Flood Insurance bulletin

[Robert A Whit]

This is a public service announcement.

Contact your legislator or your insurance agent should this affect you.

There will be no link other than those below provided and I receive such bulletins as part of my dues charges. .

Government Affairs Action for the Week of June 9, 2013

by David C. Stark, Public Affairs Director, Bay East Association of REALTORS®
Flood Insurance Update: Changes to the National Insurance Flood Program (NFIP) could include higher premiums for some homeowners. The National Association of REALTORS® is asking Congress to hold hearings about the affordability of the NFIP and to postpone the rate changes.
NAR has prepared a brief video about what REALTORS® need to know about these changes. The video is available here (http://www2.realtoractioncenter.com/site/R?i=LAViX-u5J2OHWbA7_kXrKg).
The Federal Emergency Management Agency has a frequently-asked-questions summary about the NFIP changes here (http://www2.realtoractioncenter.com/site/R?i=ek3Tg77MYpPB-F63aDsVAA).

[fj1200]

Contact your legislator or your insurance agent should this affect you.

Everyone else contact your legislator to ask why the government is insuring private property.

[Robert A Whit]

http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by Robert A Whit http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?p=646704#post646704)
Contact your legislator or your insurance agent should this affect you.(Post snipped by FJ)


Everyone else contact your legislator to ask why the government is insuring private property.

Sure, where that happens, by all means find out why.

More information you may use.

FEMA mandates that all properties are studied to see if they are in flood zones.

When I appraised homes, each appraisal was mandated to show the flood zone of each property appraised.

Most have not had to study FEMA flood zones. When they are wrong, and they make mistakes, your insurance costs can go way up and your property value lessened.

Good idea to google FEMA flood zones if you own property.

[fj1200]

Sure, where that happens, by all means find out why.

I was expecting a rousing defense of the practice. :poke:

[Marcus Aurelius]

I'm wondering why a guy in California cares about a program that covers mostly TX and FL.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Flood_Insurance_Program


As of April 2010, the program insured about 5.5 million homes, the majority of which were in Texas and Florida.[2] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Flood_Insurance_Program#cite_note-Holladay2010-2)

Oh... and Louisiana...


Since 1978, the National Flood Insurance Program has paid more than $38 billion in claims (as of March 31, 2011). More than 40 percent of that money has gone to residents of Louisiana.[5] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Flood_Insurance_Program#cite_note-5)

[Robert A Whit]

I'm wondering why a guy in California cares about a program that covers mostly TX and FL.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Flood_Insurance_Program



Oh... and Louisiana...

I explained why. CA is FEMA surveyed to categorize property into one of the several flood zone designations.

And of course CA has properties in the risky zones.

CA has taken many steps to remove property from the risky zones.

Some property owners do not understand this at all. Ergo the public service notice.

My local board does not notify us for the fun of doing so.

Even states well above sea level can also have flood prone areas that are FEMA zoned.

[Marcus Aurelius]

http://www.fema.gov/library/file;jsessionid=7F8F896A2900DBE2855321DEAF1D5948.W orkerPublic2?type=publishedFile&file=total_claims_2012.pdf&fileid=44ac2240-8bfb-11e2-9748-001cc456982e

State map image depicting the NFIP total number of claims per state from October 1, 2011 through September 30, 2012.

California accounts for .0069 of all NFIP claims between the specified dates. Barely over 1/2 percent.

[Robert A Whit]

http://www.fema.gov/library/file;jsessionid=7F8F896A2900DBE2855321DEAF1D5948.W orkerPublic2?type=publishedFile&file=total_claims_2012.pdf&fileid=44ac2240-8bfb-11e2-9748-001cc456982e

State map image depicting the NFIP total number of claims per state from October 1, 2011 through September 30, 2012.

California accounts for .0069 of all NFIP claims between the specified dates. Barely over 1/2 percent.

As I said, CA has done a magnificent job informing the public and making changes to greatly mitigate flooding.

However that may be, this forum reaches all states and europe.

[logroller]

As I said, CA has done a magnificent job informing the public and making changes to greatly mitigate flooding.

However that may be, this forum reaches all states and europe.
Compared to the number of policies (http://www.fema.gov/library/file;jsessionid=5567957E4ABA9F859DB100A4DD2AB62C.W orker2Public2?type=publishedFile&file=total_pif_2012.pdf&fileid=588bbc50-8bf4-11e2-9748-001cc456982e) in force, CA is actually pretty high on claims.

[logroller]

Everyone else contact your legislator to ask why the government is insuring private property.
To manifest demand-side economics: There are many areas that are resource rich but flood prone. In order to capitalize on these resources, it is necessary to minimize lender risk so that infrastructure development (like housing for workers) will still occur and the economic benefit of the resources can be realized. It could be that one area isn't flood prone, but it's prime farmland; so why build a housing tract on an economic mainstay?
When they pass a sustainable communities act, there's always an economic exception built in for just this reasoning. Anybody ever done an environmental impact report? I do program level EIRs; or rather, the data analysis for them; it's a balancing act between tens of billion$ of revenue and the impact that 100,000 daily trips worth of exhaust within a quarter mile of a 50,000 people has that is the bane of existence for municipal planning authorities. Sometimes it's just cheaper to cover the losses.

[Robert A Whit]

To manifest demand-side economics: There are many areas that are resource rich but flood prone. In order to capitalize on these resources, it is necessary to minimize lender risk so that infrastructure development (like housing for workers) will still occur and the economic benefit of the resources can be realized. It could be that one area isn't flood prone, but it's prime farmland; so why build a housing tract on an economic mainstay?
When they pass a sustainable communities act, there's always an economic exception built in for just this reasoning. Anybody ever done an environmental impact report? I do program level EIRs; or rather, the data analysis for them; it's a balancing act between tens of billion$ of revenue and the impact that 100,000 daily trips worth of exhaust within a quarter mile of a 50,000 people has that is the bane of existence for municipal planning authorities. Sometimes it's just cheaper to cover the losses.

I have worked with one EIR back in 1977 and that sucker was a whopper. Yet today they are much worse.

The EIR industry loves that cash cow. Opponents of progress love it. Look at the cluster fig over Keystone. It passed all laws, posed no danger yet is still on hold.

Government is a guarantee that progress will be super slow or stopped.

[Robert A Whit]

http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by Robert A Whit http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?p=646948#post646948)
As I said, CA has done a magnificent job informing the public and making changes to greatly mitigate flooding.

However that may be, this forum reaches all states and europe.


Compared to the number of policies (http://www.fema.gov/library/file;jsessionid=5567957E4ABA9F859DB100A4DD2AB62C.W orker2Public2?type=publishedFile&file=total_pif_2012.pdf&fileid=588bbc50-8bf4-11e2-9748-001cc456982e) in force, CA is actually pretty high on claims.

CA has made dramatic improvements yet as you point out, is not perfect. But for those positive changes, we would need far more policies.

[gabosaurus]

I am a lot more concerned with Earthquake Insurance than Flood Insurance.

[Robert A Whit]

I am a lot more concerned with Earthquake Insurance than Flood Insurance.

California has over 40 million living here so it is natural we have a high number of policies in force.

I recall a tract to be built in Pleasanton, CA that was in a Flood Zone. Contractor hauled in enough dumptrucks of fill to elevate it out of the flood zone.

Flood zones can have an elevation component.

As an appraiser in the 90s, a property in Oakland, CA bordered a drainage canal and FEMA said it was therefore in the flood Zone. I was asked to go back to the property/land and measure it using the plot map. I found it was just out of the flood zone per the map.

I still suggest those interested go to the FEMA flood data information. FEMA can tell them if they are in a high risk area.

In a high earthquake prone area of great risk, insurance may not be available. But if it is, it is also expensive. What one has to watch for is those policies may exclude homes in quake zones.

It is highly advised to have an insurance expert study all policies to see what escape clauses are in said policies.

[fj1200]

To manifest demand-side economics: There are many areas that are resource rich but flood prone. In order to capitalize on these resources, it is necessary to minimize lender risk so that infrastructure development (like housing for workers) will still occur and the economic benefit of the resources can be realized. It could be that one area isn't flood prone, but it's prime farmland; so why build a housing tract on an economic mainstay?
When they pass a sustainable communities act, there's always an economic exception built in for just this reasoning. Anybody ever done an environmental impact report? I do program level EIRs; or rather, the data analysis for them; it's a balancing act between tens of billion$ of revenue and the impact that 100,000 daily trips worth of exhaust within a quarter mile of a 50,000 people has that is the bane of existence for municipal planning authorities. Sometimes it's just cheaper to cover the losses.

By subsidizing one aspect you preclude other aspects from becoming apparent. Can you provide an example where the government has a compelling interest in subsidizing insurance costs of a middle class suburban population living in single family housing?

[Robert A Whit]

By subsidizing one aspect you preclude other aspects from becoming apparent. Can you provide an example where the government has a compelling interest in subsidizing insurance costs of a middle class suburban population living in single family housing?

Never has anybody told me their flood insurance was paid for by government. Being forced to purchase flood insurance devalues properties and can slow or stop sales of properties with homes on them.

[tailfins]

I was expecting a rousing defense of the practice. :poke:

How does it feel to be disappointed?

[fj1200]

Never has anybody told me their flood insurance was paid for by government. Being forced to purchase flood insurance devalues properties and can slow or stop sales of properties with homes on them.

Did I say "paid for"?


Criticisms: (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Flood_Insurance_Program#Criticisms)

Before 1950 flood insurance was part of the standard homeowner’s insurance policy. During the 1950s increasingly high correlation of losses by holders of flood policies of the same company caused many insurance companies to begin excluding flood coverage from standard insurance policies, selling flood insurance separately. Over time, insurance premiums collected were insufficient in covering payouts after major flooding events. In the 1960s flood insurance became completely unprofitable and private companies no longer offered flood insurance policies. This meant that the costs of floods were borne by property owners, many of which could not afford such high disaster costs. The government provided public disaster aid to affected property owners. In 1968, the National Flood Insurance Act established the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP), which allows property owners to purchase insurance from the U.S. government that covers certain losses from flooding. The intended purpose of the program was to reduce the overall costs of floods by incentivizing flood risk management and to pool flood risks nationally to lessen the blow to individuals hit by major floods. This insurance is not set by the market risk valuation. It is less expensive than the private insurance company rate would be. This is accomplished either by the program running a deficit and borrowing money or by subsidies from the national government. Either way, the property owners with NFIP policies are receiving government subsidies to live in areas with high flood risk.

Perhaps being in a flood zone devalues properties.

[logroller]

Did I say "paid for"?



Perhaps being in a flood zone devalues properties.
even being near a flood zone can lead to lower valuation.

By subsidizing one aspect you preclude other aspects from becoming apparent. Can you provide an example where the government has a compelling interest in subsidizing insurance costs of a middle class suburban population living in single family housing?
Not sure what you're referring to as far not being apparent, but land use, urban planning etc is all public information. Admittedly some things aren't published information, but it can be requested. When you say something is a compelling government interest, that really means the constituency's interest through representative government. For example, it is in the constituency's interest to have a grocery store in proximity to residences, SFR or otherwise, but since you specified, so be it. And it's also in their interest to have more than one-- competition is better for consumers, right?. I don't live in a flood plain, but a mile south of me, it is. Now if only those areas outside flood plains were developed, there'd be less demand for groceries, and thus, less stores...less competition...further distances to be travelled for groceries and less value placed on the properties since living there is less convenience (less efficient shopping/spending) and greater cost of living/lower standard of living. All other things held equal, it serves to lower property value, commercial sales, jobs and therefore public and private income and the multitude of infrastructure funding that enable our society to flourish. Of course, all other things being equal is almost never the case. There's other things like highest and best use considerations, jurisdictional limits like incorporated areas' spheres of influence and the multitude of regional designations, each with their own representative constituency's interests to consider with respect to overall impact amidst county state and federal designations with the environmental impact of developing flood plains being just one aspect of consideration.

[fj1200]

even being near a flood zone can lead to lower valuation.

Which raises the question of, "so what?" A lower valuation, read cost, is a risk adjusted calculation of whether to purchase in/near a flood zone.

And my not being apparent reference is taking remediation steps, like raising living spaces above the flood plan level, to limit the costs when a flood does occur. And I don't really mean the constituency's best interest because that is the lowest level of reasoning to institute a government program IMO. Should the coastal flood plain lines be adjusted to cover more vacation housing for those who lobbied well enough to have their second properties be included? Compelling interest is how does it benefit society and not just benefit those who happen to benefit from the program. I don't see vacation housing as society's best interest although one could make the case that farmers living in a flood zone along the Mississippi is in society's best interest.


Not sure what you're referring to as far not being apparent, but land use, urban planning etc is all public information. Admittedly some things aren't published information, but it can be requested. When you say something is a compelling government interest, that really means the constituency's interest through representative government. For example, it is in the constituency's interest to have a grocery store in proximity to residences, SFR or otherwise, but since you specified, so be it. And it's also in their interest to have more than one-- competition is better for consumers, right?. I don't live in a flood plain, but a mile south of me, it is. Now if only those areas outside flood plains were developed, there'd be less demand for groceries, and thus, less stores...less competition...further distances to be travelled for groceries and less value placed on the properties since living there is less convenience (less efficient shopping/spending) and greater cost of living/lower standard of living. All other things held equal, it serves to lower property value, commercial sales, jobs and therefore public and private income and the multitude of infrastructure funding that enable our society to flourish. Of course, all other things being equal is almost never the case. There's other things like highest and best use considerations, jurisdictional limits like incorporated areas' spheres of influence and the multitude of regional designations, each with their own representative constituency's interests to consider with respect to overall impact amidst county state and federal designations with the environmental impact of developing flood plains being just one aspect of consideration.

You had quite a bit in there that is used as justification for effective subsidization of some at the cost of others. The question I asked was loaded, though not intentionally... at first, ;) towards middle class America living the American dream of a single family residence on an over-sized hunk of property with nice wide roads upon which they could drive to the closest mega mart, etc. etc... I'll argue that it is that group, and higher of course, that shouldn't be the target of a subsidized lifestyle but which unfortunately has been through various government programs, SS, Medicare, etc.

Sorry, that last bit may seem off tangent but is not to me where the expansion of government and its services has grown out of hand.

[jimnyc]

We have flood insurance for our home. We had a real bad storm here back in the early '00's and our entire basement was ruined. We lost the washer/dryer & HW heater - my entire bench of tools and lots of stored clothing, and also a second refrigerator. Insurance denied the claim, as one of the pumps gave out during the storm, and they didn't cover that. We upped our coverage. Then another 4 feet in our basement and this time everything lost was paid on, perhaps some of the older stuff too. :) Now we have a large enough well system and industrial pumps to help keep Giants Stadium dry!! We haven't had another flood since, not a drop. We had our HW heater built off the ground.

Yep, we're in a flood zone that we never found out about before purchase. This specific house and property has been a flood nightmare for 20yrs prior to our purchase and the sellers never disclosed the fact. I think we'll be OK in the end as our latest appraisal has our house at well more than double the price we paid to get it.

[fj1200]

Yep, we're in a flood zone that we never found out about before purchase. This specific house and property has been a flood nightmare for 20yrs prior to our purchase and the sellers never disclosed the fact. I think we'll be OK in the end as our latest appraisal has our house at well more than double the price we paid to get it.

I'm surprised the lender didn't require something. Is your main level in the flood plain?

[logroller]

Which raises the question of, "so what?" A lower valuation, read cost, is a risk adjusted calculation of whether to purchase in/near a flood zone.

and that risk is offset by the next best alternative being more costly on a macroeconomic level.



And my not being apparent reference is taking remediation steps, like raising living spaces above the flood plan level, to limit the costs when a flood does occur.
The federal flood insurance includes requirements for such remedial steps.


And I don't really mean the constituency's best interest because that is the lowest level of reasoning to institute a government program IMO. Should the coastal flood plain lines be adjusted to cover more vacation housing for those who lobbied well enough to have their second properties be included?
It is a low standard, and there are also standards that require alternative measures be considered. Ie building codes/ reinforced structures to reduce flood damages below 50%. But when such alternatives are cost prohibitive or otherwise reasoned to be overly detrimental, then such subsidies still provide a prevailing social benefit that would be otherwise forgone.


Compelling interest is how does it benefit society and not just benefit those who happen to benefit from the program. I don't see vacation housing as society's best interest although one could make the case that farmers living in a flood zone along the Mississippi is in society's best interest.
It's not just the farmer's house. It's the home of the guy who owns the tractor repair shop, or the owner of laundry service that washes his coveralls' house, or the tow truck driver that pulls a disabled laundry truck to a repair facility's house, or the worker that fixes that truck's house and so on. By allowing the invisible hand to disallow certain residences, the chain of service is broken and the farmers field sits fallow and society suffers.


You had quite a bit in there that is used as justification for effective subsidization of some at the cost of others.
It's not exactly a think of the children dying the streets emotional argument; the caveat being that those persons' cost is ameliorated by the benefits of a more vibrant economy. I'm reminded of the middle class complaints of effective tax rates being lower for the upper class. Indeed. The middle class largely owes its existence to government regulations and services. Whereas the essential capitalization of economic production owes itself to the upper classes ability and willingness to invest; wherein the willingness to invest is greater thanks to macroeconomic designs that serve to increase economic capacity and returns rather than limit them.


The question I asked was loaded, though not intentionally... at first, ;) towards middle class America living the American dream of a single family residence on an over-sized hunk of property with nice wide roads upon which they could drive to the closest mega mart, etc. etc...

Urban planning certainly has its benefits, but so too does it have its detractions. Agenda 21... Too many rats in cage will eat each other...there's been studies.


I'll argue that it is that group, and higher of course, that shouldn't be the target of a subsidized lifestyle but which unfortunately has been through various government programs, SS, Medicare, etc.
Sorry, that last bit may seem off tangent but is not to me where the expansion of government and its services has grown out of hand.
a completely free market would be rife with serfdom. But that doesn't mean all social ills require government intervention. Subsidizing lost assets is a different issue from entitlement programs.

[Robert A Whit]

We have flood insurance for our home. We had a real bad storm here back in the early '00's and our entire basement was ruined. We lost the washer/dryer & HW heater - my entire bench of tools and lots of stored clothing, and also a second refrigerator. Insurance denied the claim, as one of the pumps gave out during the storm, and they didn't cover that. We upped our coverage. Then another 4 feet in our basement and this time everything lost was paid on, perhaps some of the older stuff too. :) Now we have a large enough well system and industrial pumps to help keep Giants Stadium dry!! We haven't had another flood since, not a drop. We had our HW heater built off the ground.

Yep, we're in a flood zone that we never found out about before purchase. This specific house and property has been a flood nightmare for 20yrs prior to our purchase and the sellers never disclosed the fact. I think we'll be OK in the end as our latest appraisal has our house at well more than double the price we paid to get it.

California law has long stipulated the form of disclosure that sellers must give to some buyers.

On homes, it is to all buyers.

Flood hazards are mandated on our disclosure forms. I am surprised NY has not followed suit.

CA mandated this as I recall in the late 70s or early 80s.

Is your policy very expensive?

[Robert A Whit]

even being near a flood zone can lead to lower valuation.

Not sure what you're referring to as far not being apparent, but land use, urban planning etc is all public information. Admittedly some things aren't published information, but it can be requested. When you say something is a compelling government interest, that really means the constituency's interest through representative government. For example, it is in the constituency's interest to have a grocery store in proximity to residences, SFR or otherwise, but since you specified, so be it. And it's also in their interest to have more than one-- competition is better for consumers, right?. I don't live in a flood plain, but a mile south of me, it is. Now if only those areas outside flood plains were developed, there'd be less demand for groceries, and thus, less stores...less competition...further distances to be travelled for groceries and less value placed on the properties since living there is less convenience (less efficient shopping/spending) and greater cost of living/lower standard of living. All other things held equal, it serves to lower property value, commercial sales, jobs and therefore public and private income and the multitude of infrastructure funding that enable our society to flourish. Of course, all other things being equal is almost never the case. There's other things like highest and best use considerations, jurisdictional limits like incorporated areas' spheres of influence and the multitude of regional designations, each with their own representative constituency's interests to consider with respect to overall impact amidst county state and federal designations with the environmental impact of developing flood plains being just one aspect of consideration.

Very good explanation.

FEMA has a number of flood designations. Some apply to coast regions where waves can be the most feared water action.

Sometimes I have seen homes downgraded into a FEMA flood zone for nothing more than an adjacent canal to carry off storm water.

There is a protest process that can be used to remove a property from being in a flood zone but it needs professional help. A simple call to fEMA to remove it from the flood zone won't help.

Take Jim for instance. He has the mother of pumps in his home now. Clearly if I got this right, that pump will keep his basement dry. So, can he simply tell FEMA since he fixed the problem, take him out of the flood zone?

My guess is they won't do that. Suppose he got an expert to talk to FEMA. I don't know but FEMA knows. Why bother taking it out?

Values the property higher and eliminates payments to insurance is why.

[Robert A Whit]

A link to FEMA flood designation ratings and the full explanation.


Interesting how most of the property that i appraised was in zone C or the best rating possible.

https://msc.fema.gov/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/info?storeId=10001&catalogId=10001&langId=-1&content=floodZones&title=FEMA%2520Flood%2520Zone%2520Designations

[fj1200]

and that risk is offset by the next best alternative being more costly on a macroeconomic level.

You're not taking into account the subsidy cost. If it's better because of the subsidy; is it the next best?


The federal flood insurance includes requirements for such remedial steps.

In my example, if they raised the building above the flood plain then there would be no requirement for flood insurance no? Regardless it doesn't take into account that private insurers have left the market and it's tough to believe that they wouldn't be in the business if they could write policies reflecting the true cost and be able to mitigate costs nationally as opposed to regionally.


It is a low standard, and there are also standards that require alternative measures be considered. Ie building codes/ reinforced structures to reduce flood damages below 50%. But when such alternatives are cost prohibitive or otherwise reasoned to be overly detrimental, then such subsidies still provide a prevailing social benefit that would be otherwise forgone.

There's that phrase again; social benefit. Underlying that is that somehow there is no cost to the subsidy or small enough that we should just ignore that the government has entered a business it shouldn't be in or has driven out a business that was there before entry.


It's not just the farmer's house. It's the home of the guy who owns the tractor repair shop, or the owner of laundry service that washes his coveralls' house, or the tow truck driver that pulls a disabled laundry truck to a repair facility's house, or the worker that fixes that truck's house and so on. By allowing the invisible hand to disallow certain residences, the chain of service is broken and the farmers field sits fallow and society suffers.

That is by no means a determined outcome; It sits fallow if it isn't profitable to farm. At what point do we decide if we need to subsidize property to be sure that society doesn't suffer?


It's not exactly a think of the children dying the streets emotional argument; the caveat being that those persons' cost is ameliorated by the benefits of a more vibrant economy. I'm reminded of the middle class complaints of effective tax rates being lower for the upper class. Indeed. The middle class largely owes its existence to government regulations and services. Whereas the essential capitalization of economic production owes itself to the upper classes ability and willingness to invest; wherein the willingness to invest is greater thanks to macroeconomic designs that serve to increase economic capacity and returns rather than limit them.

That's quite a grand statement. You also make the statement that the vibrant economy is required by these subsidies; I disagree. Moving an economy from one place to another, doesn't make it vibrant it moves it from one place to anther.


Urban planning certainly has its benefits, but so too does it have its detractions. Agenda 21... Too many rats in cage will eat each other...there's been studies.

On rats or humans. ;) Nevertheless I'm not disputing urban planning, just the necessity of subsidy.


a completely free market would be rife with serfdom. But that doesn't mean all social ills require government intervention. Subsidizing lost assets is a different issue from entitlement programs.

Another grand statement? :slap: The issue is subsidizing those who don't need subsidization. The moral hazard you know.

[jimnyc]

I'm surprised the lender didn't require something. Is your main level in the flood plain?

The main level, no. But we used to get about 3-4 feet in our basement/garage on the real bad storms. The area where my house is used to be a small homemade lake of sorts years back. So 2 houses to the right of me the property is like 5 feet higher than mine in the back. And 2 houses to the left it is the same. The entire block, 8 houses, the backyards all more or less drain into my back yard! Nothing ever told to us from anyone. About 5 years after we moved in the old lady that lives next door asked us about it. "Oh John and Mandy complained for years and they finally had enough." I'm like huh? Why didn't our guy who inspected the house know about any of this? I am told about 8 years after we bought the house that we could have filed a lawsuit against them for not disclosing this issue, but the wife didn't want to pursue it. So we just put an end to the problem with a HUGE band aid. When we sell I will make sure we are up front about the issue, which has been non-existent since the installation. Hell, it may drop the value a tad, but we'll still get a profit when we're ready.

[jimnyc]

California law has long stipulated the form of disclosure that sellers must give to some buyers.

On homes, it is to all buyers.

Flood hazards are mandated on our disclosure forms. I am surprised NY has not followed suit.

CA mandated this as I recall in the late 70s or early 80s.

Is your policy very expensive?

That's what I later found out, that this was supposed to be disclosed by law, but wasn't. We technically could have went after a few people over it, but neither the wife or I are the sue happy type. She just didn't see the value in any type of extended legal battle, where money can be better served with upgrades for the problem and the rest of the home.

[Robert A Whit]

That's what I later found out, that this was supposed to be disclosed by law, but wasn't. We technically could have went after a few people over it, but neither the wife or I are the sue happy type. She just didn't see the value in any type of extended legal battle, where money can be better served with upgrades for the problem and the rest of the home.

I have seen some staggering awards in such suits. Suits are really a pain in the butt.

I was contacted one day by a fellow real estate broker and he said he could prove a city council member is dirty. I knew the broker very well and knew he was solid. I drove to his office and looked over a very thick packet. It was city records and things I have put into that little room in my brain where it no longer matters so it is getting dim in that room. I recall the packet was at least well over 1 inch thick.

I told the Broker I would take each paper and defend the city councilman and if I was not able to show he was innocent, I would take it to the real estate board who was meeting to see if our board would back this guys election.

The package was very damning to the council man.

I put on paper a note to the committee, since I was on the board of directors, my findings.

The procedure was to number each packet to the committee and to handle it top secret. Each copy to stay at the real estate association.

One of the committee members, took a copy then drove it to the councilmembers location or to the contractor who was part of this scheme. No point in giving each detail since the story would be pages and pages long.

The gist of the idea is the contractor needed an access to some land he bought and if he could get the council member on his team, he could have a good road. Absent that wide road, the land was grazing land but with the road, a multi million dollar fortune. Some of his land is where MC Hammer built a huge home. (After the road was obtained from a neighbor) But to do it meant land had to be taken from an innocent 3rd party. To get the council guy on his team, said contractor did free things for him including putting a lot of money into the council members new home. Well, the council member bit the bait and took hundreds of thousands of dollars quid pro quo from the contractor.

When the contractor saw my letter to the board, he called me and demanded i explain the letter.

I was shocked that being on the board of directors, that leaked out and I was sued by the contractor.

I won the suit and it did not cost me a dime, but for a few months it caused me to have hard feelings vs some on the Board, including the man who was the executive running the board daily.

I got no money for the crap i endured but spent none since the Board paid my legal costs.