I just can't believe it. Is it really possible to get FEMA to change their flood maps even if an area has had large claims in the recent past?
"The Investigation follows a report by NBC News documenting more than 500 instances in which FEMA has remapped waterfront properties from the highest-risk flood zone, saving the owners as much as 97 percent on premiums they pay into the financially strained National Flood Insurance Program."
It's great that some people are saving money by the changes in the maps, but who ends up paying? The FEMA insurance fund is in the red by $24 billion. Either other people in flood zones end up with much higher premiums or all of the tax payers end up footing the bill.
Should you and I be on the hook to bail out someone who chooses to live with a nice ocean view?
Why is the government in the flood insurance business? Is it because private insurance companies have to charge much higher premiums in order to cover the losses? Wouldn't higher premiums discourage people from living in flood prone areas and thus reduce the eventual flood claims?
Where those flood zone map lines are drawn can make a huge difference in premiums.
"Just down the beach is the Royal Palms, which collected $58,230 for damages during Datrina, and $889,730 from Ivan. The Royal Palms was paying $218,484 a year, but after being changed to a lower-risk flood zone, now pays $6,845, saving 97 percent."
With that kind of money at stake, I can see how the people making the maps could be targets to influence. It doesn't surprise me that there are people who are in business in order to help get those changes made.
Comments(0)