Hacker News Reader

Comment by scarface74 | Hacker News Reader

That will never happen in Texas. The minute that someone tries to make a law, people will start yelling about “big government” and “freedom”.

From the article:

“This is not dumb, bad planning,this is very well-thought-out, bad planning.””

View on HN

As has been pointed out many times in recent weeks, they then want the "big government" to fund their rescue and recovery when that mistake bites them.

Through the National Flood Insurance Program "one percent of homes have been responsible for more than 25 percent of the claims." In various ways the program is not allowed to deny issuing policies.

http://www.npr.org/sections/money/2017/09/29/554603161/episo...

Though the podcast doesn't mention it, I'm sure politicians have blocked consideration of climate change in any overt way.

Edit: excerpts repackaged in text form (the podcast is much more in-depth) http://www.npr.org/2017/09/13/550607447/why-the-government-l...

I'm not sure what the relevance of insurance claims is. Flood insurance would be a scam if they only insured low-risk homes, and it would be horribly inefficient to only insure high-risk homes. When 99% of the insured cover the 1% that make claims, that looks like it's working as designed to me.

In the podcast IIRC one house has had $4M worth of claims across 4 floods over 8 years... the claims should be paid on existing policies, but new policies shouldn't be issued for that house unless major changes are made.

Coverage limits make that impossible.

The relevance is covered in more detail in the story but it basically comes down to not being able to charge market rates. The cap is well below what normal actuarial practice would call for but politics makes changing that hard.

It's hypocrisy, yes, but that's not stopping them.

It's up to the Fed, to attach strings to the recovery funding. For starters, fixing NFIP.

Exactly. I have no problem with idiots that want to build in flood plains, but I get upset with federally-subsidized flood insurance program and FEMA who come in to rescue people who make shit decisions.

Is this partisan? Do you feel the same way about people who live in areas prone to destruction by hurricanes, like New Orleans and Puerto Rico?

This is a great question. It's exactly the type (there are many more) of question that isn't asked and debated to conclusion, and this is a big part of why politics will never get fixed in the US.

Emotionally, I feel different about Puerto Rico because it’s island that got completely destroyed. It’s not like they can get in their car and go someplace safer.

But there is a lot of land in the middle of the country that is not prone to hurricanes and floods (?)

This is the cognitive dissonance of trying to explain away the underlying truth that you want to help people you sympathize with, but not the people you don't.

I don’t have a problem helping the people in Houston relocate and pay them what was fair market value for their homes.

But presumably you do have a problem helping them rebuild their homes where they live. And you don't have that same problem with the people of Puerto Rico, because... it's an island. Surrounded by big water.

Whether or not you can drive a car to a neighboring state is not a compelling factor on whether or not people should have to pick up and leave their home because other people no longer consider it feasible for them to live there.

Puerto Ricans have freedom of movement as well. Pay them fair market value for their houses + transportation and move them to Florida. PR is at much larger risk than the Houston metropolitan area to future disasters.

Seems fair, yeah?

Absolutely not partisan. I would prefer if my (federal) tax dollars didn't help anyone affected by hurricanes. I understand my point of view is way outside of the mainstream, where all of the politicians compete to see who can appear more concerned.

I'm curious to understand this perspective. If this were true what do you think the consequences would be?

Primarily, I think it would bring incentives closer to the people making decisions. I think it would have pretty dramatic effects on where people choose to live, how they construct their houses, and their level of disaster preparedness. And these are all very good things. Secondarily, it would ever so slightly reduce the federal budget. I don't have any illusion that it would be a meaningful impact on the budget, but I have very similar attitudes towards a wide swath of other federal programs.

Do you really want to mix up search-and-rescue versus rebuilding homes in flood plains?

Sorry, I see now that I worded my phrase in a way that was likely to be misunderstood. I meant "rescue" in a metaphorical sense that people are getting financially rescued by FEMA assistance.

Harris County is blue, just like other major metro areas in Texas. Don't look at Texas as a monolith. Thanks.

In many areas of Texas you cannot build in a 100 year flood plain. In others, flood insurance is a requirement as are certain construction limitations, e.g. in Harris county [0]. Now, according to you these laws can't exist in Texas, but they do. Maybe you shouldn't say these things you don't understand, especially about a very liberal area.

0 - http://www.eng.hctx.net/Consultants/Floodplain-Management/Fl...

In others, flood insurance is a requirement

$500 a year for flood insurance is still heavily taxpayer subsidized and the article you point to also says

Can I build on property in a floodplain? A: Yes. However, floodplain development restrictions apply to grading, new construction and some renovations. Contact the Harris County Permit Office at (713) 956-3000 for more information on these requirements.

Worse. What - anecdotally - seems to happen is that these are areas reserved for lower income neighborhoods.

The well to do reap the benefits of having cheap labor nearby, pat themselves on the back for their generosity and kindness, and only lose occasionally if there's a flood. On the other hand, such floods devastate those areas for years if not decades. The destroy/rebuild cycle is simply breakeven. It pairs so well with poverty. A pairing the well to do rarely see.

That wouldn’t be a bad idea - as long as there is full disclosure. To save money, I might rent in a place like that and make sure I have no valuables that I couldn’t take with me in my car. It’s rare that flooding in those areas happen without enough warning to get to safety.

Even with full disclosure, what is a poor person supposed to do? It is precisely the rich who could mitigate the risk, by either buying insurance or by building to a high enough standard. Poor people have to hope for the best, because the savings go directly to other necessities.

You might. If you have a choice. That's often a pretty big if. Furthermore, any aid is often to rebuild not relocate. It's hard to break that cycle when the systrm promotes it.

Even with full disclosure, what is a poor person supposed to do? It is precisely the rich who could mitigate the risk, by either buying insurance or by building to a high enough standard.

Poor people have to hope for the best, because the savings go directly to other necessities.

That’s why I specifically said “rent”. If you only rent, don’t keep a lot of valuables that you can’t move at the drop of a dime in your car, what would the harm be?

This also pre-supposes that the government is willing to help with temporary housing. If they are willing to help the owners of $500,000 plus homes, why not spend much less and help the poor with temporary housing assistance?

In my case, when I first graduated from college and living on my own, why would I have cared if my apartment flooded? I could have put my clothes and my computer in my car taken the rent money I was paying and stay in an extended stay until I found another place. I wouldn’t care about my 20 year old bedroom set, my sleeper sofa, or my computer desk I bought from Walmart.

If you are working two part-time jobs earning $8 / hour, renting is your only option. The poor often don't have enough food to eat for the week, much less own a car. They wouldn't own much either.

Do you commenters have any concept of property ownership? MORTGAGE LENDERS REQUIRE FLOOD INSURANCE IN THESE AREAS.

They require below market value flood insurance that is heavily subsidized by taxpayers.

What do you think development in flood-endangered areas would do to the supply of affordable housing in other areas?

The article is talking about upper middle class people.

Right. But that's the exception not the rule. And that is worth mentioning. Else too many people continue to b Perpetuate the myth that poverty is a choice.

But, as far as the article, you're correct. Thx.

I am surprised the insurance company didn't know. But they can be an answer and it's free market. One needs mortgage insurance or may want insurance otherwise. Well, in the flood prone areas it gets prohibitive because the risk is higher. People will move away or eat the risk(with full knowledge)

Given standard homeowner's policies don't cover flooding, do they even care? They still get to collect the premiums but aren't exposed to any additional risk.

Interesting the banks holding the mortgages don’t insist then. Didn’t people just walk in 2008 when their homes were worth less than mortgages, seems it would be a comparable situation. Maybe not, but there are a lot of ways to discourage risky ownership. One could improve standards too

As the article alluded to, Texans have had issues with government "taking" property indirectly since the early '90s, at least.

So people should be given a choice - either accept a government set amount to buy up your property and to help you relocate or pay for your own repairs. Why should other people keep paying to rebuild homes in flood plains?

Flood insurance can be revoked in the way you describe but it is a federal matter not a Texas one.

There's some strange rules around flood insurance. I don't have a mortgage but I do have pretty fancy insurance from a private insurance company. Flood insurance is mandatory, or at least mandatory per their policy.

They admit that there's pretty much zero chance that I'll flood, but they want me to be insured against it anyhow.

My elevation is 3800' and I'm pretty much on the top of a mountain. If it floods and impacts my house, there's not going to be anywhere to file an insurance claim. I'm not sure it's even physically possible for me to flood. I don't think the planet has enough water.

But, no... They want me to pay for flood insurance.

Yet, I lived very close to the water in Winston-Salem, NC and had minor flooding most every spring. My house was mortgaged there and flood insurance was mandatory.

The flood insurance was less than it is here. This house is worth more, but it's not going to flood. Blizzards, ice storms, and really strong winds are all probable. Flooding is damned near impossible. The snow cap could all melt at once and I could wash away, but I don't think that counts as a flood.

I don't get it.

A lot of what you might think of as storm damage is classified as flooding. Still, you may just want to shop around for a different private insurance without the flood policy requirement.

Huh... I wonder why they'd classify it as flooding?

I suppose that, at least theoretically, my basement could get water in it from the snow melt, but that seems unlikely. There were drainage channels put in just in case. I only get 12' to 14' of snow per year.

The valleys flood. They flood every year. They are quite far below me. The difference between here and the top of the mountain is maybe 150' in elevation.

Hmm... I dunno? I do know this insurance group covers pretty much everything, which is nice. I have a couple of large events and guests that come during hunting season. So long as I'm not charging admission, they cover all that.

> why they'd classify it as flooding

As you mention water seeping into the basement is one common issue but even without that there are a few more.

EX: Someone sets up a garden with a small earthen wall. They get ~6 inches of rain which seems insane for the area which due to poor drainage pools behind the earthen wall until the weight of water bursts the wall. Followed by a wave of water causing surprising amounts to dammage.

The insurance adjuster then says sorry this was caused by standing water not wind / rain.

The important point is drainage issues are generally classified as flooding as are mud slides.

The whole of the NJ shore is a "flood plain." But as long as it's the playground of the wealthy, the whole of NJ taxpayers will subsidize such nonsense.

Have you ever gone to the shore? Some of the trashiest people in NJ live and vacation there. Some of the richest too - it attracts all types.

Vacation? Irrelevant. Live? Again, doesn't matter. The thing that matters is ownership. And as long as rich people want to put massive house on the beach, the whole lot will be underwritten.

"Stronger than the storm"? Or come on now. And the taxpayers paid for that spin as well. After Sandy there was zero sense of "wait a minute, maybe we should think about this?" Instead, the politicians did what they do best. They bought votes with taxpayers' money.

Yeah, all types are there. But who benefits the most?

Sounds like an interesting get-rich-slow scheme, if you're a property developer.

1. Develop a property near a waterway, but not in a known flood-prone area.

2. Go upstream and develop another property, putting more drainage pressure on the waterway near the first property.

3. If the first property sold, you made money and the problems are someone else's. If it didn't, accept the government buyout.

Lather, rinse, repeat.

Oh, I agree, they'll never do it. It's sort of like gun control in America- it's too late to actually do things right, but at least the rest of the world can show Texas how it is done right.

Fine build it, but no insurance. Should be self-regulating, and FEMA /FedGov should not subsidize them.

Even after a bad storm (death) in France, people were reluctant to move or change the system.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com