Homeowner Forum / Construction / September 2005

Dear Weatherlawyer-

In the USA it is not function of gov't to provide the benefits that
could be had via private insurance, please refer to Mr. Bozoarth's
comments.

FEMA has a specific role & making people whole again is not it

Also I would suggest against depending on  the BBC & ABC to provide
anything near accurate informattion.

I would suggest The Economist

If an earthquake destroys my home (rather unlikely) I won't be
expecting the gov't (ie the US taxpayers) to rebuild it for
me.......that's why I have paid for & installed several strengthing
schemes and plan to do more.

cheers
Bob

You may... :)

I have no interest anyway and don't have the bandwidth to download
something that size must be anyway...I know FEMA and its charter quite
well after having dealt w/ the storms we had here two years ago so I
don't need some "do-gooder" trying to make politics out of some
individual case(s).  That some insurance companies may have tried to
limit their exposure is a different conversation entirely.

I'm afraid you don't understand the US system (as many in the US don't
either, unfortunately).  FEMA is <NOT> an insurance program so there can
be no insurance claims to take to them.

The responsibility in the US is primarily one of the individual to
ensure their own economic welfare.  That entails the responsibility to
have adequate insurance for natural disasters as well as fire and
liability.  The shortcoming (if there is one) is that there are not
requirements that all do so.  FEMA is an organization which is Federally
funded that provides both immediate and long-term aid in response.  For
immediate life and safety issues, there is no discernment between the
insured and non-insured.  After that immediate crisis, long term
reconstruction efforts are aided by FEMA but their charter is in essence
one of a social program and efforts are limited to those who do not have
other resources. This seems only reasonable to me although I would
certainly like to see stronger measures to make carrying insurance
essentially a universal action.

As for the last claim, it's not possible to get people into permanent
dwellings even if it were no more expensive (which it isn't).  For the
first thing, it takes a significant amount of time to even clear the
debris what more build a new structure whereas the trailers are a
commodity item that FEMA keeps a significant number of on hand for
nearly immediate deployment.

That there are those who try to make more of what FEMA should be in
their opinion is another side of typical US politics and various views
of what social programs should be government funded, but the fact is
that FEMA is an emergency response agency as the name says.

Believe saw what you're talking about on CNN.  Basically, its about FEMA
provided flood insurance and a few people who wouldn't accept FEMA's money
as it was inadequate per their perceptions.  They are suing.  Some recent
online FEMA advertisements for flood insurance also seem to indicate alot
more than what they actually provide per the same CNN broadcast.  The news
broadcast seems to insinuate false advertising statements.

In my opinion, FEMA has no business providing any kind of property
insurance.  Admittedly, flood insurance is very expensive.  Its required by
many mortgage companies financing housing within a flood zone.  Other acts
of God are relatively inexpensive to insure.  Flood insurance is also an
option provided by some mortgage companies in a non-flood zone.  Flood
insurance is always an option to the home owner if he/she is willing to pay
for it, or be prepared to take the loss in event of flooding.

In rare occasions, like a hurricane, inland flooding inundates many not
normally considered in a flood zone.  A few years ago, similar happened in
central Texas with a freak, extended, heavy rain period.  Many living along
rivers and lakes, not "normally" flooded, flooding destroyed or
substantially damaged their homes.  General consensus was that very few had
flood insurance due to the infrequency of such a radical amount of rain in
such a short time.  Believe they called it a once in 200 year event.  That
was the reason the mortgage/financing companies did not require flood
insurance.  Am sure each homeowner, at one time or another, had observed
floodwaters previously that came within distance to their homes.  And, the
thought of flood insurance did cross their minds.  But did not follow
through as it wasn't required, nor the chance of flooding seemed to indicate
that.

The solution seems to be that the mortgage/financing companies need to
rethink flooding insurance requirements to cover more rare occasions.  This
would increase the insurance funding base, and make flood insurance less
expensive.  FEMA does not have to get involved.

Dear Weatherlawyer-

No need to be un-civil........

your comment as follows was directred at Duane not me (or at least I
thought since I had not posted at that point)

Perhaps you could clarify your post as to "now let's get one with it"
and "If you have no interest in the subject flame off. "

Are you genuinely in need of direction as to how to remediate a flooded
home or was your post retorical?

The people on this ng have more than enough combined experience to
advise on such a project,      If you are truly interested in such
advice, a civil apporach would be more fruitful.  :)

cheers
Bob

Merely suggesting that anyone living on a flood plain should  move to
somewhere higher.

Well, I thought it was sound advice ...