March 2, 2014

The Impact Could Be A Game Changer

Readers suggested a topic on a housing subsidy. “Does anyone have any ‘on-the-ground’ stories about the possible changes to flood insurance? I have a friend here in the office who rents here (with her family) but they also own a house (that they rent out) in MA (very near RI). Current flood insurance on the house is absurd at $11,000 a year (this is just the flood insurance, not homeowners insurance). A house nearby (slightly larger, but not by much) is part of an estate and when the family asked for a flood insurance quote if the new/unsubsidized rates go into effect (so they can try to sell it), they were told it would be $97,000.”

“For a policy that can’t pay out more than $250K. You could self-insure by banking the premiums from 2 1/2 years. Oh, and the houses in the area haven’t flooded since the 50’s when there were 2 inches of water in the first floor of my friend’s house. No flooding during Sandy.”

A reply, “Friends in Oregon were looking at a short sale last month. It’s right on the river and listed for less than half of its ‘07 price. Realtor told them the flood insurance would be $1,000 per month. This was before the Biggert Waters delays, but they took a pass anyway. The home was built in ‘97 just after the ‘96 floods, and by looking at old aerial photos it looks like the lot may have flooded back then. Personally I stay away from river front and canyons.”

And finally, “Did you advise them to stay out of housing or they’ll sustain massive losses?”

From Insurance Journal. “Concerned that increased insurance rates caused by new flood zone maps will “tip the balance” for homeowners who weathered the economic downturn but are still feeling its effects, Massachusetts Attorney General Martha Coakley testified in support of proposed state legislation that would reduce those costs by tying the amount of insurance to mortgage balances.”

“‘We believe that dramatically increased flood insurance rates will tip the balance for many homeowners who weathered the economic downturn, but are still feeling the residual effects of the housing crisis,’ Coakley said before the Massachusetts Joint Committee on Financial Services about the new flood zone maps introduced by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). ‘Without this help, we are gravely concerned that many additional homeowners will face foreclosure,’ Coakley said.”

North Fort Myers in Florida. “This past week was busy for many elected Florida officials from coast to coast. Many of us (including myself and Mayors Alan Mandel, Ben Nelson, Marni Sawicki and Kevin Ruane) converged on Washington, D.C., to convince your Congress to delay flood insurance rate increases resulting from the Biggert-Waters Flood Insurance Reform Act (BW-12). National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) regulations, new FEMA elevation mapping and federally insured mortgage requirements are causing increases that boggle the imagination and the pocket book.”

“Don’t think it can’t happen to you, whether you live on the water or not. Reality sets in when the new rates arrive in your new insurance bill. Many of your families, friends and neighbors are getting them now with the worst examples ranging from $1,800 increasing to $24,000 and $3,800 increasing to $44,000. And there is more to come! These do not include more properties that could be charged higher rates when the new FEMA elevation maps come out.”

“The impact of BW-12 could be a game changer. The obvious is the hit on our recovering real estate market. Properties that require flood insurance will not be easily sold; buyers in flood zones will have a harder time qualifying to finance a home or business loan. Once the devaluation of properties sets in, neighboring communities will suffer and again the market may spiral. Banks will be forced to accept the keys to the house rather than the payment, again due to Federal Government regulations.”

From Florida Today. “Regarding the recent story, ‘Scott asks Obama to help on flood insurance rates,’ why should we pay for beach residents’ mistakes? I moved here from Michigan nine months ago with my wife after falling in love with the Melbourne area. Last March, we looked at maybe 20 houses, and in each case we asked our agent if the house was in a flood plain. We didn’t consider buying any houses in flood plains because I did not want to live in a flood plain and I did not want to pay for flood insurance.”

“Now we have people whose careers allow them to buy houses on the beach or in other upscale subdivisions wanting the rest of us to help subsidize their flood insurance. At the time they bought their homes, they either didn’t ask about flood zones or didn’t care because flood insurance was just another affordable tax to them. Now they know the true cost of flood insurance and want the government/us to bail them out. I say no.”

The Record in New Jersey. “After suffering through repeated floods, Frank and Cecelia Cristofol were relieved to find a young family willing to buy their split-level home near the Passaic River in Little Falls’s Singac section. But the deal collapsed when the buyers found out that flood insurance premiums would top $12,000 a year - up from the $2,600 the Cristofols paid - because of a 2012 law designed to end federal subsidies for the insurance.”

“The Cristofols are hardly alone. Homeowners in New Milford, Wayne, Pompton Lakes and other flood-prone North Jersey towns are among an estimated 88,000 in New Jersey and more than a million nationwide being slammed by huge jumps in flood insurance costs, threatening to make it impossible - instead of just very difficult - to sell homes in flood zones.”

“Even before premiums rose last year, repeated floods in 2010 and 2011, along with the housing crash, have slashed property values in flood-prone areas. Cape Cods and split-levels in Singac that sold for well over $300,000 before 2007 have recently sold in the $150,000 range - if they’re selling at all. The Cristofols, who had asked $225,000 for their well-kept, four-bedroom home, now believe they won’t be able to sell it to another family. They’re on the waiting list for a federal buy-out that would level the house, where they raised three sons, and leave it as green space.”

“‘It’s non-sellable,’ said their listing agent, Ron Aiosa, a Coldwell Banker agent in Butler. ‘There isn’t a soul alive shopping for a $225,000 home who could dream of paying $12,250 for flood insurance.’”

“James Brooks, an agent with Prominent Properties Sotheby’s International Realty in Alpine has a listing in New Milford for a $205,500 home on the Hackensack River that flooded during Hurricane Irene. A buyer would face about $5,600 in annual flood insurance premiums, Brooks said. ‘That’s certainly going to scare away any number of people, who’ll just say it doesn’t make any sense to buy,’ Brooks said.”

“One resident who is choosing to elevate is Hans Prell, who has lived in the neighborhood since 1966 and raised four children there. Repeated floods have cost more than $250,000 damage, he said. Elevating the home will mean his flood insurance premiums will be reduced, and he’ll be able to sell the home at some point. ‘My roots are here,’ Prell said. ‘I’m not moving out.’”




RSS feed

62 Comments »

Comment by HousingAnalyst
2014-03-01 07:25:40

‘I’m not moving out.’”

Good…. sink in every way possible.

Comment by Jingle Male
2014-03-01 09:55:01

I’m with HA on this one (don’t fall over).

“…..who has lived in the neighborhood since 1966 and raised four children there. Repeated floods have cost more than $250,000 damage….”

_______

Without regard for the time value of money, flood repair has cost $5,208/year for this house since 1966 ($250,000/year divided by 48 years). Why should it be anyone’s responsibility to pay for it except the person who chooses to live there. It is about time they paid their own way.

 
 
Comment by Ben Jones
2014-03-01 07:25:56

‘Elevating the home will mean his flood insurance premiums will be reduced, and he’ll be able to sell the home at some point.’

See, what’s the big deal? All you water-front people just put your house on stilts and problem solved! Surely you can afford it, as the benefits of home ownership have been so generous. All that money you saved over renting alone should cover the cost. And the pride of ownership! How can you leave behind those purple walls you painted?

This all reminds me of how much government duct tape and bailing wire is keeping this market afloat. Oh, we can’t do away with the mortgage deduction! We have to have the GSE’s pumping out trillion$ of government backed loans! Please, don’t make banks sell those foreclosures! Keep those loan caps sky high, or the economy will crater!

Comment by Whac-A-Bubble™
2014-03-01 09:10:10

“Keep those loan caps sky high, or the economy will crater!”

It’s good to occasionally remind HBB readers who may not have been around as long as some of us that those sky-high loan caps come with federal guarantees of principle, so that no banker will ever be harmed if the borrower defaults on his $500K+ affordable housing loan.

Comment by Whac-A-Bubble™
2014-03-01 09:21:54

In many cases where the government intervenes to remedy a market failure, the justification is to correct an “externality” — i.e. a liability imposed on non-parties to a private market transaction, such as smoke stack air pollution which causes breathing problems among residents in the surrounding community who do not commensurately benefit from the polluter’s production of a valuable good.

In this case, the risk associated with a private transaction between a bank and a borrower has been (ironically) externalized to federal taxpayers. This seems to follow the “privatize profits, socialize losses” business model the banking sector prefers, but I’m unclear on the justification for federal government intervention. Why engineer a negative externality where none existed and there was no market failure to begin with?

 
Comment by Jingle Male
2014-03-01 10:04:52

Not so much on the guarantee end…..which is why lots of holders of Fannie and Freddie RMBS are still getting burned…

Originally, Fannie had an ‘explicit guarantee’ from the government; if it got in trouble, the government promised to bail it out. This changed in 1968. Ginnie Mae was split off from Fannie. Ginnie retained the explicit guarantee. Fannie, however, became a private corporation, chartered by Congress and with a direct line of credit to the US Treasury. It was its nature as a Government Sponsored Enterprise (GSE) that provided the ‘implied guarantee’ for their borrowing. The charter also limited their business activity to the mortgage market. In this regard, although they were a private company, they could not operate like a regular private company.

 
 
 
Comment by HousingAnalyst
2014-03-01 07:34:09

Wayne, NJ Housing Prices Crater 8% Year over Year

http://www.movoto.com/new-milford-nj/market-trends/

Comment by Furlow
2014-03-05 00:00:44

There you go with that crater word. 8% dude. Calm down. You sound like an idiot.

 
 
Comment by HousingAnalyst
2014-03-01 07:39:43

New Jersey Rental Rates Sink $200/month

http://www.zillow.com/local-info/NJ-home-value/r_40/#metric=mt%3D46%26dt%3D1%26tp%3D4%26rt%3D14%26r%3D40%26el%3D0

Rental rates and housing prices crater in the most densely populated state in the country?

Comment by JimO
2014-03-02 14:31:26

That’s right! I live in Bergen Co. - one of the wealthiest counties in the state (and entire country). I see absolutely no upward pressure on rents. On the contrary, the biggest problem landlords face is finding good tenants that pay their rent on time and take care of the place. Good luck to all you ‘buy to rent’ investors!

 
 
Comment by Ben Jones
2014-03-01 07:46:54

I found another solution. Palm Beach Daily News:

‘The Biggert-Waters Flood Insurance Reform Act of 2012…was intended to put the nation’s flood insurance program, currently $24 million in debt, back on sound financial footing by weaning thousands of homeowners off of subsidized rates and by requiring extensive updating of flood maps used to set premiums.’

“As far as impact here, we know that there are individuals who have chosen to self-insure and not be a part of this program and have the ability to do that. But we also know there are a significant amount of people who are in the program and need the program,” said Director of Emergency Management Jay Boodheshwar.”

See, just self insure. The money you saved on the mortgage deduction all these years should cover that, right? Or better yet, have the renters pay for it! Rents have an infinite ceiling, I’m told by some posters here. Just pass it on to them.

Comment by HousingAnalyst
2014-03-01 07:48:22

“Rents have an infinite ceiling, I’m told by some posters here. Just pass it on to them.”

My favorite housing fraudster lie of all time.

Comment by Ben Jones
2014-03-01 08:06:15

I’ve got it! OK, the people that refuse to move can put their house on stilts. The rest can either rent and rake in huge gains, or - sell to institutional investors! These guys always pay over asking. Then they can issue bonds on the rents and glory be, a bonanza! Turn that frown upside down homeowners! Everybody will make a killing because renters are at the mercy of landlords and will gladly pay more than they earn to live in a flood zone.

Comment by HousingAnalyst
2014-03-01 08:15:58

That’s right….. And if all you mortgage-less renters refuse to cough up the money, you’re all going to be on the street……. while DebtDonkeys pay interest on empty depreciating shacks.

(Comments wont nest below this level)
 
Comment by Jingle Male
2014-03-01 10:07:13

I detect a note of cynicism this morning……

(Comments wont nest below this level)
Comment by HousingAnalyst
2014-03-01 10:31:35

It’s the direct result of tripe like yours.

 
Comment by JingleMale
2014-03-01 13:55:44

Hey, I agreed w you today. See above.

 
Comment by Housing Analyst
2014-03-01 15:45:52

Who cares.

 
Comment by Jingle Male
2014-03-02 07:42:47

I care. You are my favorite HBB poster. Without you, everyone would be buying a house and no one would rent mine!

 
Comment by Housing Analyst
2014-03-02 08:57:33

Yeah… Like your $90k building permit and claim to be a general contractor right J_Fraud?

 
Comment by Jingle Male
2014-03-02 11:48:29

HA, you seem to be so sure of so many things about which you are completely wrong. Here is the link to the building permits:

http://www.ci.lincoln.ca.us/pagedownloads/2012.October%201.RESIDENTIAL%20FEES.MOST%20CURRENT.pdf

I’ll add it up the water permits for you, since you seem to be math challenged:

12. *City Water Connection Fees:
Meter Size City Charge
1 EDU $5,558 per EDU

13. *Water Capacity & Transmission:
Meter Size City Charge
1 EDU $12,618 per EDU
2.5 EDU’s $16,073 per EDU - Catta Verdera area

*For homes in the Catta Verdera area Edu’s are equivalent to 1 with the exception of:
Sewer = 1.27 edu’s
Drainage = 1.30 edu’s
City Water Connection = 2.37 edu’s
Water Capacity & Transmission = 2.5 edu’s

Calulations:
Connection: $5,558 Xs 2.37 (EDU) = $13,172
Transmission: $16,073 Xs 2.5 (EDU) = $40,182

Total Cost to Deliver Water to a SFR: $53,354

Now do you believe me? HA, HA, HA! Huh?

 
Comment by scdave
2014-03-02 12:12:35

Why waste your time with the dude JM ?? That is, unless you enjoy it…

 
Comment by Jingle Male
2014-03-02 12:36:18

Hi SC, I used to really get frustrated with HA, now I have grown to sort of like him and it has become an HBB sport to banter back and forth with him.

HA probably means well, but his postings are misleading to many innocent readers here. Still, his message that housing does depreciate physically is important. We must account for that fact in ownership and the resulting on-going maintenance costs over time, which is something many people discount.

 
Comment by Housing Analyst
2014-03-02 15:29:11

And even your own math is dishonest.

Item 12: A new lateral, corp stop and meter installed by the city for $5500 instead of me having to do it? It’s a bargain.

Item 13: Applies only if there is no main under the road.

http://www.ci.lincoln.ca.us/pagedownloads/MASTER%20FEE%20SCHEDULE%209-11-12.pdf

(And for the reading public, refer to this table on page 2 of 27 for the actual cost of a building permit in that hell hole of a town. It’s $1,076 out the door for contracts on structures up to $500k.)

Study your own material and get your facts straight. $5500 for water to a SFR.

What’s your next excuse?

 
Comment by JingleMale
2014-03-02 19:51:36

There are none so blind as those who will not see! HA, Ha, ha….

 
Comment by Jingle Male
2014-03-02 22:12:08

From the link referenced by HA…..

WCC’s delivered to the City’s Water System are
$12,618.00 per EDU.
WCC’s served from PCWA’s water system
(Verdera) are $16,073.00 per EDU.
WCC amounts are established by PCWA.

Some “builder”….can’t even read the fee schedule! HA!

 
Comment by Housing Analyst
2014-03-03 17:18:22

And when there is a transmission main under the road?

ZERO dollars.

 
 
 
 
Comment by Blue Skye
2014-03-01 12:42:06

All that level pasture land by river banks and shorelines was so easy to develop. It’s a wonder the old timers didn’t build there a century ago.

A relative of mine inherited a “cabin” on a river bank from his in-laws. It wasn’t a year round house, just for summer, and of course the place flooded once in a while in the spring. He raised the house a story and a half and laid block and concrete foundation that was like an artillery bunker. A decade later he was tired of the steps and his wife was in a wheel chair!

 
 
Comment by HousingAnalyst
2014-03-01 08:04:39

Remember…. housing depreciates rapidly and results in financial losses. Those losses are magnified tremendously if you finance it.

Comment by LeeAnn
2014-03-05 08:07:54

HA,
I appreciate all of your wisdom and would like advice.
I bought and sold before the bubble, which afforded me something bigger, yada yada. Salaries dropped, couldn’t afford my house any longer, sold at a loss. Not a short sale, but had to write a check. Painful, but I didn’t want bad credit.
Like hitting a reset button.
Now I have just enough for a down on a modest home w/in my new means. But I’m scared to buy, wondering if I’m scared for a good reason.
Renting now, should I go on renting? Wait for prices to drop again?
Worried rates will climb too much. But then again, part of me says just rent and rent and then leave this area (I’m in the tri-state area, high prop taxes, high housing prices)
Thanks

 
 
Comment by Whac-A-Bubble™
2014-03-01 09:27:33

I’m wondering if Californians who live in flood zones qualify for federally-subsidized flood insurance, or do they have to self-insure or buy private insurance?

BTW, as a former actuary who studied agricultural insurance in grad school, I find many of the “market failure” arguments used to justify the need for federal subsidies to be specious. In many cases, the nature of the argument comes down to this: No private insurer is willing and able to insure the risk at a price the farmer or agribusiness manager is willing to pay. Similarly, no Lexus dealer is willing to sell me a Lexus for a price I am willing to pay, but I don’t expect Uncle Sam to chip in the difference for us to work out a deal.

Comment by Prime_Is_Contained
2014-03-01 19:07:23

Similarly, no Lexus dealer is willing to sell me a Lexus for a price I am willing to pay,

+Infiniti.

Comment by Carl Morris
2014-03-02 18:26:58

Hahah…I see what you did there.

 
 
 
Comment by Muggy
2014-03-01 09:46:32

All of these houses are easily sold. Just reduce the price.

Comment by HousingAnalyst
2014-03-01 09:49:24

It’s not complicated. It really is that simple.

 
Comment by Whac-A-Bubble™
2014-03-01 09:57:10

With few exceptions*, any house in the U.S. can be sold within one week by reducing the asking price to current market value.

* In some cases, the market price may be negative, in which case the seller would technically have to offer compensation to the buyer for the liability assumed. In these cases, I would guess most sellers would simply walk away and let the state assume the liability.

Comment by oxide
2014-03-01 10:28:13

You don’t have to guess. Isn’t this what is happening in Destroit?

Comment by HousingAnalyst
2014-03-01 10:34:23

Prices are falling across the country so it wont be detroit only.

(Comments wont nest below this level)
 
 
 
Comment by polly
2014-03-01 10:54:59

For a house that will require almost $100K per year of flood insurance if it has a mortgage, the price will have to be low enough that no mortgage is required at all. And the house is in a reasonable location and the realistic flood risk is negligible in the near future (remember, it hasn’t flooded since the 1950s). Heck of a way to find out the market price if mortgages didn’t exist, but there it is. Or the bank could agree to some other kind of protection for a loan it would keep on its own books because the loan wouldn’t qualify for securitization without the insurance.

I am very curious about how the rates are being set at all. How does an actuary get to the yearly insurance rate being 40% of the maximum payout per incident for a risk that hasn’t happened even once in 60 years. I suspect that the bill required the fund to build up some very large reserve fund over an extremely short period of time which is distorting the premiums well above the actuarial requirements. But I haven’t heard anyone discuss that or talk about fixing it by taking that part out but still going to an unsubsidized rate on the actual premiums. Even the $11K per year seems absurd when you realize they didn’t even flood during Sandy.

Comment by Prime_Is_Contained
2014-03-01 19:09:40

(remember, it hasn’t flooded since the 1950s)

Remind me again: the 100-year flood-line is expected to be reached how often on average?

Right.

 
Comment by Muggy
2014-03-01 20:36:13

The same applies to 55+ homes here in Florida. There is a marked difference between a 3/2 that an HOA prohibit kids in, and the type of 3/2 my fams would live in.

Say… $80k diff.

 
 
Comment by Bluto
2014-03-01 12:34:55

True…I was following this blog waay back in spring 2007 and decided to sell my place, “discounted” it about $12K off the estimated value (since I was (correctly) convinced that the pop was imminent thanks to HBB, OTM, etc) and had a buyer under contract in a week, this only amounted to about 3% of the sale price…had I been greedy and tried to get top $$$ it likely would have cost me big in the long run.
The flood insurance reform issue is big locally in the Calif. wine country, lots of expensive structures are now built in the Russian River flood plain…traditionally there were mostly small inexpensive weekend cabins for middle class San Franciscans that could be self insured and thus made some sense in light of the flood risk…it will be interesting to see how it shakes out here.

Comment by SaladSD
2014-03-02 21:44:51

That’s the key issue along the SoCal coast. All the older housing stock along the beaches was modest- nothing fancy. It was common sense that homes on bluffs would not win against Mother Nature. Now, it’s not only the cost of replacing McMansions perched on the bluff at issue, but taxpayers are expected to pay for erosion abatement along public beaches. If you go up to Mendocino County, houses are set back from the coastline hundreds of feet. Somehow they got the zoning in place without the real estate interests going ape-sh$t.

 
 
 
Comment by Muggy
2014-03-01 09:49:33

Biggert-Waters has already impacted my ‘hood. For those keeping score at home I live in floodville, US and A. I will post TS Debby photos again in a minute.

We have 1 family that has already moved out because the owners now need to sell, and we have another family that will be non-renewed either this month or next. Our lease is up June 30th. We’ll see what happens.

It’s simple: you either own outright and self-insure, or you’re screwed. Mortgaged houses like mine used to sell in the $250k range. Now, I’m guessing they’ll all need to be sold for cash in the $80-$100k range.

Comment by Jingle Male
2014-03-01 10:11:16

Muggy, what are the old flood insurance payments and how much are the new ones. It seems to me that paying $5,000/year for a $100,000 house implies complete flooding every 20-years (excluding land value).

Comment by Muggy
2014-03-01 10:47:17

The house we are in was about $2,500/yr, and will be about $16,000/yr.

The owners paid peanuts for this joint in the early 90’s, so I assume they self insure, or they will moving forward.

 
Comment by scdave
2014-03-02 09:56:50

$5,000/year for a $100,000 house implies complete flooding every 20-years (excluding land value) ??

Expectation would be far less than every twenty years with a $5,000. premium…

I have not followed the flood insurance issue much…I new it was expensive but some of the numbers I am seeing here appear beyond doable…I suppose some big Company (Birkshire,AIG,Blackrock) will step in and compete for that market and drive down the cost…

Its a hedge bet really…If it does not flood for 20-30 years they go to the bank BIG TIME….If it floods in two years they lose their a$$…

 
 
 
Comment by Muggy
2014-03-01 09:57:31

Here is what a FEMA-subsidized, coastal Florida neighborhood looks like after 6 hours of heavy rain at high-tide (streets drain to bay, so at high-tide that water just sits).

4ft. above sea level.

http://picpaste.com/IMG_9711-gikSvCSz.jpg

Comment by Jingle Male
2014-03-01 10:15:00

Wow, you have beachfront property now…….does that extra benefit call for a rent increase?

 
Comment by scdave
2014-03-02 10:02:27

Looks familiar…I remember my first experience with Florida rain…Playing baseball….It rained so hard that you could not see the field…It was a lake…Dug-outs were full of water…Water was half way up the runway to the locker room…Rain stopped…1/1/2 hours later the water was gone and we were on the field playing…Just bizarre for this California kid…

 
 
 
Comment by Bill, just South of Irvine
2014-03-01 10:15:27

Meanwhile we renters are swimming in deep pools of money with all that we saved by not being a homeowner. Ain’t it great?

I could buy a very very nice sport luxury car with the money I saved by renting…but I have nowhere to put it. My car just crossed 77,000 miles and it is a 2003 Toyota.

Comment by Bill, just South of Irvine
2014-03-01 11:27:38

My apartment in OC is looking very nice at $1,350 per month and 8 miles from work in a gas sipping car. In a few months it will be 6 miles from work as our office is moving closer toward my apartment. Walking distance to the Yardhouse.

Comment by Bill, just South of Irvine
2014-03-01 11:28:55

What? Flood insurance on a debt shack costs nearly what I pay in rent? Gotta get more popcorn.

 
 
Comment by MidMoney
2014-03-02 19:54:19

Our 1993 Lexus SC300 and 2003 Toyota RAV4 each have about 130k miles. Maintain it well Bill and you’ll get 200k.

 
 
Comment by taxpayers
2014-03-01 10:19:20

why should taxpayers subsidze building in flood plains- don’t build there ! the indians didn’t

Comment by Rusty1014
2014-03-01 14:56:22

You might ask your Congressman, or Senator. They are falling all over each other to undo this, there was supposed to be a vote last week, now expected this week. The Senate passed a bill last month that greatly reduces the impact of Biggers-Waters, and the house will no doubt get it done soon. You can imagine the amount of lobbying being done by the R/E “industry”.

 
 
Comment by rms
2014-03-02 06:39:23

“The impact of BW-12 could be a game changer. The obvious is the hit on our recovering real estate market. Properties that require flood insurance will not be easily sold; buyers in flood zones will have a harder time qualifying to finance a home or business loan. Once the devaluation of properties sets in, neighboring communities will suffer and again the market may spiral.

That last sentence doesn’t make sense. Wouldn’t neighboring communities would rise in value?

Comment by Muggy
2014-03-02 17:11:34

I’ve pondered this myself.

I don’t think so, because it reveals the true market value of the house, not mark-to-fantasy NINJA live on it for 5 years rent free hoopla.

Imagine looking at a 3/2 in St. Pete Florida for $300k, and seeing an identical home for sale in St. Pete Beach )in a flood zone) for $80k.

Comment by Bluto
2014-03-02 17:59:48

It will be interesting to see how this plays out if a scenario like that eventually comes to pass…if you had the $80K cash, felt the flood risk was way overblown and/or were comfortable with it MAYBE it could work out to roll the dice…compared to rent at say $2K/mo you would reach break even in under 4 years (disregarding possible interest on the 80K, etc)

Comment by Housing Analyst
2014-03-02 18:17:10

Are you willing to roll the dice with $80k of your own?

(Comments wont nest below this level)
Comment by WT Economist
2014-03-04 06:00:37

Sounds like a few years from now would be a good time to buy beachfront property.

You know what’s good for the beachfront? A cheap little cottage with no heat for use in summer. A trailer than could be hauled away. A platform for tents and a communal concrete restroom.

That’s what was there before federal flood insurance.

So I’d start with whatever was there and work my way back.

 
 
 
 
 
Name (required)
E-mail (required - never shown publicly)
URI
Your Comment (smaller size | larger size)
You may use <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong> in your comment.

Trackback responses to this post