My property being confiscated by the feds

[Jim Thompson]

The most recent maps may be accurate, but I can tell you that the maps from the early 90s and prior were not. Living in FL near the St. Johns river I have carried flood insurance for years at the lower rate( not in the 100 year flood zone). Out of the clear blue I was notified by my lender that I must pay the higher rate even though State Farm said otherwise. The outdated FEMA map showed the flood zone going right through my "on grade" house while the same map produced by my surveyor showed that based on actual measured elevation, the zone was over 100 feet behind my house in a swamp. The lender would not budge on their requirement to pay the higher rate.
With the help of my surveyor, I documented the actual elevations and petitioned FEMA with the proper gov't form and a copy of my most recent survey to have the flood zone changed. It took a month or so, but they did rule in my favor. I remember that the entire process was particular aggravating because no one was interested in facts or logic, only in what FEMA had to say.

Good luck.

Jim

 

[Bird]

Watch out Bird, the maps can change at any time and you might suddenly find your place "under water", even though the chances of a flood have not. Kind of like the bridge they are redoing near out house. Nothing wrong with it, but the feds wanted to spend some stimulus money they borrowed from the chinese, so the perfectly good bridge has to go. FEMA gets funding and they have to justify it so they create work for themselves, and cut in some buddies in private business while they are at it.

Alan, I wouldn't be a bit surprised if the maps here changed. But I do believe that if rising water ever gets into my house, the police department in this little town will be under water. So I should have the city on my side.

I, too, have little or no confidence in the FEMA maps. When I bought the 10 acres in Navarro County, across the road from Navarro Mills Lake, the maps showed one rear corner of my property to be flood zone. It was just a very small corner and the only thing there was a small pond that wouldn't hold water, so I wasn't concerned about it. However, it was obvious that if rising water ever got to that corner of my property, the nearest neighbor's house back there would be under water. But I think when I sold the place, and the buyer hired a surveyor, that area did not show to be flood zone.

 

[keegs]

When you have a portion of you property within a designated floodplain is it assessed differently? I seem to recall my Maine property assessed as farmland, woodland and wasteland. The wasteland assessed portion is an area bordering a stream that floods each spring. There's relatively very little tax assessed to that portion of the property.

 

[HCJtractor]

Unfortunate as it is dealing with bureaucracy, one thing needs to be said. Actually the property is not yours. It belongs to the bank. Or at least, you and the bank are "partners" in ownership. The bank is just trying to cover its a--, in case the property does flood and the house becomes worthless. They are at risk maybe even more than you, depending on the percentage of mortgage. With the big hit banks have taken recently with flooding, it is natural that they are sensitive to issues such as this, so it's not all their fault.

It seems you need to shop around for a better price on a survey and for a better price on flood insurance. $4000 seems very high for additional flood insurance on top of your normal homeowners, that you were already required to have. Good luck in addressing this!

 

[Gale Hawkins]

I think involving a third party in the ownership of property in a flood plain is the over riding issue. Banks just like to be insured against known protential risk. If that risk now lowers property value it may impact the health of the initial loan if it gets labeled as an upside down property loan.

 

[Bird]

It seems you need to shop around for a better price on a survey and for a better price on flood insurance. $4000 seems very high for additional flood insurance on top of your normal homeowners, that you were already required to have.

When I was considering buying floor insurance, the insurance agents I talked to said the rates were set by FEMA and their commission was low enough that no insurance agent cared whether he sold flood insurance or not. Maybe someone here knows better because I don't.

 

[rswyan]

A very interesting interview on YouTube:

Rob Rash Uncovers FEMA'S Flood Insurance Fraud

FWIW, try Googling "flood zone insurance scam" and see what ya come with .....

 

[beppington]

Well, the sorry thing is, even if a newer, more accurate map reveals OP's property is actually in a flood plain, $4,000 compared to $355 is just ludicrous.

I would bet that the insurance companies have "convinced" (greased the pockets of?) insurance regulators that Katrina and other recent newsworthy flooding justifies that huge premium hike ... whereas it's actually nearly all profit.

 

[Storm56]

You may want to check with the party, co, whatever that has your current flood insurance. It is my understanding that if you currently have a policy that they cannot change your flood zone, even with the remapping. And that in addition if someone were to buy your home they can assume your policy, at the same rates. Now if that policy were to expire for any reason all bets are off.

Does your current lender KNOW that you have a current policy?

 

[rswyan]

I would bet that the insurance companies have "convinced" (greased the pockets of?) insurance regulators that Katrina and other recent newsworthy flooding justifies that huge premium hike ... whereas it's actually nearly all profit.

Actually, from what I could tell from the interview, it seems like Rash claims it's actually the reverse:

FEMA has a huge debt that they owe to the US Treasury and since they get a big cut from the increased premiums, they are the ones pushing it. No doubt insurance companies would be onboard with it, since it gives them federal "cover" for jacking rates ...