The Diva is giving space to this reply to the previous posting. She is not knowledgeable enough the the NFIP to critique this response. Here is the reply from reader Jerry Quinn to the posting:
Congress & the Executive branch are responsible for all hazards/risks. Their best & brightest can’t/don’t control hazards/risks brought on long ago by federal actions and decisions. They are responsible for unfunded or underfunded federal mandates which usurp local treasuries. They have long rationalized and imposed taxpayer support. Their continuous imposition of more & more statutory and regulatory requirements adds delays and costs. It is rational for taxpayers to support national defense. It is equally rational for taxpayers are coerced into supporting the results of these legacy decisions and their sunk costs. There are only 2 viable alternatives: 1) National all hazards risk ratings with the premiums being a tax credit. 2) A national managed retreat if there exists enough all hazards risk free (a federal requirement) locations to equitably buyout and relocate people. Property owners, their state and the federal government need to finance the retreat.
Congress created the underlying risks and now wants premiums set risk by risk, to bankrupt some disaster survivors. Corporations and businesses already write off the costs of risk insurance premiums.
The federal government could not stop the pandemic so Congress determined taxpayer support rational.
The Founding fathers, the Executive Branch and Congress determine national defense taxpayer support rational.
The federal government has determined taxpayer support for environmental protection worthy.
The federal government cannot control any of the climate risks and makes some worse. Recent wildfires, many of federally owned lands, were made worse because piles of brush & downed trees were left in place to protect air quality – obviously a failure.
Risk insurance premiums based on local conditions blames the property owners for governmental legacy decisions far beyond the owners’ control. Confiscatory localized insurance costs may amount to a federally driven taking of property which eventually ends up as a federal expense. Wiping out local property tax base will not leave funds to cover unfunded and underfunded federal mandates.
Recognizing that insurance providers are in business to be profitable it may be unavoidable to have rational direct or indirect taxpayer support under hazard risk premiums.
This complex problem will not be fixed by singling out property owners who legally developed and built on lands now determine by single or numerous risks.
Insurance providers walked away from flood coverage long ago. Fire insurance providers are cancelling or not renewing coverage; insurance commissioners are using short term requirements for carriers to continue to provide coverage without cost controls.
If the federal government wants insurance coverage for all risks it must require expedited claims settlements that jump start recovery and rebuilding with support for possible managed retreat. Owners and occupants must have the ability to recover promptly.
To send a comment, his email is firstname.lastname@example.org.