Quote:
Originally Posted by Spock Jenkins
Actually, the government does subsidize insurance under the National Flood Insurance Program for those who wish to live in flood zones. Private insurance carriers won't cover it on their own. Why don't they just make these areas off limits to development if it's that big of a risk.
|
All I can relate is my own experience with this. My house is on the edge of a state nature preserve, a large marsh (wetland). Several years ago, our insurance company informed us that the area had been designated a flood zone (the middle of three categories of risk), that flood damage would not be covered, and we would have to purchase supplemental flood insurance, which we did.
Our house has been in this spot for 30+ years, and we have lived there about half that time. We have never had anything close to a flood and a little over a year ago our county had one of those once-a-century rainstorms. There was a lot of flooding in the area, but we had none. From what I know about wetlands, we are actually less likely to have a flood, not more. But there is no arguing, that I know of, about the flood zone assessment.
So, I choose to live here before it was designated a flood zone and have done the due diligence that is expected of me (flood insurance). Should I be required to abandon my home? That is not a rhetoric question, I seriously want to know how these kinds of cases fit in with your "ban development" idea.