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

Property dilemma

January 4, 2014

There are 130 million homes in United States....

« Back to Article

 
 
sort: oldest | newest

Comments

(14)

rmiller

Jan-05-14 3:45 PM

Mim,

We can empathize, but not sympathize. I just had this discussion this morning with someone at church. She feels bad for the people who will lose their homes? Move. My husband and I lost our home to bankruptcy. It was no one's fault except ours. We made choices that adversely affected our finances. As to your comment about living near water because of work? Were there no other places available? I'm not certain that anyone has to live in a special area because of govt. mandate, perhaps those running for political offices. But then again, they know that prior to a run.

0 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

MimLogue

Jan-05-14 9:54 AM

rick 424 Why is my private sector fire insurance 500$ on the same house my flood is 10,000$ 2 administration fees 1 to my insurance agent 30% and another 24% adm fee to FEMA, Now there is 46% left for waste mismanagement fraud. It cost me over 5,000k for administration of my policy

0 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

MimLogue

Jan-05-14 9:51 AM

. There's another way to look at this issue, an engineering professor at the University of Maryland who studies floods and advises the government.There are flood-prone places like Louisiana that*****up a big share of FEMA's flood money. He says. "Thirty-five percent of our nation's oil and gas comes from the Gulf Coast, and these people live in some form of risk." They need to live there to keep the oil and gas business running.

0 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

rmiller

Jan-04-14 10:39 PM

Mim....lower risk, lower policy.

1 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Premier

Jan-04-14 12:56 PM

Had a clog at the baffle, waters flowing and I'm as happy as Sham at a free lunch!

2 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

eriklatranyi

Jan-04-14 9:48 AM

Premier:

I had a similar problem a few years ago. It turned out "septic safe" wipes we used with our children did not degrade and built up where the baffle goes into the septic tank, blocking it.

Now, there is a class action lawsuit waiting to happen....those wipes are labeled as "septic safe" yet have caused many clogs nationwide.

1 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Premier

Jan-04-14 8:37 AM

Spike, I waited for them until 5 then went to bed with phone in hand. Nothing. I'm 100% sure there is a blockage from the main hub to the tank. Had the tank pumped last year so I'm really hoping it's not a drain field problem.

0 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Popsmarc

Jan-04-14 7:50 AM

This is going to affect everyone. First thought, I purchased in 2013 in the "flood fringe" with no disclosure of any such law. Now my property is the flood zone. Who do you think is going to help all these banks when many of these homeowners default on their loans? The tax payers (government) will! Where is the tax base in these communities going to come from when people vacate their properties? Your taxes will skyrocket!! It's not just flood area homes that are going to crippled by this. Wake up people this going to kick everyone right in the bank account!!

6 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

CarlHiller

Jan-04-14 7:44 AM

This flood insurance issue is not going away anytime soon, just like every other issue it will be kicked down the road. The problem with it all started when they allowed extreme development along the shores where many wealthy chose to develop not only a 1st home but also 2nd homes. This insurance has been subsidized from day one by taxpayers so that your premiums remained low. Not based on any actual individual risk patterns. Private insurers never offered flood insurance because the risk involved was to great. The NFIP program was created in 1968 and even though private insurers are contracted, the profits are private, but the losses are socialized as private insurance companies bear none of the underwriting risk associated with this insurance. It was the NAR that lobbied hard to get the Biggerts-Waters bill passed. They were looking to increase home sales and failed to discover it will actually reduce sales. Always follow the money trail.

4 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

eriklatranyi

Jan-04-14 7:16 AM

So, once again, we should all subsidize those who purchase low priced, high-risk homes?

Sorry, Mim Logue. Nice try, but I'll pay for the risk I chose to accept.

6 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

spike2

Jan-04-14 6:46 AM

Premier- Hope you are sleeping, 6:50 A.M.. Cracked, frozen, or roots? fromtheport- I actually like your response.

2 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

fromtheport

Jan-04-14 3:13 AM

Come on mim why not just payoff the house, drop the flood insurance, take the money you would have paid in flood insurance and put it in a mutual fund making some money so you can be self insured. Then you wouldnt be wasting all this time on such a sensless issue.

3 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Premier

Jan-04-14 2:47 AM

Sorry about that Mim, it's 2:43 in the morning, been up since 5:30 yesterday, plumbings all backed up and I'm waiting on Markle's Rapid Rooter to diagnose a septic problem. I wish their 24 hr. service would at least call to tell me when they will be here so maybe I can get some sleep. Been back and forth between the brandy and coffee so I don't know if I'm coming or going...LOL.....Good night or Good morning.....Bye

0 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Premier

Jan-04-14 2:41 AM

"Build it................... and they will come"

1 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Showing 14 of 14 comments
 
 

Post a Comment

You must first login before you can comment.

*Your email address:
*Password:
Remember my email address.
or
 
 
 

 

I am looking for:
in:
News, Blogs & Events Web