Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Flood zones are changing as global warming increases flooding and hurricanes. I really don't know what can be done to predict or stop it.

We could probably try to do something about global warming. That might help.

Better start with China. They are busily paving over Africa

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Flood insurance should be priced on an actuarial basis across the country. Let them build wherever they want as long as they are carrying the costs for building there. Problem solved.

What about tax deductions on top of the flood insurance? That gives federal money that otherwise would go to the treasury. Example-at a 35% rate you save .35 on every dollar of deduction.

Do you really think the people would stand for paying nominal tax rates? That isn't "money that would otherwise go to the treasures". The more likely outcome is that nominal rates would be reduced to roughly mirror current effective rates, that people would reduce their economic output (see the UK's recent experience), leave the country (see France's recent experience) or some combination of the above.

And no; you don't save ".35 on every dollar". You save .35 cents on every marginal dollar that would otherwise be subject to that .35 cent rate (ie, the amount of the deduction).

If you're asking about tax deductions for building in those zones, there is no reason not to give tax deductions to those builders/property owners that everybody else gets.

I understand the .35 on marginal dollars. That is money that otherwise would go to the treasury. Where else would it go assuming all other things constant? Any substantive changes after Ike, Katrina, Sandy? Do a sample and see your money subsidizing. My question is should flood insurance premiums more accurately reflect risk? Do an example for yourself. Should we all be paying for others beach/bay living AND/OR jurisdictions that ignore common sense zoning and urban planning?
http://www.npr.org/2016/08/26/491531827/after-hurricane-sandy-many-chose-to-move-rather-than-rebuild
On a far smaller scale Fairfax County is spending millions on levees for a persistently flooding area. Fox Beach on Staten island is a sensible solution.

All other things wouldn't remain constant. It is a widely accepted fact that people/organizations make economic decisions based on expected after-tax outcomes. There is simply no good reason to think that changes to the tax code won't alter human behavior and thus any argument that assumes all other things remain constant is an unserious argument.

I already said that flood insurance premiums should be based on actuarial analysis of risks with no subsidies.

If you're getting at removing general incentives through the tax code fhat end up benefiting those who build in risk-prone areas, you might as well remove those general incentives completely. First, I know of no area in that country that doesn't face natural disasters. Second, other areas of the country face this issue on a much grander scale.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Flood insurance should be priced on an actuarial basis across the country. Let them build wherever they want as long as they are carrying the costs for building there. Problem solved.

What about tax deductions on top of the flood insurance? That gives federal money that otherwise would go to the treasury. Example-at a 35% rate you save .35 on every dollar of deduction.

Do you really think the people would stand for paying nominal tax rates? That isn't "money that would otherwise go to the treasures". The more likely outcome is that nominal rates would be reduced to roughly mirror current effective rates, that people would reduce their economic output (see the UK's recent experience), leave the country (see France's recent experience) or some combination of the above.

And no; you don't save ".35 on every dollar". You save .35 cents on every marginal dollar that would otherwise be subject to that .35 cent rate (ie, the amount of the deduction).

If you're asking about tax deductions for building in those zones, there is no reason not to give tax deductions to those builders/property owners that everybody else gets.

I understand the .35 on marginal dollars. That is money that otherwise would go to the treasury. Where else would it go assuming all other things constant? Any substantive changes after Ike, Katrina, Sandy? Do a sample and see your money subsidizing. My question is should flood insurance premiums more accurately reflect risk? Do an example for yourself. Should we all be paying for others beach/bay living AND/OR jurisdictions that ignore common sense zoning and urban planning?
http://www.npr.org/2016/08/26/491531827/after-hurricane-sandy-many-chose-to-move-rather-than-rebuild
On a far smaller scale Fairfax County is spending millions on levees for a persistently flooding area. Fox Beach on Staten island is a sensible solution.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Flood zones are changing as global warming increases flooding and hurricanes. I really don't know what can be done to predict or stop it.

We could probably try to do something about global warming. That might help.

That. Urban planning might help, too.

Boomtown, Flood Town

Climate change will bring more frequent and fierce rainstorms to cities like Houston. But unchecked development remains a priority in the famously un-zoned city, creating short-term economic gains for some while increasing flood risks for everyone.

https://projects.propublica.org/houston-cypress/

I see the federal flood insurance program as just a veneer of "insurance." It makes people sleep better at night, but it has nowhere near the actuarial capacity to make everyone whole, in the case of a flood the size of Houston.

In the meantime, developers can build in risky areas, people will buy the properties thinking they are "covered," and the builder runs with the money.

I'm continually amazed at the power of the real estate lobby. They practically wrote our tax code, too. You have to be an idiot to lose money in real estate.

Anonymous wrote:Does anyone have links to flood zones for the Houston metropolitan areas that are less complex than fema? https://snmapmod.snco.us/fmm/document/fema-flood-zone-definitions.pdf Flood insurance policy -zone x least risk- building 250,000 deductible 1250, contents 100,000 deductible 1250. Annual premium $675. I wonder what is charged in other zones.

We once looked at real estate in an area that had flood retention ponds, marshes, gates for spillways and various flood insurance rates. 1 block over from the spillway was stuff in X. Flat land. The same rate. I guess think of it as a very mini-Houston area. So this article in the Washington Post quotes people [and there are also comments] how they never thought their neighborhood would flood. https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/we-never-thought-this-area-would-flood-neighbors-races-to-evacuate-as-houston-reservoirs-spill-over/2017/08/29/8a6a6f40-8cef-11e7-8df5-c2e5cf46c1e2_story.html?hpid=hp_rhp-top-table-main_harveyreservoir-8pm%3Ahomepage%2Fstory&utm_term=.0bd82b3e3ead#comments


So should the Federal Government allow rebuilding in the same locations? Should rebuilding be done only on areas that did not flood and in denser housing?

The federal government does not have that much authority over local development. The flood insurance program is a partnership with local governments that provides flood insurance coverage in exchange for smuggling in some federal rules, but the political dynamic is heavily in favor of the local governments, so the federal government could not prohibit development there, they can only try to regulate elevation and building requirements. Flood insurance is mandatory only if the structure has a federally-backed mortgage and is located inside the 1% risk area. In summary, all of this risky development is driven by local decision makers and the federal government's influence is from a program that almost no one in Congress even understands. They just complain about the NFIP debt but it is not designed to build up billions of dollars of capital reserves to cover something like Katrina.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Flood insurance should be priced on an actuarial basis across the country. Let them build wherever they want as long as they are carrying the costs for building there. Problem solved.

What about tax deductions on top of the flood insurance? That gives federal money that otherwise would go to the treasury. Example-at a 35% rate you save .35 on every dollar of deduction.

Do you really think the people would stand for paying nominal tax rates? That isn't "money that would otherwise go to the treasures". The more likely outcome is that nominal rates would be reduced to roughly mirror current effective rates, that people would reduce their economic output (see the UK's recent experience), leave the country (see France's recent experience) or some combination of the above.

And no; you don't save ".35 on every dollar". You save .35 cents on every marginal dollar that would otherwise be subject to that .35 cent rate (ie, the amount of the deduction).

If you're asking about tax deductions for building in those zones, there is no reason not to give tax deductions to those builders/property owners that everybody else gets.

Anonymous wrote:Flood zones are changing as global warming increases flooding and hurricanes. I really don't know what can be done to predict or stop it.

We could probably try to do something about global warming. That might help.

Anonymous wrote:Flood insurance should be priced on an actuarial basis across the country. Let them build wherever they want as long as they are carrying the costs for building there. Problem solved.

What about tax deductions on top of the flood insurance? That gives federal money that otherwise would go to the treasury. Example-at a 35% rate you save .35 on every dollar of deduction.

Flood insurance should be priced on an actuarial basis across the country. Let them build wherever they want as long as they are carrying the costs for building there. Problem solved.

OP here. The Washington Post has supplied a very good answer. Flood pay outs for Houston and NOLA are the bulk of FEMA and get the bulk of flood insurance pay outs. https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2017/investigations/harvey-urban-planning/?utm_term=.4edd7497f3db

So should the USA rebuild or limit the area to what needs to be there for national interests?

Anonymous wrote:Does anyone have links to flood zones for the Houston metropolitan areas that are less complex than fema? https://snmapmod.snco.us/fmm/document/fema-flood-zone-definitions.pdf Flood insurance policy -zone x least risk- building 250,000 deductible 1250, contents 100,000 deductible 1250. Annual premium $675. I wonder what is charged in other zones.

We once looked at real estate in an area that had flood retention ponds, marshes, gates for spillways and various flood insurance rates. 1 block over from the spillway was stuff in X. Flat land. The same rate. I guess think of it as a very mini-Houston area. So this article in the Washington Post quotes people [and there are also comments] how they never thought their neighborhood would flood. https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/we-never-thought-this-area-would-flood-neighbors-races-to-evacuate-as-houston-reservoirs-spill-over/2017/08/29/8a6a6f40-8cef-11e7-8df5-c2e5cf46c1e2_story.html?hpid=hp_rhp-top-table-main_harveyreservoir-8pm%3Ahomepage%2Fstory&utm_term=.0bd82b3e3ead#comments


So should the Federal Government allow rebuilding in the same locations? Should rebuilding be done only on areas that did not flood and in denser housing?

Google "Texas floodzones city houston" and tons come up

Flood zones are changing as global warming increases flooding and hurricanes. I really don't know what can be done to predict or stop it.

Does anyone have links to flood zones for the Houston metropolitan areas that are less complex than fema? https://snmapmod.snco.us/fmm/document/fema-flood-zone-definitions.pdf Flood insurance policy -zone x least risk- building 250,000 deductible 1250, contents 100,000 deductible 1250. Annual premium $675. I wonder what is charged in other zones.

We once looked at real estate in an area that had flood retention ponds, marshes, gates for spillways and various flood insurance rates. 1 block over from the spillway was stuff in X. Flat land. The same rate. I guess think of it as a very mini-Houston area. So this article in the Washington Post quotes people [and there are also comments] how they never thought their neighborhood would flood. https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/we-never-thought-this-area-would-flood-neighbors-races-to-evacuate-as-houston-reservoirs-spill-over/2017/08/29/8a6a6f40-8cef-11e7-8df5-c2e5cf46c1e2_story.html?hpid=hp_rhp-top-table-main_harveyreservoir-8pm%3Ahomepage%2Fstory&utm_term=.0bd82b3e3ead#comments


So should the Federal Government allow rebuilding in the same locations? Should rebuilding be done only on areas that did not flood and in denser housing?