Marsh Aviator:

Well, I'm a few miles from your 20, and here in the Broadmoor neighborhood we got slammed. Many trees down, some through houses, utilities shattered. They're saying 14-21 days until we get power back. No time given on phone, cable, and Internet. I went through Betsy and Camille in New Orleans, and Katrina here in Baton Rouge. This one was bad.

Well, if he lives in a flood zone, every taxpayer is subsidizing him. If he relies on insurance to pay for the damage, every person who pays for property insurance pays for his losses through higher premiums. After particularly destructive disasters, costs for construction materials usually climb for a large part of the country (supply and demand), so we all get to enjoy higher prices for our own projects, even if we live thousands of miles away from "the zone".

So you see, it doesn't affect only the person who chooses to live in "the zone", it affects all of us.

I wouldn't say they have to move but rebuilding a frame house w/ shingle roof & regular plate glass windows in an area that gets 100mph+ winds on a regular basis should not be covered by insurance more than once. If they rebuild in the same area there should be additional requirements placed on the design. Different roof styles & materials are more susceptible to damage from high wind than others. Windows can be installed that are impact resistant or storm shutters installed. Relatively minor changes to the design of a house can significantly reduce the damage due to a storm. If I was building a house in hurricane regions, I'd start by looking into using poured concrete for a flat roof & the high wind walls with minimal windows with shutters on those sides.

Same thing in areas that get flooded often. The next one should be required to have the living area above the 100yr flood line. I don't care if it's by using posts or by locating on a high spot. Many of the homes on Sanibel Island in Florida are set up this way. The lower level is enclosed with some form of lattice for use in storing lawn equipment, etc.

Grouch, it is late and I guess I am a little slow. What point are you trying to make? Is there something wrong that you think should be fixed? Are you suggesting a solution to something?

Here in the UK we dont get many hurricanes and serious earthqaukes are unknown, but there are areas that flood repeatedly, and I agree that rebuilding after each flood is a waste of money.
There have been stories of repairs to a flood damaged home not being completed before the next flood!

Before deciding on the prudence of rebuilding following a flood, one should consider the risks of it happening again. As an example the flood in Boscastle, UK was due to truely exceptional conditions, that are unlikely to be repeated for centuries. Rebuilding would appear reasonable in such cases, though new buildings might be better on raised foundations.

However in other areas flooding has become so routine that rebuilding after each one seems pointless. At the very least all new or re-built properties should be above the hundred year flood line.

One must also remember that some floods are of gently rising water, that cause no structural damage, only makes everything wet and dirty. Other floods are of fast flowing water that can wash away buildings.

A friend has recently built a flood resistant home in a flood prone area.
The ground floor is of solid concrete, no timber to swell or rot and is above the 25 year flood line.
The floors are covered in loose carpets that can be removed when a flood threatens.
The walls are of decorative stone blocks, not painted or rendered, and will therefore only require pressure washing and disinfecting after the flood.
The electricity meter and fusebox are located at high level well above the 100 year flood line. All sockets outlets on the lower floor are at high level (1,800mm above floor level) All lightswitchs on the lower floor are of the ceiling mounted pull cord variety.This should avoid any need for rewiring after a flood
All major or heavy appliances are located on the upper floor, well above flood level.
The only expensive items on the lower floor are computers, tv sets and a music center, all are readily carried upstairs.
The house is insured only against structural damage from flooding, not against water damage to contents.

If I haven't made my point clear by now, it will do no good to go on about it.

Your choice is fine by me.

Every choice we make affects others, good and bad. Whether we choose to live in a flood plain, a mountain top, a swamp, a prairie or anywhere in-between. What about the folks who build their homes in deserts, they contribute to the lowering of the water table which negatively affects society and could result in higher risk of drought, availability of water for fire suppression, etc. Should they be allowed to continue to build? Why should I have to pay for their bad choices?

Attempting to limit the impact on society to only seemingly bad choices makes for good political talking points but is intellectually dishonest. Why not balance the supposedly bad impact on society with the good that the person who builds their home in a flood plain brings to society? It's just as valid an argument.

The entire premise of insurance is shared risk, paying out on claims is part of that process, whether the policy holder makes good choices or bad is also part of that process and is reflected in his or hers' premium cost.

John E

One more point, I believe it was the Buddha who wrote that society needs the beggar as the beggar needs the society. Or words to that effect.

We need those in need to satisfy our need to help those in need...Lots of needs out there.

John E

"...insurance...whether the policy holder makes good choices or bad is also part of that process and is reflected in his or hers' premium cost..."

Yup. When we bought our stick house in the Sierra foothills, our fire insurance premiums were, at least in part, based upon the distance, in feet, to the nearest fire hydrant, and in 1/10 mile to the nearest fire station. We were pretty close to both, so had somewhat lower premiums. Those who prefer being farther out in the boonies, if they even get fire insurance, pay a lot more. That is their choice. But if they chose not to have fire insurance, "we" shouldn't have to rebuild their house if it burns down...