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

Legislation was passed recently to reduce the increases in flood insurance rates from the Biggert-Waters Flood Reform Act. Was it enough?

  1. Yes. The increases are necessary to bail out the Federal Emergency Management Agency and owners of flood-prone homes are the logical people to pay for that.
  2. Not quite enough. The federal government had the money to bail out the auto industry, so it has the money to save the flood protection system without penalizing average homeowners beyond what they already pay for flood insurance.
  3. The act should be repealed before it strangles the nation's real estate industry. It's a a travesty.
 
 
 
 
sort: oldest | newest

Comments

(6)

johnathan

Mar-27-14 6:47 PM

No it was not enough, Kicks the can down the road, premiums are still to high and DISCRIMINATES against 2nd homeowners & businesses, flood insurance premiums were based on RISK, NOW they are based on who owns the property, DISCRIMINATION ! Join StopFemaNow and learn the facts, Power in Numbers

1 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

fromtheport

Mar-28-14 5:43 PM

Yeah kicks the can down the road so those high risk people should pay up now, im a tobacco user so i pay more in healthcare than a non tobacco user. A high risk flood owner should pay not a no risk owner. And the government bailout of the auto industry was mostly repaid through sales of stock. How is this discriminating?

0 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Garben78

Mar-28-14 6:28 PM

Stop FEMA and then see what happens when the next big one hits

0 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Empire301

Mar-29-14 7:21 PM

I live miles from any water. why should my taxs pay someone elses way?

0 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

CaveFelem

Mar-30-14 7:09 AM

johnathan, with all due respect, this program was started 50 years ago, and has been subsidizing flood insurance premiums ever since. I doubt there were many people who realized just how subsidized these premiums were. Flood insurance premiums may have been based on risk before, but that premium was heavily subsidized by your fellow taxpayers.

Taking away the government subsidy all at once was not the right thing to do. But it does need to be corrected, and hopefully raising the premiums slowly and getting more private, local insurers involved will help solve the problem.

0 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

nobud74

Mar-30-14 9:14 AM

I wonder if those beautiful homes along the Potomac are being hit with 7X premiums. Or, is it just the little guy in a rural area? Those who live in flood prone areas need to pay more, but they should not be responsible for rebuilding FEMA. They should have insurance available on the open market like everyone else and not have it subsidized by the taxpayer. The rates should be set by the insurance companies, not the govt who can declare a home that has never flooded as being in a flood zone. Govt intervention created the problem, govt intervention cannot solve the problem.

0 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Showing 6 of 6 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