I don't think so! But there are SO MANY who live in such places!Should people get a bailout when they put themselves in harms way?
Many live on the river. Floods happen where I live and the rivers wipe out the old mill towns. Then everyone talks about rebuilding.southern appalachians are a long way from coast..but yet they got pounded to death the other day.
I tend to agree but if your land is taken by the powers that be, you should be well compensated.I don't believe anyone should be responsible to bail anyone out who loses their property for any reason.
Isn't that what insurance is for? I pay a lot. Had my first claim in 40 years of home ownership this year when a tree crushed my building. My premiums over the year are still more than what I had in damage.I don't believe anyone should be responsible to bail anyone out who loses their property for any reason.
Insurance is different than the taxpayer being forced to pay for someone else's property.Isn't that what insurance is for? I pay a lot. Had my first claim in 40 years of home ownership this year when a tree crushed my building. My premiums over the year are still more than what I had in damage.
As for coastal or other places that get water damage, I could be persuaded to agree to an insurance 1 TIME payout. After that, you're on your own.
Absolutely. Only its "fairly" compensated.I tend to agree but if your land is taken by the powers that be, you should be well compensated.
Uhmm... Denmark holds the sea back with giant DIKES! That didn't work out so well for New Orleans...I would not buy property in a flood zone ( FEMA flood maps) but there are all sorts of natural disasters everywhere and it is difficult to pick a place that has few. All of the west coast has earthquakes and they could potentially have a tsunami, plus wildfires and occasionally when it does rain mudslides, middle has tornadoes, and floods next to rivers, east has hurricanes and floods
If you want to live some place relatively free of natural disasters you could move to Denmark. I don't think I have ever heard of one there
This whole country was defined by; floods, earthquakes, volcanos, ice, landslides etc. Some of these events happen only about every 10,000 years or so. That doesn't mean that it's wise to build on land that hasn't flooded in recorded history. It will again. I built my home at an elevation of 5,000 feet and near the top of a ridge that goes around 3 sides of the house. It's highly unlikely that it'll ever flood at the house. Our biggest threat here is heavy snow and forest fires. Much of our property is covered in lava. Some areas have huge boulders that were blasted out of a volcano many miles away. It's highly unlikely that we'll live to see another eruption, but it is possible. We do have earthquakes here occasionally, nothing like California and Alaska does though.I would not buy property in a flood zone ( FEMA flood maps) but there are all sorts of natural disasters everywhere and it is difficult to pick a place that has few. All of the west coast has earthquakes and they could potentially have a tsunami, plus wildfires and occasionally when it does rain mudslides, middle has tornadoes, and floods next to rivers, east has hurricanes and floods
If you want to live some place relatively free of natural disasters you could move to Denmark. I don't think I have ever heard of one there
My father was a geological engineer and I still remember him ranting back in the 60's about people building houses in flood plains. He built our house on high ground at the highest point. Then in Camille in 1969, and the Jackson Easter Flood of 1979, those houses he had ranted about all got flooded.I built my home at an elevation of 5,000 feet and near the top of a ridge that goes around 3 sides of the house. It's highly unlikely that it'll ever flood at the house.
Same up in 1000 Islands New York. It's also taxed at a premium. Our log cabin is on the St. Lawrence River and in 40 years only once was the water high enough on the river to flood the boat houses along it. Our place saw nothing--it's on a "lake" that is really just a huge cove. It's a managed river--the port of Montreal gets flooded (on purpose) during the winter months so that shipping can still happen.Not sure about OCEAN-front property, but LAKE-front property sells at a premium in Minnesota.
After seeing the utter destruction in NC I would never buy waterfront property.Does water front property have any value going forward?
Does land that has flooded have any value going forward?
I know It's what ever people want but to me it has little worth.
I do have coast property but not at flood level.
Should people get a bailout when they put themselves in harms way?
It is a good investment but only for the rich.I would allow for a bailout once. Anybody can get caught by surprise. I have lived in the same house for over thirty years. We lived through a (supposed) 500 year flood that never affected us. Well guess what, 21 years later we had another flood, and the two houses across the street from me had four feet of water in their basement. Both have subsequently moved.
We did have areas where people collected money every year due to flooding. That IMHO is wrong.
JMHO but waterfront property will always have a high value, and will always be in demand. I got this from a guy a whole lot smarter then me. Have the banks stopped lending money to people who want to build houses or hotels on the waterfront? It is still a good investment
I live at 1200 ft and we have rivers and brooks that will kill you in a flood.Me Shack is up on top of a small Mountain at just under 900'(Lower end of the Appalachian Mt. Range) , guess one could say that I Live up High so I can take the High Road to and from Home...!!!
It is a good investment but only for the rich.
True but I don't know many poor people in that position.I would beg to differ. It is a good investment for anybody. The rich can take advantage of higher end properties and make larger investments, but anybody that invests can reap the benefits.
Enter your email address to join: