Feds approve NJ's plans for $1.8B in Sandy grants

[We Keep Receipts 9,238]

Earlier, speaking on MSNBC's "Morning Joe" program, Christie said President Barack Obama "has kept every promise he's made" about helping the state recover from Sandy.

You know the Republicans will be firing Chirstie tomorrow.

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_SUPERSTORM_CHRISTIE?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2013-04-29-07-57-18

[mota bhai 2,675]

1.8B is peanuts compared to the cost borne by the private insurance industry.

[GandD 5,966]

1.8B is peanuts compared to the cost borne by the private insurance industry.

Good. Screw those guys.

[mota bhai 2,675]

Good. Screw those guys.

The private insurance industry had enough money in reserves to cover their piece of this. Surely, there's something there the federal government can learn from?

[Teddy B 17,252]

The private insurance industry had enough money in reserves to cover their piece of this. Surely, there's something there the federal government can learn from?

The Feds, FEMA in particular are doing everything they can to drum up cash to help pay for the last few natural disasters. FEMA has been going up and down the Northeast re-categorizing flood zones, so people that were in non-mandatory flood zones are now magically in mandatory flood zones, which means the property owners are now forced to pay flood insurance on any properties that are mortgaged.

I happen to be one of those lucky folks who got caught up in it. I was originally in Flood Zone B, which is a "500 year flood zone" and does not carry mandatory flood insurance. Last year FEMA went through and re-mapped my entire city, now my house is in zone AE, which is a "100 year flood zone" and requires mandatory flood insurance at a cost of $3000 a year. Lucky me.

[mota bhai 2,675]

The Feds, FEMA in particular are doing everything they can to drum up cash to help pay for the last few natural disasters. FEMA has been going up and down the Northeast re-categorizing flood zones, so people that were in non-mandatory flood zones are now magically in mandatory flood zones, which means the property owners are now forced to pay flood insurance on any properties that are mortgaged.

I happen to be one of those lucky folks who got caught up in it. I was originally in Flood Zone B, which is a "500 year flood zone" and does not carry mandatory flood insurance. Last year FEMA went through and re-mapped my entire city, now my house is in zone AE, which is a "100 year flood zone" and requires mandatory flood insurance at a cost of $3000 a year. Lucky me.

Good. The climate is changing (despite what the naysayers say) so all those charts have to change as well.

[Teddy B 17,252]

Good. The climate is changing (despite what the naysayers say) so all those charts have to change as well.

Yeah good if you're not the one footing the bill.

Hey, I don't mind paying my fair share if I knowingly purchase a home within mandatory flood zones, but I purposely bought this home because it wasn't in a mandatory flood zone. I never would have purchsed it if I knew this going in.

That being said, floods can happen anywhere, anytime. There were devastating floods in NewHamphire and Vermont the last couple years. Why shouldn't mandatory flood insurance be included for every home owner?

[mota bhai 2,675]

Yeah good if you're not the one footing the bill.

Hey, I don't mind paying my fair share if I knowingly purchase a home within mandatory flood zones, but I purposely bought this home because it wasn't in a mandatory flood zone. I never would have purchsed it if I knew this going in.

That being said, floods can happen anywhere, anytime. There were devastating floods in NewHamphire and Vermont the last couple years. Why shouldn't mandatory flood insurance be included for every home owner?

A single event does not change the classification of a location. When the classification does change (and determining that is something a great deal of work goes into), premiums must also change. It is what it is.

If you buy auto insurance today and your neighborhood has an increase in auto theft which insurers link back to demographic changes not expected to abate in the near future, guess what happens to your rates?

[The Nature Boy 4,224]

Yeah good if you're not the one footing the bill.

Hey, I don't mind paying my fair share if I knowingly purchase a home within mandatory flood zones, but I purposely bought this home because it wasn't in a mandatory flood zone. I never would have purchsed it if I knew this going in.

That being said, floods can happen anywhere, anytime. There were devastating floods in NewHamphire and Vermont the last couple years. Why shouldn't mandatory flood insurance be included for every home owner?

Actually floods can't happen anywhere. I meant could they in the event of an end of world scenario, sure.

When people choose to build or buy in flood prone areas they should buy flood insurance and the govt should not foot the bill. If you buy a 4 mil mansion at the beach, I be damned if I should help subsidize your insurance.

What about flooding caused by man.Oppps no such thing i forgot .

[Teddy B 17,252]

A single event does not change the classification of a location. When the classification does change (and determining that is something a great deal of work goes into), premiums must also change. It is what it is.

If you buy auto insurance today and your neighborhood has an increase in auto theft which insurers link back to demographic changes not expected to abate in the near future, guess what happens to your rates?

Actually, yes a single event does change the classification of a location. How do you think they determine a "100 year flood zone" from a "500 year flood zone", it's based on how prone an area is to flooding. Just like your example of car thefts causing insurance rates to rise, there needs to be a precedent for flood zones to change also. In my case they determined that the erosion had diminished the shoreline and caused the flood zones to be widened.

Like I said, if they want to charge people for flood insurance that are in low risk areas like myself, there has been no recorded flood in over 100 years where I live, then everyone should pay for it because everyone is in a potential flood zone.

Edited April 29, 2013 by Teddy B

[mota bhai 2,675]

Actually, yes a single event does change the classification of a location. How do you think they determine a "100 year flood zone" from a "500 year flood zone", it's based on how prone an area is to flooding. Just like your example of car thefts causing insurance rates to rise, there needs to be a precedent for flood zones to change also. In my case they determined that theerosion at the shoreline had diminished and caused the flood zones to be widened.

Like I said, if they want to charge people for flood insurance that are in low risk areas like myself, there has been no recorded flood in over 500 years where I live, then everyone should pay for it because everyone is in a potential flood zone.

It's not based on just one event. Never is. A single event may trigger a study, but the study itself encompasses much more than one event.

[Teddy B 17,252]

It's not based on just one event. Never is. A single event may trigger a study, but the study itself encompasses much more than one event.

Sure it is. One major flood will trigger a study that will change flood zones. Somebody has to pay for all the damage and the consequent study.

[mota bhai 2,675]

Sure it is. One major flood will trigger a study that will change flood zones. Somebody has to pay for all the damage and the consequent study.

Flood classifications do not change based solely on one event. That is the truth but you wish to keep arguing. I'm done.

[Teddy B 17,252]

Flood classifications do not change based solely on one event. That is the truth but you wish to keep arguing. I'm done.

And sometimes it doesn't even require an "event" at all, a simple study and re-mapping by FEMA is all it takes. That's what happened in my case.

[JohnR! 5,495]

1.8B is peanuts compared to the cost borne by the private insurance industry.

And yet, although 1.8B is peanuts, I am sure there will be many who will criticize the government for putting that money into NJ.