Can it be true? Hurricanes & the uninsured...
 

My niece, who has lived in St. Pete for two years now, tells me that friends there have informed her, in the event of a devastating hurricane, that people who have uninsured property, be it mobile homes and their furnishings, homes built in areas where they can't be insured......... If a hurricane destroys such, that FEMA (the government.... with our tax money) comes in and "reimburses" the property owners, helps them rebuild, etc., that the insurance companies really end up paying not nearly as much as you'd think. In other words, she's saying the federal taxpayer ends up paying for people who don't insure their own property....... I don't know if she's misunderstanding some of this or if I'm misunderstanding her. She says she knows people there who don't worry about the fact that they don't have insurance (even though they can afford it.) They say "it will be taken care of." Anybody who knows more about this kind of thing?

Pretty silly of them if that is the case. What if their home burns down or a water tank bursts?

Here's the FEMA press release. Grants and low-interest loans, thanks to you and me:

http://www.fema.gov/news/newsrelease.fema?id=13766

Don't forget that the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) ) is part of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, which is headed up by the brother of the current governor of Florida. Both of whom are eager to stay in the favor of Florida's electorate.

Don't misunderstand me .... I have absolutely no problem with helping those who genuinely cannot afford insurance because of their health, misfortune, etc., but my niece's friends buy their coffee at Starbuck's every morning, make at least $40,000 per year, and just don't bother to insure their stuff! That aggravates me......

bonnie, some areas that are not flood zones homeowners are not required to purchase flood insurance. It's costly. When something like Frances comes through and dumps a foot of rain, everywhere becomes a flood zone.

Those people whos homeowners insurance that does not have a flood rider are screwed. FEMA comes in and assists.

I've never seen it having been the case that people just don't insure because FEMA will cover them.

Your own flood insurance (ask me about my mother's house and Hurricane Floyd) is much quicker than FEMA. FEMA can take weeks whereas your insurance company is done in under a week.

GoTravel, since posting this, another friend tells me about her sister who lives right outside Ft. Lauderdale, who owns a mobile home. Neither the home nor it's contents are insured..... yet the sister and her husband work, and she flies to Raleigh at least twice a year, eats out, plays golf, but yet "can't afford to buy insurance." She doesn't worry about it, because she says there's so many others in the same boat, and "they always get help (not loans) if there's damage" as she puts it. Can't believe two people who live there could be all wrong.

After Floyd came through NC a few years back, FEMA brought in a whole bunch of mobile home/trailer/rv houses for displaced people. I'm not sure if the living situation improved or not for the people who ended up living in them. I think they were allowed to stay for 18 months while recovery efforts went on. These were for people with no other options. My guess is they had to fill out a whole bunch of paperwork before they were assigned one of these homes.

FEMA also bought land in low-lying areas removed the homes and declared the area unbuildable. I think that went on in Wilson or Tarboro.

I also remember a news story on FEMA by John Stousel of 20/20 (Give me a break). I think he was able to purchase affordable insurance for his beach property from the government and then the government would rebuild/reimburse after a claim.

Bonnie, do you realize we subsidize the war in Iraq, the US military, the rich, the poor, the elderly, the airline industry, the huge ballooning federal deficit, etc? This is a classic example of a little bit of knowledge being a dangerous thing. The people who pay for flood insurance surely need it (I'm one of those people) and yet this go around I was not able to collect on it. So I'm subsidizing all those others who can. That is the price one pays for buying in a flood zone.

I know how you feel though. It is a shame having to pay for this ballooning federal deficit. I'll bet you 'll be happy when your kids take over the bills for the next 40 years.

You are right that SOME people take advantage of the situation (is that a surprise?). How is this different from a person who doesn't have any health insurance and gets into a major car accident without auto insurance. Do you think the police come by and say, "oh, no insurance. Ok, lay here and die"? No, you and I end up indirectly paying for their recovery. The government sponsors all kinds of programs for "poor" kids to assure they get meals, especially at school. Do you think there aren't kids whose parents COULD afford the meals who are also getting them for free? There are dozens of examples of ways that our taxes end up supporting people who either can't or don't take care of themselves. That's sad, but the way it is.

That said, it is my understanding that when a claim is made to FEMA from someone with major damage, there is at least some background check. If it is discovered that they are not truly in "need" then I'm not so sure the money is so easily handed out. Of course it would be silly to think that the system is anywhere near perfect, however.

This information supports my theory that Carl Hiassen's characters are more real than you think.

TandooriGirl and Patrick, of course, I realize we subsidize many, many things. And I don't quite get your tone, TG - "I know how you feel though. It is a shame having to pay for this ballooning federal deficit. I'll bet you 'll be happy when your kids take over the bills for the next 40 years." Your point?

The fact that lots of people take advantage of others doesn't make it right!!! And I'm not truly surprised (I've been around a long time! :-) ) But I still find it aggravating....

1. society -- an extended social group having a distinctive cultural and economic organization.

When you choose to live in a society, and share the benefits of that economic organzation, there is a price to pay. The question then becomes not if you pay - but how you pay.

Hurricane Andrew wiped out every dollar of profit that insurance companies had EVER made in the State of Florida with homeowner's insurance. Don't you think they recouped their loss in part by increasing premiums throughout the country? Is that increased premium all that different from some Federal Government allocation to increased funding for Hurricane damage.

The fact is when it comes to things like insurance and FEMA, you may not ever need the help, but allowing other's access to that help, insures that if you need it, it is available.

The fact is virtually every state in the Union will have citizens impacted at some point by a natural, or man-made disaster. Ask those in California about wildfires, those along the Mississippi in 1993 about the floods, those in Downtown NY about the devastation of the World Trade Center.

BTW, the other reality of our society is that things like people unable to afford insurance is part of the price we collectively pay for wanting low prices when we shop for food, consumer goods, and travel. When you start looking for the $99 fares between NY and LA, or the $39 hotel room near Disney or the $1.19 toothpaste you should recognize their is a price to pay for that. In many cases its accepting the reality that the people who provide those services subsidize the cost through lower employee wages or cutting things like Healthcare coverage. Think I'm wrong? Then why is the State of California paying about $70 million a year in social service payments to Wal-Mart employees.

Booniebroad, do some research on the program and how it works, and if you still object to it, write to your Represenative and Senator. The link above is a good start, also run a search on the web and you will probably find groups with your same objections who have formed lobby groups (Common Cause is an example, take a look at http://www.commoncause.org/). It is the insurance companies with the paid lobbyists who get what they want, you should too. (Why certain forms of life insurance proceeds are generally not taxable when other forms of investment income is taxable is largely explained by the good efforts of the insurance lobby. . . )

Note that similar programs apply to people in earthquake zones and flood zones, and that not everyone abuses the system.

Flood Insurance and Homeowners are a tricky thing when you live on the coast. I can't speak for all coasts but I can tell you about South Carolina.

Firstly, you must have it if you have a mortgage on your home.

Secondly, many many companies have stopped writing policies for those of us who live on the coast.

It is expensive. For my parents, they put the money the would pay on flood in the bank every year. My husband and I pay out the wazoo.

Thirdly, if your home is oceanfront and a storm destroys more than 50% of the home, you cannot rebuild. Gone, kaput, finished, SOL.

Please note here, I am not complaining about people who genuinely need assistance, through no fault of their own - I AM COMPLAINING ABOUT PEOPLE WHO CAN AFFORD INSURANCE, AND DON'T BUY IT! But WHY would you build a house in a flood zone, knowing it is a flood zone??? If you do, then your property is washed away, WHY should I pay a dime for that, when you could have built elsewhere (not in a flood zone)? I don't understand why people do that.........

Such an easy theory. So you think no one should live within 25 miles of the Atlantic Ocean or the Gulf of Mexico --period???? That is all a flood zone, not to mention half of the rest of the United States. And while we're at it, no one should be allowed to build or live in California because they are in an earthquake zone. And no one should live in Colorado because they could have a forest fire. And. . .

"But WHY would you build a house in a flood zone, knowing it is a flood zone"

Bonnie, when would you like those people who live within a few miles of the Mississippi River to move? How about the countless millions of others that live in areas that have are susceptible to floods.

You would be surprised what is considered a flood zone.

FEMA designates:

Flood Zone A An area inundated by 100-year flooding that don't have base flood elevations.

Flood Zone B An area inundated by 100-year flooding to which base flood elevations have been established.

Flood Zone VF An area inundated by 100-year flooding with additional hazards which are tidal waves or surges.

Flood Zone X-500 An area inundated by either 500-year flooding, 100-year flooding with an average depth of less than one foot and an area of less than one mile, or an area protected by levees (New Orleans).

Flood Zone X An area outside the 100-year flood plains.

Additionally Bonnie, your house could be built on a particular soil that doesn't drain as well as another soil. If you get hit with the same type of rain parts of Florida received, it could turn your neighborhood into a flood plain.

It really is not a cut and dry situation.

For what it is worth, NYC sits in a flood plain. The East River isn't a river but a tidal estuary.

I just figured out that this thread is really about travel...wow..for a second i thouhgt it wasn't.

To answer Patricks' "why would people build a house in a flodd zone..?" I suppose for the same reason that people move to Florida where there are hurricanes or to California where there are earthqquakes..they never think "it" will happen to them.

Whoa, TopMan, that sure wasn't my question -- but you've summarized my answer -- which was almost as long-winded as Frances! Thank you for that.

GoTravel, thanks for all that information.

Anonymous, it sounds like you're saying FEMA doesn't give anything away. It has only loans. Grants.

Bonnie, take note to those two.

GoTravel, is that a Florida rule about not being able to rebuild if 50% is destroyed? In NC you can rebuild as long as you can still meet the minumum setback.

Got to agree with you Bonnie. Reminds me of the hospital patients I will see today--all of them uninsured, many of them wearing $100 Nikes, using expensive cell phones........

I guess you have to take the good with the bad so the people who really need help get it.....

I don't know what the rules are in Florida. I think it also has something to do with the mean high tide line.

Didn't y'all go through a bunch of mess with Topsoil Island and beach erosion?

I would try not to judge these people. You never really know what is going on until you walk in their shoes.

Brian,

I don't know about that, but in our county on the west coast of Florida, if you renovate a waterfront property, the cost cannot exceed half the value of the property. I don't know if that's a statewide law.

Wow, Jayne that certainly isn't true in Naples where one beachfront property was purchased a couple years ago for just over $3 million, was rebuilt and is now in the neighborhood of $40 million. I don't think anybody renovates here for anything less than triple or more the value.

I think the 50% cutoff determines whether it's a repair or a rebuild. If the home damage totals more than 50% of the home's value, then the home cannot be repaired, only rebuilt. And to be rebuilt, one has to secure a permit, which can be turned down if certain conditions (most importantly minimum setback) aren't met.

But it seems it is possible to rebuild even if the home is 50% destroyed, as long as the new, tougher, minimum setback can be met.

Our county has some strange codes. We live in the city and renovating was a breeze permit-wise. It makes a huge difference when your house is across the street from the river, and not right on the river. Our next-door neighbors are required to have flood insurance and we are not.

We recently purchased a home in the county that we're getting ready to renovate and add to so that my dad can come live with us; the county is telling us that we MUST have one fully equipped handicap bathroom in order to get a permit. In our case it's fine. My dad is 85 and very spry; DH and I will probably need a handicap bath long before him, but in either case at least we'll have it. I don't think younger couples with children would be okay with that.

I do know that people get around the 50% rule. For instance, it doesn't apply if you stay within the original foot print of the house. I also believe that if you leave at least one room (or it may be two rooms) with the original four walls the 50% rule doesn't apply. In that case, I know that most leave up the walls and then down they come after their final inspection.

Geesh! My original post was prompted by my niece's friends who make 40K per year, pick up their coffee at Starbucks every morning, but don't bother to insure their property because (they say) the government helps them if they get wiped out! And basically I said I resent people not taking responsibility and not paying for insured (that they can afford), and taking advantage of the rest of us who budget other items so we CAN pay our insurance......... and then in the end, we pay for EVERYBODY, including those who don't bother to insure. I think some of you are jumping ugly at me for saying and thinking something that I DID NOT say or think!!! Whatever........... have a nice evening, everybody! :-)

Oops! Meant to say "not paying for insurance" ...... not "insured"

bonniebroad,

I think we're all just pretty stressed having just gone through this storm.

If you want to know about the National Flood Insurance Program and Disaster Assistance, both administered by FEMA, why not contact FEMA? I'm sure you can find their phone number on-line. Here is some information from FEMA's website on the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP):

http://www.fema.gov/nfip/whonfip.shtm

I worked for FEMA for a few years, in the branch that administered the National Flood Insurance Program. My understanding was that the federal government would underwrite flood insurance in communities that participated in the NFIP. This would reduce the cost to homeowners. For a community to participate, it had to adopt and enforce certain development standards that were designed to protect the community and property in the event of flooding.

Unfortunately, politics did enter into this program. Staff would find communities out of compliance on occasion, and recommend the community be dropped from the program but would be overruled as politics entered (US Senators working it out with the President who oversaw the Program, as FEMA was an Executive Agency).

I think the thing to be most concerned about is not that people are receiving help to ensure their living conditions are safe and healthy. The concern is if the government continues to allow communities to participate in the NFIP even if the community is allowing developers to violate the standards of the program. While this may make developers rich, it puts people in harm's way and costs the taxpayers money that should not have to be spent.

While FEMA may help in the event of a hurricane, it won't help homeowners if they have a house fire, or a truck rams into the house, or in any other situation that's not declared a national emergency. Does that make you feel any better?

BTW, FEMA grants are limited to 25K. Not peanuts, but not exactly enough to cover total destruction, or even major destruction, of a house. Not really an adequate susbtitute for insurance.

Grants, loans, Bonnie. No one's giving money out. In light of the fact that many of us are still coping with the remnants of Tropical Storm Frances (it was not a hurricane when it hit Tampa) I guess people are a little touchy. Understandably.

Bonnie, your niece's friend doesn't have a mortgage on his property? Like GoTravel said you have to have insurance if you have a mortgage. I am, however, surprised that there are people that have no mortgage and choose not to insure their home or property.

I think health insurance is a little different - many people work for small companies making minimum wage and can't afford to pay for health insurance. I agree that if that is the case they shouldn't be walking around in $100 Nikes though.

"I think health insurance is a little different - many people work for small companies making minimum wage and can't afford to pay for health insurance."

I'm sorry, but I don't get the above statement. Those same people with those same minimum wage salaries CAN afford to pay for flood insurance and SHOULD, but can't afford to pay for health insurance and DON'T????? Statistically speaking they are far more likely to get ill than they are to get hit by a flood. If I were in their shoes (not the $100 Nikes)and had to make a choice, I would choose getting the health insurance over the flood insurance any day.

For those of you who had questions regarding the 50% rule. I'm looking at a FEMA publication we were given for a continuing education class I took (I'm a residential home builder).

SUBSTANTIAL DAMAGE: Pre-FIRM buildings must be elevated if damaged by any cause for which repair costs are 50% or more of the value of the building. The lowest habitable floor must be elevated above the 100 year flood elevation.

SUBSTANTIAL IMPROVEMNET: When a pre-FIRM building is proposed to be remodeled, renovated, rehabilitated, added to, or in any way improved, the proposed modifications must be evaluated for "substantial improvement." If the total costs of improvements are more than 50%, the same rules for elevating apply.

I'm sure if you go to the FEMA website you can check out the 50% rule. There's all sorts of stuff about what constitutes the "value of the building."

As a side note. I don't know what FEMA does or doesn't do for the uninsured, but I can tell you from personal experience (OPAL - 1995) what they do and don't do for those of us who have flood insurance and live in piling houses. They pay to have exterior stairs repaired so you can get into your house, they pay minimum wage for someone to clean debris from under your house (does not include the yard), and if you have damage to or above the floor that is above the flood elevation, they pay for that. It used to be that they would also pay for washer/dryer, frig, freezer on the ground floor level but they've pretty much eliminated that, I think.

A non-piling house is a whole different animal. They cover things on the ground floor but the 50% rule comes into play.

As one who pays dearly for insurance, I hope Bonniebroad has been misinformed about these non-insurers.

Floridafran,

That's good information since they've shifted Ivan's track towards Florida--lots of room for error there thank goodness.

All new homes and renovations here are not allowed to have any living spaces on the first floor if they're below a specified sea level.