> There is going to be a flood claim;
I feel like I'm missing something. Wouldn't this be something to price into coverage? If it's a high risk, premiums up to 1/x of the home value. Don't like it? You can't afford to own the house.
I feel like I'm missing something. Wouldn't this be something to price into coverage? If it's a high risk, premiums up to 1/x of the home value. Don't like it? You can't afford to own the house.
They then initiated an inspection of every multi-storey building, and allocated an NBS rating. Some buildings were condemned, and other buildings must be strengthened. It's almost impossible to sell these affected buildings.
So in the US for a national insurance scheme to work, the government would need to actively remove high risk properties.
New Zealand also has no state governments, just one national government. So it's much easier for them to implement these sorts of policies.
Those that couldn't pay the insurance (like 100% of your property value, by risk), just like any other repossession would require the local govt to help take control of the property. The Fed's work would be in verifying valuations and setting profit margins. eg Regulation. Sounds good to me.
On the other hand, if you are a home owner in a flood zone, the best "investment" you can make is buy flood insurance and hope for a flood.
Of note, flood insurance is nationalized, so probably will be backed by your tax dollars
These people barely can afford paying a 30 year mortgage.
There's absolutely no logic behind insurance in Florida or anywhere along the coast.
Even if 10 years is hyperbole, the real risks are absolutely not insurable.
It is absolutely not a guarantee that all waterfront property should just be written off. But some property absolutely should because this shit happens every 5 years.