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

Homeowners rally against flood insurance changes

January 26, 2014

MUNCY — Another local rally was held focusing on the growing fear by homeowners living in floodplains that they will be paying drastically higher flood insurance rates....

« Back to Article

 
 
sort: oldest | newest

Comments

(32)

susquehannaretriever

Jan-31-14 5:48 AM

Concerned about flood insurance? Interested in FACTS NOT conjecture,rumor,etc. Join us on stopfemanow dot com. Concerned homeowners fighting for whats right, against astronomical flood insurance premimums!

0 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

johnnyad3

Jan-27-14 9:14 AM

And when I said other such appliances; especially if you have oil heat so the potential to pollute the creek is minimized as much as possible.

0 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

johnnyad3

Jan-27-14 9:11 AM

FEMA could offer low interest loans instead of high premiums if you decide you want to stay and take mitigation actions.

If a homeowner decides not to stay because either option results in bankruptcy, FEMA can buy them out at a reduced price but allow the loan to be forgiven so it doesn't hurt the homeowners credit score allowing them to buy something out of the flood plain.

0 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

johnnyad3

Jan-27-14 9:10 AM

IMO-There is probably nothing better than living along one of our creeks. Doing so, however, does come with risk of a flood. For a person who bought their home say 10 years ago with a mortgage to all of a sudden have to pay these astronomical rates is wrong.

There needs to be some kind of plan for homes purchased before July 2013. It will cost though. If you decide to stay in your little piece of heaven, you will need to make arrangements. If you have a basement, fill it in and move water heaters and other such appliances above the BFE. Another option is to elevate the whole place above BFE. Lookin said if people along the shore had to obey what we have to, there wouldn't be a home within 50 miles. Many homes who were on pilings at the Jersey shore had some cleanup only as the water never got in the house. I heard homes here on pilings had minimal insurance hikes in the range of $20-30.

FEMA could offer low interest loans instead of high premiums if you decide you want

0 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

MariananeK

Jan-27-14 8:12 AM

I also purchased my home because it was in my price range and had everything I wanted including land. I did not want to be right on top of my neighbors I wanted space between us. Unfortunately it is located in a flood zone. I don't think it is fair that I have to pay such high flood rates because the US government wants to spend all their money helping other countries rather then help us.

0 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Scott36

Jan-26-14 3:45 PM

Scott36, it doesn't really matter to me because I'm not hiding my identity.-mikekerstetter

I understand, but this "got you" could potentially put you or your family in jeopardy. IMO, that is unacceptable--we all have our opinions, at times it can even get "testy"(kinda makes it fun at times), I just thought it went too far. Have a Safe & Happy day!!-Scott

1 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

mikekerstetter

Jan-26-14 2:39 PM

*I'd bet a lot of homes up the 'Sock haven't been touched by flood waters since Agnes in '72, if they were even touched then,***were flooded out in 2011****.

2 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

mikekerstetter

Jan-26-14 2:36 PM

I see a lot of people saying 'Yeah, I live in a flood zone but haven't had a claim' and/or 'haven't been flooded in 20 years.'

The point you are missing is that it isn't necessarily the fact that a flood occurred there or you had a claim as much as it is the possibility is there. The 973 bridge and several concrete bridges along Hoaglands Branch road near Hillsgrove had been standing there, some for 35 or more years, without ever being affected by a flood that were taken out in 2011. I'd bet a lot of homes up the 'Sock haven't been touched by flood waters since Agnes in '72, if they were even touched then.

My teanagers were never in a car accident when I added them to my policy, but they charged them a lot more than me because the risk of them having an accident is a lot greater.

No different for flood insurance.

3 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

mikekerstetter

Jan-26-14 2:16 PM

Scott36, it doesn't really matter to me because I'm not hiding my identity. It's the fact that they think they somehow 'got me' by posting it that irritates me. susquehannaretriever did pretty much the same thing when he showed up. It turns out I've known him for over 20 years, maybe even before he bought his house.

0 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Livinlife

Jan-26-14 1:45 PM

Here is an idea, rather than subsidize flood insurance ask your congressman to take that money and reinvest it in fixing failing levy systems. It creates jobs, reinvests in infrastructure that drive economies, and lowers the need for people to be dependent on welfare programs.

1 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

lookout

Jan-26-14 12:59 PM

Each homeowner has their own risks some how some way. We all should be able to deal with it without the long arm of the govt. if people of the coast had to follow our flood rules there would eventually be no houses within 50 miles of the coast. Who is able to get down to each unique situation each homeowner faces. Until that capability comes along its all beauracracy with no good outcome for all.

0 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Livinlife

Jan-26-14 12:58 PM

Cj the rule should be 1 claim within a 30 year period because that is the average length of a mortgage.

3 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Livinlife

Jan-26-14 12:55 PM

I don't understand why everyone is upset with cutting this program. We as Americans told the federal government that we wanted spending cut. In order to do that we need to cut social programs. This program is a form of welfare. Yeah it will hurt, but like eventually we will reach our financial goals. Flood insurance subsidies are a form of welfare. I am sorry but "man up" and accept what you asked for. You cannot pick and choose because this program benefits one or the other. What if interest rates went up and people with an arm could no longer afford their mortgage, do we bail them out? No they were made aware of the possibilities before hand. FEMA was originally designed to help random natural disasters; not if you live in a high risk area. For those who think the map is wrong you should have spoke up then. The problem is not FEMA, banks, or flood plain homeowners. The problem is our educational system since no one taught you that actions have consequences.

3 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

soupy3116

Jan-26-14 12:39 PM

We live in Beech Creek and our house is well over 100 years old, in the flood plain. The house has never had a flood or claim on it, yet our insurance is going up. Meanwhile up the street, up the hill, every house flooded this past summer and none of them have flood insurance. We didn't even have water in our basement. Makes sense to increase my insurance

1 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

cjstheman

Jan-26-14 12:07 PM

We've been paying flood insurance for 12 years due to an inaccurate map, but needed it to acquire our mortgage. These people bought their homes with the understanding that by purchasing flood coverage and paying their insurance bills, their homes would be covered. It's not that they've done anything wrong. They did what they were told they had to do to own their home and now FEMA is pulling a bait and switch. You're blaming the homeowners who played by the rules. Granted, if a home has filed more than 2 flood claims in 20 years, it's time to re-evaluate the sustainability of the structure. But to re-zone entire towns to make up for FEMA's own mismanagement and misappropriation of funds is reckless and negligent.

3 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Scott36

Jan-26-14 12:01 PM

Either way, it sounds to me like someone is picking my pocket.-mikekerstetter

It could also be called living as a society. I do believe Gov. programs could be run more efficiently, aid to foreign countries could be looked at, etc., but like it or not, in one way or another we as a society are interdependent upon each other. argue with it if you will, but still fact. With that, not everyone will be happy with how it is run.-Scott

0 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Scott36

Jan-26-14 11:52 AM

Hey, look!! Someone else who thinks they are 'outing' me while cowardly hiding behind a screen name.-mikekerstetter

I am completely on your side on this issue. If someone has a disagreement with you, argue the point. Attempting to potentially put you or anyone at a "potential risk" is IMO way out of bounds. I cannot believe that this "newspaper" allows it. Pathetic.-Scott

1 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

mikekerstetter

Jan-26-14 11:20 AM

Tunedin, as I said on the other thread, that's quite a choice you are giving the taxpayers who aren't living in a flood zone....

1) Pay for others flood insurance through federal tax dollars

or

2) Pay pay higher local taxes for those who live in a flood zone and can't afford to pay the insurance premium.

Either way, it sounds to me like someone is picking my pocket.

1 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

mikekerstetter

Jan-26-14 11:15 AM

ScottyDogg-"Hey mikekerstetter is that how you felt growing up on the corner of Rte 54 and Pitchtown Road in Montgomery?"

Hey, look!! Someone else who thinks they are 'outing' me while cowardly hiding behind a screen name.

Yep, that's where we lived, where my parents had to repair the furnace and water heater every time it rained hard because the open drainage ditch that carried water that was piped down School House hill overflowed and filled the basement.

Guess what, they didn't have flood insurance. They paid everything out of pocket and asked no one for anything.

4 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

TunedIn

Jan-26-14 11:02 AM

Again, to those that subscribe to "you shouldn't have bought there in the first place" belief ... Please be attentive--these property values are going to plummet because no one will buy them. The county, school, and municipal taxes are based on fair market value of properties sold. When these property values decrease so does the tax base. Therefore, unless you think local government spending is going to decrease...hmmm...someone is going to have to make up the loss in revenue. Obviously, it will be the properties which are not negatively impacted by these insurance increases. Truth be told this legislation was not well thought out and EVERYONE is going to be impacted one way or another. Don't be short sighted in thinking it doesn't apply to me because I'm not directly impacted--step out of your comfort zone and look at the big picture!

4 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

ScottyDogg

Jan-26-14 10:49 AM

Hey mikekerstetter is that how you felt growing up on the corner of Rte 54 and Pitchtown Road in Montgomery?

0 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Zippie

Jan-26-14 9:42 AM

COFFEE--

Put it this way ...

You give your wife money and she buys the guy down the street to screw the heck out of her. But leaves your kids hungry and wearing rags. Think that's fair?

-------

I'm not saying the taxpayers should be paying their fair share for their own property. I am saying why give away money to other countries that hate us or won't pay us back & have our own people suffer.

2 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

susquehannaretriever

Jan-26-14 9:09 AM

Oh by the way coffee, we did not choose our home because it was in a flood zone, we chose our home because it was affordable to us at the time.Sorry at the time we could not all live high on a hill in a mcmansion.Try laying off the caffeine in that coffee! Might clear ur mind

1 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

susquehannaretriever

Jan-26-14 9:05 AM

WRONG rsrobbins ALL flood zone residences are seeing their flood insurance increasing.Some are not just going to full actuarial rate immediately. Please research this. coffee- if you are not seeing the point I am making about the US government I can't help you. Try and get your head out of that place where the sun does not shine please.

1 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

coffee

Jan-26-14 8:39 AM

"Zippie good point. Just google "US aid to Pakistan for flooding. 2010 amount was $215million. SO, our government can send billions over time to Pakistan who hid the mass murderer Osama Bin Laden, but they cannot help US citizens in flood zones. WOW, why does this not surprise me?" --susquennaretriever

The taxpayer has been helping you every year that you purchased flood insurance and helped you when a flood occurred! Now they are saying that if you want to live in a flood zone it's time you pay your fair share.

2 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Showing 25 of 32 comments Show More 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