This website is no longer actively maintained
Some material and features may be unavailable

Poll: After the flood

Should government programs keep paying to repair the same homes over and over?

View Results

Loading ... Loading ...



  • Josh

    You don’t believe in global warming bail your own home out. WE WON’T PAY!

  • Values123

    I am interested to see that in the program this evening, no mention was made of the experience of the City of Seattle!  At one point inits history, the city fathers became annoyed at the frequency of dmage caused by the proximity of land levels with sea level.  They decided, before the city became anything like as large as it is now, to rebuild the level of the waterfront portion of the raise it! Visit Seattle today, and you’ll be offered tours of the “underground”.

  • MilVet

    Taxes are intended to cover the cost of state and federal governments administering the business of the people, NOT funding a few citizen’s choice of lifestyle and home location of choice.

  • SNRLind

    The defination of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results!

  • Rqbennett

    Its time  for us to stop underwriting  risks the generally wealthy take on with the expectation that others will subsidize the cost of their ventures.   Florida homeowners already pay a significant portion of the insurance costs for the many billionaires whose oceanfront property development creates a virtual exclusionary zone from an acknowledged but out of reach public resource.   Allowing those who take inordinate risk at others expense  is patently unjust. The remedy is long overdue…

  • Stevenw Smith

    I live on a barrier island in FL with an elevation of 4 feet. My home is on pilings with impact resistant glass throughout. I pay plenty for this coverage but believe that I should bear the responsibility of all rebuilding if I am persistent enough to stay after a major event and I have a previous large claim. Florida has a risk pool for wind and FEMA provides flood insurance. Each home here and other flood prone areas should be given a replacement figure (such as $250,000) to replace/repair the home that depletes dollar for dollar as damages are claimed. This should be a ONE TIME grant not subject to augmentation other than some type of COLA adjustment. I and others should bear the risk of repeated incidents and claims not governmental entities, insurance companies, or taxpayers.

  • Tup29

    Location, location, location, if you choose, you pay, even if you loose .. not the rest of us taxpayers.

  • Bigjohn13760

    In the Binghamton, NY area we had a 100 year flood in 2006 and a MUCH worse flood in 2011.  Many folks in the areas which were impacted the most in 2011 want to be bought out.  They realize the folly of doing this over and over.   The government should take a cue from this.  No more repairing homes at taxpayer expense that have been  damaged many times by floods, hurricanes, etc. because you want to live on the water.  As others have noted, in many cases we are subsidizing wealthy folks  that have beachfront vacation homes, etc.   No more.  Stop the insanity.   

  • Kdpeter

    One of many challenges for communities faced with repetitive flood losses is the significance of property tax revenues.  Communities will lose money from property taxes if they remove structures or prevent value-added construction on private property that is at risk of flooding.  Allowing building in those visually attractive settings increases revenues, thus communities will make risky choices by inappropriately zoning these areas.

  • Raven

    I am curious howw many of the people who bought waterfront property before global warming jncreased flooding so much … Are republicans who vote against social services and our safety net? How many who have accepted help from all US taxpayers, have not wanted to subsidize housing for the very poor?

  • Bajabobber

    I live in 100 year flood plain in colorado, the home is a 70 year old home with no flood claims, doubt it will ever flood more than a couple inches in the basement. Flood insurance for this house that is roughly worth $240,000 is over $2500 a year, I have tried to find out what flood prom areas pay, my State Farm agent can’t even find out. I believe people in a similar situation are being force to pay way more than our share of the risk.

  • Merv42

    Investing or living in ocean shore and beach front properties is the choice of the individual and should be neither financed nor insured by the government.  Disaster by design is a tax upon the innocent by-standers that were responsible about making better decisions.

  • guest

    Local communities make inappropriate zoning decisions to enrich the developers and then expect others to bail them out.  Similarly, the financial sector lobbying for deregulation and then expect to be bailed out.  Fair is fair, but it isn’t fair to the taxpayer.

  • Susie

    I believe it is important to support each other, as individuals and as communities, in order to have a strong society.  However, when people choose to live in areas that are known to flood repeatedly, I don’t think it is fair to ask the government to pay to rebuild their homes with taxpayer money.  I wonder if it would be less costly and more effective, in the long run, to pay to move people into homes in safe areas and to deconstruct those homes, recycling as much as possible, and leaving the land to nature?

  • Don64

    Federal flood insurance should be revenue neutral.  Premiums paid by the insured should cover administration and payouts.  Premiums should be correlated to risk on an individual basis.  Repeat payouts are OK, but premiums for those properties must reflect that risk and may be nearly equal to payouts. I think this is a case where, if unsubsidized market forces are allowed to work, people will naturally move away from the highest risk areas.

  • Thesaltyone Mac

    When hurricane Hugo slammed the No. Carolina coast years ago, some of the hime owners were caught smiling because they were goung to get their houses rebuilt AGAIN!!!

  • Csea_divino

    American’s are overall quite caring of one another and in the spirit of social responsibility. I feel the Federal, State, and local governments need to spend taxpayer money more wisely but take care of those flood victims.
    On the other hand, as a fiscal conservative, I feel they should reallocate the monies currently used to insure and/or repair these homes that have found themselves as flood victims of Global Warming and simply buy them out at a fair market (pre-flood) value. Then build ‘temporary parks’ that their citizens can use until mother nature reclaims her land.
    American’s do not pay the same amount of taxes as those in the Netherlands. Dutch tax rate is at 52% for individuals earning about $75k or more annually. So to bring them over here and consider implementing their type of government funded infrastructure would be an unsound fiscal decision and unfair allocation of resources. This is why so many of us have voted NO (key word: KEEP) to this question.

  • Noel_harris

    I do not receive tax dollars for any reason, no one should be forced to pay for the needs of others.

  • Noel_harris

    I do not receive tax dollars for any reason, no one should be forced to pay for the needs of others.

  • Luckybe

    The only people benefiting from building in flood planes are developers! Those areas should be off limits to development and people who knowingly purchase homes in flood planes should have to stand the loss with NO HELP from public resources. 

  • Ron

    The private insurance companies are happy to be in Norfolk as long as they can collect premiums, because that’s the business they’re in.  But when it looks like they may have to make good on their promise to protect their customers from risk, they’re gone like rats from a sinking ship (or sinking city in this case).  Then the federal government is supposed to step in and cover only this highest risk group from loss?  Sorry, NO.
    If Norfolk residents agree that their local government should provide some level of subsidy to help mitigate the losses of their at-risk residents in moving out of threatened areas, that would be good and probably the right thing to do.  In that scenario, nobody wins but nobody loses everything.

  • Jules

    Everyone lives in an area with a potential disaster looming. The Midwest has tornados, California has earthquakes. how much do northern governments pay for snow removal. I live just south of Norfolk. 90% of our land is in a flood zone. We can’t just abandon land that has been farmed for generations. There has to be some balance,

  • Rita

     Instead of investing in future disaster, government should finance moving people whose land gets flooded. Government has been subsidizing fossil fuel industry responsible for bringing on global warming and flooding. It should pay for the damages by helping people move, but not invest in keeping them there to continue denying reality.

  • Don

    We have faced the same issue along the Illinois River — and the Mississippi and many other rivers.  If private companies recognize that providing insurance to rebuild flooded homes is not a good business investment, I don’t believe our state (Illinois) or federal governments should provide such insurance either.  Offer, instead, to provide help to relocate — and recognize the inevitable.

  • Sceline53

    onother example of gov’t waste at our expense.

  • Efficiencypro

    Every homeowner needs to carry thier own, appropriate insurance.

  • Bill in NJ

    How can it make sense for people to live in an area where they know it is only a matter of time before their home is flooded?  There is a place in my town where we have the same thing.  People live on an island in the river and on an average of every five years or less, the homes get flooded.  It has nothing to do with the sea rising,it is just insanity.  When the government pays these people, the taxpayers are footing the bill.  When an insurance company has to pay thousands of people over and over again and they have large outlays of money in a particular year, they end up raising rates for everyone.  Either way, everyone else someone ends up paying to refurbish these peoples homes over and over again.  My opinion; if you want to live near the water where you know your house is going to get flooded over and over, raise your house up on poles to protect it (this has been done to many homes near our Jersey shoreline) or pay for the damage yourself.  No one pays to refurbish my home every couple of years, why should I have to pay to refubish someone else’s?

  • Pat in Upstate New York

    FEMA requires me to carry Flood Insurance.   My house is located in The Great Lakes Ancient Flood Plane but there has been no flood here since the glaciers melted.  My insurance premium is $2,000 per year.  Those funds repair repetative damage in other areas.   In the meanwhile, my house has depreciated because of the huge insurance liability … The Need to Know Program quoted a homeowner saying:  “Who would buy this house?  Would YOU?”   I’m in that same spot.

  • Bobie

    Not only is the Taxpayer’s of Norfolk are paying higher City and State Taxes to cover the residents whom live in these area’s, but also our Home Property Insuarances have ESCALATED from all the Natural Disaster’s that’s taking place all over the America!  My Property Insurance has almost Tripled from the time I started insuring my home, and I’ve had only one claim, from the Ice Storm of 2007!  I BELIEVE our Rates INCREASE EVERY YEAR just so the Insurance Companies won’t loose their high Profit margins, or else we would be charged as our claims indicates.  I believe ALL HOMEOWNER’S are suffering with high Premiums because of these Natural Disaster’s, whereby our Republican controlled Supreme Court, Congress and Senate are REFUSING to acknowledge we’re suffering Global Warming Conditions!  Until all of the Logical, Good Sense, Common Sense Americans Stand up, we will watch our country slowly and EXPENSIVELY be taken over by these Natural Disaster’s.  Slowly my foot, EVERY WEEK, deadly storms are taking place somewhere in America, this week, its Kansas and St. Louis!

    People who live in these area’s SHOULD relocate!  I know selling their homes will be an issue, and this is where the Government offer’s money, for the LAST TIME,  to move OUT OF these locations, if they don’t, then they should NOT receive anymore assistance, and we know Insurance Carrier’s will NOT cover their Properties!

  • Bjj0114

    Seriously, is there any land left after all the floodings, or just a patch or two?  It’s apparent to me that the land can’t be farmed, because of too many floodings.  It would be great, if just enough water got onto the land to keep it moist & watered, if anything, the floods are killing off most, if not all the crops!  Please, use your head and face reality! 

  • Bj0114

    Amen, Amen, and AMEN!!!!

  • Bj0114

    I live in Tulsa OK.  My house is LESS than 1000 SF.  My home is valued at 25,000, and State Farm charges me over $1,000 for my home with a $2,000 Deductible on my roof (had to have it replaced ONCE because of hail storms).  They were going to DROP me because of my roof, if I had not accepted their outragous deductible!   When I shop around, as I do EVERY YEAR, I cannot find a carrier whose premiums are under $1000!  I’m retired, home 95% of the time, therefore if a fire was to break out, I would be able to control it, yet, the insurace companies could care less, they FORCE us to pay, to cover all these Man Made, Natural Disasters! 

  • Dcduster

    No – So long as someone else is paying the bill – they will continue to live there. 
    They need to know that their lifestyle is their own and not ours.

  • ldd

    The flooding is becoming so frequent that I think it would be better for the government to buy them out at a fair market price, tear down the houses, and turn the area into a park/flood zone – which basically is what it is now anyway. 

  • Democracy Rising!

    This re-building program has been an ongoing scandal for many decades!..exemplary of the “‘Transfer of taxpayer funds to the Wealty” which no one talks about!!!

  • Shimmer83

    It is a very unfortunate sitauation they are experiencing
    and I hope they make the sound choice to leave those properties.
    A more profitable investment for the government and the tax payers
    is to equipt those families with the support they need to relocate. A home is a
    beautiful thing to possess but it’s value can not take the place of a human’s life.
    By the way your family is what makes your location a HOME. Also there should
    be a law against the inflation of costly charges the insurance companies
    expect people to pay. Signed: M. Johnson, Concerned Connecticut Citizen

  • Runner501

    No, the existing flood insurance program has aided development in high risk areas for about 50 years and needs to be changed to encourage most new development in lower risk areas while providing easy public access to waterfront areas.  Two problems require careful thought.  (1) Near term - Many homes and businesses were built in flood zones because the US federal government offered cheap flood insurance.  When and how should the federal government help these people relocate?  (2) Long term - This survey question misses the bigger point, that with rising sea levels anticipated for the next century AND beyond, many coastal communities with perhaps several millon residents will eventually have similar flooding problems.  A buyout program on this scale may not be financially feasible at the local or national level. When and how can new development over the next 50 years be encouraged to produce wiser investments and more secure communities?  Construction of the US Interstate Highway system proved that large infrastructure projects can provide the framework to facilitate growth in new areas. A new round of national infrastructure investments - water resources, power and transportation, could provide the framework to grow energy efficient, climate friendly communities in areas and ways secure from rising sea levels.


    When my neighbor had a broken pipe, the house had to be torn down to the foundation because of black mold.  His insurance built him a brand new house.  Another neighbor at the bottom of the hill used to flood, so they had their house raised at their expense because their insurance wasn’t going to keep rebuilding.  The property owners in these flood zones can raise their house, or they can pay for their own insurance and deductibles, or they can pay to build seawalls, burms, storm sewers to hold the water back, or the government can buy their property, tear down the houses and turn the land into a public park.  These are expensive properties because of the location.  Just another example of the working class who can’t afford it paying for the perks of the rich who can.  How sad that greed is now the American way. 

  • BWS

    Yes, some folks should move or bear all the costs of mitigation on their own (not sure why we subsidize so many second homes on the Jersey Shore?!) However, the vast majority of folks in National Flood Insurance Program are living in their primary homes on flood plains or partial flood plains that have become more and more volatile through local overbuilding and poor storm-water management. And, of course, global climate change is just exacerbating this problem… taking minor storms at intervals of decades and turning them into ‘run for your life’ from flash flooding and 500-year floods that happen within 10 days of each other (ah, Irene and Lee.) Our home has been on the same land for over 245 years and is structurally challenging to raise or move. We are trying to do it anyway, because the insurance we pay for has not covered our costs for all the rebuilding we have had to do. But we did pay for that insurance (subsidized as it is — yes, we all subsidize mandatory flood insurance to encourage purchases of these sites, but we can’t support optional health insurance for all) and we have done a lot for flood mitigation here, but the housing boom which covered over local wetlands in our area and has caused our creek to get tremendously overloaded with storm-water in even small storms? That we did not have control over, And at some point, I am just durned if I am going to let the ‘haves’ in form of local developers take those profits and then fight to remove my insurance plan to make me lose my home. C’mon 99% lets think of a variety of rational solutions we can apply to this and not just blame the victims. We are them. I promise you.

  • BWS

    Support a variety of solutions to growing severity of flood damage (not just ‘blame the victims’). Ask your local and federal legislators to consider flood prevention and prepredness program, wetlands restoration, and even funding pilots for some really cool, big-picture options like: