Skip to main content

View Diary: Governor Christie demagogues against federal flood insurance vital to his constituents (27 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  I could actually get behind this though (10+ / 0-)

    Not for the reasons that Christie is pushing but eventually the government is going to have to get out of the flood insurance game because of global warming. The rules are going to have to change, we'll pay for your damage but ONLY if you move inland to higher ground. You want to stay? Then you're on your own, best of luck to ya!

    Food processed to be nothing more than simple starches with two dozen flavorings and stabilizers added to make it appear to be food isn't "food". It's "feed" -- what you give to livestock to fatten them up for slaughter.

    by ontheleftcoast on Fri Mar 14, 2014 at 02:37:32 PM PDT

    •  Yes, there have been big problems with the (8+ / 0-)

      Federal Flood Insurance Program. We have cases in Massachusetts where rich people keep rebuilding million dollar vacation homes on sand bars that get destroyed ever few years.

      Last October the rules changed to push rates closer to true risk.  I don't know if this is going to fix the problem or not.

      "Seriously, Folks, WTH?" - ("What the Heck? "h/t Joan McCarter, Seriously, Florida. WTF?)

      by HoundDog on Fri Mar 14, 2014 at 02:41:57 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I'm remembering some Congress critters that (5+ / 0-)

        got their homes trashed in hurricane Katrina and bitched to high heaven about flood insurance while pocketing million dollar checks. The current system has some problems, for sure.

        Food processed to be nothing more than simple starches with two dozen flavorings and stabilizers added to make it appear to be food isn't "food". It's "feed" -- what you give to livestock to fatten them up for slaughter.

        by ontheleftcoast on Fri Mar 14, 2014 at 02:49:17 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  We don't want to pay to do the right thing. (4+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          HoundDog, ontheleftcoast, fixxit, a2nite

          Both of the following are true:

          * It's not fair to the taxpayers to subsidize flood insurance forever. The taxpayers will just repay to build flooded properties over and over.

          * It's not fair to homeowners to let them build under one set of rules, then change the rules to make their houses uninsurable, or only insurable at unrealistically high cost.

          So what's the solution?

          The taxpayers should buy them out, at something approximating market value. The homeowner would not be forced to accept the offer--but the homeowner should understand that if they decline the offer, they will be on their own in the unsubsidized free market for flood insurance.

          Like so many, many unpopular ideas, a buyout would (a) be the right thing to do, and (b) cost less in the long run, but (c) we won't do it because our perspective is fixed on the short-run cost.

          "The true strength of our nation comes not from the might of our arms or the scale of our wealth, but from the enduring power of our ideals." - Barack Obama

          by HeyMikey on Fri Mar 14, 2014 at 03:06:17 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  Why can't I have federal earthquake insurance? (4+ / 0-)
      •  Yup! . (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        HoundDog, cotterperson, rubyr

        I don't live in a  flood plain. My house isn't in an earthquake zone.

        I have both types of insurance on my house because, heh, I live in my house and well, I NEED my house.

        I buy flood insurance from FEMA and I buy EQ insurance through the California EQ authority. Same limits. The EQ deductibles are A LOT higher for the flood.

        My flood insurance premium is about 1/4th the price of my EQ insurance.

        So when people complain about the price of their flood insurance, I like to tell to wait.... and then I roll my eyes for a few minutes....

        © grover


        So if you get hit by a bus tonight, would you be satisfied with how you spent today, your last day on earth? Live like tomorrow is never guaranteed, because it's not. -- Me.

        by grover on Fri Mar 14, 2014 at 03:05:55 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  Inland higher ground property is going to (4+ / 0-)

      fill up fast as whole communities flood, especially if no-growth ordinances remain in place.

      That might mean residents already in those places have to give up some land, especially if they have large properties that aren't being used for anything that otherwise benefits society.

      Eminent domain anyone?

      Folks should be careful what they wish for.

      © grover


      So if you get hit by a bus tonight, would you be satisfied with how you spent today, your last day on earth? Live like tomorrow is never guaranteed, because it's not. -- Me.

      by grover on Fri Mar 14, 2014 at 03:09:19 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Yes, that's what I was thinking (0+ / 0-)

        If people are no longer allowed to live in a flood zone, where is everyone going to go? We're talking millions of people here. There might not be ANY open space other than flood zones then.

        Where are all the jobs, Boehner?

        by Dirtandiron on Sat Mar 15, 2014 at 08:22:51 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  Does "pay for your damage" include... (4+ / 0-)

      buying me out, or do I have to abandon my Cape May County (elevation 8-10 feet) property?

      My property is currently valued at $145K with $100K for the land and $45K for the house and garage, insurance wouldn't hafta pay more than the replacement cost for my house, but if it were decreed that I can't be paid for the total loss of value, how am I going get a new place to live with only the $45K for the house?

      Can't even buy a mobile home for that much.

      (I didn't buy the property, my Gramma did about sixty years ago...I want to get the heck outta there, but there are three houses for sale around me that have been for sale for more than three years!)

      "Ronald Reagan is DEAD! His policies live on but we're doing something about THAT!"

      by leftykook on Fri Mar 14, 2014 at 03:17:25 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Sorry, I don't have a well thought out plan (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        cotterperson, leftykook

        I'm just stating the obvious, the inevitability of climate change means we're going to have to come up with a different plan for flood insurance. I don't know what that plan will be but we won't be able to keep doing what we're doing.

        Food processed to be nothing more than simple starches with two dozen flavorings and stabilizers added to make it appear to be food isn't "food". It's "feed" -- what you give to livestock to fatten them up for slaughter.

        by ontheleftcoast on Fri Mar 14, 2014 at 03:20:30 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  I'm not worried too much for me.... (4+ / 0-)

          ...but Gramma's house in the Villas is the only piece of inter-generational wealth transfer I have to offer my daughters and granddaughters, and on that time scale, I can easily see the house either losing a lot of it's value, or even becoming uninhabitable....I gotta get outta this place!

          "Ronald Reagan is DEAD! His policies live on but we're doing something about THAT!"

          by leftykook on Fri Mar 14, 2014 at 05:39:29 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  The gravy needs to stop at some point... (0+ / 0-)

      I realize that you can't just pull the rug out from under people, but I think for the long term, Christie is kinda right on this - just not as quickly as he advocates. Even now when premiums are slated to increase a little to attempt to approximate reality, everyone screams and Congress backs them back down to give-away levels. People need to be encouraged to leave flood zones! Things are obviously only going to get worse. Much of New Orleans should never have been allowed to be rebuilt where it was - it will only flood again at some point. I realize that racial sensitivities made it very difficult to say no back then, but at some point, someone is going to have to say no. Some point of sliding scale for reimbursement and higher premiums is going to have to be put into effect.

      People want to live in the desert and have their water bill subsidized. People want to live by the ocean and have their view and ocean breezes subsidized. People want to live in Nome and have their fuel oil bill subsidized - (ok I can't begrudge them on that one...). Anyways the flood insurance gimme for many areas has to be curtailed and better behavior needs to be encouraged.

      •  Gravy? WTF? (0+ / 0-)

        They're talking mostly about people's primary residences, not vacation homes. Many of them are not near the ocean, just in an area that floods. You know average working people who struggled to buy said homes. Unless you have some property to sell them to build a house on, maybe you should think this through.

        Where are all the jobs, Boehner?

        by Dirtandiron on Sat Mar 15, 2014 at 08:25:57 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

  • Recommended (124)
  • Community (60)
  • Elections (31)
  • Media (31)
  • Trans-Pacific Partnership (30)
  • 2016 (29)
  • Environment (27)
  • Law (26)
  • Barack Obama (24)
  • Civil Rights (23)
  • Culture (23)
  • Hillary Clinton (23)
  • Science (21)
  • Climate Change (21)
  • Republicans (21)
  • Economy (19)
  • Labor (19)
  • Jeb Bush (18)
  • Josh Duggar (18)
  • Bernie Sanders (16)
  • Click here for the mobile view of the site