Flood Insurance Spurs Real Estate Problems

Reba

Retired Terp
Premium Member
Joined
Jun 8, 2004
Messages
54,903
Reaction score
1,518
This has recently hit us. We've lived in this house since 1990, and starting next month we will have to pay an extra $200 per month for flood insurance. :(

We've never had anything even close to flooding on our property, even during Hurricane Hugo, which did a lot of other damage. Now, since FEMA redraw the flood zone lines, we have a corner of our lot in the flood zone.

We hired a survey/elevation team to remeasure our lot but to no avail. We also searched for the best rate, and found out that it's a standard FEMA rate that all the insurance companies have to use.

Some people are stuck--can't afford to maintain the insurance, and can't afford to sell their houses (buyers don't want the flood zone houses).

If it increases any more I don't know what we'll do. As retirees we will be on fixed incomes. Sigh….

Flood insurance reform spurs storm of real estate worries
Prentiss Findlay

Posted: Wednesday, December 25, 2013 10:00 p.m.

Hal Jones thought he could sell his aunt and uncle's house to settle their estate, but now he's not so sure.

"I'm very upset and frustrated about the whole thing," he said.

Jones said he lost a $420,000 sales contract on the home because of a steep price hike for federal flood insurance.

Before Oct. 1, Jones paid about $1,000 per year for flood protection of the property on Oak Island near Folly Beach. Now, estimates for flood coverage range from $12,000 to $18,000 because of the newly implemented Biggert-Waters Flood Insurance Reform Act.

Mark McKnight wanted to buy the house from Jones, but the cost of flood insurance was a deal breaker.

"That about blew my socks off," McKnight said.

Jones said he now doubts anyone would take out a mortgage on the property because of the cost of flood protection.

The same sort of thing has been happening on Sullivan's Island, said Town Councilman Pat O'Neill.

"There are a lot of people who are really getting some serious sticker shock from this. We've already got people walking away from contracts," O'Neill said.

Biggert-Waters aims to improve the finances of the National Flood Insurance Program, which is billions of dollars in debt in the wake of weather events, such as Hurricane Katrina and Super Storm Sandy.

Subsidized flood rates allowed financing for construction of millions of homes and businesses in flood-prone areas across the U.S.

O'Neill said most of downtown Charleston is in a flood zone and would therefore be affected by the provisions of the new law.

Winslow Hastie, Historic Charleston Foundation chief preservation officer, said the NFIP writes policies in all 50 states.

"This is a huge issue for so many property owners across the Lowcountry," he said in an e-mail to real estate and preservation colleagues.

"We really need to voice our concerns, loudly and repeatedly, so that Congress will defer the implementation of this disastrous bill until its purposes can be achieved with far less arbitrary, capricious and draconian effects," Hastie said.

Trademark Properties Realtor Carol Newman, who represented Jones in the derailed Oak Island deal, worried that the federal flood insurance changes will help trigger the next crash in real estate at a time when sales are increasing.

"This is just going to put the brakes on any type of housing recovery, in my opinion," Newman said.

The Federal Emergency Management Agency says on its website that some 20 percent of NFIP policies are subsidized. The structures they insure are known as "pre-FIRM," meaning they were built before a community adopted its first Flood Insurance Rate Map.

In Charleston County, FEMA said all homes built before April 1971 pre-date the first flood map. In Dorchester County, the date is January 1982, and in Berkeley County it's September 1983.

Homes built after flood maps were adopted will not see as much impact from the NFIP changes, but they could be affected by the new flood maps FEMA is developing for the entire United States, the agency said.

On Oct. 1, when parts of the new law kicked in, flood policies increased an average of 10 percent. Under the changes, subsidies are being removed from second homes, rentals and businesses, as well as dwellings that have had repeated flood losses. Homes sold in pre-FIRM areas are automatically required to have the much more expensive insurance that reflects the "true risk" of flooding.

There are nearly 104,000 flood insurance policies in Berkeley, Charleston and Dorchester counties.

Folly Beach Mayor Tim Goodwin expressed worries about how the new law will affect retirees. "Many may be forced to sell their homes," he said in a letter to Congress.

Goodwin said that if someone wanted to purchase his home, the buyer would face a new, $20,000 annual flood policy premium.

"That's going to really hurt the real estate market. Property is just going to be really hard to do anything with," he said.

Edisto Beach Town Administrator Iris Hill said the situation is affecting older residents who built homes before flood maps were drawn.

"It would devastate us economically. It's going to be tough to sell homes, second homes especially," said Edisto Mayor Burley Lyons.

Isle of Palms Mayor Dick Cronin wrote in a letter to the congressional delegation stating that because of Biggert-Waters, property values will fall and mortgages will go into foreclosure, which could create blighted areas.

Biggert-Waters dramatically increases the cost of $250,000 of flood insurance for a single-family IOP residence constructed in 1968. The annual price tag rises from $2,550 to $15,107, Cronin said.

IOP Council passed a resolution imploring Congress to delay Biggert-Waters, initiate an affordability study and consider a more gradual implementation of the act. Legislation has been introduced to postpone the law for four years.

The act will affect an estimated 1,400 IOP properties, which is more than 30 percent of the real estate on the island, Cronin said.

"It will dry up the real estate market," he said.

Flood insurance reform spurs storm of real estate worries – The Post and Courier


We don't live near the beach, on an island, on a peninsula, on a marsh, or near a river.
 
Oh wow, I'm surprised about the congress made an huge mess with flood insurance, just like they did to Obamacare. :(

Our house is on hill and not part of flood risk zone and no rivers, but some areas have lakes.

I don't think that house on hill is better because it is difficult to walk or ride the bike up the hill, and slide the hill, also probably can't install swimming pool if backyard is too steep or hill.
 
That is terrible Reba and TCS! I have something similar brewing here but am on a creek. It has never flooded in modern history but it could. They are building up to it with forms in the mail from the city offices demanding listing of all everything done on the property back to 1985. I guess they are enforcing a 1985 law.
 
Sounds like FEMA along with insurance is looking for money and putting those affected residents more into debts by being unable to sell and forced to pay insurance. This is not looking good.. :(
 
Reba,

This idea isn't exactly upstanding citizen material, but then FEMA's actions aren't exactly respectable either, so I'm going to bring it up. How are your relationships with your neighbors? When you say it's just a corner of your property that's been re-classified as being in the flood zone, I'm thinking that maybe you have a neighbor with adjacent property to your "flood corner" that is also now in the flood zone? If that's true, here's my idea:

Could you approach that neighbor about "selling" that corner to them? You could actually pay them to take it, but I mean for paperwork's sake. And/or offer to pay some portion* of the insurance increase for the remainder of the time that you both own these properties? If they've also just gotten hit with an increase, that might be appealing to them, and you'd both save some money.

*I was originally going to say "split"- but then it hit me that their increase could be significantly more than yours, etc. But maybe some fixed amount, significantly less than $200/mo?

Some obvious downsides would be that FEMA could re-zone again, going further into your property, or the efforts to get FEMA to back down could succeed and then you've lost a corner of your property for nothing. If this stands though, I'm wondering if this might be a partial solution for you guys.
 
That is terrible Reba and TCS! I have something similar brewing here but am on a creek. It has never flooded in modern history but it could. They are building up to it with forms in the mail from the city offices demanding listing of all everything done on the property back to 1985. I guess they are enforcing a 1985 law.
Yes, I think they are starting to "catch up" plus add new areas.
 
Reba,

This idea isn't exactly upstanding citizen material, but then FEMA's actions aren't exactly respectable either, so I'm going to bring it up. How are your relationships with your neighbors? When you say it's just a corner of your property that's been re-classified as being in the flood zone, I'm thinking that maybe you have a neighbor with adjacent property to your "flood corner" that is also now in the flood zone? If that's true, here's my idea:

Could you approach that neighbor about "selling" that corner to them? You could actually pay them to take it, but I mean for paperwork's sake. And/or offer to pay some portion* of the insurance increase for the remainder of the time that you both own these properties? If they've also just gotten hit with an increase, that might be appealing to them, and you'd both save some money.

*I was originally going to say "split"- but then it hit me that their increase could be significantly more than yours, etc. But maybe some fixed amount, significantly less than $200/mo?

Some obvious downsides would be that FEMA could re-zone again, going further into your property, or the efforts to get FEMA to back down could succeed and then you've lost a corner of your property for nothing. If this stands though, I'm wondering if this might be a partial solution for you guys.
The zone winds like a snake thru the neighborhood, so it touches many houses, some a little bit, some a lot. For insurance purposes, it doesn't matter. If it just barely touches or fully covers, it still has to include the flood insurance. It's just a matter of time before everyone in our area has to pay. It's just some insurance agents are slower about getting around to it.
 
Sounds like FEMA along with insurance is looking for money and putting those affected residents more into debts by being unable to sell and forced to pay insurance. This is not looking good.. :(
You're right.
 
Looks like the rates for people who were subsidized are going to keep increasing until it matches the what the insurance companies feel is the risk. Selling the land could be difficult as it affects property value and if you have a mortgage, it's part of the lien. Is it possible to build the property up to an elevation out of the flood limits? Although expensive, it would payoff over time. Seems like these houses in the flood plains are going to drop in value; you should be able to argue that to get your home reevaluated. It's loss in equity in the home, but would also reduce the amount you have to insure for.

It's a very unfortunate situation for a lot of people. Unfortunately the program (NIFP) is $30 billion in debt and the money has to come from somewhere (not the 1%ers ;)) to cover disasters.
 
Insurance companies probably feel that with climate change, they have to charge you more money. Who knows what area will be labeled as flood risk at end of your policy term? If it's just a small patch in your backyard right now, it may be your whole yard that is flood risk according to your company at end of policy term. They're doing it to protect themselves. I don't necessarily agree with them, but I try to see where they're coming from.
 
Insurance companies probably feel that with climate change, they have to charge you more money. Who knows what area will be labeled as flood risk at end of your policy term? If it's just a small patch in your backyard right now, it may be your whole yard that is flood risk according to your company at end of policy term. They're doing it to protect themselves. I don't necessarily agree with them, but I try to see where they're coming from.
It's not the insurance companies' idea. It's the government. Some insurance companies are trying not to implement the charges until they are forced to. The rates and zones are determined by the government, not the insurance companies.

Ironically, our lot is at the highest point on our block. When there are heavy rains, the water flows away from our yard.
 
Looks like the rates for people who were subsidized are going to keep increasing until it matches the what the insurance companies feel is the risk.
It's a government plan, not an insurance company plan.

Selling the land could be difficult as it affects property value and if you have a mortgage, it's part of the lien. Is it possible to build the property up to an elevation out of the flood limits? Although expensive, it would payoff over time.
No, we can't build up the elevation of the lot or house. Even if it were possible, it's not allowed because it would effect the other properties.

Seems like these houses in the flood plains are going to drop in value; you should be able to argue that to get your home reevaluated. It's loss in equity in the home, but would also reduce the amount you have to insure for.
We did pay for an elevation survey, and appraisal last month. It didn't change anything.

It's a very unfortunate situation for a lot of people. Unfortunately the program (NIFP) is $30 billion in debt and the money has to come from somewhere (not the 1%ers ;)) to cover disasters.
Yep. Commoners like us have to subsidize the homeowners who have beach-front properties.
 
Oh wow, FEMA seems too stubborn and doesn't change the evaluation?

Is it bad idea to subsidize the homeowners who have beachfront properties?
 
It's a government plan, not an insurance company plan.


No, we can't build up the elevation of the lot or house. Even if it were possible, it's not allowed because it would effect the other properties.


We did pay for an elevation survey, and appraisal last month. It didn't change anything.


Yep. Commoners like us have to subsidize the homeowners who have beach-front properties.

I think you may be thinking of something other than what the person that brought this up was. For instance, This Old House has been showing projects from the Jersey Shore where homes are being raised on piles with breakaway walls used to create garage and storage space. Then if they ever have that amount of flooding again the breakaway walls wash out but the house itself if fine (above the water).
 
Goodwin said that if someone wanted to purchase his home, the buyer would face a new, $20,000 annual flood policy premium

:shock:
 
I think you may be thinking of something other than what the person that brought this up was. For instance, This Old House has been showing projects from the Jersey Shore where homes are being raised on piles with breakaway walls used to create garage and storage space. Then if they ever have that amount of flooding again the breakaway walls wash out but the house itself if fine (above the water).
In our area, people who have actual beachfront or island homes can do that. We are no where near the beach, and our subdivision has height limits on our houses. Nothing higher than a crawl space is allowed. Our house is on a slab. Two-and-a-half stories are the max, and that's what we have.

I'm very familiar with the raised houses with breakaway walls. After Hurricane Hugo, all the beachfront and island homes that were rebuilt were done that way, and some were retrofitted and raised.
 
In our area, people who have actual beachfront or island homes can do that. We are no where near the beach, and our subdivision has height limits on our houses. Nothing higher than a crawl space is allowed. Our house is on a slab. Two-and-a-half stories are the max, and that's what we have.

I'm very familiar with the raised houses with breakaway walls. After Hurricane Hugo, all the beachfront and island homes that were rebuilt were done that way, and some were retrofitted and raised.

There are so many places such rules can come from. I am not sure just where yours originate; but am wondering if they can be changed if enough of the affected homeowners want the same changes?
 
In our area, people who have actual beachfront or island homes can do that. We are no where near the beach, and our subdivision has height limits on our houses. Nothing higher than a crawl space is allowed. Our house is on a slab. Two-and-a-half stories are the max, and that's what we have.

I'm very familiar with the raised houses with breakaway walls. After Hurricane Hugo, all the beachfront and island homes that were rebuilt were done that way, and some were retrofitted and raised.

Did you see my questions in #14?
 
There are so many places such rules can come from. I am not sure just where yours originate; but am wondering if they can be changed if enough of the affected homeowners want the same changes?
The HOA (Home Owners Association) for each development determines the rules. The HOA covenants are like a constitution, and its rules are binding, by law. Infractions can result in fines and liens on the homes.

To be honest, raised houses in this neighborhood would look bizarre since our area isn't coastal.

I doubt any change in elevation would be allowed because it would effect other lots.

Our house is on a slab so it can't be lifted.
 
Back
Top