Why The U.S. Government Is Buying And Destroying Homes
The U.S. government is buying up and destroying American homes. Homeowners in the floodplain are choosing to voluntarily sell their doomed properties to the government. Since 1989, FEMA has helped fun around 45 to 50,000 home buyouts. FEMA is estimated to have spent somewhere around $4 billion on the project so far but that’s just a fraction of the total amount spend on buyouts, since there are programs outside of FEMA. But not everyone is convinced buyouts are a good idea. Watch the video to find out how floodplain buyouts work and if they are helping or hurting American homeowners.
Chapters:
0:00 Introduction
1:39 How buyouts work
6:15 Costs
12:10 Managed retreat
Produced and Edited by: Lindsey Jacobson
Animation: Christina Locopo, Jason Reginato
Additional Camer by: Andrea Miller
Editorial Assistance from: Katherine Tarasov, Charlotte Morabito
Additional footage: Getty Images, New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection, WCAU, Charlotte-Mecklenburg County, WOWT, Andrea Jones
Additional sources: FEMA, Congressional Research Service
Special Thanks to: John Wendel, Debra Schooley, Doris Breitfeller, Jonathan Altino
» Subscribe to CNBC: cnb.cx/SubscribeCNBC
» Subscribe to CNBC TV: cnb.cx/SubscribeCNBCtelevision
About CNBC: From 'Wall Street' to 'Main Street' to award winning original documentaries and Reality TV series, CNBC has you covered. Experience special sneak peeks of your favorite shows, exclusive video and more.
Want to make extra money outside of your day job? Take CNBC’s new online course How to Earn Passive Income Online to learn about common passive income streams. Register today and save 50% with discount code EARLYBIRD: cnb.cx/3Iwblnk
Connect with CNBC News Online
Get the latest news: www.cnbc.com/
Follow CNBC on LinkedIn: cnb.cx/LinkedInCNBC
Follow CNBC News on Instagram: cnb.cx/InstagramCNBC
Follow CNBC News on Facebook: cnb.cx/LikeCNBC
Follow CNBC on Threads: cnb.cx/threads
Follow CNBC News on X: cnb.cx/FollowCNBC
#CNBC
Why The U.S. Government Is Buying And Destroying Homes
The fact you can buy a home in a flood zone is insane to me
Sort of, but try to flip the situation. To ban selling those homes would also entail making it impossible for the people currently living there to ever move somewhere else (unless bought out by government). They should definitively ban development though.
And that they rebuild in them and wildlife zones after the disasters again and again.
@@damnkriswhat about this. The responsibility falls on the lender for allowing the poor investment. Have the banks pay not tax dollars. Prevent lenders from lending to these property types. You can still buy them but with cash only.
@@damnkris how are you going to sell someone a home in a flood zone without lying?
It’s called freedom.
Houses in flood zone should not be looked at as available housing.
@@wbay3848 No its not
The lady they interviewed about the process was a perfect pick. Informed, educated, aware of potential issues, and still it was a very difficult process. We just don't do enough to help people know how much risk their homes are in for floods.
One way to do this, to let them know, is to bring their insurance rates up to reflect what the risk is. Money has way of bringing clarity to situations.
Same with beachfront properties. With rising sealevels due to man made climate change, those houses are extremely at risk and protecting them from the rising ocean will be very expensive. Rich people can afford dams or other methods to keep away the water, which is why they will probably continue to buy houses on the coast despite climate change, but the rest will have huge problems once the water level rises several feet
@@stevenbrady440hate to agree, but you're absolutely right.
@@stevenbrady440yup, if it wasn’t for the heavily federally subsidized insurance these people enjoyed in the past, 99% of these homes would have never been built in the first place
@@CarlosSanchez-en6mr I agree. I have had multiple waterfront houses. I could not believe that people who lived inland were subsidizing my insurance. Insanity. Horrendous public policy.
When we bought our house we looked at flood maps to make sure we didnt buy in a flood zone. Then also looked at the geography of the area ourselves to make sure it doesn't look likely. So far no problems. People should do this before they buy. Its very American of the mayors to be more concerned about tax revenue than people.
River Islands outside SF built a giant development in a floodplain. I have photos of it underwater but greedy people ignored impending doom.
Rich people freeload the most.
Greedy developers and a greedy city/muni that won't stand up against it.
@@Korlokonot true, the average voter is the biggest freeloader. Look at what they just did, funded 2.5 wars while racking up 1T dollars every 100 days at the future America’s expense. Some rich ahole doesn’t hold a candle to the theft by average voters who too ignorant and narcissistic to care about the damage their government is doing for generations of people to come.
I just wrote a small novel on how I came to that conclusions about the premium raises and flood designations across the country subsidising the wealthiest and their getaways that they insure knowing damn well a huge claim will eventually be filed. While not as explanatory or anecdotal you did it in just 2 sentences and I applaud and admire you. If you ever decide to teach the art of getting to the f&%king point please let me know.
The dear lady sharing her relocation story is very pleasant to listen to. I am surprised by how well she recollects almost every step of her journey and knows what she is talking about. Much appreciated!
She doubled her mortgage at 59. That’s stupid.
@@clintdawley So you'd rather stay and wait for the flood to come flush you out of your house while you're on the toilet? Yeah, that's so much smarter.
@@GD-8 did I say that she should stay. No. I didn’t. Scroll on fool.
@@clintdawley so dumfk, tell us what else she could do other than get that 5.9 then?
Government zones to prevent building in flood plains. Developer ignores zoning, complaining about free market and some bs, insists on building on flood plains. Developer sells house to American taxpayers Houses flood Government buys back houses on flood plains to save Americans taxpayers. Who's winning in all this?
Not the taxpayer
1. flood zones are often flat. 2. for insurance reasons often they just say yea this is a flood zone in 50-100/200 years flood a big 1. 3. citys are often supposed to build drains but dont for new housing areas but just dont
1. flood zones are often flat..... 1.5 flat zones are cheaper to build on 2x-3x/5x cheaper
The developer
Feels like a nuanced situation. If folks did not buy/build in a flood zone, but it is in one now, a buyout makes more sense. However, if folks knew before they bought/built, a buyout makes a lot less sense.
Bro people sometimes dont have all the knowledge of something..thats no reason to let them suffer if they can be helped. These things are going to be happening everywhere around all coastlines because of our endless and needless waste and consumption of resources.
but some of these people bought the houses decades ago when information was harder to get.
@@bobsagat122 They should have known. Caveat emptor
Sometimes, the flood plain moves. Rivers have minds of their own and go where they want, regardless of the damage they cause. Also, placed aren't always designated as flood plains if they don't flood often enough or at all in the past. Foe years, my grandparents' house wasn't considered in a flood plain, despite being only about 50 yards from a stream that floods in the winter. Additionally, this information isn't or wasn't available for everyone
In the UK, it's a case of sucking it up. It's just a managed retreat, managed by the owner of the asset.
I knew it was a crisis but short 7.2 million homes is crazy.
That's just a lie though. There are certainly shortages regionally(around large cities with growing economies). There are currently 15 million empty homes in the US........ Not apartment units........ Empty single family homes...... How can we be 7.2 million "housing units" short if there are literally twice as many homes sitting empty. There is currently 3-4 million empty apartments on top of that. There are blocks and blocks of empty houses in every large Midwest city. Houses in Detroit can be bought for less than a one single paycheck from a minimum wage worker
I think it depends if that figure is all single family homes. We definitely need to diversify our neighborhoods with single family homes and condos. Not everyone wants or needs a single family dwelling.
We aren't short 7.2 million homes. A vast majority of those shortfalls could be eliminated if we stopped letting private equity firms buy up residential homes as investment assets and tax dodges (many of which sit VACANT). Corporations buying residential homes should be illegal or at least heavily regulated and taxes.
@@Liam1694u It's called squatters. You ain't going to find enough security to guard all those vacant properties
@Liam1694u we should add regulations, but regardless we need to build more homes. If we can build so much we have a housing excess, that'd be even better.
1. Any property in a flood zone should not have the option to not buy flood insurance. It shoudl simply be forced and rolled into their property taxes. Why? Becuase they will be given relief even if they dont buy the insurace so we need to force them to buy the insurance. 2. Anyone who refuses insurance should be on a list that that property is not eligible for any rebuilding assitance. If that person wants flood relief then it must be contingent on a sale of the property and the land should be turned into wild space permanently. 3. If the density falls far enough, say over 2/3 of the properties have been converted already, then the remaining homes should be forced out by eminent domain as it makes no sense to keep providing services to so few homes. 4. It is a myth this property is “affordable” in any location. If they will require repeated relief in the future then this is not “affordable”. It is a collossal waste of taxpayrer money. 5. If you cannot ban the development in the flood area, then it must include a mandatory Federakl tax to force the flood insurance and this insurance must reflect the value and true risk of the property. If you want to build a million dollar home on a coast that is washing away tehn maybe you should be required to pay tens or hundreds of thousands for the insurance since we know for sure that land will wash away and that home will bne destroyed. So the cost needs to reflect the risk.
We’ve become a nation of bailouts
@@lukethompson5558 Only for the rich
What idiot insurance company would willingly give insurance to such high risk individuals?
@@awesome9174 they dont. That is why flood insurance is onlyt offered through the federal government. And why we need to frce those peopel to buy it (at a realistic cost and not subsidised by the rest of us) and not let them opt out since their local politicians will lobby to bail them out anyway when disaster happens.
Before buying a home, take the time to go online and look at a topographic map. It's fast and free. Higher is better.
We can do this now, but 20 years ago or even 10 years ago, this wasn't available. Also, I'm pretty sure that many small towns don't have topographical maps available (I know my hometown doesn't have those resources)
Why bother? The government will save my ass if I make a bad decision.
@@jennifertarin4707 the USGS has surveyed, and made available to the public for free, every mile of the continental US since at least the mid 1900s. Topographical maps are available.
@@jennifertarin4707 Topographical maps have been available from the government for many years. They are now free online for any place in the US. Topographic-map.---
@@steven4315 but they weren't always easily accessible 10 or 20 or 30 years ago. And also due to climate change, flood threats are getting worse every year. If a person bought the home 20 years ago, like that one woman the home could have been in a perfectly safe location. None of us are geological experts. We have to rely on what the people we trust are telling us at the time we purchase our home. Blame the Mayors and the planning commission's who are corrupt and are allowing development to occur in known flood likely areas. That's the root of the corruption. If I'm a prospective buyer and I see that there's homes or units on a given location I'm going to assume that all due diligence was done and that they are safe. Or at least an average person would think that and they couldn't be blamed for doing so. The fault doesn't lie with the homeowner and why are you even defaulting to blaming them, when there are so many other players in the situation that are far more to blame. Homeowners aren't scientific experts, if they're told a a home is safe why wouldn't they believe that?;? The problem was with the states, the local municipalities, the local authorities, and any builder who knowingly developed in a flood-likely areas. But you just sleep over all of that and blame the home buyer? Why won't you put the blame where it belongs? That's sus af.
Generally, it's a good idea. It's safer, prevents governments from having to provide endless disaster relief, and reduces insurance costs for everyone.
The mortgage shock was my first thought. Imagine if you went from a mortgage of sub-3 to a new one that's 7+. That's thousands extra to your monthly. If the mortgage rate and terms could be transferred to the new residence, you might see more buyout acceptance, particularly from those who still have a mortgage.
That would be nice, but realistically is it right to help certain people and not others? Is it fair? People lose money on houses all the time. Also properties are condemned all the time to build roads etc
These home owners need to take the buyouts or sign agreements that the government will not bail them out in future flooding events. The purpose here isn't to ensure that they can buy better homes elsewhere. It is to help them get out of a bad situation and to get the taxpayers out having to bail them out every time there is a flood.
What are you even talking about and how does a comment that makes no logical sense like gramatically lol get 5 upvotes from people. Like what sense did they take away from this?
You are using logic. Governments favor victimhood over logic.
@@bobsagat122 what didnt you understand? It seemed clear to me. If the gov decides your house is in an unsafe location you take all the risks if you turn down the offer.
Well it protects the people and return it back to nature Win win. Protect all Americans and nature.
There's no way this will be taken advantage of by speculators buying up distressed properties :/
I don't think there's a huge risk of speculators buying high risk areas, what I wonder is if there are speculators building the new homes and sell it to the government at a higher markup though it doesn't seem like very big business
NO WAY, wall st would NEVER do that, just like they would never play games with the fed
@@juanspyro4658 I'm gonna start doing it, it will be free money
Lol. It's already happening. The government is the speculator
I wonder why we don't move homes more often instead of destroy them. Is it really that much more expensive?
Sometimes they pay to have them lifted
If I owned a home in a flood zone, I would be celebrating somebody purchasing it from me. There's nothing nostalgic about having a home flood, even once. Or worrying about it happening. And once it's been flooded, it has to be disclosed to future buyers. Meaning the home just lost permanent value and might never be marketable. Only a fool would purchase a home that has previously been flooded. You are trapped permanently. If you're thinking that maybe, well, it's not so bad. You're not thinking clearly. When homes in flood zones are totaled, they should be razed and no one should be able to rebuild there. Certainly not with any government insurance. And they shouldn't be entitled to any government benefits or insurance for any future flooding if they are ever rebuilt by speculators. Rich speculators should pay all the freight associated with building in flood zones. They must not rely on other taxpayers to subsidize them before or after the flood inevitably happens.
The homeowner said that her home was not in a flood zone at first. This means that outside activity resulted in her home becoming flood prone. (Charlotte is not coastal) Seems like a just deal in her case.
Loving that Tie Fighter in the background! That lady has good taste!
we need to stop using tax players money to pump up housing price. People should losing money from owning a house like in Japan. Housing should not be an investment, it should be treated as consumption. This way house will have limited up side. If we think housing is an investment. then if people lose their house, it's their own fault that they invested in the wrong area. Do i get my money back if my invest on Apple, but it's losing money this year?
That's the case in the UK. Bought a house in a daft area? Too bad.
Suddenly, all our elected officials have homes along the coast, along fault lines, near volcanos, and in flood plains.
Moral Hazard: this artificially encourages risky home purchases in flood plains without financial consequences, unless they require original purchases prior to a past date. If I was in an at risk home I'd take It but this screws up the proper market valuation of climate risk
We need to build more homes!! preferably in areas that are not going to flood
More areas are going to flood. We have limited land
So commie blocks?
@@stevechrollo8074 there is vast land in the mid west no flooding just tornadoes.
@@AaronJ323 still cant support 200 million population
This is looking like the lawmakers are using taxpayer money to bailout insurance companies. The only one that benefits financially is the companies that are insuring these homes.
FEMA insurance is government insurance , so if they get rid of the properties , government doesn't have to rebuild again.
People hate the government until they get their turn feeding at the trough😂
Yeup.
People hate other people feeding off the government because now their trough gets less
I'm so happy I made productive decisions about my finances that changed forever. I'm a single mother living in Vancouver Canada, bought my first house in October and hoping to retire soon if things keep going smoothly for me.
What about buying homes out in Tornado Valley???
I sold my house on Mars. Much too windy.
Just make them ALL wildlife sanctuaries. Then any injuries are natural to being in the WILD
Wasting tax dollars. Let insurance companies handle this. They got the money hell
And when they stop operating in flood prone regions?
fear a housing crash due to people buying homes above asking prices with little equity. If prices drop, affordability and potential foreclosures may arise, worsened by future layoffs and rising living costs. I want to invest more than $300k, but I'm not sure on how to mitigate risk.
Consider reallocating from real estate to other reliable investments like stock, crypto or precious metals . Severe recessions offer market buying opportunities with caution, as volatility can yield short-term trading prospects. Not financial advice, but it may be wise to invest, as cash isn't ideal in this period.
It's often true that people underestimate the importance of financial advisors until they feel the negative effects of emotional decision-making. I remember a few summers ago, after a tough divorce, when I needed a boost for my struggling business. I researched and found a licensed advisor who diligently helped grow my reserves despite inflation. Consequently, my reserves increased from $275k to around $750k.
nice! once you hit a big milestone, the next comes easier.. who is your advisor please, if you don't mind me asking?
Certainly, there are a handful of experts in the field. I've experimented with a few over the past years, but I've stuck with ‘’Melissa Terri Swayne” for about five years now, and her performance has been consistently impressive.She’s quite known in her field, look-her up.
I just looked her up on the internet and found her webpage with her credentials. I wrote her a outlining my financial objectives and planned a call with her.
It’s hard to nail down specific predictions for the housing market because it’s not yet clear how quickly or how much the Federal Reserve can bring down inflation and borrowing costs without tanking buyer demand for everything from homes to cars.
A lot of folks have been going on about the bull rally and said stocks that would be experiencing significant growth, any idea which stocks this may be? I just sold my home in the Boca Grande area and I’m looking to remunerate a lump sum into the stock market before stocks rebound, is this a good time to buy or no?
Such market uncertainties are the reason I don’t base my market judgements and decisions on rumors and here-says, got the best of me 2020 and had me holding worthless position in the market, I had to revamp my entire portfolio through the aid of a broker, before I started seeing any significant results in my portfolio, been using the same Adviser and I’ve scaled up 750k within 2 years, whether a bullish or down market, both makes for good profit, it all depends on where you’re looking.
I need advice on how to rebuild my portfolio and develop more successful tactics. Where can I find this coach?
Sonya lee Mitchell is the licensed fiduciary I use. Just research the name. You’d find necessary details to work with a correspondence to set up an appointment.
I looked up her full name online and found her page. I emailed and made an appointment to talk with her; hopefully, she gets back to me.
Maybe updating flood maps to include “high risk” areas as flood plains would mean insurance products could be appropriately priced to risk, then that would serve as incentive to not build in those areas. Not really a fan of moral hazard buyouts… especially on properties that haven’t even flooded yet.
Informative!
The government should FORBID the building of any house in a flood zone!!! It is irresponsible to allow a person/family to build a house in a flood zone, knowing it will get damaged or destroyed in the next flood.
Im sorry, but this actually makes sense. Why spend the money to rebuild when its just going to flood again? I hate to quote the bible for an argument, but "the wise man builds his house upon the rock." On a seperate note, there is an environmentally protected flood plain across from my parents' house. It is FULL of derelict buildings as it is illegal to build new construction. New, modern buildings designed for flooding could be built in their place, but NOOOOO. You can't build there.
Old neighborhoods are probably less at risk of flooding, if the homes have been there for 100 year old, the area was safer. It is not a guaranty but it might be one element to consider when choosing a location.
In the long term this is good for affodability because it lowers risks insurance companies have to take to insure homes. Insurance companies are going to charge unaffordable rates for any homes located in a flood zone. Making the mortgage payments that usually include the insurance unaffordable. Even if the base older home may be cheaper than new construction. Outliers like this cost more than they are worth. Not to mention the health and safty risks of flooding and mold.
The thing is like yeah some areas are flood prone but they're not like significantly flood prone, then of course you have the historical element. I think if they're not significantly flood prone than they should then houses have to be raised minimums risk. Another thing that isn't actually explored is some of this is man-made. When I say this a man-made flood disaster is our streets are not made to absorb water. So this increases the risk of flooding. In areas that would not otherwise have a risk of flooding.
It's not the cost that prevents people from buying homes. It's the red tape that determines whether you qualify to buy a home 🫣 Even just renting a home, usually requires that you make three times the rent 🫤 why? So if they raise the rent they know you may be able to pay it 😒 lots of people dont have a home because of others peoples greed...
Because under free market conditions: the value of something can skyrocket! When somebody important wants it,
the appraisal needs to match
Part of the equation is the fact people have built homes in stupid locations. Its more expensive to keep rebuilding after a flood in these places than to relocate and demolish and block new construction in the problem areas. I work in the damage remediation field, mainly water, so i have seen the aftermath first hand. This includes the river flood in St Louis.
I just moved to eastern Kentucky, where flooding and even tornados are a very real part of existence. I am an Idaho native so wildfires are probably the only natural disaster that was a constant seasonal threat and more so because Boise is right against foothills leading to the cascade mtns and the continental divide so it has always had an inversion problem. The home I bought here is on property that backs up to a creek and is in an AE flood zone which for someone like me just going off of federal designations that means you shouldnt even pitch a tent here. I liked this house though and being curious as I am I wondered well how the hell do all these other people in the few hundred homes here make it. It made no sense and like most things that are intentionally misleading I believe its designed to. I spent hours trying to find out a very simple question. What is the day to day, season to season, annual reality of living in this home and I did so without expectations of getting a definitive answer but a general one. I found bupkis. Besides most flood map here click bait that took you to some sort of subscribe or you might die sites just showing info thats free, the state, FEMA, weather sites, and universitys were just maps with varying colors, some had data and some had virtually none. I dug and I dug. Finally I found that the creek had flooded just the previous year and in between mile markers very close to the property I was looking at! Deal breaker? No turns out it was the culvert running along the road that had filled, swollen, and flooded which blocked traffic and caused some damage I think. The road is named after the creek as is common anywhere and also has a # designation which Im not used to. So saying such creek flooded meant the road had flooded not the creek (Can still be bad under insane weather circumstances Troublesome creek was the culvert flooding not the creek I believe and that killed people and destroyed a lot.). I started making return trips to the area from ohio and not many locals could really say they remembered if that route or creek had flooded or if so when. I started looking for a very specific kind of person that I knew wouldnt be too hard to find. Someone from a generational family that was still on the land thathey if not their parents, grandparents had owned and could tell me the straight dope with certainty and no cautionary tales, or speculations. I finally found a Guy looked to be in his mid to late 60s out in the middle of grass of course cutting some wood with Im assuming was his grandson. Damn Im rambling; Anyways guy told me the last time the creek had flooded badly he wasnt even a teen yet and the water got up to below his waist then. He pointed where the old homestead had been , where his house was now, and his sisters. Told me the water back then wouldnt have come real close to the houses as they sat and after I asked said in his opinion flood insurance was a waste of money but Id have to make up my own mind about that. He nor his sister had flood coverage and he said even if you do its quite a time before you get what you paid for and thats if they dont find a reason to deny you especially FEMA. I know af appalachian fatalism but what he said made sense. I knew of Sandy and obviously Katrina and when an entire area is devastated tthe insurance companies seem to be pretty comfy waiting to pay out and I assume as usually is thats because it benifits them financially. I had state farm agent tell me that if I didnt get flood insurance they wouldnt cover my home with homeowners which I still think was her policy and not theres and when I asked if she could just get me some quotes for all of it she said sure and never returned my call. Shortly after I just got the bill for my auto liability insurance which led me to believe that call wasnt coming. Later when I called to pay over phone cuz I had procrastinated it ended up being same agent so I asked about the quotes to which she said she thought that had been taken care of which was shining me on and that she had looked at my house on realty sites and that I was out for homeowners because I had a deck with 2 stairs or more and no hand railing! Maybe thats in the fine print but again I could tell SHE didnt want to Insure my home through her employer. Oh and btw the deck is a demo job to be fair. not taken care of and potentially hazardous but that wasnt even mentioned and the tone of her voice was slightly like yeah we found out about your deck. It was weird and so was she. I got a mental picture of her an her character and after getting on line they were both pretty damn close. I digress again. I asked about flood and she said she could run some numbers if I wanted and I said yeah sure. Didnt ask about coverage limit for property or structure whi sch I thought was off but I had already decided I was going to find another state farm branch to go to. I couldnt imagine having to deal with her if I had a claim for auto and didnt want to talk to her again at all actually but theres some more I wont get into that helped with that. She called sometime later with same flat Im really happy but not to be calling you and probably just in general tone and told me that she had run numbers for x amount of coverage and it came out to almost $300 and that that was through FEMA. That bothered me because id have just contacted them myself and had been asking specifically about state farm yet once again she just couldnt bring herself to say they wouldnt cover me or she didnt want them too which I really think was it. So I ended up calling Kentucky Farmers and they quoted me over the phone $1600 or $1800 for the year which was more in line with what my neighbors were paying alongside mortgage. This made me feel better because often times insurance will only cover properties because banks hold the note on them and they are huge customers so its good business but once a mortgage isnt attached they will either raise substantially or cancel policy. Happened to my dad in Lowman Id when property was paid off. He was mad because it was greener than a park but if youve ever seen tho,sse fires, as he has, even from a distance you understand that in timber defensible space means little if the whole forest is on fire. SO to conclude finally I found all supposedly streamlined, constantly updated, user friendly, easy to understand, just put your address here sites to be absolutely useless and that google searches, (which I only recommend if your very confident in your internet rresearch abilities) and the life blood of any area the old timers that made the place what it is gave me so much more info than anywhere else. If it had been 20 yrs ago I would replace google with the municipal library or one at a college if available. The original google thats great not only for bookd and such but for the people that work there and can help you sort through micro film or evenjust tell you about what you are looking for. After watching many of these documentaries and seeing premiums go up while claims dont in regular areas Im quite convinced thatt all thes high risk flood designation areas where its mandatory to have flood insurance for some lenders and any with federal ties that once again the regular 95% of the country are subsidizing the other 5% who often have large expensive homes in wilderness or right on the coasts and are insured to the hilt not in case but knowing damn well that eventually there going to get all the money in premioums and then some back when they have to file a major claim due to absolutely avoidable natural disasters. So thats my take. the people in the valley pay for those that have to be above us all in the hills maybe just in case we forget our station in life. Or they build smack dab in the middle of a hundred wooded acres so that they can really enjoy nature and some quiet instead of being "in town" where fire defense efforts can be easily coordintated and successful. Most with a road not suitable for large fire engines to access safely or space to turn around and reposition, nor any defensible space, or fire suppression systems to keep house temp down, etc. Then what I consider the worst. The ones that just have to be right on the beach which obviously erodes and such like the shores of any body of water much less an ocean. A lot of those people have major investments in many companies, and maybe wield enough influence together or alone to make sure that the buck gets passed on instead of ending up on their doorsteps but maybe you think Im being a bit paranoid or conspiratorial and to that I would say youre on you tube so try watching some 60 minutes or frontline but beware you may never be able to put your head back in the sand once you do. Others know that its just the way things go in American although more now than ever.
take the buyout especially if the water was already up to your frontsteps, mailbox, or car...like who would even pay inflated price for that house knowing the neighborhood is prone to flooding
Why not put in resiliency parks on the bought properties? Hoboken and NYC have helped control flooding events with them
the Gov should not be buying these properties at all. The GOP would let them sink. You bought a doomed house you take the fall.
If you buy a home with the last few years, five years that you know is in the floodplain, and there are other options available to you and then your house floods, and you were able to get insurance honey use your insurance, but the government should not be bailing you out at all. They should not be buying up your house and rescuing you. If you knew that your house was in a flood zone, you had other options and you still chose to buy the house in that area now I have no pity I have absolutely no feelings of empathy for you. You knew what you were doing I don’t feel bad. Enjoy your pool in your living room. But I understand if you bought your house in the 1990s, 2001 2004 and you didn’t know that you were in a flood zone and you’ve become in a flood zone as climate change just happened water levels have gone up etc. etc. but at the same time if you bought your house in 1982 and your two roads away from the ocean I don’t really care what your excuses you knew there was a chance that you might get water really close to your front door if not in your living room so it also is a degree of common sense in that example
13:25 hell no we always bail out corporations. What kind of logic is that. Help working class people damit
Imagine you built home and then government destroys it More reasons why Gen z should fight for this country :/
Interesting and important thanks
Do these buy outs extend to large rental operations, I don't feel like they should. I wouldn't mind a house on pillars with a habitat under the house.
Land behind our house floods up to 3 feet. Rich white guy on our street owned the land, so he knew it flooded and was where the water held. It was supposed to become a lake in the 70’s. He decided he wanted apartments. I sent all my pictures of it flooding during Hurricane Matthew to the county council. It was finally sold to a church group who made a church on stilts and a raised parking lot while keeping the flood area open. Now I get to deal with noise Wednesday, Saturday, Sunday, and weddings. Ugh.
never understood people rebuilsing their flooded homes in like the mississippi flood plains or in like hurricane destroyed homes on the east coast especially ones hit twice or three times. id never feel even comfortable
Despite the fact that climate change is occurring, the government is doing the least to prevent it from causing property damage. Also, helping insurers to reduce the increase in their rates. This puts the burden of the cost of climate change on individuals, businesses and governments who are already struggling with the effects of the economic crisis. It is clear, then, that the government needs to take action to mitigate the effects of climate change.
You gotta realize that for all these protection programs theres a bunch of people who think its a waste of government spending and gives the government too much power and its prevalent a lot that basically half of congress is represented by republicans who don't think climate change will cause any of these crises or care
Half of the government (republicans) don't even believe in climate change. How are you going to change their minds?
What about the ones that had their homes paid off and were force to move. Let’s focus on them please
The day after the flood in Hawaii, 1988, the city wanted to clean up the debris along side of the street. I kept the refrigerator for evidence for the insurance claim.
floodplain water damaged homes made the cost of insurance unaffordable by many
Why did they build on a flood zone in the first place? I'm pretty sure the river has flooded before so why do we keep building there? 😢
I think we need to solve the climate crisis before we do the housing one because if we dont then there will be no houses to inhabit
Climate change has accelerated this process of buying out homeowners in flood and wildfire areas. Life over property is the key reason. Insurance companies are adjusting their rates to keep ahead of future disasters that will decimate communities!
Banks should not lend mortgages to houses in flood areas...
Buying flooded houses makes for a great theme during election year.
Better buy out large tracts of New Orleans, the older low income housing is sitting on land that is below sea level and strata is shirking inward.
Yeah … you know what I don’t support any of this. Do your due diligence and accept responsibility for living in fire zone, flood zone, hurricane zone, or tornado zone. My tax dollars should not be going toward this. This is a racket for the local and state governments to get more money from the Fed. We can help out people like Hawaii during that recent tragedy. That doesn’t mean the government has to buy out property.
Always remember, When they say "FED Funding" it means printing money. just FYI.
U.S Government -translated U.S. taxpayers
Makes complete sense. Good job Fed govt.
Who would've ever thought that the climate has cycles and areas that have flooded or burned in the past might just flood or burn again in the future... DUH!
That home looked perfectly fine...
The developer should be on the hook for building and selling in a flood zone.
Thats there fault for buying a home near the waters
As a taxpayer, I’d much rather my money go to protecting vulnerable people from financial ruin than bailing out incompetent businessmen 👍
A bad investment decision in many cases doesn't apply to banks. Thus, a bail out.
Who built those homes near nad areas in the first place? 🤔
Why would they push that house into the water only to turn around and try to bring awareness about pollution?
There's also scam buyers in Charlotte NC
Who is dumb enough to build on a floodplain?
i worry with rising storms globally that America might not be able to afford to do this anymore :C
A perfect storm is brewing in the United States. Housing prices, Inflation, bank collapse, severe drought in the agricultural belt, recession, food shortages, diesel fuel and heating oil shortages, baby formula shortages, available automobile shortages and prices, the price of living place. It's all coming together and it could lead to a real disaster towards this year (or sooner). With inflation currently at about 6%, my primary concern is how to maximize my savings/retirement fund which has been sitting duck since forever with zero to no gains.
There are lot of ways to make a killing right now, but such high-volume near impeccable trades can only be carried out by real-time experts with ISDA Agreement. An agreement that lets investors sit at the “big boy table” and make high level trades not available to amateurs. Trying to be a high stakes trader without an ISDA is like trying to win the Indy 500 riding a llama.
I'm sure the idea of an invstment-Adviser might sound controversial to a few, but a new study by Motley-fool found out that demand for Financial-Advisers sky-rocketed by over 42% since the pandemic and based on firsthand encounter I can say for certain their skillsets are topnotch. I've accrued north of 580k within 16-months from an initially stagnant Portfolio.
Inflation is around 6.5% here in the UK, but as we know it's definitely way more than the Government would like to admit. My plan is to earn more passive income and ride this out, can your Investment-adviser assist?
Colleen Rose Mccaffery’’ is her name. She is regarded as a genius in her area and works for Empower Financial Services. She’s quite known in her field, look-her up.
Thanks a lot for this suggestion. I needed this myself, I looked her up, and I have sent her an email. I hope she gets back to me soon.
Thats what insurance is for
Making land off limits and property more expensive...
It's not government job to buy homes even if they are located in areas that are prone to natural disaster. Rather use the money to build new housing in areas not prone to natural disasters.
Why the goverment provids flood insurance to people that build on the beach or flood plane is stupid. I cannot get goverment flood insurance in my state. If my house washes away so be it. I knew the risk and have enjoyed the view. I read an article about people building in flood plains 50 years ago it was critical of incentives encouraging people to build knowing every 30 years the floods would return.
Step 1: Invest in real estate in floodplains. Step 2: Sell floodplain real estate to the government. Step 3: Profit Step 4: Repeat/ build new property in another floodplain.
I do wonder what people will do when insurance providers add additional costs for living in a floodplain. They already are stepping away from Florida's hurricanes and California's wildfires, seems floodplains would be the next step.
Flood insurance (as far as I know) is only available from the federal government
Why wouldn’t she get a fixed mortgage rate when the rates were so low?
Buyouts help the rich. They should not be bought out of their bad decisions.
The Everglades are a drained swamp But let’s blame global warming
Build with flooding in mind. Just don't ask why the house is on pontoons.
In january 2023 there was only 650,000 homeless at any given night yet we need 7 million new homes , very strange
7.2 million lol there are 15 million vacant homes because of equity funds buying up homes for Airbnb or worse ,speculation in cities.
Ehy buil home near flood zone? Home owner get FEMA help, homeless get no help
Native American tribes never set up their homes in flood plains, always along peripheries and upland areas.
We don’t have money to help these people, but we can send 95 billion to Ukraine, Israel and Taiwan for war aid 😒. The problem could be fixed with a percent of that money being sent over.
The Swamp is buying more swampland? Makes sense.
States that haven’t supported climate change intervention shouldn’t get any of these supports from the federal government
So my tax dollars are being funneled to people who bought houses built in insanely dumb locations so that they can then afford to outbid me on other houses.
Too many middle men in these transaction, like anything done by the state or federal side it takes a long time because many entities are touching the money before it gets to where it needs to go, Do an audit on how is spent on adminstrative cost...
We need to build cities expecting floods and the streets rivers.
What does that even mean?
@@jennifertarin4707 Homes elevated on mounds. So the floods can flow through the streets.