Hey, there! Log in / Register
Feds say it's not just people with waterfront views who have to pay for being near the water
By adamg on Sat, 11/16/2013 - 9:43am
Where property owners in East Boston would need flood insurance.
FEMA yesterday released preliminary flood-zone maps for the coastal parts of Suffolk County, which, if adopted, could more than double the number of Boston property owners who have to buy increasingly expensive flood insurance.
The Globe reports that the number of affected properties could jump from 8,000 today to more than 18,000.
The mayor's office reports the new maps will not go into effect until at least December of next year - and that city officials plan to give the maps close scrutiny for accuracy, in part by hiring outside consultants to review the data on which they're based.
To see the proposed maps, go to the FEMA preliminary flood map site. Select Massachusetts, then Suffolk County. You'll get a list of incomprehensible map links. Download the "FLOOD INSURANCE RATE MAP INDEX," which is a map showing the zones, then go back to the download page and look for the corresponding map. The site only has maps for areas directly on the coast - people worried about flooding around Jamaica Pond or along the Muddy River are, so far, out of luck. Download the Flood Insurance Study for background on flooding issues in Suffolk County.
Neighborhoods:
Free tagging:
Ad:
Support Universal Hub
Help keep Universal Hub going. If you like what we're up to and want to help out, please consider a (completely non-deductible) contribution.
Comments
Beside the obvious
Beside the obvious eventuality of the global warming, now the customer base has been expanded. Those that have no or little risk ( in the short term ) will now subsidize those that have a high risk location. Otherwise , they would not be able to afford the insurance. Some places that get destroyed should not be rebuilt , and some should have not been built at all. Tough clams maybe , but that's life . Man is just not going to outsmart Mother Nature.
Oh please,
Oh please,
Sea levels aren't rising and global warming stopped 10 years ago. Go read the British press if you want to know how much academic fraud has occured in the past decade over that garbage out of it being a politically convenient vehicle for change and taxation.
The reality of the situation is that more stupid RICH people are building RIGHT ON THE WATER and with the natural progression of coastal erosion they are getting into trouble. FEMA thanks to a dumb change in the law has to subsidize those people's ridiculously expensive 'flood' insurance for the inevitable. Rather than tell those mostly rich people living on the coast that they need to give up trying to fight nature, move, or pay for their own risk by building sea walls etc., FEMA is now expanding the insurance areas to subsidize the high risk property owners by sticking the bill to many more low or virtually no risk property owners.
The Plum Island people are a classic example of this. Building houses repeatedly in a area known to be eroding away and they want taxpayers to fix their million dollar second seaside mansions rather than cough up the cash themselves.
This is a blatantly corrupt contortion of an emergency service agency to subsidize the lifestyle of the mostly very wealthy. The whole 'climate change', 'global warming' 'sea levels rising' bullshit is just a cover to get most people to blindly accept a new policy without looking into the real reason for it.
more specific citation please?
this is too vague to be a useful citation:
can you give us specific articles please?
So incurious
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/11/science/earth/what-to-make-of-a-climat...
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn24512-solar-activity-heads-for-low...|NSNS|2012-GLOBAL|space#.UnVg5G29LCQ
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/climatechange/10294082/Glob...
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/04/16/us-climate-slowdown-idUSBRE93F...
http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2013/06/climate-change
http://washingtonexaminer.com/new-report-undercuts-global-warming-alarmi...
http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2013/05/08/sorry-global-warmists...
http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2013/03/28/the-meltdown-of-globa...
http://washingtonexaminer.com/latest-result-of-global-warming-cooler-tem...
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/commen...
http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB1000142412788732348570457825817266...
You're citing the Wall Street
You're citing the Wall Street Journal opinion pages as an authoritative source on Global Warming?
Good luck with that.
Yeah sure, ignore the dozen
Yeah sure, ignore the dozen other links provided. I'm sure the NYT as a bastion of science denial and bible thumping conservatism is going to be blatantly ill informed and biased against the pro-global warming crowd.
Those damn mouth breathing regressives at the unwashed Telegraph just can't accept the science is settled! So what if a bunch of data got fudged by people with an agenda.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/6679082/...
Unaltered data sets show a very different and alarming trend in global cooling from an abnormal drop in solar activity? Oh hogwash! Lets ignore that very scary possibility of a miniature ice age decimating staple crops leading to global famine to keep talking about carbon emissions.
Yes, there is damn good reason to ignore it.
These deniers are hanging on to one extremely dishonest data point: 1998 was the warmest year ever recorded.
2012 was almost as warm, but not quite. BUT, something the deniers deliberately omit is that 1998 was an El Nino year, and 2012 was not.
The next El Nino will not be pleasant.
Another fact the deniers deliberately omit is that this decade is the warmest on record, and was warmer than the 90's despite 1998.
And that the 90's were warmer than the 80's despite 1989.
" Lets ignore that very scary possibility of a miniature ice age decimating staple crops leading to global famine to keep talking about carbon emissions."
Yes, let's ignore that possibility because it isn't true. A mini ice age would cause the Sahel breadbasket region to expand into the Sahara and push the American grain belt from Kansas and Benraska into Oklahoma and the Texas panhandle, where there is a lot mroe acreage.
Or is basic geometry a liberal conspiracy too nowadays?
Self-referential agi-prop = citations?
I just looked at those 'articles" you listed. They are mostly opinion pieces. A couple of them are known to have been lifted from inaccurate (or outright false) reports from other sources (the Telegraph article for example, was pretty much plagerized from a Daily Mail article that turned out to be hoaxed. Caused a bit of a controversy over there, although I guess you wouldn't have known that).
Tellingly, most of the links in the above articles simply go to other articles on the same sites - echo chamber journalism. And many of them contain claims that are in direct contradition to the outside sources they do mention (strangely, they don't provide links to those orgs). Example - claims that "this was the coolest summer in 100 years" which also mention the National Climatic Data Center - leading the reader to assume data from the NCDC supports that statement - when in fact, the NCDC released a "State of the Climate" report for Summer 2013 that showed that the contiguous US had the 15th warmest summer on record (and world-wide it was the fifth warmest summer in 133 years).
Scientific Journals?
Forbes? Wall Street Journal? Murdoch mouthpiece newspapers?
Gee, I didn't know these were peer-reviewed scientific journals ... these look like opinion pieces to me. Hate to break it to you, but propaganda is not science. Never was. Never will be. Not even when it echos around itself to produce steaming pile of bullshit.
Try again. You can start with Google Scholar and locate the ACTUAL SCIENCE.
Tell ya what ...
Why don't you move to a high risk area and put your money where your keyboard is.
I hear there are some cheap properties for sale on Staten Island - their previous owners died, so you might get a cheap sale on an empty house lot.
Then pray or chant "emails emails british press fraud emails Met office emails" or whatever other faith-based activity you think will protect you from what the vast - and I mean VAST - majority of scientists agree is happening to our planet.
Let us all know how that works for you in 2050.
Your crazy
There is no cheap property on Staten Island.
Let's all just ignore both those comments
I beg everyone to not derail this thread into a conversation about global warming / climate change.
There's a real issue here.
In Boston, it's not "rich" people. If you look at the map and read the Globe article, you'll understand this can affect a wide swath of people, including those in East Boston (poor, middle class) and parts of Dorchester (including all of Harbor Point, the public housing development) as well as new office buildings (and housing) built in the Seaport / Innovation / South Boston Waterfront / Parking Lot District.
I'm all for having anyone and everyone affected pay the higher insurance premiums.
For those who are poor and unable to, is the recommendation they simply move?
PS. Neat fact: The South End used to be eight feet above sea level but is now just four feet above sea level due to land settling.
Have a nice day!
Thank you, John
I don't think anybody actually read the article.
This isn't about "rich" people and their oceanfront homes - they have always been high risk properties. This is about remapping the various flood zones and people who may not even be near the beach finding out that they are now in some kind of flood zone. They may have lived in the house for 30+ years, have never even come close to being flooded, and now find that they have to pay for flood insurance, and may have to pay a lot. As John (and the article) has mentioned, one of the areas is Eastie. So much for the rich guy angle.
The south shore got to see the new maps a few months ago and people are steaming. There have been a lot of meetings, but I'm not sure how much things are going to change.
The issue with the law
The issue with the law governing flood insurance (Biggert-Waters) is affordability. Both sponsors of the law, ex-Congresswoman Biggert (R) and Congresswoman Maxine Waters (D) support legislation delaying parts of the law until FEMA completes the affordability study required by the law.
The flood plain referred to in the Globe article is the 100 year flood plain. If your home is in this area then you are required to have flood insurance as a condition of your mortgage holder obtaining FHA insurance.
Without changes to the law hundreds of thousands of homeowners across the Country will go into foreclosure and millions will be living in homes they are unable to sell.
Homeowners being moved into the 100 year old flood plain with the new maps must wonder what they did to wrong. Are they solely responsible for climate change and therefore have to pay additional thousands of dollars a year whereas people not near rivers or the coast are not contributing to climate change and therefore are not penalized.
BTW, the other FEMA flood plain is the 500 year flood plane; insurance is not required however that is the area that is on deck for the next FEMA revision.
The 500 year plain usually extends several miles inland from the coast.
So, we ignore reality then?
If you live in the 100 year flood plain, then you live in the 100 year flood plain. We live in a city ON the sea. The ocean is our abutment. Half of our city was built INTO the water. We can't disregard reality and likelihoods that your house will be under water if a large storm comes this way just because it's the more financially acceptable decision.
Why should the bank that you made pay for your house not be allowed to require that you agree to some level of insurance if the reality is that you're at risk of losing the house to the sea if the sea rises up from a storm surge? This isn't a question of who is responsible for the reality of the situation, it's a fiscal question of who pays for the risk that the reality is what it is. If it means you can't afford to live in such a risky place, then so be it. The only question is what level of risk requires you to pay. It's pretty clear Manhattan didn't figure it would be underwater that long ago either...and yet it was.
New maps are far more accurate
I have a friend who lives on a hill in Beverly, and pays through the nose for flood insurance. Why? Because the flood insurance in her area, which her mortgage demands, is based on distance from the water. Not elevation, not probability of wave action, straight up distance.
Ditto for another coworker in Swapmscott, except she doesn't have a mortgage and decided to risk it because she also lives on a hill.
These maps reflect REALITY based on elevation, sea level rise, and likely water travel path given topography.
That REALITY means that many people are going to start paying based on their actual risk. It also means that other people are going to come out way ahead, because of the realistic nature of these maps.
No one, even critics of the
No one, even critics of the law, is saying that flood insurance should not be required for homes in a flood zone. Rather the critics are saying that parts of the law are wrong and overall the law lacks compassion and common sense. Both sponsors of the law (Biggert (R) and Waters (D) support a delay. Senator Warren, Mass liberal, agrees with Senator Vitter, LA. conservative, that the law needs more study. (When Biggert Waters passed the Senate it was as an amendment to a transportation bill no discussion of the flood amendment was allowed nor could the amendment be amended).
Martha Coakley says that in Mass the provision that a mortgage holder can require more insurance than the mortgage should be disallowed; she also says that the deductibles allowed under the law (up to 5K a policy) should not be at the discretion of the lender.
The delay is set to pass Congress with support from both liberals and conservatives. The only opposition is a strange alliance of tea party types and environmentalists.
Swirly's comments below that the maps are accurate is not entirely accurate. For instance, flood protection measures federally built are recognized by FEMA as providing flood protection. That is, if a sea wall or tidal gate or levee was built federally then a lower flood risk will be assigned by FEMA; however, if the levee was state or locally financed no flood protection is provided because local/state flood control measures are not on the maps. Also, New England is adversely impacted because many homes here, unlike other sections of the country have cellars. FEMA considers all basements as the lowest finished floor (even if the cellar is unfinished) when figuring out how far below base flood elevation a home is. A foot of water in a unfinished basement should not be the same as a foot of water in a living area.
Also, Swirly is wrong about sea level rise.... the law specifically prohibits FEMA from projecting sea level rise In calculating flood zones. Other than that she is correct that the maps are more accurate this time than the earlier maps are.
They don't need to calculate sea level rise
Except for, as you are likely aware, flooding likelihood given elevation and topography for a given sea level.
Sea level rise is simply a baseline. It has less to do with where the water will go and more to do with how likely it will go there.
Sea level rise comes into play when we start talking about either realistic flooding probabilities over the next 30 years (aka during a 30 year mortgage) determining risk and realistic insurance costs, and/or a massive government handout to uninsured homeowners resulting when a big storm rolls in and validates the maps.
Pay up
Sorry, but these are cost externalities coming due. That cheap energy wasn't cheap, they just passed the buck to the future. And hey, it's the future! Now have fun with the bill.
We're trying to get free market carbon pricing solutions through congress to rectify the issues, but that apparently socialism. Honestly though, failure to pay up for already government subsidized insurance is nothing but freeloading and gambling. It's not a matter of if, but when a storm smacks us hard and inundates much of the low lying areas of Boston.
Still, are resident to blame? Maybe partially, but most around these part support the kind of legislation aimed to price in these terrible features of carbon energy. The real people to blame are the politicians, for not doing their job as a counterweight to big business push for bottom lines.
But it could be worse. Our leaders could be like leaders in China.
US contributes 13% of world carbon production
With the US representing a shrinking proportion of global greenhouse gas production (down from 16% in 2009), why should the US make itself less globally competitive by taxing our self for a minor impact? Its like the anti-car nonsense. Light transportation is responsible for only 5% of greenhouse gas. Want to cut your carbon footprint? Turn your thermostat down to 50 degrees, and feel as self-righteous as you want.
Minor impact?
The total US output of carbon dioxide is several times that of every country aside from China, and our emission per capita is more than double theirs. By this stupid argument, every country has a "minor impact" since even China only contributes a bit more than quarter of the total.
This is NOT a wealthy
This is NOT a wealthy waterfront dweller issue. It is a 1950s 1300 sqft ranch house on a slab problem. Flood Insurance only covers up to 250k in damages. Wealthy people tend to build big new houses. Those houses are built in compliance with current elevation requirements and the insurance will be relatively inexpensive. Grandma, however, who has been in her 1950s slab ranch house for 45 years is going to be hammered by the rate increases. It isn't a rich people on the coast problem.
One question
Where is a 1300 sq ft ranch on a slab that costs more than $250,000 to replace?
Even if the lot it is on gets destroyed? Larger houses in Revere go for considerably less INCLUDING the property.
Good
People who live in the flood plain are going to get bailed out (figuratively and literally) eventually. Make them pay into the system in years they stay dry.
How about...
...no bail outs? Then they don't have to "pay in" to anything.
They don't have to now
You only have to buy flood insurance if you have a mortgage. insurance<>bail out If you want to risk your own money, knock yourself out. But if you want a mortgage where your house serves as collateral, then you have to do what the bank tells you to minimize it's risk. Same reason you have to have homeowner's insurance to cover non-flood damage.
Get ready for howls of protest
If the same thing that happened to low lying areas of NYC with Sandy (storm surge, flooded subways, tunnels, Staten Island and Red Hook pummeled) can happen to Boston, then this city and Quincy, Revere, Hull and all the rest need a lot more than higher flood insurance premiums.
And before people go blaming the big bad government, take a look at where some people are building. Earlier tihs year tthe Herald had a story about the first house to topple over on Plum Island during the storms in March ... turned out the guy had built on a lot where the previous house had been destroyed by a storm in the 70s. If you live near the ocean, it comes with risk.
I feel like Boston has options
Without knowing too much about the specifics of flood engineering, I feel like Boston is in a good place to set up flood control systems if we're willing to put in the effort. You have a big harbor of islands and peninsulas to shield Boston behind, so if we can beef those up we could have some useful options. (Of course, that doesn't help people living in Hull.)
You know ,There is something
You know ,There is something wrong here. The effected area's on this map , is the area of East Boston where your seeing rapid real estate prices escalating and the last "waterfront" development area in all of Boston, Why now FEMA? Someone in the political higherups in Mass is behind this also.John Kerry perhaps? Members of the Kennedy family who own half the waterfront real estate in Boston under anonymous names?? Using global warming as an excuse. And using scare tactics to drive out families who have been here for generations, here's what they will do, mandatory $15,000 or more a year for flood insurance for a basic 3 family home in East Boston, It will cost more for the homes closest to the water and luxury waterfront condos, resident's will be forced to sell their properties at market rate prices,They , FEMA want residents of Hingham and Duxbury to pay as much as $60,000 a year in flood insurance, Who can the afford that? The Rockerfella's The Kennedys, and the John Kerrys/ Heinz's That's who!
"Why now FEMA?" Um, Sandy perhaps?
Sure, rich people do all sorts of crappy things to the rest of us (gotta love how you cherry-picked the minority Dem ones!) But I'm pretty sure they're not conspiring to create global climate change in order to get cheap beachfront property.
Time to go buy another roll of tin foil, fella.
And even aside from that
Flood zones are just the sort of thing that FEMA updates periodically anyway. With or without Sandy it's just sensible to have ratings for flood insurance be updated to consider whatever changes happen to the local environment. Suffolk county isn't particularly unique in this respect, it's just that you don't see articles on UniversalHub when some rural county in Missouri gets its new preliminary flood maps.
Reality is now a conspiracy theory
Um. Okay.
You realize this isn't for just the Boston area, right? Or can you grasp any larger geographic scale?
Hi
Jesus f-ing Christ.
Uh oh - healthcare.gov has taken over the FEMA site
MIP Currently Unavailable
The Mapping Information Platform (MIP) is currently unavailable due to maintenance.
Thank you for your continued use and support of the MIP. If you have any questions or comments, please contact MIP Help at [email protected] or 1-877-FEMA-MAP.
Like health insurance
Obamacare financing depends on getting more paying healthy people who don't need health insurance so much. Otherwise, health insurance would not be at all affordable for those high payout customers who really need it. FEMA simply needs to expand its paying base to make flood insurance more affordable for all and be able to payout huge claims from events like Sandy. I'm sorry for the people being arm twisted into getting insurance.
There are many things that
There are many things that need to be corrected with flood insurance program before it is rolled-out to more areas. For instance, although FEMA pays claims, the individual policies are administered by privately owned insurance companies not FEMA. These private companies charge FEMA 30% of the policy premiums as administrative cost. These private companies are not risking any of their own money, they have no marketing or actuarial expenses.
So for someone paying $1000 annually in flood insurance FEMA pays $300 as administrative costs; a $10000 premium is $3000 in administrative costs.
FEMA charges everyone $40 annually to cover FEMA's admin costs.
All this academic-ania ! This
All this academic-ania ! This is all about subsidizing the Flood insurance policy payments for the rightfully so areas, in part caused by the repetitive re-destructions and rebuilds of properties that otherwise not be made if there were no insurance. The private sector wont write these policies, and now the cost of the government policies have skyrocketed. So they have to expand the customer base to increase the amount of captive participants, spreading out the costs. Some places should not be built upon , and especially not rebuilt , regardless of what your take is of nature. This is just a furthering of the things that can be done with OPM (other people's money ) in a society that is eroding like the ocean fronts . You dont need a slide rule and the MIT-ers to figure this out.
actually there's another comparison to Obamacare
Until 1968, there WAS private flood insurance until the federal government decided they could do a better job selling it so cheaply that you would be crazy NOT to get it, living on the coast. They destroyed a part of the insurance industry. My favorite part of this whole cluster@#% so far was when my state rep informed us that he and Bill Keating had received assurances from Committee Chair Rep. Maxine Waters (D-Pluto) that she was outraged and would make sure that this unfortunate legislation would be reversed. (That would be The Biggert-WATERS Act). And they wonder why we don't trust them.
Shoulda been Flood-Waters Act
...back when there was a Rep. Flood in congress. Reminds me of Jay Lenno showing news clippings of wedding couple names.