Should they rebuild?

[DLgal]

You can't realistically live inland if you make your living on the water.

You can't? Why not? Plenty of people do this thing every day called a commute.

 

[NotUrsula]

You can't? Why not? Plenty of people do this thing every day called a commute.

A regular deckhand can commute a long distance, but an owner/operator needs to be relatively close in. Yes, you can commute a bit, but living really far away from your dock (more than 45 minutes or so) isn't practical, and most prefer to be within a mile or two. Working boats require constant maintainance; you're always there cleaning the live wells and the bilges and the props, scraping barnacles, painting, tuning the engines, caulking seams, repairing the nets or the traps; in a warm climate there is no real off-season; it's endless, and in most fishing families other family members are expected to pitch in with all that. (Also, boats are an attractive nuisance; you frequently have people try to mess with them for kicks, and you get called to come inspect for damage if that happens.) Most boats go out by dawn; and before that you have to take on fuel and usually ice and get your crew aboard and everything squared away. In-shore fishing often isn't so good any more; depending on what you're harvesting it can easily take more than 90 minutes to reach your fishing ground to be able to start actively fishing. It's also very dangerous work; if you can help it, you don't want people tired already when they get to the boat.

 

[amylevan]

A regular deckhand can commute a long distance, but an owner/operator needs to be relatively close in. Yes, you can commute a bit, but living really far away from your dock (more than 45 minutes or so) isn't practical, and most prefer to be within a mile or two. Working boats require constant maintainance; you're always there cleaning the live wells and the bilges and the props, scraping barnacles, painting, tuning the engines, caulking seams, repairing the nets or the traps; in a warm climate there is no real off-season; it's endless, and in most fishing families other family members are expected to pitch in with all that. (Also, boats are an attractive nuisance; you frequently have people try to mess with them for kicks, and you get called to come inspect for damage if that happens.) Most boats go out by dawn; and before that you have to take on fuel and usually ice and get your crew aboard and everything squared away. In-shore fishing often isn't so good any more; depending on what you're harvesting it can easily take more than 90 minutes to reach your fishing ground to be able to start actively fishing. It's also very dangerous work; if you can help it, you don't want people tired already when they get to the boat.

It’s neither here nor there, but plenty of people work crazy schedules and commute. They may want to live near the boat, but they do not have to. Period.

 

[DLgal]

A regular deckhand can commute a long distance, but an owner/operator needs to be relatively close in. Yes, you can commute a bit, but living really far away from your dock (more than 45 minutes or so) isn't practical, and most prefer to be within a mile or two. Working boats require constant maintainance; you're always there cleaning the live wells and the bilges and the props, scraping barnacles, painting, tuning the engines, caulking seams, repairing the nets or the traps; in a warm climate there is no real off-season; it's endless, and in most fishing families other family members are expected to pitch in with all that. (Also, boats are an attractive nuisance; you frequently have people try to mess with them for kicks, and you get called to come inspect for damage if that happens.) Most boats go out by dawn; and before that you have to take on fuel and usually ice and get your crew aboard and everything squared away. In-shore fishing often isn't so good any more; depending on what you're harvesting it can easily take more than 90 minutes to reach your fishing ground to be able to start actively fishing. It's also very dangerous work; if you can help it, you don't want people tired already when they get to the boat.

Life is all about choices and then having to live with those choices.

 

[dvcgirl67]

A regular deckhand can commute a long distance, but an owner/operator needs to be relatively close in. Yes, you can commute a bit, but living really far away from your dock (more than 45 minutes or so) isn't practical, and most prefer to be within a mile or two. Working boats require constant maintainance; you're always there cleaning the live wells and the bilges and the props, scraping barnacles, painting, tuning the engines, caulking seams, repairing the nets or the traps; in a warm climate there is no real off-season; it's endless, and in most fishing families other family members are expected to pitch in with all that. (Also, boats are an attractive nuisance; you frequently have people try to mess with them for kicks, and you get called to come inspect for damage if that happens.) Most boats go out by dawn; and before that you have to take on fuel and usually ice and get your crew aboard and everything squared away. In-shore fishing often isn't so good any more; depending on what you're harvesting it can easily take more than 90 minutes to reach your fishing ground to be able to start actively fishing. It's also very dangerous work; if you can help it, you don't want people tired already when they get to the boat.

This all makes sense as far as fishing goes....that you'd want to be close to the water. I was curious, so I googled what the top industries/employers are for Southwest Florida and fishing didn't come up really at all. I was surprised that the top ten employers in that area of Florida are school systems, county governments, and healthcare systems. Only one company made the top ten....a medical device company called Anthrex. The next ten were hotels, local government jobs, colleges, retirement communities....and apparently Hertz and Chico's have their headquarters there. So it seems like the locals mostly work in hospitality, healthcare, government, education...etc. I would bet they live close to where they work....it's just that the population growth has exploded there in the past few decades in particular. So the employers....the hotels, schools, local government offices, hospitals....are all within the area that flooded. I would say that a lot of the people there service two things....tourists and old people .

 

[LuvOrlando]

Not a big fan of the Live and Let Die attitude, the US is designed to aggregate both wealth via taxes and loss via expenditure so no-one gets crushed by life's wild swings. Yes, natural disaster spreads the loss around but so does Medicare, should elderly people not get care because they take out more than they put in for the years they are elderly, I'd say no because that's just a horrendous train of thought considering our way of life.

 

[sam_gordon]

Not a big fan of the Live and Let Die attitude, the US is designed to aggregate both wealth via taxes and loss via expenditure so no-one gets crushed by life's wild swings. Yes, natural disaster spreads the loss around but so does Medicare, should elderly people not get care because they take out more than they put in for the years they are elderly, I'd say no because that's just a horrendous train of thought considering our way of life.

I dont disagree. Personally, I wish government could do MORE. But, that leads to a discussion on what we ARE spending money on, which is too political for these boards.

 

[MillauFr]

I dont disagree. Personally, I wish government could do MORE. But, that leads to a discussion on what we ARE spending money on, which is too political for these boards.

Unfortunately you are correct.

 

[dvcgirl67]

Here's an interesting article from the NYT on what this area is facing with the massive storm surge from Ian. It follows a mold remediation company that has been working since the water receded. They talk about a house in Naples that received *one* foot of storm surge on the first floor. The company assessed the house on Tuesday...5 days after the storm. By the time they got there mold had already taken hold.

At this house, the baseboards were ripped out, the hardwood floors ripped out and the drywall was cut at the four foot mark and also ripped out. The couch was toast...as well as anything cloth on that first floor. The article said that none of this is covered by homeowners insurance. I'm guessing if you have flood insurance there may be some coverage. It also said that flood policies only cover 10K of mold remediation. This job alone sounds like tens of thousands of dollars. Florida is known for litigation around insurance claims....I can only imagine the suits going back and forth regarding whether the insurer has any duty to pay.


https://www.nytimes.com/2022/10/04/climate/hurricane-ian-mold-home-remediation.html

 

[Colleen27]

Here's an interesting article from the NYT on what this area is facing with the massive storm surge from Ian. It follows a mold remediation company that has been working since the water receded. They talk about a house in Naples that received *one* foot of storm surge on the first floor. The company assessed the house on Tuesday...5 days after the storm. By the time they got there mold had already taken hold.

At this house, the baseboards were ripped out, the hardwood floors ripped out and the drywall was cut at the four foot mark and also ripped out. The couch was toast...as well as anything cloth on that first floor. The article said that none of this is covered by homeowners insurance. I'm guessing if you have flood insurance there may be some coverage. It also said that flood policies only cover 10K of mold remediation. This job alone sounds like tens of thousands of dollars. Florida is known for litigation around insurance claims....I can only imagine the suits going back and forth regarding whether the insurer has any duty to pay.


https://www.nytimes.com/2022/10/04/climate/hurricane-ian-mold-home-remediation.html

That's something that feels like it really should be better regulated by law. I know my aunt had a terrible time fighting with insurance companies when they sustained minor hurricane damage some years back because how the water got in (structure damage vs. storm surge) effects which policy will pay out so it turned into a situation where the homeowners claim was denied because it should be filed as flood and the flood insurance claim was denied because it should be covered under homeowners. So in addition to dealing with a damaged home and trying to get the repairs done quickly to avoid further problems with mold or additional water coming in, they had to fight the insurance company to get *someone* to cover the cost.

 

[Mackenzie Click-Mickelson]

That's something that feels like it really should be better regulated by law. I know my aunt had a terrible time fighting with insurance companies when they sustained minor hurricane damage some years back because how the water got in (structure damage vs. storm surge) effects which policy will pay out so it turned into a situation where the homeowners claim was denied because it should be filed as flood and the flood insurance claim was denied because it should be covered under homeowners. So in addition to dealing with a damaged home and trying to get the repairs done quickly to avoid further problems with mold or additional water coming in, they had to fight the insurance company to get *someone* to cover the cost.

TBH though that really would have a hard time being regulated because now you're getting into a removal of risk evaluation that an insurance company does.

Insurance companies have different products for different types of risks and buildings for instance the company I worked for owned a subsidiary that if you didn't qualify for auto insurance with the Standard/preferred company they could put you with the subsidiary (considered non-standard). On the home side a subsidiary took care of specialty products such as your 5th wheel, rv and mobile homes (manufactured homes could be insured under the standard insurance)

Insurance companies vary on what they cover which varies by company. I once saw a claim at the insurance company I worked at look at whether the damage to an insured soffits were caused by rodents or vermin because one was covered another wasn't (in the end it was determined to be caused by whichever was covered can't remember which one though).

Your aunt may have only had trouble because the specific insurance company she was with excluded damage due to X.

Some states have certain rules governing insurance companies but by in large that is how private insurance is going to work. And keep in mind in order for insurance companies to actually survive they have to be able to utilize their own risk management. People may not realize this but companies can ebb and flow in terms of acceptability. I know when profits were up at the insurance company I worked for more risk could be taken on (usually in the form of types of prior claims a person had especially if they were going to be having a home, auto, life and umbrella policy) but when profits were lower the reigns were tightened so as to reduce the risk.

ETA: It's also why you have insurance companies not have service in certain states- a large part of that being risk evaluation.

 

[dvcgirl67]

TBH though that really would have a hard time being regulated because now you're getting into a removal of risk evaluation that an insurance company does.

Insurance companies have different products for different types of risks and buildings for instance the company I worked for owned a subsidiary that if you didn't qualify for auto insurance with the Standard/preferred company they could put you with the subsidiary (considered non-standard). On the home side a subsidiary took care of specialty products such as your 5th wheel, rv and mobile homes (manufactured homes could be insured under the standard insurance)

Insurance companies vary on what they cover which varies by company. I once saw a claim at the insurance company I worked at look at whether the damage to an insured soffits were caused by rodents or vermin because one was covered another wasn't (in the end it was determined to be caused by whichever was covered can't remember which one though).

Your aunt may have only had trouble because the specific insurance company she was with excluded damage due to X.

Some states have certain rules governing insurance companies but by in large that is how private insurance is going to work. And keep in mind in order for insurance companies to actually survive they have to be able to utilize their own risk management. People may not realize this but companies can ebb and flow in terms of acceptability. I know when profits were up at the insurance company I worked for more risk could be taken on (usually in the form of types of prior claims a person had especially if they were going to be having a home, auto, life and umbrella policy) but when profits were lower the reigns were tightened so as to reduce the risk.

ETA: It's also why you have insurance companies not have service in certain states- a large part of that being risk evaluation.

I really don't know a lot about insurance regulations...or how they evaluate risk, etc. But Florida has a big, big problem with litigation. I'm not sure what the comparable term in insurance litigation is for "ambulance chasers"....but that seems to be the problem that they have.

I heard a reporter from the WSJ who has covered the insurance beat for three decades and she said that while Florida represents 10% of all the homeowners insurance claims in the nation, it is also responsible for 80% of *all* litigation revolving around these insurance claims. It's one of the main reasons the premiums are so high....the companies have to factor in the insane level of litigation. It would seem that what is going to already be a complete nightmare with respect to recovery is going to be made worse by a lot of lawyers.

 

[Mackenzie Click-Mickelson]

I really don't know a lot about insurance regulations...or how they evaluate risk, etc. But Florida has a big, big problem with litigation. I'm not sure what the comparable term in insurance litigation is for "ambulance chasers"....but that seems to be the problem that they have.

I heard a reporter from the WSJ who has covered the insurance beat for three decades and she said that while Florida represents 10% of all the homeowners insurance claims in the nation, it is also responsible for 80% of *all* litigation revolving around these insurance claims. It's one of the main reasons the premiums are so high....the companies have to factor in the insane level of litigation. It would seem that what is going to already be a complete nightmare with respect to recovery is going to be made worse by a lot of lawyers.

The company I worked for did not have service for auto for a reason in FL (did have non-standard auto there though) and did not carry home insurance either although did have specialty insurance. I wasn't privy to it all as an underwriter but the auto as we were told was because they don't require BI and their PIP and liability property damage is too low as a requirement.

I definitely believe ya about the litigation issues. IIRC months ago a person posted here about their insurer leaving FL as part of their service area. Back then I feel like people were posting about the climate there just being ripe for issues basically.

 

[piccolopat]

I worked in insurance for almost 4 decades, mostly on the commercial side. There will always be arguments over whether water damage from a storm is from ground water/water surge or water intrusion from a covered damage such as from the roof torn off or windows that are broken. IMHO it makes sense to package flood into homeowners policies (and not make it an option) and have federal flood act as a reinsurance company for the private industry. More people would have the coverage and so the risk would be spread with premiums reflecting the flood risk for each building. This way any disagreements on who covers the damage would be between federal flood and the insurance company, not the homeowner. Options could include higher or lower deductibles, coverage for structure only, structure plus contents, and limited or no coverage for outbuildings. Coverage for second homes could also be limited. If these changes are made, no government assistance would be available except perhaps low interest loans to cover high deductibles. We can't continue to have people in risk areas choose to not buy flood insurance and then expect taxpayers to pay for the damages. As to rebuilding, Florida should consider doing what areas of NJ did after Sandy hit. Buildings had to be put up on stilts to minimize the flood risks in the future. Building codes could be changed to require raising the buildings and retrofitting any hurricane strengthening for both damaged buildings as well as any existing buildings that are modified in any other way going forward.

 

[Mackenzie Click-Mickelson]

IMHO it makes sense to package flood into homeowners policies (and not make it an option) and have federal flood act as a reinsurance company for the private industry.

In a way I don't disagree but the reason flood insurance is optional unless in designated areas and denoted as a requirement by insurance companies or mortgage lenders or both is because not everyone has the same risk.

We carry sewer and drain back up coverage in my midwestern area which is the more common coverage in my area (basement flooding primarily). The coverage will be increased when the basement is completed but right now with unfinished basement and many things in tubs and off the ground we have $25K. My mom has had backup multiple times in her basement due to largely tree roots in the service pipes from the street to her house and we learned over the years to store things above enough and in tubs. The worst I want to say was about 1 1/2 feet of water where we helped with a pump ourselves as my mom does not have a sump pump. The basement part there is unfinished (and by code cannot be finished) so all that gets affected for the most part is the leftover carpet piece she put down there years ago and minor other things

While we could purchase flood insurance it's not highly practical for day to day risk, same with earthquake coverage, I can buy that but not as practical for day to day coverage. This is also probably why you see parts of FL also not purchase flood insurance even if they probably have a higher practical reason than I do.

As far as the federal flood stuff that is taxpayer stuff, that's why it can get dicey quick.

As far as building codes it's been stated already there are much stricter codes as a result of a past hurricane event. Stilts I'm not sure make the most sense everywhere in FL, right on the coast yeah but your Tallahassee and Orlando and other like areas?

 

[piccolopat]

In a way I don't disagree but the reason flood insurance is optional unless in designated areas and denoted as a requirement by insurance companies or mortgage lenders or both is because not everyone has the same risk.

We carry sewer and drain back up coverage in my midwestern area which is the more common coverage in my area (basement flooding primarily). The coverage will be increased when the basement is completed but right now with unfinished basement and many things in tubs and off the ground we have $25K. My mom has had backup multiple times in her basement due to largely tree roots in the service pipes from the street to her house and we learned over the years to store things above enough and in tubs. The worst I want to say was about 1 1/2 feet of water where we helped with a pump ourselves as my mom does not have a sump pump. The basement part there is unfinished (and by code cannot be finished) so all that gets affected for the most part is the leftover carpet piece she put down there years ago and minor other things

While we could purchase flood insurance it's not highly practical for day to day risk, same with earthquake coverage, I can buy that but not as practical for day to day coverage. This is also probably why you see parts of FL also not purchase flood insurance even if they probably have a higher practical reason than I do.

As far as the federal flood stuff that is taxpayer stuff, that's why it can get dicey quick.

As far as building codes it's been stated already there are much stricter codes as a result of a past hurricane event. Stilts I'm not sure make the most sense everywhere in FL, right on the coast yeah but your Tallahassee and Orlando and other like areas?

The additional built in premium to include flood would reflect the risk so someone in a high risk area would pay much more than someone in a low risk area. While the coasts have more risk in general, proximity to any body of water (lake, river, stream, etc.) or even where a home is lower than others, a heavy rain can cause flooding even without a hurricane. Hurricane damage can extend hundreds of miles inland so really no place in Florida is immune. We're on a hill. Years ago we had a heavy snowfall and then a heavy rain. Because the snow hadn't melted yet, the rain had no where to go but into our crawl space through the vent windows. If we had living space on grade, we would have had damage. Across the street, our neighbors are much lower and have a stream behind their house. I would expect to pay less than them for flood coverage. I'm in NY and bought earthquake at a very low price. Yes I know the risk here is small, but there is a fault line running up the Hudson Valley and I figured for the small cost each year it was worth having.

 

[DLgal]

Building codes could be changed to require raising the buildings and retrofitting any hurricane strengthening for both damaged buildings as well as any existing buildings that are modified in any other way going forward.

I have to wonder if you can even build houses on stilts in coastal FL. It's basically either sand or swampland, and I imagine pylons would simply sink into the ground over time. There has to be a good reason why you don't ALREADY see houses on stilts in FL. New Jersey ground is primarily clay, so it makes sense there.

 

[Mackenzie Click-Mickelson]

The additional built in premium to include flood would reflect the risk so someone in a high risk area would pay much more than someone in a low risk area. While the coasts have more risk in general, proximity to any body of water (lake, river, stream, etc.) or even where a home is lower than others, a heavy rain can cause flooding even without a hurricane. Hurricane damage can extend hundreds of miles inland so really no place in Florida is immune. We're on a hill. Years ago we had a heavy snowfall and then a heavy rain. Because the snow hadn't melted yet, the rain had no where to go but into our crawl space through the vent windows. If we had living space on grade, we would have had damage. Across the street, our neighbors are much lower and have a stream behind their house. I would expect to pay less than them for flood coverage. I'm in NY and bought earthquake at a very low price. Yes I know the risk here is small, but there is a fault line running up the Hudson Valley and I figured for the small cost each year it was worth having.

If I live in the New Madrid fault line area I would too or south central KS near the OK border for earthquake coverage.

What you're asking for is every person to be required to purchase something funded by the government, that would indeed be a taxpayer issue of which you say taxpayers shouldn't have to pay for damages but there will never be enough funding to pay for it all and even if everyone buys into it it still won't be enough, I think in part that's a point the OP may be making about removal of people (which I wouldn't condone).

Of course no one is disputing the depth to which inland FL can get damage I feel that much is very obvious but this was pertaining to day to day risks such that a mandatory requirement for flood insurance for every person be required AND the requirement of stilts which is what that comment was referring to (the stilts part).

As far as your comment about heavy snowfall would that have been considered flood? IDK, seems like that would be a case of trying to figure that out because the cause was build up of snow first. Would it be considered the homeowner's responsibility to clear the snow away from access points of the home thereby minimizing such risk?

 

[Mackenzie Click-Mickelson]

I have to wonder if you can even build houses on stilts in coastal FL. It's basically either sand or swampland, and I imagine pylons would simply sink into the ground over time. There has to be a good reason why you don't ALREADY see houses on stilts in FL. New Jersey ground is primarily clay, so it makes sense there.

I'm not sure what the Carolinas soil is but it is common there right by the water but a few tiers back not sure. There seems to be a stopping point where home on stilts isn't really done.

 

[amcc]

As to rebuilding, Florida should consider doing what areas of NJ did after Sandy hit. Buildings had to be put up on stilts to minimize the flood risks in the future. Building codes could be changed to require raising the buildings and retrofitting any hurricane strengthening for both damaged buildings as well as any existing buildings that are modified in any other way going forward.

Many coastal areas require building on stilts already or raising the first floor to above the 100-year storm level. Florida's Building Code, as mentioned above, is very strict especially in areas that experience wind events. Miami-Dade's Code, where I live, takes it to an extreme, with all our first floors - at least - being built out of concrete block, our roofs are strapped down in addition to being nailed, and windows all need either shutters or to be hurricane impact resistant. Every time I go to Orlando or elsewhere in the United States, I get anxiety seeing those apartment buildings being built out of particle board? and wood.

I have to wonder if you can even build houses on stilts in coastal FL. It's basically either sand or swampland, and I imagine pylons would simply sink into the ground over time. There has to be a good reason why you don't ALREADY see houses on stilts in FL. New Jersey ground is primarily clay, so it makes sense there.

Look at the Florida Keys. All the new (plus lots of the older) construction is on stilts with limited uses permitted on the ground floor and it is similar in many other coastal areas all over Florida. Recently, the building base elevations were adjusted and new inland buildings will be several inches higher. The problem is that coastal Florida still has tons of older housing stock. Rebuilding after these storms will hopefully help to avoid disasters of this scale due to having to rebuild to code.