Sign In | Create an Account | Welcome, . My Account | Logout | Subscribe | Submit News | Newspaper contacts | All Access E-Edition | Home RSS


Residents fear flood insurance law will destroy homeowners

December 12, 2013

One called the Biggert-Waters Flood Insurance Reform Act of 2012 a “criminal act....

« Back to Article

sort: oldest | newest




Dec-17-13 4:55 PM

Get a soul fromtheport

0 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Dec-14-13 9:36 AM

Don't know why but the crossed out word maybe should have been levee instead of d i ke!

0 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Dec-14-13 9:34 AM

Why is it that no one has mentioned the possibility of a*****system to protect areas like Montoursville, Muncy, Montgomery Hughesville Picture Rocks etc?

Also regardless of the enviromental laws of disturbing streams dredge the river and streams if necessary, it seems witn the high cost of the insurance and the numbers involved it would and should be an option!

1 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Dec-14-13 4:47 AM

I don't know what the answer is, but I DO know it's not the taxpayers fault and they shouldn't be on the hook to subsidize the flood insurance premium. Just like the requirement to carry homeowners insurance when you have a mortgage and car insurance when you have a car loan, the banks require the flood insurance to protect their investment. It's just good business policy.

A friend told me that FEMA administers the Flood Insurance program and if you don't have flood insurance you are eligible to receive funds from FEMA to fix your house in the case of a flood and, he said, it's a LOT more than those who have flood insurance receive. If that's the case, there is a big flaw in the system.

2 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Dec-13-13 10:20 PM

@steelman we arent in the 1930's anymore you dont need a port in every town or city and you dont need to live on a river for easy transportation supplying water for your house. I stand by my statement it is time these people pay for their mistakes, not the taxpayers

0 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Dec-13-13 10:14 PM

Thank you for the support livin life i hope this guy goes broke and loses everything he has for being an idiot and buying in a flood zone.

0 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Dec-13-13 9:56 PM

While port seems a bit like an butt, he is right. Whether your a landlord or a homeowner, buying a home is an investment. Like any investment there is risk, but expecting bailouts all the time when your risk fails has to stop. While taxes rates will increase so will property values outside the flood plain because the supply has gone down. Basic economics. I feel for people that may have to leave their homes, but everything has a risk and we have to accept that. Now is the time for homeowners in those areas to decide how best to cut their losses like any investor would. For those who were remapped you took a risk by staying. It *****, but it is life.

2 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Dec-13-13 4:20 PM

Citizenbushido. The policies will be more expensive for the homeowner because lenders usually receive between 15 to 20% commission on these policies, usually forcing the homeowner into foreclosure.

I would auction off the property first before letting it go into foreclosure.

5 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Dec-13-13 3:49 PM

"You think the health care act is bad? That is nothing compared to this," Mussare said. A comment like this can only come from someone who really isn't aware of, or doesn't care about the fact that the world is bigger than just Lycoming County. Sad to see such a person is in a leadership position.

3 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Dec-13-13 3:47 PM

Insurance for those in flood plains, forest fire zones for example, should be self sustaining. Since that makes such places prohibitively expensive to live, no one should live there expecting their lifestyle choices to be subsidized. But, since this has been going on a long time, a gradual transition to self sustain insurance should be employed along with some buy out of those already there.

5 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Dec-13-13 3:21 PM

@ BornHere Thank you for answering

Is it safe to assume that the "Force-Placed Insurance" will be just as expensive or more expensive than a regular policy purchased by a home owner? Looks like forced foreclosure would be inevitable for those that get hit with the rate increase.

Going to be interesting to see how this plays out...

3 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Dec-13-13 2:12 PM

If you can not afford insurance on your mortgage or you let your policy lapse, on most loan agreements it will let your lender purchase a new policy to protect the bank's investment, it is called "Force-Placed Insurance.

Your mortgage lender will then bill you for the new policy they purchased, if you can not afford to pay it then usually they will start foreclosure procedures.

I would say check your mortgage agreement and then call your bank to see if this is indeed their policy.

6 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Dec-13-13 1:30 PM

:( No one answered my question...

What are the banks going to do once people can not pay there flood insurance?

Will the banks foreclose on there home?

0 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Dec-13-13 12:25 PM

Look around at 90% of you major cities. They are all built around waterways, not because they are stupid, but because they were smart. These were the major means of transportation at one point so they were the places to be. The population spread out from these areas because of lack of space, not because those that left are geniuses. If you look back in history the poor moved out ward not the smart.

1 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Dec-13-13 9:34 AM

To Reb570: I don't know how common your predicament is, but there may be a possible, if cumbersome, solution. If the house itself itself is not in the flood plain, subdivide the parcel to separate out the land in the flood plain. Since your requirement for flood insurance must be from the mortgage company, you would then refinance the house and its lot to pay off your current mortgage (you would own the flood zone parcel without a mortgage). Your municipality probably has a "Subdivision and Land Development Ordinance" that requires a hefty fee and zoning board approval for you to do this, and you would then pay fees to the County's Recorder of Deeds. However, your request for approval would be reasonable, and it would likely save you enough money to make it worthwhile.

2 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Dec-13-13 8:22 AM

Those of you that do not live in the flood plain, good for you as you are fortunate enough to not be affected by this ridiculous Act. Not all homeowners that live in the flood zone bought or built their homes in the flood zone. There was "remapping" of flood zones and new properties were added. This increase in premiums is absolutely criminal!! 'from the port', you are blind to the impact of this Act, as it will most definitely affect YOU at some point. When the innocent homeowners that now live in the flood zone default on their mortgage because of not able to afford their payments, they will leave their home, no one will be able to afford to purchase it and YOUR community will lose tax dollars!! Where do you think those tax dollars are going to get recouped?? YOU!!! So complain all you want about the "retards" that live in the flood zone, but if you continue to turn the other cheek and place blame on the homeowners, you are the "retard".

4 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Dec-13-13 7:07 AM

The thing is, as someone who does not live in a flood zone and chooses not to, I should not be punished via taxes for the people who have to carry flood insurance. Having said that, the people who have to carry flood insurance also shouldn't be getting slammed with increases of over $10,000 that is simlpy outrageous.

It absolutely means that those landlords, such as Mim, I assume, will need to (understandably so) raise their rent as a result. However, it doesn't mean that Landlords who have rental properties not considered to be in a flood zone (if they don't have to carry flood insurance, is the entire area considered a flood zone?) necessarily have to raise their rent.

They will, because they can, because of the demand, and it'll make it that much harder for honest, hard working people to find homes to live in, so unless you're out making major cash on selling drugs, good luck finding a place to live. That's the harsh reality of it all, and it's a load of crap.

2 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Dec-13-13 6:48 AM

Well I suppose there might be a little budget adjusting going on if you choose to live in a flood zone perhaps no new car every two years maybe no new car for the kid for graduation perhaps no $500 dollar Chinese video games for christmas much like us who live in the mountains and wear out our vehicles twice as much and burn twice as much fuel and have no option for cheap natural gas to heat our homes have come to adjust our budgets to pick up the extra cost

1 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Dec-12-13 8:50 PM

leaningright: If you check the history of the "ACA"it was being talked about years before President Obama took office.If your party would try and help get the "ACA" up and running instead of just sitting on their thumbs and keep throwing rocks at it, it will work a lot smoother ask Mitt how he got his up and running in Massachusetts? It's almost the same. I don't hear any "crying" about it there. Your party's main goal is to discredit our president and doesn't have a thing to do with the "ACA". A blind person can see this crap your party is doing! Blame, Your party throws that at the President every chance they get and that's what the real reason we have a Congress with an approval rating of 10%! Your "game" ain't working my friend.

4 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Dec-12-13 6:17 PM

So the question still remains, what are homeowners going to do?

4 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Dec-12-13 4:41 PM

Mixed emotions on this. On one hand, I have friends that live in flood zones and I know I couldn't afford to double or triple (or more) my insurance rates. On the other, how much can we afford to subsidize other peoples lives? At some point we've got to stop the bleeding that is spending of the federal government.

Our first home was listed on the border of the 100 year flood plain. At first they told us we needed flood insurance. However, with the help the EMA coordinator who wrote a letter stating that the home didn't flood in either the '36, '72 or '75 floods, the First Time homebuyers program we went through backed off on the requirement. But the couple who bought the home from us had to get it.

2 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Dec-12-13 4:05 PM

Some people didn't buy homes in a floodplain. Some people were mapped into them over the years because of remapping updates, so educated yourself fromtheport on floodplains and flood maps prior to making comments about 'retards' buying homes in a flood areas.

A small run goes through my property. The home has been there for over 50+ years. The home has never or had a flood claim against it and it has never flooded. Because of flood maps, since the property (not the home) floods and we have a mortgage, we are required to carry and insurance we may never have to use.

The representative was correct making the comment on the healthcare bill. The government can't even run a successful insurance program. FEMA proves this, now we need to 'trust' the government with health insurance.

8 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Dec-12-13 3:49 PM

I'm really trying my best to understand this.

Can someone explain it to me like i'm 5?

What are the banks going to do once people who have mortgagees cant afford the new flood insurance?

Will the bank foreclose on them once they stop paying?

3 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Dec-12-13 3:44 PM

Does anybody know if this means that Linden, particularly the lovely Brown Lane next to the river, will fall into the new flood zone? Does anybody know? And if it does, are those people just expected to pay the huge premium or just get up and leave? If their home is paid for, they wouldn't need to buy insurance would they? But, could they still sell their home if the new buyers needed a mortgage but couldn't afford the premium? I really don't understand what these and other folks are supposed to do?

3 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Dec-12-13 2:21 PM

Mercury- It is kind of hard to let go of the whole ACA nightmare when daily we here of more and more problems with it now isnt it? The republicans arent responsible for that now are they. Why not blame George Bush for the ACA you liberals do that kind of thing very well.

2 Agrees | 5 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Showing 25 of 55 comments Show More Comments

Post a Comment

You must first login before you can comment.

*Your email address:
Remember my email address.


I am looking for:
News, Blogs & Events Web