Trailers in Florida - Page 3

AngusandBuddhasMom · ‎03-10-2010

@garmer wrote:
@Love my grandkids wrote:
I think making mobile homes "illegal" is un-American. There are many, I'm guessing, whose housing options are limited by space or finances. I think that would be horrible to prevent people from living in these! And I doubt any such law would stand a snowball's chance of being passed!

I know of a few towns where it is actually illegal to live in mobile homes. They disallow them by way of the local zoning ordinances. You can't set them up in the residential or commercially zoned areas for use as homes.

It's not a safety issue either. It's a "not in my backyard" kind of thing...property values, doncha know?

. Oh your a commercial reinsurance engineer and have done inspections on these structures? Taking into consideration Natural disasters from flooding,earthquakes,fires, as well as man-made floods,terrorism, building codes which run the gamet from material integrity to what the ratio of loss of life will be and the cost to rebuild. Not only the original structure but those structures in areas that have been affected by the destruction of this home as well as anything that has come into its path including the loss of human life? Not withstanding said disasters and what the outcome would be? But hey you know this is only "not in my backyard" Do tell.

Lipstickdiva · ‎03-10-2010

@garmer wrote:
@Love my grandkids wrote:
I think making mobile homes "illegal" is un-American. There are many, I'm guessing, whose housing options are limited by space or finances. I think that would be horrible to prevent people from living in these! And I doubt any such law would stand a snowball's chance of being passed!

I know of a few towns where it is actually illegal to live in mobile homes. They disallow them by way of the local zoning ordinances. You can't set them up in the residential or commercially zoned areas for use as homes.

It's not a safety issue either. It's a "not in my backyard" kind of thing...property values, doncha know?

This isn't the same as banning mobile homes. There are a lot of areas that don't allow someone to come in and set up a mobile home as their residence due to zoning laws. But it's not illegal to put a mobile home in the proper community/area.

I live in a development and no one would be able to put a mobile home on an empty lot in my development. But we have mobile home parks in my city and surrounding cities and as you get out into the country, there are mobile homes on land.

aggravated · ‎03-12-2010

@Tinkrbl44 wrote:
@patbz wrote:
Looking at the news today reaffirms my belief that Florida should make this form of housing in their state illegal. Any tropical storm, not to mention tornado or hurricane, make these a dangerous housing option.
@patbz

That will never happen.

However ..... I wish it were possible to ensure that people had adequate insurance on their residences .... including the relevant version of "natural disaster" insurance for their area.

I thought it was a requirement in order to obtain a mortgage, refinance, or get an equity loan on your house that, if the house was located in a Federal flood zone, you were required to get and retain flood insurance (at least enough to cover the mortgagor's interest in the property). At least it used to be. All of the homes and houses in beach areas are locasted on flood zones. At least it was for a while and I don't know how it works today but the government would only pay to rebuild your home a limited number of times before the property was condemned for future building. I worked for the Federal Flood Insurance Association when it was initially starting and was a half government/half private insurers program (in my early twenties).

Tinkrbl44 · ‎08-23-2010

@Sooner wrote:
@Tinkrbl44 wrote:
@patbz wrote:
Looking at the news today reaffirms my belief that Florida should make this form of housing in their state illegal. Any tropical storm, not to mention tornado or hurricane, make these a dangerous housing option.
@patbz

That will never happen.

However ..... I wish it were possible to ensure that people had adequate insurance on their residences .... including the relevant version of "natural disaster" insurance for their area.
Are you willing to write a check for it? Because if we ensure it, that is how it will be paid for.

@Sooner

??? Am I willing to write a check for it?

Sorry, but I'm not clear what that statement meant.

The whole purpose of insurance is to replace what you can't readily replace yourself. You wouldn't insure a turkey sandwich in case someone took it, but of course you get insurance on a car or home, as readily replacing them would often be difficult to impossible for most people. In most cases, banks insist on insurance coverage while an item is still financed. Personally, I think it makes sense to do so.

Justice4all · ‎12-22-2013

Florida, Texas, Louisiana are swamplands.

Lipstickdiva · ‎03-10-2010

@aggravated wrote:
.
@patbz

That will never happen.

However ..... I wish it were possible to ensure that people had adequate insurance on their residences .... including the relevant version of "natural disaster" insurance for their area.
I thought it was a requirement in order to obtain a mortgage, refinance, or get an equity loan on your house that, if the house was located in a Federal flood zone, you were required to get and retain flood insurance (at least enough to cover the mortgagor's interest in the property). At least it used to be. All of the homes and houses in beach areas are locasted on flood zones. At least it was for a while and I don't know how it works today but the government would only pay to rebuild your home a limited number of times before the property was condemned for future building. I worked for the Federal Flood Insurance Association when it was initially starting and was a half government/half private insurers program (in my early twenties).

That is interesting now that I think about it. I know that when we had a mortgage on our house, they had to be listed as an insured on our house insurance. It was a requirement with our mortgage that we maintain insurance on the house and if it was dropped, the mortgage company was notified of such. And we didn't keep insurance on our house, the lender would force place insurance which costs an arm and a leg. The same goes for any vehicle that has a loan on it.

But I don't know if our insurance agent had to inform the lender of how much our policy was for or just let them know we had insurance.

Lipstickdiva · ‎03-10-2010

@Tinkrbl44 wrote:

??? Am I willing to write a check for it?

Sorry, but I'm not clear what that statement meant.

The whole purpose of insurance is to replace what you can't readily replace yourself. You wouldn't insure a turkey sandwich in case someone took it, but of course you get insurance on a car or home, as readily replacing them would often be difficult to impossible for most people. In most cases, banks insist on insurance coverage while an item is still financed. Personally, I think it makes sense to do so.

Unfortunately there are a lot of people who don't have insurance, especially with their motor vehicles. That's why those that have insurance pay for uninsured and underinsured coverage on their own plans. Although it's a law here in Ohio that every vehicle be insured, that just doesn't happen.

I would bet there are people who don't have any house insurance either once they no longer have a mortgage. It's an expense they cannot afford and they may figure nothing will happen or if it does, they'll deal with it at the time.

Very few people I know that rent have renters insurance either.

Tinkrbl44 · ‎08-23-2010

@aggravated wrote:
@Tinkrbl44 wrote:
@patbz wrote:
Looking at the news today reaffirms my belief that Florida should make this form of housing in their state illegal. Any tropical storm, not to mention tornado or hurricane, make these a dangerous housing option.
@patbz

That will never happen.

However ..... I wish it were possible to ensure that people had adequate insurance on their residences .... including the relevant version of "natural disaster" insurance for their area.
I thought it was a requirement in order to obtain a mortgage, refinance, or get an equity loan on your house that, if the house was located in a Federal flood zone, you were required to get and retain flood insurance (at least enough to cover the mortgagor's interest in the property). At least it used to be. All of the homes and houses in beach areas are locasted on flood zones. At least it was for a while and I don't know how it works today but the government would only pay to rebuild your home a limited number of times before the property was condemned for future building. I worked for the Federal Flood Insurance Association when it was initially starting and was a half government/half private insurers program (in my early twenties).

@aggravated

You are correct.

However, my comment was made based on the news coverage interviews for the past few weeks .... and I was surprised that HOMEOWNERS in Texas near the gulf had no flood insurance ..... and many RENTERS didn't have even basic renters insurance.

I'm not saying that everyone must always insure for 100% of current value, but for people whose homes/apartments were totally destroyed, having even 50% coverage will give them a running start on replacing what they've lost. JMO

aggravated · ‎03-12-2010

@Tinkrbl44 wrote:
@aggravated wrote:
@Tinkrbl44 wrote:
@patbz wrote:
Looking at the news today reaffirms my belief that Florida should make this form of housing in their state illegal. Any tropical storm, not to mention tornado or hurricane, make these a dangerous housing option.
@patbz

That will never happen.

However ..... I wish it were possible to ensure that people had adequate insurance on their residences .... including the relevant version of "natural disaster" insurance for their area.
I thought it was a requirement in order to obtain a mortgage, refinance, or get an equity loan on your house that, if the house was located in a Federal flood zone, you were required to get and retain flood insurance (at least enough to cover the mortgagor's interest in the property). At least it used to be. All of the homes and houses in beach areas are locasted on flood zones. At least it was for a while and I don't know how it works today but the government would only pay to rebuild your home a limited number of times before the property was condemned for future building. I worked for the Federal Flood Insurance Association when it was initially starting and was a half government/half private insurers program (in my early twenties).
@aggravated

You are correct.

However, my comment was made based on the news coverage interviews for the past few weeks .... and I was surprised that HOMEOWNERS in Texas near the gulf had no flood insurance ..... and many RENTERS didn't have even basic renters insurance.

I'm not saying that everyone must always insure for 100% of current value, but for people whose homes/apartments were totally destroyed, having even 50% coverage will give them a running start on replacing what they've lost. JMO

I suppose they all decided to take some kind of calculated risk. And, sure enough, I'm guessing that FEMA will probably give them a helping hand and pay for most of their losses, although I don't know. The flood insurance program now is all federal money too (no private insurers involved). I know in my area there is a mobile home park and wouldn't you know the park floods every time there is some kind of storm; the municipality is closing the park - they can't keep supporting the rescue and rebuilding efforts, including the sewage and storm drains, etc.

patbz · ‎03-10-2010

I am not anti trailer but I do believe in zoning laws. There is a place for trailers (I own a fairly large fifth wheel) but for everybody's safety they need to be properly zoned! Many of the trailers that were destroyed are obviously old (some very old) construction. Just as Florida up graded zoning and building codes after Andrew, they need to do it again. There should be mandatory insurance on all structures and all cars ; if there was The Government (us) wouldnt have to pay out so much after one of these "natural" disasters.