Posts: 3,082
Threads: 126
Joined: Jun 2009
06-25-2011, 08:26 AM
(This post was last modified: 06-25-2011, 08:32 AM by GoCometsGo. Edited 2 times in total.)
According to our mortgage holder, our house has recently been designated as a HIGH RISK for flooding. Apparently FEMA is the entity behind this new designation. Without going into all of the details, it appears that I am now required to purchase flood insurance. Our early inquiries into this resulted in premium estimates upwards of $3,000 per year. Our mortgage is around $200,000, so this $3,000 per year is a huge jump in our monthly output.
Anyway, this morning, I have taken over control of this matter from my wife. She is great at many things but she sucks at this sort of stuff. I have managed to find insurance for about $1500 per year but, IMHO, even that is outrageous.
The risk map the we've obtained from the city shows exactly where the high risk areas are. One small sliver of our property is within the high risk zone BUT that area encompasses no buildings. It's not even close to any buildings.
The letter from our mortgage holder says:
"The structure securing the loan noted above is now being included in a high risk SFHA flood zone."
So here is the real question: Do I stand a chance of winning a dispute over whether or not the the mortgage holder is at additional risk due to this new designation? It's our position that, because the dwelling is not within the high risk area, that we should be excused from having to purchase flood insurance. Who would I go to to challenge this?
Posts: 18,298
Threads: 867
Joined: Mar 2011
fill in the low spot with dirt
Posts: 2,135
Threads: 90
Joined: Apr 2011
(06-25-2011, 08:26 AM)GoCometsGo Wrote: According to our mortgage holder, our house has recently been designated as a HIGH RISK for flooding. Apparently FEMA is the entity behind this new designation. Without going into all of the details, it appears that I am now required to purchase flood insurance. Our early inquiries into this resulted in premium estimates upwards of $3,000 per year. Our mortgage is around $200,000, so this $3,000 per year is a huge jump in our monthly output.
Anyway, this morning, I have taken over control of this matter from my wife. She is great at many things but she sucks at this sort of stuff. I have managed to find insurance for about $1500 per year but, IMHO, even that is outrageous.
The risk map the we've obtained from the city shows exactly where the high risk areas are. One small sliver of our property is within the high risk zone BUT that area encompasses no buildings. It's not even close to any buildings.
The letter from our mortgage holder says:
"The structure securing the loan noted above is now being included in a high risk SFHA flood zone."
So here is the real question: Do I stand a chance of winning a dispute over whether or not the the mortgage holder is at additional risk due to this new designation? It's our position that, because the dwelling is not within the high risk area, that we should be excused from having to purchase flood insurance. Who would I go to to challenge this? See what is happening in other communities. It's going to take lots of pressure to get FEMA to admit their mistakes. I hope you prevail.
http://centralny.ynn.com/content/top_sto...endations/, http://www.mpacorn.com/news/2010-02-12/F..._maps.html
Posts: 3,082
Threads: 126
Joined: Jun 2009
(06-25-2011, 04:55 PM)tornado Wrote: (06-25-2011, 08:26 AM)GoCometsGo Wrote: According to our mortgage holder, our house has recently been designated as a HIGH RISK for flooding. Apparently FEMA is the entity behind this new designation. Without going into all of the details, it appears that I am now required to purchase flood insurance. Our early inquiries into this resulted in premium estimates upwards of $3,000 per year. Our mortgage is around $200,000, so this $3,000 per year is a huge jump in our monthly output.
Anyway, this morning, I have taken over control of this matter from my wife. She is great at many things but she sucks at this sort of stuff. I have managed to find insurance for about $1500 per year but, IMHO, even that is outrageous.
The risk map the we've obtained from the city shows exactly where the high risk areas are. One small sliver of our property is within the high risk zone BUT that area encompasses no buildings. It's not even close to any buildings.
The letter from our mortgage holder says:
"The structure securing the loan noted above is now being included in a high risk SFHA flood zone."
So here is the real question: Do I stand a chance of winning a dispute over whether or not the the mortgage holder is at additional risk due to this new designation? It's our position that, because the dwelling is not within the high risk area, that we should be excused from having to purchase flood insurance. Who would I go to to challenge this? See what is happening in other communities. It's going to take lots of pressure to get FEMA to admit their mistakes. I hope you prevail.
http://centralny.ynn.com/content/top_sto...endations/, http://www.mpacorn.com/news/2010-02-12/F..._maps.html
Thank you very much for those links. I would go off on a rant now but this is the wrong section for that.
Posts: 2,175
Threads: 66
Joined: Feb 2009
For some reason I am thinking you live in Eagle Point. If that is the case, I would like to know more about which areas changed.
Posts: 3,082
Threads: 126
Joined: Jun 2009
(06-25-2011, 08:57 PM)Snowlover Wrote: For some reason I am thinking you live in Eagle Point. If that is the case, I would like to know more about which areas changed.
Sorry, I live in Central Point. But I bet you could go to the city hall at Eagle Point and they will have a stack of maps showing the new flood zones. I doubt that you have to worry about where you live though, unless you don't have a mortgage, because your lender would surely inform you if they required additional coverage.
This entire thing is just another example of a government entity run amok. In this case, it's FEMA.
Posts: 41,857
Threads: 560
Joined: Mar 2009
Wow 1500 MORE for flood insurance on top of what ever you already pay for home owners?
I Think a mistake has been made and it's outrageous that this can't be fixed. Your structure is either in danger of being flooded or not and according to the experts it is NOT. If I had to pay an extra 125 bucks a month for this BS I would be livid.
This reminds of something I always wondered about. When you purchase required home owners insurance unless I'm wrong you have to cover the entire value of the home..including the property. But in a flood , fire or whatever even though when it's all over you still will have the lot.
Posts: 3,082
Threads: 126
Joined: Jun 2009
I'm armed to the teeth with ammo. I go to war on this tomorrow.
Posts: 8,916
Threads: 376
Joined: Mar 2010
The insurers get the gravy, and the public takes the risk. Could that be the reason FEMA is drowning new residents?
Posts: 5,465
Threads: 36
Joined: Feb 2009
(06-26-2011, 07:07 AM)GoCometsGo Wrote: .
This entire thing is just another example of a government entity run amok. In this case, it's FEMA. FEMA upped your premium? FEMA by the nature of what they do ought to establish flood plains in order to limit the taxpayer liability. In doing so they help jurisdictions
in the planning process. Tell you lender to leave you alone or you will refinance with someone else. Had the maps been updated perhaps fewer homes would have been built in 100 year flood plains. Keep looking until you find an insurance company that understands the risk as well as you do. Take the maps in and make the case. If the chance of flooding is slight then an insurance company will certainly take little premium money for insuring a slight risk. Good luck.
Posts: 27,872
Threads: 1,668
Joined: Sep 2009
Pay off your mortgage and then you can decide whether you want to buy this insurance or not. 
Posts: 8,916
Threads: 376
Joined: Mar 2010
We're payed off so we control our destinies (Other than when a Mason next door, wants to cut down one of the trees on my property in The Wild & Scenic Area, to improve the public's view of his exalted circumstances.
Posts: 3,082
Threads: 126
Joined: Jun 2009
Update:
There are a few agents in the valley that specialize in this new FEMA/Flood Insurance B.S.
Long story short is that I do have to buy insurance but, because the structure is not in the high risk "flood-way", we are not subject to the outrageous premium. Our premium will only be about $30 per month.
After the conversations that I've had with people "in the know", it seems apparent that the reason behind FEMA's desire to update the flood zones with more stringent criteria is simple: They are going to spread the risk among more people so that the insurance companies have the funds needed when flooding does occur in those areas that REALLY ARE at risk. In short: People like me are putting money into the pool so that the people that live along the Mississippi River can be covered.
Posts: 41,857
Threads: 560
Joined: Mar 2009
(06-30-2011, 06:50 AM)GoCometsGo Wrote: Update:
There are a few agents in the valley that specialize in this new FEMA/Flood Insurance B.S.
Long story short is that I do have to buy insurance but, because the structure is not in the high risk "flood-way", we are not subject to the outrageous premium. Our premium will only be about $30 per month.
After the conversations that I've had with people "in the know", it seems apparent that the reason behind FEMA's desire to update the flood zones with more stringent criteria is simple: They are going to spread the risk among more people so that the insurance companies have the funds needed when flooding does occur in those areas that REALLY ARE at risk. In short: People like me are putting money into the pool so that the people that live along the Mississippi River can be covered.
Long story short is that I do have to buy insurance but, because the structure is not in the high risk "flood-way", we are not subject to the outrageous premium. Our premium will only be about $30 per month.
OK it sounds to me like you are saying your structure while "not in the high risk "flood-way"" is in fact in a flood way?
I have a friend who lives in the sub division that is between Beal lane and Hanley . He complained for years about having to pay for flood insurance. But when we had the New years flood those tiny creeks turned in to bigger creeks and there really was flooding in some of those areas.
Posts: 5,465
Threads: 36
Joined: Feb 2009
(06-30-2011, 06:50 AM)GoCometsGo Wrote: Update:
There are a few agents in the valley that specialize in this new FEMA/Flood Insurance B.S.
Long story short is that I do have to buy insurance but, because the structure is not in the high risk "flood-way", we are not subject to the outrageous premium. Our premium will only be about $30 per month.
After the conversations that I've had with people "in the know", it seems apparent that the reason behind FEMA's desire to update the flood zones with more stringent criteria is simple: They are going to spread the risk among more people so that the insurance companies have the funds needed when flooding does occur in those areas that REALLY ARE at risk. In short: People like me are putting money into the pool so that the people that live along the Mississippi River can be covered.
RIsk is the key word. You pay less due to exposure, they pay more. As a taxpayer why should help any of you people at risk?
As a progressive I don't mind paying. This allow farms and ports on rivers that grow the economy. This allow property owners to get the highest and best use of their land. It allows free markets to expand. Limiting risk can have profound effects. This is in part what helped us make a large economy.
Posts: 3,082
Threads: 126
Joined: Jun 2009
They are expanding the definition of "risk" to include more homes. That why I am now in a the 100 yr flood plane.
tvguy... I think there is a distinct difference between "flood way" and "flood plane"
WK... the very idea of insurance is to spread the costs among many to cover the few. We don't force people without cars to purchase auto insurance and we don't force people that do not live near waterways to purchase flood insurance. My beef is with FEMA because it's none of their business. My mortgage company and I had a perfectly sound agreement that we were both honoring. Now FEMA steps in and tells my mortgage company that they are at risk based on nothing other than FEMA's own desire to include more people in the pool.
Posts: 18,298
Threads: 867
Joined: Mar 2011
with global warming things will change. there will be more flooding and droughts
Posts: 5,465
Threads: 36
Joined: Feb 2009
(06-30-2011, 01:52 PM)GoCometsGo Wrote: They are expanding the definition of "risk" to include more homes. That why I am now in a the 100 yr flood plane.
tvguy... I think there is a distinct difference between "flood way" and "flood plane"
WK... the very idea of insurance is to spread the costs among many to cover the few. We don't force people without cars to purchase auto insurance and we don't force people that do not live near waterways to purchase flood insurance. My beef is with FEMA because it's none of their business. My mortgage company and I had a perfectly sound agreement that we were both honoring. Now FEMA steps in and tells my mortgage company that they are at risk based on nothing other than FEMA's own desire to include more people in the pool.
GCG it is fair that FEMA assess the flood threat to protect taxpayers. They don't dictate land use laws. The Mortgage company is honoring nothing. They are protecting their interest as you don't own the home. Like car insurance there is a minimum of coverage, when you don't own the car you pay for the full meal deal.
FEMA doesn't care that you are in the flood plan, they just want to assess their potential liability. It is the mortgage company beating you over the head.
My homeowner insurance was lowered in a home I owned ( well not really, I was a gardener for the bank) because the fire hydrant was within 100 feet of the house.
Interesting 100 year flood plains have been used in Oregon land use laws for years. Sometimes when I see a subdivision built at the bottom of the valley floor I wonder how that happens. The land owner has property rights, you buy the house and the cycle begins.
In the for what it's worth dept I'd be pissed too. I mean pissed. I'm just pointing out the other side. I'm glad you have it lowered.
GCG, may I ask you a question I don't the answer to? I believe flood insurance used to be basically picked up by the gov't even the beach house or at least heavily subsidized. Not sure. If would make sense per previous post. Could you therefore be a victim less of FEMA and more of handing these obligations over to the private sector? I really don't know or how it works.
Posts: 8,916
Threads: 376
Joined: Mar 2010
The important thing, is to know how to plan. Max out on the coverage for contents. Then, buy every scratchy old Rock LP you can snag for a dime or less. They're all collector's items now and in mint condition (Until the flood). Yard sales are a great way to prepare for floods. Collectable china that will photograph well, from the unchipped side. In a hutch that will tip when the waters rise. Quality suits, past their prime, that you can pick up for pennies. Furs!! Dress Gowns. Expensive shoes. Down jackets! Power tools. Stereo components. Art. All the little things (That add up to small fortune!!!!!!). Nothing has to work, or fit. It just has to sit in a corner in the basement, until it's day comes. Buy right on the water's edge. And, pray.
Posts: 27,872
Threads: 1,668
Joined: Sep 2009
|
