Jump to content

Should people be allowed to repeatedly rebuild on flooded properties?


Randomguy

Recommended Posts

If they can get insurance, and even if they can't and take the risk anyway, sure.  On one street on Tybee that has been flooded twice in one year, a lot of those houses are on slabs.  Even with just one foot of water in a slab house, the damage is extensive.  But, their insurance paid the first time, and will this time.  But some of the homeowners are having their houses raised, and one is even demolishing their house and rebuilding a raised house. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The barrier islands are basically really big sand dunes that are moving north along the coast. Eventually the sand will wash out from below the house. I don't know if the piles can be sunk deep enough to become stilt houses like in Florida, but I think the exposure to the Atlantic might be too much.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, Honey Badger said:

Should they be allowed to? Sure.

Should they get support from FEMA or insurance? That's another question entirely.

If my tax/insurance dollars don't go to it, and it's their responsibility and wallet, it's up to them.

Too late. Your tax dollars are subsidizing the costs of flood insurance that people in designated flood plains are required to buy. If they own their property outright you can't force insurance on them but if there is a lender involved, you will have flood insurance. You will pay for it and you will like it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, tybeegb said:

If they can get insurance, and even if they can't and take the risk anyway, sure.  

I wouldn't agree as long as there is a possibility (however remote) anyone besides the insurance company or the homeowner was on the hook to pay when "disaster" strikes.  Too many times, the risk is pushed beyond those two, and other folks are brought in to fix & pay for things. Then, for homes in flood zones, like Wilbur notes, the proper building and certification processes must be in place, along with the get out of danger's way or expect no rescue. 

Tom

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Believe it or not Southern CA has the second largest flood plain outside of the Mississippi river. Granted it's dry most of the time but there have been historic floods, the last in the 30's.  A huge dam was built to control the Santa Ana river (Home of SART) and there have been no floods since.  However the dam is now pushing 80 years old, suffered significant damage in last winter's rain and..... Thousands upon thousands of homes were built in the natural flood plain down river from the dam...

If that thing goes in a historic flood the death toll will be staggering.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, ChrisL said:

Believe it or not Southern CA has the second largest flood plain outside of the Mississippi river. Granted it's dry most of the time but there have been historic floods, the last in the 30's.  A huge dam was built to control the Santa Ana river (Home of SART) and there have been no floods since.  However the dam is now pushing 80 years old, suffered significant damage in last winter's rain and..... Thousands upon thousands of homes were built in the natural flood plain down river from the dam...

If that thing goes in a historic flood the death toll will be staggering.

It does have a similarity to folks who build near dormant - not extinct - volcanoes.

Tom

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Old#7 said:

Too late. Your tax dollars are subsidizing the costs of flood insurance that people in designated flood plains are required to buy. If they own their property outright you can't force insurance on them but if there is a lender involved, you will have flood insurance. You will pay for it and you will like it.

I know most of you didn't watch the video, but it explained the process.  Our government, not the insurance company, is the payer when flooding happens, and rates are nowhere near the cost of the actual insurance, if it were a market that is self-contained and not supported by the US and A, like it is.  They point to examples of many houses being rebuilt dozens of times on the taxpayer's dime.

It is an interesting and humorous video, btw, you should watch it.

  • Heart 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

50 minutes ago, Razors Edge said:

It does have a similarity to folks who build near dormant - not extinct - volcanoes.

Tom

I think about this from time to time.  I can see several dormant volcanoes on most of my rides. 

Everywhere has the potential for some kind of natural disaster.  I can't think of a place that is 100% safe, can you?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, Dirtyhip said:

I think about this from time to time.  I can see several dormant volcanoes on most of my rides. 

Everywhere has the potential for some kind of natural disaster.  I can't think of a place that is 100% safe, can you?

It surely is relative. I remember living in Seattle and hearing about the return of major home developments in the shadow of Mt Rainier.  To whom should the costs of insuring those homes and lives fall to? I'm guessing the costs are spread out across a large swath of the population (as is best) but that the individuals in the danger zones do not pay an accurate "extra" in their insurance bills to cover their increased risk.  Insurance markets are supposed to balance all that sort of stuff out, but the flood fiascos show how they aren't actually properly functioning. My guess is other markets are the same - wildfire, hurricanes, tornadoes, earthquake, tsunami, etc..

rainier-lahar-flow-map.jpg.4a9c3deaedb9f4dfb04d52645cca3f39.jpg

Tom

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Razors Edge said:

It surely is relative. I remember living in Seattle and hearing about the return of major home developments in the shadow of Mt Rainier.  To whom should the costs of insuring those homes and lives fall to? I'm guessing the costs are spread out across a large swath of the population (as is best) but that the individuals in the danger zones do not pay an accurate "extra" in their insurance bills to cover their increased risk.  Insurance markets are supposed to balance all that sort of stuff out, but the flood fiascos show how they aren't actually properly functioning. My guess is other markets are the same - wildfire, hurricanes, tornadoes, earthquake, tsunami, etc..

rainier-lahar-flow-map.jpg.4a9c3deaedb9f4dfb04d52645cca3f39.jpg

Tom

I have several large volcanoes really close.  Mt Shasta, Mt Mazama, Mt McLaughlin.  Seriously, if Shasta blew, I'd probably be in bad shape with my home and local infrastructure.  When Mt Mazama blew it created a gigantic crater and the blast sent rock far and wide.  That lava rock is what I ride on, when I do MTB rides in the park.

Fires are a concern in the west for sure.  We will have zero trees on our lot.  I see no point in having close shrubbery that can catch the home on fire.  I like the idea of a metal roof too. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 10/31/2017 at 8:00 AM, Old#7 said:

Too late. Your tax dollars are subsidizing the costs of flood insurance that people in designated flood plains are required to buy. If they own their property outright you can't force insurance on them but if there is a lender involved, you will have flood insurance. You will pay for it and you will like it.

And FEMA (under the Presidential Disaster Declaration) won't pay for anything that's rebuilt on the 100-year flood plane.  That's what I found out when doing volunteer work in Cedar Rapids, Iowa after their disaster.  They may pay for a rebuild the first time of a house destroyed within that disaster zone , but not on the same spot that was destroyed or within that plane; it will have to be on a new site.

If there is a lender involved, there should be specific stipulations regarding flood insurance coverage and rebuilds as well, and there are special premiums involved.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, maddmaxx said:

I believe my home is built in a potential meteor strike zone.

Certainly it's in an area that gets enough snow to collapse a roof.

My home is built near a potential nuclear missile strike zone, so I gotta factor that into my rebuilding plans.

Tom

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...