I agree to Idea Freedom to build/remodel I disagree to Idea Freedom to build/remodel

Rank1373

Idea#1607

This idea is active.
Looking Back, Looking Forward—FEMA Think Tank 2.0 »

Freedom to build/remodel

Building projects and remodel work is being slowed/stopped by FEMA flood rules. I understand the FEMA standpoint of not wanting to be liable for these projects if they flood, but how about in the case those who don't borrow money or insure against floods, can those be free to "pursue happiness" on their own property? Why not a warning instead of a regulation?

Comment

Submitted by Community Member 8 months ago

Vote Activity Show

Comments (5)

  1. The liability isn't on FEMA, it would be on the property owners.

    The current owner of a property may be willing to take the risk of building in a flood zone, but what about future owners? These rules are to protect current and future interests. There are circumstances where an owner can develop a property in a way that would cause increased flood hazard to other properties.

    How many people complain about paying elevated insurance rates because they live in a flood zone until they actually have to recover from a flood?

    If there was a way from someone to build in a hazardous location, they would have to realized that they would not be eligible for any assistance. How would that ever be managed?

    8 months ago
  2. Much of the emphasis by FEMA and other entities is to get help to residents of homes they occupy year round. This is good since they were the hardest hit by Sandy. Some of those residents who will get help are snow birds which puts them in the same category as those with second homes which they or their families occupy six months of the year, similar to the snow birds. Some consideration for the snow birds. The second home residents contribute to the economy of the shore in greater proportion to the year round residents and the snow birds.

    Why the discrimination against the second homeowners, it is certainly not for the lack of funds.

    8 months ago
  3. I agree

    8 months ago
  4. "Why not a warning instead of a regulation?"

    Several reasons:

    1. They still expect to be rescued when the inevitable result of their stupidity bites them in the butt.

    2. Their stupidity costs ME money in taxes and insurance premiums

    3. Their stupidity places others people at risk - both rescue workers and civilians who will have help delayed because the rescue workers are busy rescuing idiots.

    8 months ago
  5. Tax payers always end up paying for debris removal. Perhaps there should be an exorbitant insurance coverage requirement.

    6 months ago