Should they rebuild?

[Southernmiss]

The closest body of water to us is a river 5 miles away. But we have wetlands behind us that are bone dry when there's no rain.

In 2016, we had 12 inches of rain overnight in 3 hours there was over 5 feet of water in the wetlands that came within inches of breaching our porch which sits 3 feet off the ground as our yard slopes. Our city had not maintained ditches near us and they filled too quickly in that event.

We took flood insurance out, even though it's not required and we are not in a designated flood plain.

I talked to the engineer last week who mapped out our neighborhood when it was platted 24 years ago. He was just as shocked by that rain event and what it did to the area as anyone. His own business got water in it with that event.

No matter how much planning is done by the experts and homeowners, stuff still happens.

 

[OneOftheB's]

The closest body of water to us is a river 5 miles away. But we have wetlands behind us that are bone dry when there's no rain.

In 2016, we had 12 inches of rain overnight in 3 hours there was over 5 feet of water in the wetlands that came within inches of breaching our porch which sits 3 feet off the ground as our yard slopes. Our city had not maintained ditches near us and they filled too quickly in that event.

We took flood insurance out, even though it's not required and we are not in a designated flood plain.

I talked to the engineer last week who mapped out our neighborhood when it was platted 24 years ago. He was just as shocked by that rain event and what it did to the area as anyone. His own business got water in it with that event.

No matter how much planning is done by the experts and homeowners, stuff still happens.

That reminds me of the flooding in Atlanta, GA in 2009. Houses no where near flood plains had water and entire neighborhoods were destroyed. https://www.weather.gov/ffc/atlanta_floods_anniv

 

[Mackenzie Click-Mickelson]

The closest body of water to us is a river 5 miles away. But we have wetlands behind us that are bone dry when there's no rain.

In 2016, we had 12 inches of rain overnight in 3 hours there was over 5 feet of water in the wetlands that came within inches of breaching our porch which sits 3 feet off the ground as our yard slopes. Our city had not maintained ditches near us and they filled too quickly in that event.

We took flood insurance out, even though it's not required and we are not in a designated flood plain.

I talked to the engineer last week who mapped out our neighborhood when it was platted 24 years ago. He was just as shocked by that rain event and what it did to the area as anyone. His own business got water in it with that event.

No matter how much planning is done by the experts and homeowners, stuff still happens.

In my neighborhood we're on a hill with a creek down below although no one's house is anywhere near the creek because of how high you're up on the hill. That said the HOA does have the following restriction



We know however that when our house was built because the water direction was shifted from no house being there to a house being there (with compacted clay soil as a big thing here) it caused minor flooding in our neighbor's basement and he ended up doing a french drain system to help that part so it clearly doesn't take a big flood here to get water in your basement but a restriction such that they have is there to hopefully be preventative enough from a 1951 flood or a 1993 flood such that my metro experienced although as high up as we are relative to the creek that would be rare indeed.

One day I was bored and poked around my county's appraiser website and the GIS that was done so it was kinda interesting seeing their flood markings with that creek.

Like here's the flood zone



Here's the creek without the flood zone:


In any case that would be much more important if they were on flat land at ground level with a creek which there is actually a property at the bottom of the hill before you get to our neighborhood that would be in serious trouble if a large enough flood situation occurred




For what you describe I could see any land that hasn't seen water in a long enough time will be more prone to flash flooding because the water just won't absorb into the ground and just pools.

 

[Mackenzie Click-Mickelson]

That reminds me of the flooding in Atlanta, GA in 2009. Houses no where near flood plains had water and entire neighborhoods were destroyed. https://www.weather.gov/ffc/atlanta_floods_anniv

I agree on the PP's point and your point bringing up a specific event but I don't think a 500 year flood line is the best example although like I said I agree with your point. The reason I say that is because when it comes to what the OP is talking about, what people experience daily and communities is stuff that is more knowledge is known at least at some point down the road (too early in time and topography isn't as sophisticated).

Wetlands in your backyard is a recipe for something to happen and much more frequently than 500 years and by that PP's own point their city had failed to upkeep the ditches (and that really wouldn't have mattered IMO given the situation but goes to the larger point).

In my area the 1951 flood changed the landscape forever as well as economic (it literally removed stockyards that fueled the economy here forever) and it spurned levee improvements and other things. The 1993 flood had the highest actual flood level (although not in terms of discharge of the water) our area was spared so much more than others directly related to those improvements and more awareness from the 1951 flood.

This was near downtown with the top plaque being the 1993 flood line, the bottom being the 1951 and the middle one being 1844.


So you really can only plan so much like for a 500 year event however in respects to hurricanes that's a tad different. Although an interesting point in my area where tornadoes are the main risk we've seen the amount of tornadoes shift more and more away from our area and more southern US so there can be a point there about expectations in a way. In my direct area we went about 3 years without a tornado watch (that span ended this year as we had watches and warnings) and that's abnormal for sure (but good thing we still do monthly siren testing!).

 

[dvcgirl67]

Should they rebuild is one question to ask, but the pressing question for many of those affected will be....can they afford it? Lee and Charlotte counties are the hardest hit in this storm and thousands were affected by the storm surge and flooding further inland from the two feet of rain that Ian dropped on them. Only 30% of these residents have flood insurance. They can apply for FEMA benefits and may get up to $40,000 to repair their homes, but many people won't be made whole in long run. Some will be stuck....unable to pack and up and leave the area because the mortgage that they have on the damaged home that they can't afford to repair....goes with them. Florida's homeowners insurance is three times the average for the rest of the nation. I've read that after this storm, more insurers will leave the state of Florida (6 have left just this year) compounding the problem going forward.

It's a conundrum for sure, and one that we're seeing take place all over the country truth be told. We've had two "1,000 year flood events" just this summer in Kentucky and Missouri. Houston has "500 year flood events" every year it seems. Those are just statistical terms, but these "1 in 500/1000 chance" events are occurring more frequently causing flood plains to expand rapidly. The mega-drought out west is part of the reason that we're seeing these awful fires year around....when there used to be a "fire season". It all points to difficult and expensive predicaments for residents, insurers and governments....with the burden increasing falling on the homeowner.

 

[White Cat]

They should re build.

 

[sam_gordon]

I think it's an interesting question to discuss and I'm not sure why it would turn political.

I understand people not living near the coast not wanting to pay extra in taxes so the government can help people rebuild. However, most areas of the country have SOME kind of disaster that could happen... flooding, tornadoes, wildfires, and hurricanes seem to be the big ones. Should ALL of that space be abandoned so the cost to rebuild is very low? As others have said, there are some companies that HAVE to have properties along the coast. If you have properties along the coast, you have to have workers. The workers need to live somewhere. So it doesn't sound like you can have people not live in certain locations.

So now let's get to the cost. Should people in disaster prone areas pay more for insurance? That sounds good on the surface, but how do you decide which areas are "disaster prone"? Sure, look at Florida for hurricanes as an example. According to https://climatecenter.fsu.edu/topics/hurricanes, there's been five hurricanes to hit Florida in six years, three of them have been Cat4 or 5. BUT, they're hitting in different areas. Surely insurance companies have records on how much they've had to pay out in any given state, and probably county. I have no problem with insurance companies charging more if an area has a history of larger payouts. That would be no different than charging more for drivers who spend more time on the road.

Should insurance companies be required to provide services in certain areas? This one I have a hard time with because I think businesses should be allowed to decide what to offer. Maybe a solution is a "government" insurance company. Sort of like the healthcare market (not saying anything of this to be political, just giving examples). If you can't get enough insurance from a private company, then you're free to purchase insurance from the government. If you choose to still underinsure, then you're on your own when disaster hits.

 

[MillauFr]

They should re build.

Can they afford it?

 

[White Cat]

Can they afford it?

Some can. Some can’t.

 

[dvcgirl67]

I think it's an interesting question to discuss and I'm not sure why it would turn political.

I understand people not living near the coast not wanting to pay extra in taxes so the government can help people rebuild. However, most areas of the country have SOME kind of disaster that could happen... flooding, tornadoes, wildfires, and hurricanes seem to be the big ones. Should ALL of that space be abandoned so the cost to rebuild is very low? As others have said, there are some companies that HAVE to have properties along the coast. If you have properties along the coast, you have to have workers. The workers need to live somewhere. So it doesn't sound like you can have people not live in certain locations.

Agree that all areas have some kind of disasters. I was curious which disasters cause the most damage....therefore costing the most with respect to rebuilding/repairs. And in the U.S. hurricanes are far and away the biggest cost to insurers...and it's not even close. This data was from 1980-2021 and the total paid out by insurers for all disasters was 2.1 Trillion dollars. 1.1 Trillion of that....so over half, is from hurricanes. 330 Billion from strong storms like tornados, 164 Billion from flooding, 120 Billion for fires/drought, 78 Billion from cold weather/ice/snow storms...and the rest from smaller events.

As for companies that have to have properties along the coast....yes, I guess that's right, but let's face it, a lot of the high dollar damage from this storm is simply people who choose to take the risk and live in an area that is more prone to very powerful hurricanes. I think that it should be left to the free market to decide....if there are insurers willing to step in and continue to take the bet, and homeowners willing to pay inflated premiums...so be it. I believe that FEMA should step in with the kind of help that they provide now for short term housing and perhaps up to that 40K for repairs for those not carrying flood insurance. But...I don't think the Federal government should subsidize huge packages to rebuild in areas that are super prone to repetitive storms....especially when climate change guarantees that these storms will increasingly be the violent variety we just saw with Ian. It's a risk calculation.

 

[sam_gordon]

Agree that all areas have some kind of disasters. I was curious which disasters cause the most damage....therefore costing the most with respect to rebuilding/repairs. And in the U.S. hurricanes are far and away the biggest cost to insurers...and it's not even close. This data was from 1980-2021 and the total paid out by insurers for all disasters was 2.1 Trillion dollars. 1.1 Trillion of that....so over half, is from hurricanes. 330 Billion from strong storms like tornados, 164 Billion from flooding, 120 Billion for fires/drought, 78 Billion from cold weather/ice/snow storms...and the rest from smaller events.

As for companies that have to have properties along the coast....yes, I guess that's right, but let's face it, a lot of the high dollar damage from this storm is simply people who choose to take the risk and live in an area that is more prone to very powerful hurricanes. I think that it should be left to the free market to decide....if there are insurers willing to step in and continue to take the bet, and homeowners willing to pay inflated premiums...so be it. I believe that FEMA should step in with the kind of help that they provide now for short term housing and perhaps up to that 40K for repairs for those not carrying flood insurance. But...I don't think the Federal government should subsidize huge packages to rebuild in areas that are super prone to repetitive storms....especially when climate change guarantees that these storms will increasingly be the violent variety we just saw with Ian. It's a risk calculation.

Interesting numbers, thank you.

I wasn't suggesting government subsidizing insurance packages. My suggestion was they offer insurance (that would work the same as the big companies, but not for profit)... you know, that whole "shared risk" thing. Is it practical? Don't know, it's just an idea.

 

[mom2rtk]

I'm not sure why it would turn political.

Because it’s Florida and some people just can’t help themselves.

 

[dvcgirl67]

Interesting numbers, thank you.

I wasn't suggesting government subsidizing insurance packages. My suggestion was they offer insurance (that would work the same as the big companies, but not for profit)... you know, that whole "shared risk" thing. Is it practical? Don't know, it's just an idea.

I hear you...and I believe in shared risk as well....to a degree. I believe we need government in these times, particularly to help the neediest among us who have been made homeless by a storm. It'll be interesting to see what happens with the recovery in this area. There are a *lot* of one story homes/businesses that were wiped out completely or received 4ft + of water inside their homes. I do wonder how many of those homes get rebuilt/repaired. Also keep in mind that we have very high inflation right now as well as a super tight labor market.

 

[longboard55]

Rebuild properly, that means raised floor plans and houses designed for proper wind forces. Not mobile homes. It can be done. Guam gets more hurricanes than anyone, they do fine.

 

[Mackenzie Click-Mickelson]

I believe that FEMA should step in with the kind of help that they provide now for short term housing and perhaps up to that 40K for repairs for those not carrying flood insurance.

I think that's part of the OP's point of discussion. FEMA is a government agency.

You're saying on one hand "I don't think the Federal government should subsidize huge packages to rebuild in areas that are super prone to repetitive storms" and on the other hand saying FEMA should step in (and 40K ain't going to cut it not by a long shot, heck I have $25K for an unfinished basement for sewer and drain back up/sump pump failure but a finished basement or a house whew yeah a lot more than $40K) , those contradict each other.

FEMA uses their government budget for all sorts of things but it is subsiding communities to rebuild, they go and help out in preparedness and supplies, they give supplies after the fact, etc. It isn't like the government says they won't help out people who are located in these prone areas, that's often where they are sent to the most.

I think that's why people are often in the middle and why it can get political because it's humanitarian vs questioning just what responsibility does everyone have to everyone vs singular responsibility.

 

[GreatLakes]

As long as the people rebuilding accept the risk and cost go for it. I think building codes need to keep up with the increase in storm intensity and frequency but I am not for the government buying the land or offering government-backed insurance for it.

What I think will happen, and I'm perfectly fine with it, is private insurance companies stop insuring property in the highest risk areas. If you make an area un-insurable or price the majority of people out of insurance, you'll see a lot less people willing to invest in property in the highest risk areas.

 

[dvcgirl67]

I think that's part of the OP's point of discussion. FEMA is a government agency.

You're saying on one hand "I don't think the Federal government should subsidize huge packages to rebuild in areas that are super prone to repetitive storms" and on the other hand saying FEMA should step in (and 40K ain't going to cut it not by a long shot, heck I have $25K for an unfinished basement for sewer and drain back up/sump pump failure but a finished basement or a house whew yeah a lot more than $40K) , those contradict each other.

FEMA uses their government budget for all sorts of things but it is subsiding communities to rebuild, they go and help out in preparedness and supplies, they give supplies after the fact, etc. It isn't like the government says they won't help out people who are located in these prone areas, that's often where they are sent to the most.

I think that's why people are often in the middle and why it can get political because it's humanitarian vs questioning just what responsibility does everyone have to everyone vs singular responsibility.

Right...I don't think the government should step in with huge amounts of money, and what you said...40K is not a lot of money. By "huge package"....I mean the government can't make all of these people whole. Whatever package does come is not going to be enough to help the thousands in this area who do not have flood insurance and who won't have to funds to rebuild. I guess what I'm saying is that we as a nation can't backstop these sorts of disasters, only take the sting out of it initially.

I kind of think of it like the Pension Benefit Government Corporation....which is the organization that "backstops" pension payouts to employees who worked for companies that go under. That organization will pay out roughly 40% of what the person was supposed to get when they retire....which is to say, better than nothing. In this case, for the underinsured the government should provide short term housing and if they plan to stay...the 40K to help fix up the house....which isn't much, but it's something.

I think what is likely to happen is what occurs everywhere when these types of disasters touch down....a lot of people in precarious financial positions will be forced out eventually. And developers will move in and buy the land/properties at distressed levels and rebuild. And the whole cycle will begin again.

 

[MillauFr]

Rebuild properly, that means raised floor plans and houses designed for proper wind forces. Not mobile homes. It can be done. Guam gets more hurricanes than anyone, they do fine.

People can only rebuild if they can get insurance. That is the major problem. No for profit company is going to want to insure the houses along the coast. And we don't need a public entity to offer the insurance. That only encourages people to make poor decisions on where to build.

 

[sam_gordon]

People can only rebuild if they can get insurance. That is the major problem. No for profit company is going to want to insure the houses along the coast. And we don't need a public entity to offer the insurance. That only encourages people to make poor decisions on where to build.

So people shouldn't build near the Florida coasts?

 

[MillauFr]

So people shouldn't build near the Florida coasts?

They should be allowed to do so but it shouldn't be subsidized by taxpayers.