This may be too sensitive right now. I apologize in advance if it is, and ask for a mod to delete the thread if they feel this is needed. So here it goes...

With the cresting of the Mississippi and the news of flood damage pouring out from midwest, it got me to think about what role does the National Flood Insurance Program play in this? This program provides a subsidy to those who otherwise would not be able to afford to purchase flood insurance. I think the argument could be made that this very program is helping to shape behaviors in dangerous ways. If everyone had to buy flood insurance based on the market rates, then people would make different choices on where they would live. In my mind, abolishing the subsidies for flood insurance would save lives and money in the long run.

If people are stupid enough to build on a flood plain, I don't have a whole lot of sympathy for them. Stupid is as stupid does...

If you live in San Francisco, you can't get earthquake insurance. It should be the same on a flood plain. Anyone stupid enough to live there should be taking their own chances, and not requiring the government or insurance to bail them out every time the river rises...

I think this actually oversimplifies things. When you live in a 5 year or even a 20 year flood plain it makes zero sense to have built there let along subsidize insurance. Now there are broad swaths in some regions that are in a 100 year flood plain where moderate flooding or worse occurs maybe once or twice every 100 years on average (sometimes less often, sometimes a bit more.) Those people need to buy flood insurance too. In that case people should be allowed to build there certainly and they should be offered flood insurance. The other thing about people living in the main 5 year or 20 year segments of flood plain is a good number of them aren't exactly living there by choice but by economic necessity because the rents/costs are lower than higher ground for a reason. So one could argue that such programs are addressing a market failure. Are they addressing the market failure the best way possible is the real question?

(05-11-2011 09:18 AM)brista21 Wrote:  I think this actually oversimplifies things. When you live in a 5 year or even a 20 year flood plain it makes zero sense to have built there let along subsidize insurance. Now there are broad swaths in some regions that are in a 100 year flood plain where moderate flooding or worse occurs maybe once or twice every 100 years on average (sometimes less often, sometimes a bit more.) Those people need to buy flood insurance too. In that case people should be allowed to build there certainly and they should be offered flood insurance. The other thing about people living in the main 5 year or 20 year segments of flood plain is a good number of them aren't exactly living there by choice but by economic necessity because the rents/costs are lower than higher ground for a reason. So one could argue that such programs are addressing a market failure. Are they addressing the market failure the best way possible is the real question?

Do renters have to purchase flood insurance? I'm not sure because I'm not a renter. If you have enough money to buy a house or start a business, then you are not an economic disadvantaged class but have options at your disposal. I'm sure flood plain insurance is priced accordingly, and I would assume that insurance for a flood plain that may flood once or twice within a 100 year period would be much cheaper than many of the lands surrounding the Mississippi. I don't see a market failure here at all. The greatest subsidies would have to go to those who are living in a flood plain that experiences regular flooding.

While sympathetic to Bit's position, I understand Brista's point, too. It would still seem that those in the flood plains would take their benefits from the flood insurance (following the flood damage) and move away, rather than rebuild, knowing they are likely to face another flood.

Here in Texas, they are getting much more restrictive when it comes to the flood plains, so building permits are simply denied in these plains. You may use the plains for agriculture, hunting, timber, natural resources, etc. but not for commercial and/or residential buildings. Utilities are also denied ready access to the flood plain areas (not that they want it as it is costly to them, too), making it that much more difficult to develop the flood areas.

In Florida, and sevearl other states, new construction along the beaches must be behind the sand dunes and insurance is denied/cost prohibitive to those that have grandfathered homes literally on the beach.

Would state/county zoning be the best way to resolve this issue?

(05-11-2011 11:44 AM)HtownOrange Wrote:  While sympathetic to Bit's position, I understand Brista's point, too. It would still seem that those in the flood plains would take their benefits from the flood insurance (following the flood damage) and move away, rather than rebuild, knowing they are likely to face another flood.

Here in Texas, they are getting much more restrictive when it comes to the flood plains, so building permits are simply denied in these plains. You may use the plains for agriculture, hunting, timber, natural resources, etc. but not for commercial and/or residential buildings. Utilities are also denied ready access to the flood plain areas (not that they want it as it is costly to them, too), making it that much more difficult to develop the flood areas.

In Florida, and sevearl other states, new construction along the beaches must be behind the sand dunes and insurance is denied/cost prohibitive to those that have grandfathered homes literally on the beach.

Would state/county zoning be the best way to resolve this issue?

Simply put yes. Preventing further building in your 5 year and 20 year floodplains is the most effective way to handle things.

I'm pretty positive that renters do indeed have to purchase flood insurance. The landlords would definitely have to but I'd be shocked if landlords in those cases purchased adequate coverage.

(05-11-2011 12:23 PM)brista21 Wrote:  

(05-11-2011 11:44 AM)HtownOrange Wrote:  While sympathetic to Bit's position, I understand Brista's point, too. It would still seem that those in the flood plains would take their benefits from the flood insurance (following the flood damage) and move away, rather than rebuild, knowing they are likely to face another flood.

Here in Texas, they are getting much more restrictive when it comes to the flood plains, so building permits are simply denied in these plains. You may use the plains for agriculture, hunting, timber, natural resources, etc. but not for commercial and/or residential buildings. Utilities are also denied ready access to the flood plain areas (not that they want it as it is costly to them, too), making it that much more difficult to develop the flood areas.

In Florida, and sevearl other states, new construction along the beaches must be behind the sand dunes and insurance is denied/cost prohibitive to those that have grandfathered homes literally on the beach.

Would state/county zoning be the best way to resolve this issue?

Simply put yes. Preventing further building in your 5 year and 20 year floodplains is the most effective way to handle things.

I'm pretty positive that renters do indeed have to purchase flood insurance. The landlords would definitely have to but I'd be shocked if landlords in those cases purchased adequate coverage.

Landlords will protect their own property. It is highly doubtful that the landlords would cover the renters' personal property.

The Landlords would only have insurance for the renters if required by state or local zoning ordinances. But if it's in an area prone to frequent flooding, I'd give him some fixed value, raze the property, and zone it for a park, or something else that doesn't matter when it goes underwater for a while...