Gustav

[MTK]

Originally Posted by firstdown

Well when you stand in your street and you have to look up to see a ship going by then its within good reason that you should buy flood ins.

So... why is it not legally required as it is in so called high risk areas?

Not having insurance isn't the entire issue either, the main problem seemed to be people who were underinsured. So they had it, just not enough coverage for a disaster the size of Katrina. But of course they were told they didn't need it.

[Hog1]

Originally Posted by Mattyk72

So... why is it not legally required as it is in so called high risk areas?

Not having insurance isn't the entire issue either, the main problem seemed to be people who were underinsured. So they had it, just not enough coverage for a disaster the size of Katrina. But of course they were told they didn't need it.

At what point do people need to take responsibility for their own lives?
Do you carry adequate insurance? Why?

[MTK]

Originally Posted by Hog1

At what point do people need to take responsibility for their own lives?
Do you carry adequate insurance? Why?

I've said that ultimately people are responsible for evaluating their own risk level, BUT, if I'm given bad info and make a decision based on that bad info... shouldn't there be some recourse?

If a bank tells you that you don't need flood insurance because you lived in a low risk area... is it so unreasonable to think that some people might decline the coverage?

We sure are quick to bail out bad decisions made by big corporations, but when the little guy makes a bad decision all bets are off it seems.

[firstdown]

Originally Posted by Mattyk72

I've said that ultimately people are responsible for evaluating their own risk level, BUT, if I'm given bad info and make a decision based on that bad info... shouldn't there be some recourse?

If a bank tells you that you don't need flood insurance because you lived in a low risk area... is it so unreasonable to think that some people might decline the coverage?

We sure are quick to bail out bad decisions made by big corporations, but when the little guy makes a bad decision all bets are off it seems.

No its not unreasonable to think that when banks say they are in a low risk area people tend to not buy flood ins. AS I stated earlier I sell flood ins and have to deal with people daily who had a bank, realator, or someone say that they are not in a flood zone or that they are in a low risk zone. I do believe the bank notice does state that you may want to check with your agent and that you may still need coverage.

Goverment bails out very few corporations that fail so thats not a very good example.

[Hog1]

Originally Posted by Mattyk72

I've said that ultimately people are responsible for evaluating their own risk level, BUT, if I'm given bad info and make a decision based on that bad info... shouldn't there be some recourse?

If a bank tells you that you don't need flood insurance because you lived in a low risk area... is it so unreasonable to think that some people might decline the coverage?

We sure are quick to bail out bad decisions made by big corporations, but when the little guy makes a bad decision all bets are off it seems.

I submit the following:
I am all about the little guy! I am one
I don't know what info was disseminated by the banking community to the the residents of NO, thus I am not really qualified to make that call.
I am confident we are multiple Billions in the hole in bailout aid.
How much bailout money is acceptable?
Why do we keep hearing about NO and not the other natural disasters that occur in this country?

I think people have to help themselves, and not depend on the Fed to take care of them. I do not think that happened in this case.
An incompetent mayor, and Governor did not help. And the Fed is dirty as well.
In 1983 Hurricane Alicia cruised through the Houston area at about 130+mph, gusting to 160+, spawning an estimated 220+ tornadoes in the area. It gutted much of the area. I lost half the tree's in my yard (8 oaks). Roof damage, etc. I was lucky. We had no power for 13 days (houston in august, working basically 24/7)
The power company came by one day 12 and told myself and my neighbors it would be 45 days to get the lines clear of trees and restore service. We explained the lines would be clear by daylight. The sound of chain saws went on through the night, but the line got cleared and we got power back (i said htown in august right?) the next day.
We helped ourselves, as many others do as well in such disasters.
I hope you enjoyed my little story!

[firstdown]

Originally Posted by Mattyk72

So... why is it not legally required as it is in so called high risk areas?

Not having insurance isn't the entire issue either, the main problem seemed to be people who were underinsured. So they had it, just not enough coverage for a disaster the size of Katrina. But of course they were told they didn't need it.

Flood ins is required for a loan if it is determined to be in a high risk area so by law they have to buy flood coverage along with their homeowners policy. One reason why allot of people were underinsured was because they carried what the law required. For example. If a person owns a $200,000 home and they owe $100,000 and are in a high risk area the law states they have to carry $100,000 the balance of the loan. It also does not require the insured to cover contents as that is a option they must choose.

[MTK]

Originally Posted by firstdown

Flood ins is required for a loan if it is determined to be in a high risk area so by law they have to buy flood coverage along with their homeowners policy. One reason why allot of people were underinsured was because they carried what the law required. For example. If a person owns a $200,000 home and they owe $100,000 and are in a high risk area the law states they have to carry $100,000 the balance of the loan. It also does not require the insured to cover contents as that is a option they must choose.

I'm guessing you didn't even read the article.

NEW ORLEANS -- Many of the thousands of homeowners in the Lower Ninth Ward, one of the hardest-hit areas in the city, lacked flood insurance because the neighborhood in theory was supposed to be relatively safe, local insurance agents and residents said.


Most of the area sits outside the "high-risk" flood districts designated on federal maps used for insurance, and so, unlike homeowners elsewhere in this low-lying city, most in the Lower Ninth Ward were not legally required by lenders to buy flood coverage.

Those federal insurance maps, however, were based on a vastly mistaken assumption: that the levees and flood walls protecting the neighborhood from inundation would remain intact. When the levees breached near the Lower Ninth, the floodwaters ravaged countless homes unprotected by flood insurance, and many neighbors wonder whether anyone will have the wherewithal to rebuild.

[firstdown]

Originally Posted by Mattyk72

I'm guessing you didn't even read the article.

OK, here's the deal.

The people of NO screwed up a bunch of stuff.

The city goverment screwed up a bunch of stuff.

The state goverment screwed up a bunch of stuff.

FEMA screwed up a bunch of stuff.

Federal goverment screwed up a bunch of stuff.

That all adds up to one big screw up which everyone involved had their share of blame. It happened and it seems that after this last blow people learned from that big screw up.

[MTK]

Originally Posted by firstdown

OK, here's the deal.

The people of NO screwed up a bunch of stuff.

The city goverment screwed up a bunch of stuff.

The state goverment screwed up a bunch of stuff.

FEMA screwed up a bunch of stuff.

Federal goverment screwed up a bunch of stuff.

That all adds up to one big screw up which everyone involved had their share of blame. It happened and it seems that after this last blow people learned from that big screw up.

Can't say I disagree

[jdlea]

Originally Posted by firstdown

OK, here's the deal.

The people of NO screwed up a bunch of stuff.

The city goverment screwed up a bunch of stuff.

The state goverment screwed up a bunch of stuff.

FEMA screwed up a bunch of stuff.

Federal goverment screwed up a bunch of stuff.

That all adds up to one big screw up which everyone involved had their share of blame. It happened and it seems that after this last blow people learned from that big screw up.

I couldn't agree more

[dmek25]

Originally Posted by firstdown

OK, here's the deal.

The people of NO screwed up a bunch of stuff.

The city goverment screwed up a bunch of stuff.

The state goverment screwed up a bunch of stuff.

FEMA screwed up a bunch of stuff.

Federal goverment screwed up a bunch of stuff.

That all adds up to one big screw up which everyone involved had their share of blame. It happened and it seems that after this last blow people learned from that big screw up.

good post. and i agree it seems like most of the people involved learned. and maybe putting an unqualified " friend" in charge of FEMA, with absolutely no logistics experience, actually added to the problem

[firstdown]

Originally Posted by dmek25

good post. and i agree it seems like most of the people involved learned. and maybe putting an unqualified " friend" in charge of FEMA, with absolutely no logistics experience, actually added to the problem

You had to take the jab. I have delt with FEMA and they have had issues ever sense I can remember.

5 hours and 17min tell kick off nope make that 16min.