP?
I think Sowal should get a bigger cut of any class action suit than $10,000. Good luck with getting help to get the premiums raised on everyone.
Me smells a "very large team" of sheepskin with Juris Doctor written all over it prowling around and they ain't pickin' up trash.

This is not sponsored by any public grant or private enterprise. The sole purpose is to prevent future development in low lying areas, and stop getting the public to bear the risk for policies written in these areas.

The NFIP exists and certain condo's were built soley becuase NFIP insurance was available. Its there, nothing can be done about it. Were not going to recommend that they be torn down. The public via NFIP has agreed to subsudize their insurance and will continue to do so indefinately.

The recommendation will apply to new construction only. I know of 700M condo projects that are built in VE zones. This means that there is a 100% chance of a a major catastrophy:

http://www.floodinsights.com/floodlookups/floodzon.htm

This is going after developers only, not single family residences. Single family residences are the ones subsidizing the developers land so that they could build the Condo in the first place.

Not looking to raise anyone's insurance, looking to Curb future development in high hazard areas.

Lots of uber-desirable real estate is in a VE zone - it doesn't get that designation because of its tendency to flood, but because of its proximity to the GULF.

VE means that they have studied it and have set minimum building elevations as guidelines to prevent wave damage or habitable space from being destroyed.

I personally won't build anywhere but zone "X" but that's because they keep adding more and more restrictions and I want insurance (and can't afford VE).

I can assure you that there are no attorneys involved nor were any attorneys consulted, and no attorneys are connected in any way with this study.

The sole purpose is for Curbing future development only, not for raising rates. The study will show that the NFIP is not an effective way to manage hazards in low lying areas. The most effective way is to not build there in the first place.

The study will show that continuing to allowing development in all high hazard areas is not a viable plan for the long term.

How do you curb future development without making it even harder and more $$$ for current buildings? :idontno:

Scooter - I have to correct your definition of VE: here is the definition of VE Straight from FEMA: An area inundated by 100-year flooding with velocity hazard.

And yes many of the VE do exist 50' from the Ocean. definition of Inundated: to overwhelm

Definition of Overwhelm: to overpower or overcome, esp. with superior forces; destroy; crush:
So basically every 100 years, the condo in a VE zone was given a 100% chance of being destroyed with a flood and wind.

Current buildings are exempt, there were built when NFIP codes were in place. Similiar to when your house was built, it was built to the codes at the time. Its too late to change that. The Government has already agreed to subsidize, so there is no argument there.

I recommend we improve the NFIP policy from here forward. the Gov't should not be subsidizing future development in high hazard areas. If the developer can get insurance at market rates from an insurance company, great. But its critical that it is free market insurance, NOT subsidized insurance.

I am in no way connected to any insurance company, nor do I represented any insurance company. This is just common sense.

Inundated doesn't mean destroyed, it means flooded! Inundation is another word for flood. It does not have a 100% chance of being destroyed, it has a 100% chance of being flooded.

That is why they added the "e" to the "v" - they have studied it and determined that anything below a certain elevation is in danger of flooding, so they don't let you build anything of importance or habitable in the area below that determined base flood elevation.

Hang in there Scoter! He'll eventually drop this NFIP and taxpayer subsidy BS and come out with his real agenda. Keep pecking away Scooter.

There is no covert agenda. I have been a developer myself. I saw the corruption first hand, especially at the County level and FEMA level. Alot of land use changes, alot of flood lines being moved, and it was all for FEMA and NFIP. Its a house of cards, and a Joke, and I know it first hand. Fortunately I got out at the right time, I saw the bust coming and sold all my development property before it was too late.

You can think of me like a born again drug addicts going back to try to clean the street up for the next generation.

This is my own undertaking, on my own dime. I contact a local university to recuit students to assist with the study and they have agreed. Read what you want into this, but these are the facts.

No one knows the level of corruption out there unless you've seen it first hand. I've seen it.

I can assure you that there are no attorneys involved nor were any attorneys consulted, and no attorneys are connected in any way with this study.

The sole purpose is for Curbing future development only, not for raising rates. The study will show that the NFIP is not an effective way to manage hazards in low lying areas. The most effective way is to not build there in the first place.

The study will show that continuing to allowing development in all high hazard areas is not a viable plan for the long term.

I would agree that the best way to manage hazards in low lying areas, is to not build there. However, I don't think that the NFIP was designed to manage hazards in a low lying area, especially along the coasts. I also don't see how a program that allows for a maximum coverage of only $250,000 will deter or enhance the desire to live along the coast. Inland areas along the Mississippi River, maybe.

As part of your study, can you look into why the non-coastal claims exceed the amount of premiums paid by inland policy holders into the system almost every year, and the fact that the yearly flooding by our nation's river systems is paid over and over.

The NFIP was designed to offer low cost flood insurance to those who could not obtain it otherwise. I can appreciate that if these homes were built before flood plains were studied and analyzed, then I believe thats a valid use of government funds.

On the otherhand, I disagree with using these funds to subsidize NEW building in high hazard areas. I am not against building in high hazard areas, but I believe it should be at the expense of the developer. If flood insurance was purchased at market cost for these new construction, rather than at a subsidized cost, then the price of the condo should be less to offset it, and the developer should absorb the difference. This cannot be applied retroactively for obvious reasons. The public who bought these condoes bought because they could obtain Flood insurance at reasonable rates. This has to apply only to FUTURE projects.

I can't speak for condos, but for a single-family home not in a flood zone, 100 yards from the beach, and about 35 feet higher than beach level, it costs $348 a year for the maximum coverage allowed through NFIP ($250,000 building/$100,000 contents). Just got the statement yesterday. We purchased flood insurance after hearing about Katrina victims who were not reimbursed by their insurance companies because they were told that their homes were damaged by a flood, not a hurricane.

I can't speak for condos, but for a single-family home not in a flood zone, 100 yards from the beach, and about 35 feet higher than beach level, it costs $348 a year for the maximum coverage allowed through NFIP ($250,000 building/$100,000 contents). Just got the statement yesterday. We purchased flood insurance after hearing about Katrina victims who were not reimbursed by their insurance companies because they were told that their homes were damaged by a flood, not a hurricane.

A lot of that was insurance companies (State Farm was one major example) weaseling out of claims.

A lot of that was insurance companies (State Farm was one major example) weaseling out of claims.

I know. But I just didn't want to take a chance.

I know. But I just didn't want to take a chance.

I don't blame you, just wait until you are the homeowner in the middle. Flood insurance claiming it's wind damage and home owners insurance claiming it's flood damage. Some friends of ours gave up and moved to Atlanta after Katrina.

I don't blame you, just wait until you are the homeowner in the middle. Flood insurance claiming it's wind damage and home owners insurance claiming it's flood damage.

Don't tell me that dispute could be a possibility. I thought we had it covered. :bang:

Don't tell me that dispute could be a possibility. I thought we had it covered. :bang:

I had a friend of mine, Ph, D. in Coastal Engineering, hired to decide that fact for many properties in Mississippi. Was it the flood from the Gulf or because the structure was damaged and it was rained into? A qualified person can make that call fairly easily. Typically it was the flood and not wind/rain and these properties were located in flood zone X so they had never purchased the optional insurance and lost everything. Needless to say, I don't trust the flood maps in many areas.