It is killing average people everywhere. It is almost impossible to dispute. You have to prove that their methodology was faulty. So just to fight it you need to hire outside help, and the chances of winning are almost nil. It is pretty upsetting when your own government forces you out of your house. I am pretty sure that is not really what most Americans want from a Government.

What is weird, is that the biggest increases aren't the expensive beach-front homes like you'd expect. Instead, its the small middle to lower priced "retirement" homes nowhere near the water and which have never been flooded. There doesn't appear to be any sort of rationality to the methodology.

We have been destroying the environment, and as taxpayers, bailing out irresponsible homeowners and business that build in flood zones for decades.


Time to stop the foolishness.


You want to live on the coast, or in a flood plain? Do it at your own risk.

Is there anywhere people are allowed, and everyone no matter where you live there are risks.

But the risks should be minimized. It is insanity to build on flood plains.

Tornados are random. Floods aren't. My house won't flood from mother nature. That I can guarantee. My family farmhouse will never flood. But the morons that built their pretty house creekside have flooded three times in my lifetime.


You can strengthen a house to withstand most quakes. This should be required.


Easiest of all is to NOT BUILD IN FLOODPLAINS.

...where "Not building in a floodplain" would basically mean relocating the entire city. Or people who bought pre-existing homes, etc. Sorry, but this is a bad way to deal with the situation.

Or pay the higher premiums and be glad you can get insurance at all.

They are getting better at predicting how tides, winds, and storm surges flow inland, cross barrier beaches, and surge around obstacles.

Generally they put more area at risk and increase the minimum level to which structures must be elevated.

on the Jersey Shore. I've read some people in CT are also paying $100,000 and up to have their homes raised up on Stilts because that's cheaper than paying the flood insurance.

The "This Old House" episode is featuring three different houses in size. One was a small 1940's type house on the bay and they tore it down and are putting in pilings to rebuild but the other two houses are being jacked up for the pilings.

Sad thing is that the neighborhoods these houses are in are not on the ocean (waterfront) and the houses around them aren't being jacked up. So, it's only if you can either afford the high insurance or you pay for the jack up.

It seems like it could be a mess for many who live year round who have older properties and maybe retired and can't afford to do this. Either sell at a loss or do without insurance if it's paid off or pay the insurance or try to get loan to do the jack up.

It does seem unfair to those who've already gone through a disaster to hit them now.

and who don't have money to pay the new Flood Insurance...(sell it off to a Hedge Fund...(Blackstone) and they can build new and make money.

Or.......what is the alternative? Wall Street Hedge Fund wins either way.

subsidy to owners of beachfront property.

we have seen firsthand the rise of both the intensity of storms followed by flooding.