Florida Resort - Hideaway Sands - Real life story of what happens after a hurricane to a small independent resort

[Panina]

So Sad. I love Hideaway Sands. I used to own a timeshare there. Sadly, I believe this timeshare will cease to exist. Prime area and land, they should be able to sell it.

 

[timeshare trader]

It looks like Hideaway sands has maybe 20-24 units? I just can't believe that FEMA is assessing the entire building at less than $500,000. You probably can not build a hotel room on the beach for that amount...

 

[TUGBrian]

am guessing that is their estimated costs to just gut the bottom floor and repair all the damage from water....vs rebuilding from scratch.

 

[theo]

It looks like Hideaway sands has maybe 20-24 units? I just can't believe that FEMA is assessing the entire building at less than $500,000. You probably can not build a hotel room on the beach for that amount...

FEMA does not make building value assessments. The building valuation figure to which FEMA's "50% rule" calculations are applied is actually the assessed value of the building as reflected in the property valuation / tax assessment records of local authority (i.e., the city or town of tax jurisdiction for the property at issue).

As @dioxide45 has previously and correctly noted in post #8 of this thread, if the estimated cost of required repairs exceeds 50% of a building's assessed value, then under the FEMA "50% rule", the structure must be rebuilt up to current codes (starting with expensive but mandatory reconstruction elevation that is well above ground level).
If the estimated cost of repairs is below 50% of the building assessed value, then under FEMA's "50% rule" calculation the structure may be repaired without being completely rebuilt (and without having to elevate the existing building).

In any case, it's hard for me to believe that the $437k figure cited at the beginning of this thread could possibly be the assessed value of the Hideaway Sands building(s).
It seems much more likely to me that the unidentified cited source either misundertood and / or misstated what that $437k figure actually represents.

 

[Roger830]

Perhaps the assessed value is low because the structure is in a flood plain and subject to fema 50% rule thus having no significant resale value.
All of the value is in the land.

Here's a listing of a waterfront cottage in our town that sold in 2022 as a teardown because of the fema 50% rule.
The house is still standing and was appraised at $125,200 and the 49 foot lot at $430,500. It sold for $575,000.

https://www.realtor.com/realestateandhomes-detail/139-Plum-Bank-Rd_Old-Saybrook_CT_06475_M32400-51953

"The house is considered a tear-down - the true value is in the .12 acres of waterfront land. The interior, exterior and structural repairs are too extensive and would exceed the FEMA 50% rule."

 

[theo]

Perhaps the assessed value is low because the structure is in a flood plain and subject to fema 50% rule thus having no significant resale value.
All of the value is in the land.

Here's a listing of a waterfront cottage in our town that sold in 2022 as a teardown because of the fema 50% rule.
The house is still standing and was appraised at $125,200 and the 49 foot lot at $430,500. It sold for $575,000.

https://www.realtor.com/realestateandhomes-detail/139-Plum-Bank-Rd_Old-Saybrook_CT_06475_M32400-51953

"The house is considered a tear-down - the true value is in the .12 acres of waterfront land. The interior, exterior and structural repairs are too extensive and would exceed the FEMA 50% rule."

This may very well be the case if that $437k HS figure cited is in fact the actual assessed value of the building (and not instead a repair estimate or an insurance figure).
Having no access to the unidentified person who reportedly relayed info "as they heard it" from a Board meeting, we are unlikely to get any further clarification.