Uhhhh.... Masonry houses don't "fall to timbers".

They also dont succumb to termites-from-hell and other Gulf Coast house maladies.

And they are more suitable for the climate in much of the South.

...without gubmint subsidies, more not-so-rich people would put money down up front to build masonry homes instead of cheaper stick-built.

Here's a difference only in degree: deny Fed assistance to California wildfire and earthquake losers. A Big One is coming, no doubt about it, and the cry for help can already be heard.

We could still give them assistance to find a new home... we could classify communities with buildable land by safety risk and give people the insurance money to build or buy in a low-risk zone.

> we could classify communities

Lunacy which need never, ever end. Anybuddy wanna bet that more federal money isn't spent making Alaska & Arizona habitable than is spent on Florida?

The issue with what the article and Bernie is saying is
That it doesn’t mention Regulation H. Regulation H was implemented to require any home under a mortgage MUST purchase a flood policy (up to max limit of $500,000 or amount of the mortgage) thru NFIP (government subsidized insurance).

This was meant to protect lenders and borrowers from a catastrophic loss - for obvious reasons. Especially where
The borrower does not have the liquidity to cover the mortgage. Anything above 500,000 can be handled by the private market at the lenders discretion.

So there is a cap on this NFIP policy for the rich yet they get to take advantage of $500 k worth of coverage for a
Fraction Of the private market.

But here is the rub. Rich or poor, under a mortgage you are required - by law to buy an NFIP policy. Where
There is a mandatory insurance requirement (flood, workers
Comp, automobile) the government must provide an avenue for subsidized policies where private carriers will not
Cover due to high risk occupations, drivers, flood areas.

The NFIP policy is there because of a Regulation requirement. Remove the regulation and then lenders would not lend
To any person who does not carry the liquidity to
Cover the rebuilding of the home (insurable value).

Also, you and most Californians live in an Earthquake zone. And because insurance is not compulsory - and the market for these policies are private it is much to much for
Most people to afford. What does this mean for most Californians if a large earthquake hit? Imagine the econonomic hit to the market that would result in not rebuilding homes? Especially to surrounding businesses?

Not saying that we should subsidize people’s homes in flood areas only the cost not to rebuild also has its consequences.

And for those with mortgages - they are required to rebuild for lender collateral purposes. They can’t just “take the money and run”.

-

Sorry about the fragmented sentences. On my phone and formatting is challenging.

Ok sorry. Flood limit on res prop is $250k not $500. So there is a max amount. The private insurance will cover excess especially where a mortgage exist on the property.

Okay, it's one thing to keep building in a flood zone or directly on a beach. But if we decide to eliminate assistance for people living in hurricane zones, the entire state of Florida will need to be evacuated and most of the Atlantic Coast, including New York City.

And if we extend that to earthquakes zones, the entire Pacific Coast will need to be evacuated. Although that won't end the threat as we've had earthquakes far inland in places that might get one earthquake every century or only minor, barely-noticed ones (Charlotte, NC for example).

Next, what about tornadoes? The entire Midwest will need to be evacuated. Basically, we're gonna have to stuff the entire population of the US into Montana and Idaho. Natural disasters are a risk of living on the planet Earth.

Now, we can make the people living in danger zones bear the true costs of living there. We can stop letting insurance companies decide they won't cover certain disasters common to that area and charge the people the amount it should cost them to live there. But the political backlash from that will be huge. We've grown too accustomed to living with risk mitigated by others.

When we lived in the Bay Area, we got earthquake insurance. Many of our neighbors did not. It was only a few hundred dollars a year and I figured it would cover the minor earthquake that cracks a foundation but that was not large enough to bring the evening news and the politicians with checkbooks. The major one, I figured, would bring news coverage and politicians with checkbooks and we'd be covered that way.

We also got the insurance that covered the water feed pipes from the streets to the house. Those were not covered by the city. A coworker who did not get that insurance had a break and it cost him $3,500 to fix. The insurance was only a few dollars a month.

That should go double for beach towns like Ocean City, MD. They certainly have subsidized flood insurance for the condos, Convention Center, malls, etc. down there. Just imagine the first time a disaster hits after that is pulled. A lot of people, not wanting the expense of private flood insurance, will simply pull out. That will cause lots of communities along U.S. 50 and the Chesapeake Bay area to breath a huge sigh of relief, especially first responders current hampered by massive beach traffic on summer weekends. Fewer beach amenities, fewer people making the trip and becoming the locals' nightmare.

Just out of curiosity, if the residents of Florida don't have government assistance to help them rebuild in the event of a hurricane, who's going to provide goods and services to the fabulously wealthy who can afford to live in Florida?

And Amy, don't let us hear about you taking even a penny of government assistance if you lose your home in an earthquake.

That will cause lots of communities along U.S. 50 and the Chesapeake Bay area to breath a huge sigh of relief, especially first responders current hampered by massive beach traffic on summer weekends. Fewer beach amenities, fewer people making the trip and becoming the locals' nightmare.

mpetrie98 at September 8, 2019 10:45 AM

Until the see the tax revenues that pay for those services the following year.

That was a pretty tone deaf way to put things Amy. But I agree with the concept that people should be bearing the costs of problems where they chose to live. Be it hurricane, tornado, earthquake, wildfire, or even Antifa. But as Conan points out there is little support politically for that.

> That was a

[Countermand] [Absent Punctuation] [Target Name]

No one is immune...!

You keep trolling Crid. It seems to be all you have.

Patrick at September 8, 2019 12:57 PM:

Amy, don't let us hear about you taking even a penny of government assistance if you lose your home in an earthquake.

When it's raining soup, only a fool wouldn't step outside with a bucket.

It's not trolling (mostly)... It's that the way you say things is so much more interesting than the things you say.

What country were you born in?

> You keep....

[Countermand] [Absent Punctuation] [Target Name]

ESL is the only explanation.

The root of the problem here is that the federal government effectively nationalized flood insurance. As a result, no one knows what the real cost is. Why? Reinsurance is a thing; insurance companies use it to manage other types of mass-destruction risk all the time. Why does flood insurance have to be special?

You certainly obsess over the weirdest things Crid. No wonder you haven't a clue what is going on. Troll on my senile brother. Troll on.

> You certainly obsess

[Countermand] [Absent Punctuation] [Target Name]

Did you stay with a cousin's family when you got off the boat?