Join the Discussion

Comments So Far: 10

• 0%

  engineer3 months, 2 weeks ago

  One Heckuva job Bushie

  Reply

  3 Replies

  • 0%

    newbie04203 months, 2 weeks ago

    When you have diarrhea is that Bush's fault too?

    If it rains when the forecast called for sunshine is that Bush's fault as well?

    You are the definition of Bush Derangement Syndrome.

    Reply

    2 Replies

    • 0%

      earthlingerer3 months, 2 weeks ago

      It's possible he could be referring to the track record since FEMA was absorbed into Homeland Security and it's less-than-perfect record of responses and follow-up since.

      Of course, here they got the flood victims NOT to buy insurance has saved txpayers a lot of money, when private companies weren't interested.

      I thought Bush Derangement Syndrome made you think the country was "on the right track", and that we're as free as we were seven years ago.

      Reply

      1 Reply

      • 0%

        jordan113 months, 2 weeks ago

        Flood insurance is very expensive, & I have no doubt there is pressure to keep flood risks low key. I can't imagine anyone deliberately buying in an area that the government says has that risk. It gives buyers a false sense of security to say a flood won't happen. The economic impact on some towns could be devastating if buyers couldn't be found, so the risks are minimized.

        Reply
• 0%

  kboy3 months, 2 weeks ago

  The local pressure on FEMA to not require flood insurance should be investigated. There is no excuse for allowing anyone to build in a flood area and expect the taxpayers to pay for flood damage.

  Reply

  1 Reply

  • 0%

    chevydog3 months, 2 weeks ago

    Flood insurance was required for a number of towns along the Mississippi as a result of the 1973 floods. But bear in mind that many of these are very small and have no methods of enforcement or sometimes of even making sure that people know. As time moves on and memories fade, this gets significant.

    I lived in one such town (in MO) in 1973. We promptly approved the requirement, which was enforced for a few years; then gradually forgotten. In the late 1980's during the discussion of a related topic at the town council meeting, it was pointed out that we HAD to have a requirement since we had received Federal aid after the 1973 flood. Everyone agreed; but a 4-week search by the City Clerk into what records from that time could still be found revealed nothing. So the requirement had to be re-enacted.

    None of this is really an excuse, but similar things do happen. Sometimes one lives with what is rather than what logic tells one should be true.

    Reply
• 0%

  joeblowe3 months, 2 weeks ago

  I happen to KNOW that the "official" flood plain maps are NOT necessarily up to date. I checked into my own situation a while back and found the "official" map still showed a creek running through my back yard that hadn't been there for YEARS. It had been re-routed into a culvert, moved a couple dozen yards, and made more flood resistant. Since then, even MORE changes have been made to improve flood resistance. Technically, I am (barely) in a flood area, but the odds are slim indeed. Which brings up the question: Do any of you KNOW how much flood insurance COSTS? It can triple or quadruple your annual homeowners policy costs. Maybe more. It's EXPENSIVE! Which is what would explain WHY people sometimes would prefer to believe they don't really need it. Especially if a supposedly competent government agency assures them that they are in no danger.

  Reply
• 0%

  jordan113 months, 2 weeks ago

  I have looked at property in CA along a 100 year flood zone. One of the homes I've considered buying doesn't require flood insurance because it's a few miles away from the area most prone to floods. All that means is if I were to get a mortgage, the holder couldn't require flood insurance; however, I would still get it. The Sacramento River runs through the town, and I'd be silly to think it could never cause a catastrophic flood. And considering that our infrastructure is in bad shape, including our dams, I would get flood insurance if my property were near one.

  Reply
• 0%

  normallysilent3 months, 2 weeks ago

  If the area where I live requires protection from a levee I will not bother asking anyone else if I need flood insurance.

  If anyone offers their advice suggesting I don't need the insurance, that advice is going to go in one ear and out the other.

  Reply
• 0%

  bigurn3 months, 2 weeks ago

  First, this area is now a Federal Disaster Area. It will not matter that they had insurance; they'll be taken care of.

  Second, every property deed from a property that is in a flood plain is clearly indicated as such. The property buyers are required to sign the writ indicating their understanding of that fact. They cannot possibly say they didn't know.

  The issue of believing in the levees is a matter of faith. Just because FEMA didn't require it doesn't mean it's not prudent.

  So now Chris Dodd was to create legislation forcing people to do something with their property that the majority clearly did not want? It will help these few, but will cost every other home owner who may never need it. I suspect he's just politicking, and my guess is he's got better things to do.

  The issue here is personal responsibility. It is up to people to care for themselves. We cannot legislate our way out of bad things happening to good people.

  Reply