I'm all about preservation but this is ridiculous. The house should be torn down.
FEMA program will pay $500,000 to lift a Riverside home above flood level
Posted: October 14, 2012 - 12:23am | Updated: October 15, 2012 - 10:20am
Back Photo: 1 of 7 Next
Iris Eisenberg stands in front of her flood-prone Riverside home. A program through the National Flood Insurance Program will raise her home several feet in an effort to help prevent future claims. BRUCE LIPSKY/The Times-Union
BRUCE LIPSKY/The Times-Union
Iris Eisenberg stands in front of her flood-prone Riverside home. A program through the National Flood Insurance Program will raise her home several feet in an effort to help prevent future claims.
By David Bauerlein
At Iris Eisenberg’s home, the floodwater keeps coming.
The water runs in sheets across the lawn, spills over the doorsteps, rises shin-deep in the living room. In the worst case of flooding, it topped the second step of the stairs leading to the home’s upper floor.
The Federal Emergency Management Agency and Eisenberg have come up with a way to get her Riverside neighborhood home out of harm’s way â€" at a cost of $503,671.
The 86-year-old home will be elevated so its foundation is 8 feet above the floodplain. FEMA will pay 90 percent of the cost, which is $453,304. Eisenberg will put up 10 percent, or $50,367.
City Councilman John Crescimbeni said he questions whether the federal program is getting the best bang for its buck. The Duval County Property Appraiser estimates the market value of the 2,400-square-foot home is $251,135, so the cost of saving it from future flooding will be double what the house could sell for.
He said it might make more sense to buy the property and demolish the house, as FEMA grants have done for other repeatedly flooded homes in Jacksonville.
“I think that’s a more permanent solution,†he said. “What happens if there’s a continuing problem or some super-storm floods it again?â€
But the federal government doesn’t compare alternatives such as demolition versus elevation to determine which is most cost-effective. The program, which is voluntary for property owners, gives them the option of applying for grants to either sell out and move, or stay and reconstruct.
After the property owner decides, FEMA estimates how much the National Flood Insurance Program would pay in future flood damage claims if nothing is done. FEMA then determines whether the benefits of preventing those flood claims outweighs the cost.
Elevating Eisenberg’s home passed that test, barely. It got a benefit-cost cost ratio of 1.049. In other words, FEMA expects the $503,000 project will result in preventing $527,647 in future flood damage.
Eisenberg said demolition wasn’t an option she considered. She said it’s combination of emotional attachment to the home she’s owned since 1996, and also because the Riverside neighborhood is characterized by preserving historic buildings.
She said after she learned how much it would cost to raise the foundation, “That’s when I asked, ‘Does this really make sense?’ â€
But she said ultimately, it’s the only way to stop the chronic intrusion of water. She said when she bought the home, the previous owner told her a French drain handled stormwater runoff. But after she moved in and experience her first flood, she called the company that installed the drain and was told the prior owner had opted for a cheaper system than the company recommended.
“I’m the poster child of repetitive flooding,†Eisenberg said wearily. “You haven’t lived until you’ve got water coming out of your dishwasher.â€
The fix won’t involve local taxpayer dollars, but the Jacksonville City Council must approve a pending bill accepting the grant because the city will be responsible for administering it.
Since 2006, FEMA has authorized almost $5.4 million in grants for 19 properties in Jacksonville
Most of the grants have paid to purchase the flood-prone property, demolish the buildings and keep the land off-limits to construction. But like Eisenberg, some property owners have obtained assistance to elevated buildings above flood level:
■ FEMA authorized $531,270 for the construction of a second story on a home at 4260 Yacht Club Drive. The renovation turned the ground floor into space for parking and storage. The property owner agreed to pay $177,089 for a total project cost of $708,359.
■ FEMA approved $148,583 in grants for demolition of a home at 2811 W. Fourth St. and construction of a new house on an elevated foundation. The homeowners agreed to pay $16,509 from their own pockets for a total cost of $165,092.
■ Clark’s Fish Camp, a Mandarin restaurant, benefited from $328,775. The restaurant paid $109,591. The work elevated a food and beverage storage area of the restaurant, according to city records.
The federal funding comes from premiums paid by property owners through the National Flood Insurance Program.
All taxpayers have a stake in the flood insurance program because it owes $17.8 billion to the federal government. That debt stems mainly from federal loans in wake of widespread damage claims caused by Hurricane Katrina.
One of its biggest problems is flood-prone buildings that repeatedly require insurance damage payments. Congress sought to tackle that problem by creating the Severe Repetitive Loss program to demolish those homes or elevate them. The program originally required a 25 percent local match, but that dropped to 10 percent in states with FEMA-approved plans for reducing flood threats.
Florida won approval in 2008, making it more affordable for residential owners to meet the required match. Since 2008, the federal government has authorized $309 million of those grants nationwide, and Florida has received $15.8 million.
FEMA has identified 31 residential properties in Jacksonville that are eligible for the program, and grants have been obligated for 13. Those are in addition to other grants that have assisted Jacksonville property owners over the years.
To qualify, the buildings must have suffered least four flood claims for more than $5,000 each in damage to the building and contents, or at least two claims for building damage in which the total amount of claims exceed the building’s market value.
The local community, such as Jacksonville, applies for the grant on behalf of the property owner. The state then submits it to FEMA.
Most of the grants pay to buy flood-prone property and raze buildings, which can result in grants that exceed the market value of the property. For instance, in March the City Council agreed to accept $1 million in FEMA grants to buy two homes near Little Pottsburg Creek that had a total market value of $557,000, according to the Property Appraiser’s Office.
When acquiring property, FEMA must examine the property’s current value, the original amount paid for the purchase, and what the value of the property was before the flood damage. FEMA determines which of those had the highest value for the home, and the property owner must get at least that amount.
Read more at Jacksonville.com: http://jacksonville.com/news/metro/2012-10-14/story/fema-program-will-pay-500000-lift-riverside-home-above-flood-level#ixzz29OStvAYX
Seems reasonable to pay half a million dollars to repair a house worth half that. You can't put a price on sentimental attachment, megatron.
What ever happened to caveat emptor?
Quote from: duvalbill on October 15, 2012, 02:47:54 PM
Seems reasonable to pay half a million dollars to repair a house worth half that. You can't put a price on sentimental attachment, megatron.
You're joking, right?? I think i know what house they are talking about on Yacht Club Rd. The house is now monstrous and it doesn't look like the bottom floor is used for storage. It looks like the owners just used the government to finance a huge addition.
Guess it went the same way as finding a reliable home inspector. You'd think a doctor would perform her due diligence when making such a purchase. You'd also think a doctor would be less inclined to accept a half million dollars from FEMA when knowing damn well the house isn't worth it, but I digress.
Quote from: Captain Zissou on October 15, 2012, 03:04:33 PM
Quote from: duvalbill on October 15, 2012, 02:47:54 PM
Seems reasonable to pay half a million dollars to repair a house worth half that. You can't put a price on sentimental attachment, megatron.
You're joking, right?? I think i know what house they are talking about on Yacht Club Rd. The house is now monstrous and it doesn't look like the bottom floor is used for storage. It looks like the owners just used the government to finance a huge addition.
I sell my memento's for millions, so no, I'm not joking. Good for her.
;)
Quote from: Captain Zissou on October 15, 2012, 03:04:33 PM
You're joking, right?? I think i know what house they are talking about on Yacht Club Rd. The house is now monstrous and it doesn't look like the bottom floor is used for storage. It looks like the owners just used the government to finance a huge addition.
So, I am not alone in thinking this is a ridiculous waste of taxpayer dollars?
Quote from: Captain Zissou on October 15, 2012, 03:04:33 PM
I think i know what house they are talking about on Yacht Club Rd. The house is now monstrous and it doesn't look like the bottom floor is used for storage. It looks like the owners just used the government to finance a huge addition.
I think you are correct.
was it in a flood plane in 96?
Floodplain boundaries did not change between 1989 and 2010.
Quote from: MEGATRON on October 15, 2012, 04:24:16 PM
Floodplain boundaries did not change between 1989 and 2010.
how often have they been updated? Floodplains can change due to development.
Quote from: fsquid on October 15, 2012, 04:31:58 PM
Quote from: MEGATRON on October 15, 2012, 04:24:16 PM
Floodplain boundaries did not change between 1989 and 2010.
how often have they been updated? Floodplains can change due to development.
Like I said, they were updated in 2010. The previous update was 1989. There has not been much in the way of additional development in Avondale for years so I do not think that is the issue.
Seems like a fleecing of the taxpayer to me. Somewhat of an odd first (or very early) post for a new member. It almost seems as if a vendetta might be one of the motives of posting this.
BTW... Calvin Johnson = BEAST
Quote from: buckethead on October 15, 2012, 09:34:38 PM
Seems like a fleecing of the taxpayer to me. Somewhat of an odd first (or very early) post for a new member. It almost seems as if a vendetta might be one of the motives of posting this.
BTW... Calvin Johnson = BEAST
Yeah. I hate pediatricians.
All pediatricians?
You could say I'm wrong. It wouldn't be the first time. This was simply a fairly specific topic, aimed at a particular residence. It absolutely seems a scam based upon what I've read here. Just an odd first post in my mind.
Like I said... I could be off base, and owing an apology.
Quote from: buckethead on October 15, 2012, 10:02:55 PM
All pediatricians?
You could say I'm wrong. It wouldn't be the first time. This was simply a fairly specific topic, aimed at a particular residence. It absolutely seems a scam based upon what I've read here. Just an odd first post in my mind.
Like I said... I could be off base, and owing an apology.
You are wrong and owe me an apology.
Sorry about that.
I heard today that there is a good chance that City Council will not approve this grant.
It probably will not make it out of committee.
Quote from: Intuition Ale Works on October 16, 2012, 04:13:49 PM
I heard today that there is a good chance that City Council will not approve this grant.
It probably will not make it out of committee.
That's good news grumpy brewery owner.
This is a national flood program issue, not a FEMA issue, but...wouldn't it be cheaper to move the house to another location in Riverside that doesn't flood? The house would still be saved.
Quote from: Debbie Thompson on October 17, 2012, 07:13:21 AM
This is a national floor program issue, not a FEMA issue, but...wouldn't it be cheaper to move the house to another location in Riverside that doesn't flood? The house would still be saved.
After buying an empty lot, I kind of doubt it. Regardless, the pediatrician should pay those costs, not you and I.
Quote from: MEGATRON on October 17, 2012, 09:14:22 AM
Quote from: Debbie Thompson on October 17, 2012, 07:13:21 AM
This is a national floor program issue, not a FEMA issue, but...wouldn't it be cheaper to move the house to another location in Riverside that doesn't flood? The house would still be saved.
After buying an empty lot, I kind of doubt it. Regardless, the pediatrician should pay those costs, not you and I.
Megatron you act as if your part in this so called bill is going to be thousands of dollars? As Tax payers your total coast would be pennies at best. :o
It's the principle of the matter, not the individual cost to taxpayers. By using that reasoning, almost nothing should bother us, as it's just mere pennies per person.
Quote from: If_I_Loved_you on October 17, 2012, 09:38:58 AM
Quote from: MEGATRON on October 17, 2012, 09:14:22 AM
Quote from: Debbie Thompson on October 17, 2012, 07:13:21 AM
This is a national floor program issue, not a FEMA issue, but...wouldn't it be cheaper to move the house to another location in Riverside that doesn't flood? The house would still be saved.
After buying an empty lot, I kind of doubt it. Regardless, the pediatrician should pay those costs, not you and I.
Megatron you act as if your part in this so called bill is going to be thousands of dollars? As Tax payers your total coast would be pennies at best. :o
I hope this is sarcasm
Quote from: duvalbill on October 17, 2012, 09:52:11 AM
It's the principle of the matter, not the individual cost to taxpayers. By using that reasoning, almost nothing should bother us, as it's just mere pennies per person.
I have NEVER had a problem with paying Taxes. As I drive around Jacksonville the roads are in very bad shape. Riverside Ave has become a joke, but wait it will soon be fixed but will it be done right so it doesn't flood during high tides? Without that 1/2 cent sales tax added on years back we wouldn't have a New downtown Library would we. And in the new year we are going to get Red light Camera's to get more money flowing in ;D :D :) that's rich.
Quote from: If_I_Loved_you on October 17, 2012, 09:38:58 AM
Quote from: MEGATRON on October 17, 2012, 09:14:22 AM
Quote from: Debbie Thompson on October 17, 2012, 07:13:21 AM
This is a national floor program issue, not a FEMA issue, but...wouldn't it be cheaper to move the house to another location in Riverside that doesn't flood? The house would still be saved.
After buying an empty lot, I kind of doubt it. Regardless, the pediatrician should pay those costs, not you and I.
Megatron you act as if your part in this so called bill is going to be thousands of dollars? As Tax payers your total coast would be pennies at best. :o
The taxpayers have been getting hit with these penny costs for years and now every citizen's share of the debt that has been accrued is over $51k.
Wasting those "pennies" adds up over time.
Quote from: If_I_Loved_you on October 17, 2012, 09:38:58 AM
Quote from: MEGATRON on October 17, 2012, 09:14:22 AM
Quote from: Debbie Thompson on October 17, 2012, 07:13:21 AM
This is a national floor program issue, not a FEMA issue, but...wouldn't it be cheaper to move the house to another location in Riverside that doesn't flood? The house would still be saved.
After buying an empty lot, I kind of doubt it. Regardless, the pediatrician should pay those costs, not you and I.
Megatron you act as if your part in this so called bill is going to be thousands of dollars? As Tax payers your total coast would be pennies at best. :o
I don't even know how to respond to this. Pretty sad commentary on our country when folks believe such a statement.
For the record, I don't mind paying taxes either. I am hardly anti-tax. However, I do feel that the government has a fiduciary duty to the taxpayers to spend that tax money wisely. Spending five hundred grand to elevate a relatively wealthy individual's house out of a flood prone area is not a wise use of funds.
Quote from: MEGATRON on October 17, 2012, 10:29:44 AM
Quote from: If_I_Loved_you on October 17, 2012, 09:38:58 AM
Quote from: MEGATRON on October 17, 2012, 09:14:22 AM
Quote from: Debbie Thompson on October 17, 2012, 07:13:21 AM
This is a national floor program issue, not a FEMA issue, but...wouldn't it be cheaper to move the house to another location in Riverside that doesn't flood? The house would still be saved.
After buying an empty lot, I kind of doubt it. Regardless, the pediatrician should pay those costs, not you and I.
Megatron you act as if your part in this so called bill is going to be thousands of dollars? As Tax payers your total coast would be pennies at best. :o
I don't even know how to respond to this. Pretty sad commentary on our country when folks believe such a statement.
For the record, I don't mind paying taxes either. I am hardly anti-tax. However, I do feel that the government has a fiduciary duty to the taxpayers to spend that tax money wisely. Spending five hundred grand to elevate a relatively wealthy individual's house out of a flood prone area is not a wise use of funds.
Look I'm not a fan of FEMA either and maybe this will not go forward doesn't the city have to say OK? And I'm glad you're not anti-tax it just seemed that you were.
Quote from: If_I_Loved_you on October 17, 2012, 10:40:01 AM
Quote from: MEGATRON on October 17, 2012, 10:29:44 AM
Quote from: If_I_Loved_you on October 17, 2012, 09:38:58 AM
Quote from: MEGATRON on October 17, 2012, 09:14:22 AM
Quote from: Debbie Thompson on October 17, 2012, 07:13:21 AM
This is a national floor program issue, not a FEMA issue, but...wouldn't it be cheaper to move the house to another location in Riverside that doesn't flood? The house would still be saved.
After buying an empty lot, I kind of doubt it. Regardless, the pediatrician should pay those costs, not you and I.
Megatron you act as if your part in this so called bill is going to be thousands of dollars? As Tax payers your total coast would be pennies at best. :o
I don't even know how to respond to this. Pretty sad commentary on our country when folks believe such a statement.
For the record, I don't mind paying taxes either. I am hardly anti-tax. However, I do feel that the government has a fiduciary duty to the taxpayers to spend that tax money wisely. Spending five hundred grand to elevate a relatively wealthy individual's house out of a flood prone area is not a wise use of funds.
Look I'm not a fan of FEMA either and maybe this will not go forward doesn't the city have to say OK? And I'm glad you're not anti-tax it just seemed that you were.
Its people like you, who are so willing to throw tax revenue away so quickly, that make people like me anti-tax.
So, what's the story on this house? Is it worth saving? Is it actually architecturally or historically significant or something?
I ask, because then it might colour my opinion about this.
I can appreciate a bit of the concern, though it seems like an odd issue to be too worked up over.
Quote from: MEGATRON on October 17, 2012, 10:41:24 AM
Quote from: If_I_Loved_you on October 17, 2012, 10:40:01 AM
Quote from: MEGATRON on October 17, 2012, 10:29:44 AM
Quote from: If_I_Loved_you on October 17, 2012, 09:38:58 AM
Quote from: MEGATRON on October 17, 2012, 09:14:22 AM
Quote from: Debbie Thompson on October 17, 2012, 07:13:21 AM
This is a national floor program issue, not a FEMA issue, but...wouldn't it be cheaper to move the house to another location in Riverside that doesn't flood? The house would still be saved.
After buying an empty lot, I kind of doubt it. Regardless, the pediatrician should pay those costs, not you and I.
Megatron you act as if your part in this so called bill is going to be thousands of dollars? As Tax payers your total coast would be pennies at best. :o
I don't even know how to respond to this. Pretty sad commentary on our country when folks believe such a statement.
For the record, I don't mind paying taxes either. I am hardly anti-tax. However, I do feel that the government has a fiduciary duty to the taxpayers to spend that tax money wisely. Spending five hundred grand to elevate a relatively wealthy individual's house out of a flood prone area is not a wise use of funds.
Look I'm not a fan of FEMA either and maybe this will not go forward doesn't the city have to say OK? And I'm glad you're not anti-tax it just seemed that you were.
Its people like you, who are so willing to throw tax revenue away so quickly, that make people like me anti-tax.
Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha see Megatron you're a closet tax hater!
Quote from: Adam W on October 17, 2012, 12:00:15 PM
I can appreciate a bit of the concern, though it seems like an odd issue to be too worked up over.
500K of federal money going to a relatively wealthy doctor is an odd issue over which to get worked up?
Quote from: MEGATRON on October 17, 2012, 12:11:45 PM
Quote from: Adam W on October 17, 2012, 12:00:15 PM
I can appreciate a bit of the concern, though it seems like an odd issue to be too worked up over.
500K of federal money going to a relatively wealthy doctor is an odd issue over which to get worked up?
But Megatron its the Law unless the city council can veto it.
Quote from: If_I_Loved_you on October 17, 2012, 12:34:27 PM
Quote from: MEGATRON on October 17, 2012, 12:11:45 PM
Quote from: Adam W on October 17, 2012, 12:00:15 PM
I can appreciate a bit of the concern, though it seems like an odd issue to be too worked up over.
500K of federal money going to a relatively wealthy doctor is an odd issue over which to get worked up?
But Megatron its the Law unless the city council can veto it.
Council has to approve it.
Quote from: MEGATRON on October 17, 2012, 12:44:09 PM
Quote from: If_I_Loved_you on October 17, 2012, 12:34:27 PM
Quote from: MEGATRON on October 17, 2012, 12:11:45 PM
Quote from: Adam W on October 17, 2012, 12:00:15 PM
I can appreciate a bit of the concern, though it seems like an odd issue to be too worked up over.
500K of federal money going to a relatively wealthy doctor is an odd issue over which to get worked up?
But Megatron its the Law unless the city council can veto it.
Council has to approve it.
Then case closed we are talking about a non subject then. Hey maybe if the "Great White Hope" gets in the White House all this will change? I wouldn't bet my life on it. ;)
Quote from: MEGATRON on October 17, 2012, 12:11:45 PM
Quote from: Adam W on October 17, 2012, 12:00:15 PM
I can appreciate a bit of the concern, though it seems like an odd issue to be too worked up over.
500K of federal money going to a relatively wealthy doctor is an odd issue over which to get worked up?
It's an odd issue to take to choose to use as your springboard to announce yourself to a forum, yeah.
Is this doctor wealthy or are you just saying she is b/c she is a doctor? (Just curious). What if she wasn't wealthy or a doctor? What if she was just a person who owned a house that got flooded a bunch?
I'm not sure how I feel about this sort of stuff - should people just not live in the flood plains of rivers at all? I don't know.
Quote from: Adam W on October 17, 2012, 01:03:02 PM
It's an odd issue to take to choose to use as your springboard to announce yourself to a forum, yeah.
Is this doctor wealthy or are you just saying she is b/c she is a doctor? (Just curious). What if she wasn't wealthy or a doctor? What if she was just a person who owned a house that got flooded a bunch?
I'm not sure how I feel about this sort of stuff - should people just not live in the flood plains of rivers at all? I don't know.
A springboard to announce myself to the forum??? What the hell is this, the debutante coterie?
"Relatively wealthy." As a pediatrician, its a safe assumption that she is wealthy relative to many in Jacksonville who could use a $500K government handout.
Maybe I am wrong to expect a well-educated doctor and RAP board member to understand the concept of caveat emptor.
Quote from: MEGATRON on October 17, 2012, 01:16:14 PM
Quote from: Adam W on October 17, 2012, 01:03:02 PM
It's an odd issue to take to choose to use as your springboard to announce yourself to a forum, yeah.
Is this doctor wealthy or are you just saying she is b/c she is a doctor? (Just curious). What if she wasn't wealthy or a doctor? What if she was just a person who owned a house that got flooded a bunch?
I'm not sure how I feel about this sort of stuff - should people just not live in the flood plains of rivers at all? I don't know.
A springboard to announce myself to the forum??? What the hell is this, the debutante coterie?
"Relatively wealthy." As a pediatrician, its a safe assumption that she is wealthy relative to many in Jacksonville who could use a $500K government handout.
Maybe I am wrong to expect a well-educated doctor and RAP board member to understand the concept of caveat emptor.
Perhaps, but she may also have a fairly large debt burden as well.
Caveat emptor is one thing, but you can hardly blame a person for taking advantage of a programme that is place to address circumstances such as hers.
I say "you can hardly blame," but clearly YOU can, as you've made it clear you're not happy.
Quote from: Adam W on October 17, 2012, 01:22:30 PM
Perhaps, but she may also have a fairly large debt burden as well.
Caveat emptor is one thing, but you can hardly blame a person for taking advantage of a programme that is place to address circumstances such as hers.
I say "you can hardly blame," but clearly YOU can, as you've made it clear you're not happy.
Her debt burden is her problem. I have little problem with the good doctor, my problem is with the program.
Quote from: MEGATRON on October 17, 2012, 01:26:16 PM
Quote from: Adam W on October 17, 2012, 01:22:30 PM
Perhaps, but she may also have a fairly large debt burden as well.
Caveat emptor is one thing, but you can hardly blame a person for taking advantage of a programme that is place to address circumstances such as hers.
I say "you can hardly blame," but clearly YOU can, as you've made it clear you're not happy.
Her debt burden is her problem. I have little problem with the good doctor, my problem is with the program.
Her debt burden may well be her problem, I don't necessarily disagree. But you said it was reasonable to assume she was probably wealthy relative to others based on her profession. I was saying she may make more money, sure, but she may owe a lot, too (like in student loans, for example). So she might not be that much better off at the end of the day. I guess I'm saying we shouldn't make too many assumptions.
But in the end most of that is immaterial if you oppose the programme in general.
A RAP Board Member?
The flood program is flood insurance. Any insurance is a gamble for the insurer. They hope to gather enough in premiums to cover costs and make a profit. If your home is insured for many years and you have no claims, they win. If a hurricane or in this case, a flood, causes damage, they pay out and lose money on insuring your house. But they make money on others, and the actuarial tables work this out. The issue here seems to be that the insurer is a government program. Remember, though, that although this individual is gaining a large benefit for premiums paid, there are many people paying for flood insurance who may never use it. I used to live in a low lying area, and paid $300 a year for flood insurance for our house, but never had a claim.
Should there be a flood insurance program? That's another question. But if the doctor had not paid premiums for the insurance, she would not be covered, so it's like any other insurance policy.
Quote from: Debbie Thompson on October 17, 2012, 09:51:05 PM
The flood program is flood insurance. Any insurance is a gamble for the insurer. They hope to gather enough in premiums to cover costs and make a profit. If your home is insured for many years and you have no claims, they win. If a hurricane or in this case, a flood, causes damage, they pay out and lose money on insuring your house. But they make money on others, and the actuarial tables work this out. The issue here seems to be that the insurer is a government program. Remember, though, that although this individual is gaining a large benefit for premiums paid, there are many people paying for flood insurance who may never use it. I used to live in a low lying area, and paid $300 a year for flood insurance for our house, but never had a claim.
Should there be a flood insurance program? That's another question. But if the doctor had not paid premiums for the insurance, she would not be covered, so it's like any other insurance policy.
This is not insurance. Its a separate program.
Quote from: Kaiser Soze on October 17, 2012, 11:32:11 PM
Quote from: Debbie Thompson on October 17, 2012, 09:51:05 PM
The flood program is flood insurance. Any insurance is a gamble for the insurer. They hope to gather enough in premiums to cover costs and make a profit. If your home is insured for many years and you have no claims, they win. If a hurricane or in this case, a flood, causes damage, they pay out and lose money on insuring your house. But they make money on others, and the actuarial tables work this out. The issue here seems to be that the insurer is a government program. Remember, though, that although this individual is gaining a large benefit for premiums paid, there are many people paying for flood insurance who may never use it. I used to live in a low lying area, and paid $300 a year for flood insurance for our house, but never had a claim.
Should there be a flood insurance program? That's another question. But if the doctor had not paid premiums for the insurance, she would not be covered, so it's like any other insurance policy.
This is not insurance. Its a separate program.
Correct. I do not believe the grants are funded by insurance premiums.
No, but unless I'm wrong, they attempt to proactively prevent the insurance program from having to pay out over and over on the same property by solving the issue. I could be wrong though.
Quote from: Debbie Thompson on October 18, 2012, 10:41:36 AM
No, but unless I'm wrong, they attempt to proactively prevent the insurance program from having to pay out over and over on the same property by solving the issue. I could be wrong though.
Nah, you are right. But they have several options available including demolition.