Home

[Snowpuppy]

---

@Sweetbay magnolia wrote:

Typically the mortgage provider dictates whether flood insurance is necessary, or mandatory.

If there is no mortgage - ?  I would imagine the survey would indicate such (if the property is in a flood plain).

---

This response is accurate. If your home is in a flood plane and you have any type of mortgage, 1st, HELOC, you are required to carry flood insurance.  It is underwritten by the gov't.

If you don't carry a mortgage it's not mandatory.

If your neighbor has no flood ins, they have no mortgage. You can only purchase flood insurance if you live in a designated flood plane.

[151949]

The thing is - we are required by the covenants of the HOA to have flood insurance but our HOA management has never required the members to produce proof of insurance as they are supposed to do. Thus many have allowed it to lapse.So some of the members are passing a petition to force the HOA management to do their job and make members produce their policy yearly. Not making a new rule but just trying to enforce a rule already in place., which is for everyones well being.

[noodleann]

Living in a river valley, I know a number of people who live in the flood plain. They screamed when their federal flood insurance premiums skyrocketed a couple of years ago, and Congress rolled back those increases. But because they're phasing in the increases annually, a couple people I know will be paying nearly $10K a year for flood insurance alone in several years. That's before paying for regular home insurance or the out-of-control property taxes we pay here. 

I stand to inherit a share in a home that is very close to the water, and know that the flood insurance issue will probably cut the selling price by at least 25%. A lot of people who can't afford to move and don't have second homes as fallbacks are going to be driven out and find they can't get enough for their houses to relocate in the area.

[151949]

@noodleann  Yes, people who live where it has flooded repeatedly do have those kinds of very high premiums. It is unfortunate for them on one hand but on the other hand the government can't just keep paying year after year after year to keep repairing those same homes, and they can't refuse the insurance . So all they can do is make the premiums very high. Every spring , on the news in Pittsburgh they show the exact same homes flooded along certain creeks. EVERY YEAR. But they never move away. Every year the same women crying and carrying on for the TV cameras. I believe eventually the city did buy some of these homes out by eminent domain and made them move.

[noodleann]

---

@151949 wrote:

@noodleann  Yes, people who live where it has flooded repeatedly do have those kinds of very high premiums. It is unfortunate for them on one hand but on the other hand the government can't just keep paying year after year after year to keep repairing those same homes, and they can't refuse the insurance . So all they can do is make the premiums very high. Every spring , on the news in Pittsburgh they show the exact same homes flooded along certain creeks. EVERY YEAR. But they never move away. Every year the same women crying and carrying on for the TV cameras. I believe eventually the city did buy some of these homes out by eminent domain and made them move.

---

But the feds can refuse the insurance, or will be able to in time. It's not going to be possible to sustain this level of assistance.

What bothers me is that although it was expressly illegal and a violation of the town's own ordinances, the town permitted the building of a row of townhouses across the street from the house in question, which has displaced and deflected more water to other properties. Some suspect that money changed hands, but I think it was just the good old boys at work. So the town is actually responsible for increasing risk for overall flooding of that property, and the level of damage sustained.

People don't "move away" from properties in the flood plain because they can't afford to. You have two properties. If you had only the one and couldn't afford to move either, you'd understand. Or perhaps not. A little circumspection and compassion wouldn't do you no harm, ######. A few of these knee-jerk "are there no workhouses" responses go a very long way.

[151949]

---

@noodleann wrote:

---

@151949 wrote:

@noodleann  Yes, people who live where it has flooded repeatedly do have those kinds of very high premiums. It is unfortunate for them on one hand but on the other hand the government can't just keep paying year after year after year to keep repairing those same homes, and they can't refuse the insurance . So all they can do is make the premiums very high. Every spring , on the news in Pittsburgh they show the exact same homes flooded along certain creeks. EVERY YEAR. But they never move away. Every year the same women crying and carrying on for the TV cameras. I believe eventually the city did buy some of these homes out by eminent domain and made them move.

---

But the feds can refuse the insurance, or will be able to in time. It's not going to be possible to sustain this level of assistance.

What bothers me is that although it was expressly illegal and a violation of the town's own ordinances, the town permitted the building of a row of townhouses across the street from the house in question, which has displaced and deflected more water to other properties. Some suspect that money changed hands, but I think it was just the good old boys at work. So the town is actually responsible for increasing risk for overall flooding of that property, and the level of damage sustained.

People don't "move away" from properties in the flood plain because they can't afford to. You have two properties. If you had only the one and couldn't afford to move either, you'd understand. Or perhaps not. A little circumspection and compassion wouldn't do you no harm, ######. A few of these knee-jerk "are there no workhouses" responses go a very long way.

---

Where oh where is my second property? I'd like to sell it if I could find it - but in fact it doesn't exist. I have ONE home and a camper on a rented lot in a campground. Do you think of that as a property?

[Sunshine Kate]

---

@151949 wrote:

One of our neighbors used to live in a high rise condo in Miami and he said a few years back they had a hurricane - someone on an upper floor just ran scared and lefty without putting up their hurricane shutters. Well, the windows all blew in and in poured the water , which then damaged several condos below that one as the water ran down the inside. The owner who did this was never seen again, and all those who sustained damage had to pay their deductibles and then try to sue to recover their money. He said they have still not seen a dime.

---

That's why I would never buy a condo.  

[151949]

@gardenman  Here in Florida we carry both flood insurance and hurricane insurance in addition to regular homeowners ins. The rules of what situation each would pay are long and complicated. If the wind takes off your roof and then water gets in & damages your house then it is the hurricane ins - but only if it is a named storm. If it is a tornado , for instance, the hurricane ins. does not apply -that is under regular homeowners. Storm serge is covered by hurricane ins - not flood. If the lake in our back yard overflows - that is flood ins. Our insurance agent actually gave us a chart explaining who we would make a claim to under various circumstances. We are as covered as we can get , but who covers what is not as simple as one would think. 

Also you have to buy all these coverages from different places - our homeowners is thru AAA - flood is only available from FEMA - and hurricane is thru the state of Florida. So you gotta know each of these is gonna try to fight a claim and push it off to another if they possibly can.