When are people going to wake up?

Exactly. If you build near the ocean, myself included, you are aware of the risks and should not got any taxpayer bailouts. Now, church organizations and other charities can still help as they do with any crisis. The federal govt should not be involved. Now, for sharkhunter, he wants his cake and eat it too. If you don't want taxpayer money to help people with oceanfront property (which I agree with), you shouldn't approve using taxpayer dollars for free healthcare. You say it's a right for healthcare, bull****. It's a privilege. There were three rights defined when this country was created, look them up. Healthcare isn't one of them. If you don't like it, get the **** out of this country. I'm sorry. I'm not paying for others healthcare, especially obese and people who smoke. They know the risks of their lifestyle, just like people who build on the oceanfront and shouldn't get any free healthcare. Churches, donations, and other type of doctors will always help people without healtcare. People have no faith in other people in the community helping which happened way before the federal govt started getting involved.

 

that's too simplistic. Part of it for sure but also provide beach for people to use is a huge part as well.

 

how is taking govt out of the insurance business socialism??????????

 

I don't think building homes interferes with anything. Barrier islands naturally migrate toward the mainland. Somebody can build at the high tide line for all I care BUT they should do so with the understanding that its not wise and they won't be bailed out by the taxpayer if their place gets washed away.

 

there is none. the ONLY person subsidizing homes is the homeowner via their own money. medicare is taking from everybody to pay for some BY THE GOVERNMENT. Medicare would be ok if that same government would keep the money taken to be used solely for medicare and not other general expenditures.

 

I have a small condo on CB. If I move back two blocks I'm in the canal. We all know that you can't move a condo. So: 1. The government buys all the condos, hotels, houses and restaurants within two blocks of all east coast beaches, with our tax dollars, and then bulldozes them (where?) and makes parking lots. (Talk about a drainage runoff nightmare.) Or 2. We get rid of the subsidized Flood Insurance Program. Now I, and most of my neighbors, and I imagine a lot of coastal homeowners can't afford the insurance without the subsidy. All of us with mortgages have to have insurance or we would be in default on our loans. Then banks have to foreclose. Now we have tens of thousands of vacant, bank owned properties not providing property taxes. People might not be as likely to build on the coast without the National Flood Insurance Program, but there are a lot of current properties that would be affected by abolishing this program. I've never been a great fan of government subsidies but this seems to be one that I'm a part of...

 

OR, some enterprising risk takers recognize a new market for reasonable flood insurance and start a new business to fill that niche......

 

I'm not yet sure which dog I like best in this fight but I just wanted to throw this idea into the mix. Although, I do agree that more and bigger dunes will better protect beach front areas better than man made structures which just kick the can further down the beach.

We have a land preserve program down here that is designed to preserve farm land from being developed. It works something like this:

1. Landowner pledges not to develop his farm land.
2. City determines what the property would be worth if developed and buys development rights from land owner.
3. City then buys 25yr. Treasury Bond for that amount.
4. Land owner receives the tax-free interest payments for the 25 yrs.
5. After 25 yrs. land development rights revert back to the land owner and he gets the principal amount of the bond.

Something similar could be used for beachfront property. Existing homes would probably have to be grandfathered in but undeveloped land and condemned and destroyed structures couldn't be rebuilt. The interest payments could be used to offset the purchase of other property. But, this won't address the problem of not enough land in the beach communities for everyone to relocate.

For example, suppose a home on a oceanfront property increases its value by $500,000.
City will buy (at a cost of $150,000) a 25yr. $500,000 bond which will payout around $21,000/yr. Plus the land owner gets the original $500,000 principal amount at the end of 25 yrs. Total payout to the land owner = 500,000 + (25 * 21,000) = $1,025,000

At least the government doesn't take your land plus you get compensated a decent amount that could go to another purchase. This also lets the owner pass the property to their heirs. And, if the seas don't rise and we don't kill off the human race first then the issue of where is the best place to establish the no build zone can be reevaluated around mid-century when we should have more data.

Not that I'm an advocate of this type of program but I wanted to throw it out there.

 

According to the Government Accountability Office, subsidized premium rates are generally 40 percent to 45 percent of the full-risk price. The average annual subsidized premium was $1,121 in 2010, discounted from the $2,500 to $2,800 that FEMA said would be required to cover the full risk of loss.

The National Flood Insurance Program is 19 Billion in debt. That seems almost fiscally sound in the current economy.

AKA pumpmaster, Good point. Long live free enterprise!

 

this is way off topic but:
why would anyone take a home that has already weathered this and countless other storms and remodel it so it can better withstand storms? if any part of the house was knocked down it would have to be built at least to current local building codes and all local codes are stricter not less so than international building codes. but that still wouldn't stop your house from filling up with water when the entire town is 6 ft deep. the only thing you could do is raise the house and build the foundation up but eventually a surge will come that goes into your first floor.
back to the topic at hand. If the gov't ever tries to get me off the island i was born and raised on and take my land i will fight. like a camanche if need be. i understand mandatory evacs so emergency personal do not get into harms way but after the storm blows over im going back. im rebuilding and moving on. european peoples have been living here since before we were an independant country. no ones going to try to move us.

 

You're right, just leave everything the way it is. Seems to have worked out well for you all. I'm not just talking about the houses being brought up to code, but the entire place from sand to buildings needs a good rebuilding, and by people who know how to design / build in a coastal area.

 

on paper a great idea. in reality it would never happen. you are going to FORCE people to tear down their homes and rebuild???

 

Feel free to stay, but stop asking me and other non-flood zone residents to rebuild your house via subsidized flood insurance. If you're comfortable paying 2.5 times more than you currently pay for flood insurance, then stay and rebuild. If not, you need to move somewhere else.

 

Nah, never said FORCE anybody to do anything, and not suggesting you completely tear down a home and rebuild it, there are ways to retrofit a home without scrapping it and starting over. The homes are a part of the problem, but not the whole problem.

My original point was to let you guys know what the engineers, architects, contractors etc. aren't doing, and that's getting the proper on-going education that is required to stay on top of these things, to keep people as safe as possible. If you design and build the infrastructure of a town in 1932 (just a random year), there is a good chance that in the year 2012 that things have changed quite a bit, and we have discovered some very important things along the way.

 

never asked. i don't have flood insurance. most folks around me don't. can't afford it even with a subsidy. i think the bank makes you get flood insurance when you get a mortgage around here but im lucky to have a house paid for. smart enough to put what i want to keep on the 2nd floor or out of harms way. and able to do the work that needs to be done to get the house in order. the community is helping each other out and we will be OK.

i understand were you are coming from. im willing to except the risk. i like it here. you would too.

 

i get what you are saying about building science and ways to take an existing hoime and make it better without changing the way the house feels. energy conservancy sure. health and safety when it comes to fire and combustion gases. but i am curious on how to make a house flood proof? water finds a way in even when there isn't a flood. through moisture or pressure a home gets wet 24/7. you can't stop it from coming in you can only move it out once it is there. that is building science 101. the problem here was that the water intrusion beat the evacuation. with no elctricity how do you use a pump? sound like you and i can have a great conversation about this as its my job too but this aint the place.

 

True, if you do nothing to the elevation of the ground floor and do nothing to the landscape surrounding the home then you will end up with the same results on the next storm. Flood waters will always find a way in if you do nothing to change elevation. So what i'm suggesting is that engineers and landscape architects take a long hard look at the landscape and come up with creative ways to minimize the storm surge / flooding, while the architects engineers and contractors all work together on the homes and buildings to make them more structurally sound with better drainage systems to get water out once it's in, because you will never be able to avoid 100% of it, but you can minimize. Surely they can design a drainage / pump system that doesn't require electricity. Plus, think about all the renewal sources of energy that could be used too. Lots of ideas floating around out there, but someone has to have the balls to go for it and set the standard.