Just how doomed is home insurance?

[dioxide45]

Winds were 185 mph at one point. They hardly over hyped it. Tampa got lucky this time. Winds sheared apart the hurricane as it approached the coast weakening it. Plus the storm came ashore south of the bay actually sucking water out of the bay instead of the other way around. If a cat 5 storm came ashore just north of the bay the city would be wiped out.

I'm not really sure that would be the case for Tampa Bay or many bays in general. The geography of a large bay with a small opening makes it hard for a storm to push water into the bay. Just like dumping water out of a 2L soda bottle. It comes out pretty easy, but try and push water into it.

It is odd that the original forecasts showed 5-10 ft surge north of Tampa Bay but when the storm went further south the water still came out of the bay? Why was that? Shouldn't the bay have just had 5-10 ft surge instead of the 10-15 ft originally forecast? Even if the storm was so far south, why not 1-3 ft or even 3-5 ft surge in the bay. This isn't the first time water has gone out of the Tampa Bay during a storm.

 

[dioxide45]

Most mortgages require home insurance so it's not "doomed", just gonna cost a lot more especially in Florida.
And why are these 1,000 year weather events happening every 10 years?

Those silly scientists !

https://www.nbcnews.com/science/science-news/hurricane-milton-rain-1-in-1000-year-event-rcna174838

View attachment 100678


.

Link warrior to the rescue. Your argument seems to be that these 1-in-1000-year events are happening every 10 years. Yet the article headline is that it is a 1-in-1000-year event. So I don't know what you are arguing against. You believe that these are an every 10 year event, yet they really aren't.

Hurricanes have hit the coasts for centuries. Hurricanes cycles go up and down. Many factors impact hurricane formation. These can be from weather patterns over the Pacific or even the hot air moving off the coasts of Africa. Look at the numbers for each decade or year over the past 150 years of hurricane strikes in the United States. We had more hurricanes during the 1930s and 1940s, more major ones too, than happened in the 2000s or 2010s.

I find it interesting when news articles seem to link to other news articles as their citations.

 

[TolmiePeak]

What kind of odds are you offering?

I'll take that action. I can literally bet a farm.

I would offer 100:1 odds for 9 inches of rain falling in St Petersburg within 1 hour during the next year.

 

[WaikikiFirst]

I find it interesting when news articles seem to link to other news articles as their citations.

well we do live in "interesting" times. That is considered upper-crust journalism at this point, and you can see how many people are happy to link to anything that agrees with them.

 

[dioxide45]

I think, to a degree, the national flood insurance program has proven to be a problem. People can get relatively cheap insurance, sponsored or backed by the federal government, to build in places prone to disasters. This leads to homes being built in locations that they simply shouldn't be built. Want to build on a moving barrier island? Sure. Just get this flood insurance and you can afford it and a mortgage lender will be happy to lend you the money.

Would changes to the NFIP make home ownership on the coasts unaffordable for many? Perhaps, but perhaps if someone really wants to live there shouldn't they have a bigger stake in the costs if disaster strikes? They know the risks. Hurricanes aren't new. Perhaps if you live in a 100 year flood zone, flood insurance should be prohibitively expensive or even unavailable. Instead the current model is if you live in a 100 year flood zone, we will subsidize your insurance so you CAN build there. That just seems backward.

 

[ScoopKona]

I would offer 100:1 odds for 9 inches of rain falling in St Petersburg within 1 hour during the next year.

Not interested in such a short timeframe. Let's go for "the next 20 years" and five-inches -- to make it closer to what actually happened. Even that isn't "never ever." But I'm cool with that wager.

 

[rapmarks]

I think, to a degree, the national flood insurance program has proven to be a problem. People can get relatively cheap insurance, sponsored or backed by the federal government, to build in places prone to disasters. This leads to homes being built in locations that they simply shouldn't be built. Want to build on a moving barrier island? Sure. Just get this flood insurance and you can afford it and a mortgage lender will be happy to lend you the money.

Would changes to the NFIP make home ownership on the coasts unaffordable for many? Perhaps, but perhaps if someone really wants to live there shouldn't they have a bigger stake in the costs if disaster strikes? They know the risks. Hurricanes aren't new. Perhaps if you live in a 100 year flood zone, flood insurance should be prohibitively expensive or even unavailable. Instead the current model is if you live in a 100 year flood zone, we will subsidize your insurance so you CAN build there. That just seems backward.

FEMA is playing games with our neighborhood. Much to our surprise we were moved into a flood zone this year. We have never flooded we are a few miles from the bay. So they can make the cost prohibitive when we really are not in much danger. Through all the hurricanes that have devastated the area, there has only been wind damage to the area I live in. Wind damage has a 2 per cent deductible

 

[4TimeAway]

Perhaps if you live in a 100 year flood zone, flood insurance should be prohibitively expensive or even unavailable.

I think there are 2 ways to address the problem.

My preferred way is to make homes less costly to build/rebuild and more robust to recover from disaster. To me this would probably be concrete homes. You can still see rock homes standing after thousands of years.

Not build there, but the homes are already there so that is politically tough.

I just don't think people take a long term thought when they build and rebuilding correctly would be too costly. We have what we have and insurance works, kindof.

 

[joestein]

FEMA is playing games with our neighborhood. Much to our surprise we were moved into a flood zone this year. We have never flooded we are a few miles from the bay. So they can make the cost prohibitive when we really are not in much danger. Through all the hurricanes that have devastated the area, there has only been wind damage to the area I live in. Wind damage has a 2 per cent deductible

The same thing happened to me right after Katrina.

After 3/4 years paying flood insurance, I hired a service who specialized in having homes removed from a flood zone. Cost me about $1500 (over 10 years ago) - they sent out a surveyor who looked at the level of my house vs expected water levels or something like that. A few months later - I was removed from the flood zone. A small corner of my backyard was considered to still be in the '100 year' flood zone - but as my house was not - no insurance required.

I actually made money on this because I got back the current and prior year periods of premiums. I dont recall the name of the service - all the paperwork is with the new owners of my house. Glad I saved it for them, because lots of questions about this came up when I sold my house.

Joe

 

[joestein]

I think there are 2 ways to address the problem.

My preferred way is to make homes less costly to build/rebuild and more robust to recover from disaster. To me this would probably be concrete homes. You can still see rock homes standing after thousands of years.

Not build there, but the homes are already there so that is politically tough.

I just don't think people take a long term thought when they build and rebuilding correctly would be too costly. We have what we have and insurance works, kindof.

When you go to places like Mexico - I think the homes are all concrete. I think that is because it is cheaper than wood or other materials.