National Flood Insurance Program

[scooterbug44]

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).

 

[weatherman]

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.

 

[scooterbug44]

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

 

[weatherman]

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.

 

[weatherman]

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.

 

[scooterbug44]

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.

 

[ClintClint]

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.

 

[weatherman]

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.

 

[BeachSiO2]

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.

 

[weatherman]

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.