Action needed to delay full implementation of flood insurance increases

[kkalsch]

[FONT=&quot]Please contact your local Senator !!!


OBAR, OBHBA, and NC-20, in conjunction with the National Coalition for Sustainable Flood Insurance,[/FONT]
​

[FONT=&quot]Need You to Take Action to Keep Flood Insurance Affordable![/FONT]​

The US Senate is expected to vote this week on the Homeowner Flood Insurance Affordability Act, S. 1846 that was introduced by NJ Senator Menendez in December.​

S. 1846 is a version of S. 1610 and would delay for four years certain premium increases put forth in the Biggert-Waters Act until FEMA can complete its affordability study and Congress can consider the recommendations of the study. This is common sense legislation; Congress and FEMA should understand the ramifications of the Biggert-Waters Act before implementing it. If this legislation is not implemented, homeowners and business owners across America will see dramatic, unaffordable flood insurance premium increases when they lose "grandfathering" under new maps.​

[FONT=&quot]PLEASE CALL SENATOR RICHARD BURR AND SENATOR KAY HAGAN TODAY AND URGE THEM TO VOTE YES[/FONT] on cloture on the motion to proceed to S. 1846, which is expected on Wednesday, and YES on cloture on the bill and final passage, which is expected to occur later this week or early next week.
Senator Hagan has been supportive of the delay; Senator Burr has maintained his support for the Biggert-Waters Flood Insurance Reform Act of 2012 and has not been receptive to making changes to the law.

Contact info:
Senator Richard Burr: (202) 224-3154
http://www.burr.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Contact.ContactForm

Senator Kay Hagan: (202) 224-6342
http://www.hagan.senate.gov/contact/

Below is a template email to send to your Senator urging their support for this critical legislation:

[FONT=&quot]Dear Senator X – [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]This week, the Senate will begin proceedings on S. 1846, the Homeowner Flood Insurance Affordability Act. I urge you to vote YES on cloture and YES on final passage of this critical legislation. This is common sense legislation; Congress and FEMA should understand the ramifications of this law before implementing it. If this legislation is not implemented, homeowners and business owners across America will see dramatic, unaffordable flood insurance premium increases, even for properties with no history of flooding and those that built exactly as the government told them. [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Again, I urge you to vote YES on cloture and YES on final passage of S. 1846, the Homeowner Flood Insurance Affordability Act. [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Thank you – [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]XX[/FONT]

Affordable flood insurance is critical - not only our coastal communities - but to the entire NC economy!
THANK YOU FOR TAKING ACTION ON THIS VERY IMPORTANT MATTER,

 

[northern]

We live in Canada and you can not purchse flood insurance. We live along a river and the water came up 22 feet this past spring. Our house is 20 feet above normal water levels. Our basement was flooded and the cost to fix it up is over 50,000. Some people are loosing their homes over this. You are fortunate to get it at any cost, but we have free health care.

 

[Jimmy Buoy]

Don't kid yourself - nothing is FREE! In Canada we have government health care which is far from free. It is funded with tax dollars, and we know there is only one source for tax dollars - you and me!

 

[JimT]

Why should taxpayers subsidize flood insurance for people that knowingly bought or built in harms way?

 

[Bucit]

Why should taxpayers subsidize flood insurance for people that knowingly bought or built in harms way?

Why should we subsidize home in CA that are built on the side of a hill and 1 mudslide away from destroying it. Or how about the midwest with tornadoes or CA with wildfires. We all pay for things that will not affect us but we don;t know it becasue it's hidden in the fees. The Feds are crying poor becasue of the amount of money it had to spend in Colorado after the floods last year. They were'nt paying for it but we all have to cover the bill.

 

[jitts3]

Why should taxpayers subsidize flood insurance for people that knowingly bought or built in harms way?

Far as I'm concerned let private insurance cover it. And if its too expencive, too bad. Build out of the flood zone

 

[Bucit]

Coming from someone who lives in Fon Du Lac Wisconsin. :smt017

 

[JimT]

Why should we subsidize home in CA that are built on the side of a hill and 1 mudslide away from destroying it. Or how about the midwest with tornadoes or CA with wildfires. We all pay for things that will not affect us but we don;t know it becasue it's hidden in the fees. The Feds are crying poor becasue of the amount of money it had to spend in Colorado after the floods last year. They were'nt paying for it but we all have to cover the bill.

I guess you don't understand how the NFIP or insurance markets work.

The federal government sells below market rate flood policies to people who own in high risk flood zones. This has been going on for 50 years. Every year the cost of paying flood claims greatly exceeds the premiums received. The NFIP borrows money from the federal government to fund the shortfall and NFIP is now $24 billion in debt to the government. Subsidizing the cost of flood insurance has encouraged people to build in high risk areas which creates larger shortfalls in the program. This is an unsustainable cycle.

There are NO federal tax subsidies available for CA residents who build on the side of hills or homeowners in the mid-west who are in tornado prone areas. The insurance market sets the rate for those properties. If the business of insuring those properties becomes unprofitable the insurers increase premiums or pull out of the market. After the 2011 tornados in Alabama several large insurance compnanies stopped writing policies in the state altogether.

People who own property in flood zones are complaining because the NFIP is phasing in rates that more closely reflect the actual risk. Eventaully market forces will force people to build on higher elevations.

 

[jitts3]

Coming from someone who lives in Fon Du Lac Wisconsin. :smt017

Well in WI we pay taxes too. Also I grew up in NJ. Watched many placed down the shore flood many times and am aware of when and where they flood. I grew up in the neighborhood I did because when I was little, my parents built the home new. The other neighborhood they would have built in is too low to build a basement. It would flood from ground waters. Dad knew it would flood one day.
A few years ago Hurricane Irene flooded us bad. Our house was well above the water line. So other than the fact you couldn't leave the area without a boat, the house was high and dry. The other neighborhood with no basements, I lent my camper to a family there after the storm. The water was as high ast the bottom of the roof at its worse.
So why should Dad have to pay for others who mad worse choices than he did? Should you subsidise me in Wisconsin for snow insurance. It snows in Wisconsin and the shore floods. Also, water is wet and the sky is blue...

 

[northern]

Perhaps the solution is to nationalize all insurance companies and let the government set rates for all so the profit is removed and the subsity is gone and every one get coverage at actual costs. Works in Canada for auto insurance is some provinces.

 

[jitts3]

Perhaps the solution is to nationalize all insurance companies and let the government set rates for all so the profit is removed and the subsity is gone and every one get coverage at actual costs. Works in Canada for auto insurance is some provinces.

I can see this slipping right into politics. But this was America. And has slowly become Amirika. Votes bought by using other peoples money to buy others something they want and would rather get for free. To me welfare is used by all classes today. Low, foodstamps, WIC, section 8. On and on. Middle, flood insurance, motgage interest deductions. Again on and on. The upper. Corperate welfare, subsidised business and green tax credits.

How about we just live on what we earned and leave the charity to charities.

 

[MonacoMike]

I can see this slipping right into politics.

Nope, politics slipped into life and therefore all discussions go back to the root, politics...

MM

 

[Bucit]

"People who own property in flood zones are complaining because the NFIP is phasing in rates that more closely reflect the actual risk. Eventaully market forces will force people to build on higher elevations."

Damn right I'm complaining. My house was built in 1970 (waterfront) and has never flooded. I bought in 1998 and flood insuracne was $750. It's now around $2600 and with the Biggert-Waters Act it will exceed $5000 per year. Some homes around me will be over $10,000 per year. Who can afford that? These homes aren't mansions that the rich and famous own, they're working class guys/gals like most of us. What will happen if this actually goes through (or doesn't get suspended) is that our home prices will drop considerably and the foreclosure mess will start all over again. Building codes now require homes to be built high enough to where a flood shouldn;t occur but what about all of the homes built in the 60's and 70's. Privte insurance is a possibility but our homeowners insuracne has gone through the roof as well (that is privitized).

 

[jitts3]

Now I do understand that FEMA is screwing with the maps and calling flood zones where places have no history of flooding. Thats just a money grab there. But we all know of places constantly damaged and always repaired. And again, if the Govt never go involved there would be stability in that market.

I understand the stresses of it all. But my standard answer even to people in my business is to end all subsidies. If the Govt chooses what is and isnt flood zones, that can be politically motivated too.
Look up the history of Bruce Springsteens NJ properties, taxes paid and flood claims. Also his Farm status. But he has friends and we DON'T

 

[SteveRuss]

This is all well and good for people planning on building or rebuidling homes in flood prone areas. They have raised the new standards and should be adhered to. Before I bought my house, I did my due diligence and researched how many times the house flooded since being built in the 60s (0). I understood that the bank required flood insurance and was quoted a significant number but i added that into the afordability of the house and bought it. Now the government is going to rewrite the flood maps and raise the rates to a level that makes my house unaffordable and unsaleable. All of my equity will be lost because no one will buy a house with insurance rates that high. So what do I do? Pay off the remaining significant amount on my mortgage or cut my losses losing all the equity I planned on for retirement and walk away? Why should your taxes go to subsidize people who live in flood zones? I don't know but why should your taxes go to aid countries in the middle east that hate America? Why should your taxes go to provide relief to tunami victims in Japan and Thailand, or to provide social and medical services to illegal aliens? This is a domestic issue impacting regular everyday citizens and before there is a knee jerk reaction from the federal goverment resulting from Sandy that will hurt those already devastated from the storm they should take some time to evaluate the consequences. This is what the new bill is about.

 

[northern]

Long ago when the neighbour's barn burnt the neighbours help him rebuild it. Now we barely know who lives two house away.
Based on comments it looks like there will be a lot of older houses for sale at realy good price in flood zones.

 

[skolbe]

Seems like the needs are different across the country. In MO, the issue is how the locks and dams are controlled are dramatically changing the flooding in the midwest. Plus the additional levees being built keep raising water levels. So people never flooded before are suddenly being flooded. The ironic part is that a levee was raised in one area for massive retail, that offers tax incentives to build new roads, bridges/overpasses. But then in areas unprotected suddenly are being flooded.

 

[JimT]

This is all well and good for people planning on building or rebuidling homes in flood prone areas. They have raised the new standards and should be adhered to. Before I bought my house, I did my due diligence and researched how many times the house flooded since being built in the 60s (0). I understood that the bank required flood insurance and was quoted a significant number but i added that into the afordability of the house and bought it. Now the government is going to rewrite the flood maps and raise the rates to a level that makes my house unaffordable and unsaleable. All of my equity will be lost because no one will buy a house with insurance rates that high. So what do I do? Pay off the remaining significant amount on my mortgage or cut my losses losing all the equity I planned on for retirement and walk away? Why should your taxes go to subsidize people who live in flood zones? I don't know but why should your taxes go to aid countries in the middle east that hate America? Why should your taxes go to provide relief to tunami victims in Japan and Thailand, or to provide social and medical services to illegal aliens? This is a domestic issue impacting regular everyday citizens and before there is a knee jerk reaction from the federal goverment resulting from Sandy that will hurt those already devastated from the storm they should take some time to evaluate the consequences. This is what the new bill is about.

I hear what you are saying about being in a difficult situation. But the new regs provide for gradual increases for folks who have been in their homes for many years. Your arguments about monies spent in other countries is wrong. These dollars are not tax subsidies but part of the general defense. Agree or disagree about how we sponsor overseas governments we do it for national defense purposes. We give money to prop up govts or as relief so we don't have to fight a war on our shores. Many tax breaks like the deduction for mortgage interest were intended to promote a social agenda - increase home ownership and you have a citizenship that will work harder and be more commited in war time.
Direct subsidies such as flood insurance do not serve a greater good. There will be pain as the market rates take hold but that is the way of capitalism. People and companies get squashed every day by market forces. Thats just the way it is in a freeer than most socierty.

 

[jitts3]

A strong forign policy would prevent attacks here. So as far as Im concerned we should stop forign aid also. WE ARE BROKE. Subsidies of any kind to me should be stopped. I know thats a blanket statement. But one man's view none the less.