Here I am

Cost of rebuilding after hurricanes

Attention: TDR Forum Junkies
To the point: Click this link and check out the Front Page News story(ies) where we are tracking the introduction of the 2025 Ram HD trucks.

Thanks, TDR Staff

"Born Ready"

Why is Puerto Rico still a US Territory?

SnoKing

TDR MEMBER
When will we decide it does not make economic sense to spend tax dollars to help rebuild in the same location again. Are we at a point that we need to think about moving people away for ocean front locations.

The country is facing two major rebuilding efforts and maybe more before this hurricane season is over.

Jose path shows it making land in the NE a week or 10 days out.
 
While we're at it, perhaps we should move everyone out of tornado alley and vacate all the communities built on active faults. :rolleyes:
 
This has already happened after Katrina where some areas simply weren't rebuilt, no power was ever restored to the area, etc.

After watching Holiday Traffic clogging the freeways I have no doubt that in a real emergency we are not getting out. Our infrastructure can't even handle the daily Rush Hour traffic! It's impossible, period. Government is unable to cope and clear the roads even with reversing the lanes. Then stupid happens as people idle their cars out of fuel further clogging the roads. Recall the news interview where some motorist must have been on LSD thinking they should bring a fuel truck to everyone that had run out of fuel stuck in traffic? :eek: Buses with old people in them catch fire and burn to the ground... Yes getting unprepared people out of the area for a predicted event is bad enough. Not everyone keeps their pitifully small fuel tank on their vehicle full, eh? (Fuel gets used every day so it's a chore to keep it over 1/2.) Even if you do the rest of the folks who didn't are now in the way. The shelter disaster is bad enough even when you are stuck at an airport just overnight. I can understand people not wanting to leave knowing that they simply can't get out. Yeah, why do people live in places like this?


I would say I don't, but, we have a nuke power plant in the area that could require leaving the area while the government says "Everything's Fine, Just Fine" repeated by the propaganda MSM to stop panic.

Tornadoes would require better buildings preferably underground in the same spirit the earthquake regulations help the areas known to be affected by them.


Back to the point of other's decisions to live in areas that cost the taxpayer money, well, we give away and spend more on rebuilding other countries during and after War. It is time to spend the money on the USA in it's infrastructure. We can start with new refineries :-laf after NIMBY and enviro wackos go NUTS to keep preventing them. Meanwhile we will get a fuel price increase again with the storm excuse to raise prices.

The debate to rebuild areas that keep getting leveled by storms like this appears to already be answered toward not doing it as much. If we do, clearly, we need more and better roads with a plan to fuel vehicles up to get people out of the area.
 
I laugh at the goverment officials get down on their knees and kiss the insurance excutives big toe. Why because the insurance companies cry this is going to cost us to much. We didn' t take as money in as the damage. But wait they are only talking about one year. How much money did they get from their customers for 10 to ? YEARS they did not have a claim?
Also the insurance companies don' t put those payments in a bank ( yes they have money hand to take of some claims they get every year. What do with the rest ,payroll, overhead and invest most of it.
They like to loan it to retail stores. Why your major and private stores that borrow money so they have product/merchandise take inventory 4 times a year. That means the loaner gets its money back plus interest every 90 days.
 
When will we decide it does not make economic sense to spend tax dollars to help rebuild in the same location again.
I'm paying for folks to live high risk ares - as are you. It doesn't make economic sense. I'm paying for other people's cell phones too. I'm paying to support an anti-democratic, anti-American group of people who support terrorism [Palestinians]. I am also funding their sworn enemy, who happens to be the only democratic nation in that region [Israel]. And yes, so are you. The list of sh_t we pay for - federally - can fill thousands of pages. It makes no economic sense, if you stand on one side of the political spectrum. It seems quite reasonable to the other side, though.
...& into the financial abyss we dive!

When will we decide not to fund anything/everything? When we - as a nation - decide to remove our self-imposed ignorance.

Who's in charge of educating our youth? Any correlation to young folks' deep level of ignorance?
Link: what-americans-dont-know.html

Are we at a point that we need to think about moving people away for ocean front locations
We don't need to move anybody. All we need to do is operate our republic in the manner it was designed. Good ole economics will do the rest.

But hey, if you can write yourself a blank check and print all the money you want, why wouldn't you throw a few billion here & there? It buys a sh_t ton of political capital, and it's just monopoly money after all!
 
When will we decide it does not make economic sense to spend tax dollars to help rebuild in the same location again.
Perhaps you could tell us where in the world natural disasters never occur? And, should such places exist, how does one make a living there?
 
I sorta get what Sno is trying to say. Let's use Orleans as an example. Why continue to pump public funds into an area that should have never been developed to begin with? How about areas prone to sink holes? Just because a developer swayed local government to allow them to build there doesn't mean that it's okay to build there, so why should public money should be used to shore up there areas that are pre-doomed? I live in a seasonal high fire area, so should I expect the government to pick up my tab when/if my house burns? I think not. We pay an extra fee out of pocket (insurance) to cover our losses. We don't rely on government assistance to bail us out.
 
And many of the low lying communities on the ocean and gulf coast generate untold billions in revenue every single year in the form of tourism. They undoubtedly put far more in than what they take out of the pot. And then there is the short term stimulus in the form of clean up and new construction. I know a couple of nurses, a Dr, and 3 lineman from this community alone that shipped out to work the disaster. Two of the lineman were out of work (union). So to say that these disasters are a "drain" on the economy is not entirely accurate. The only people it's a drain on are the ones that are displaced.
 
Tourism adds to the local and state economy. Why don't they pay for their own rebuilding efforts? It's all about the money. In my fathers home town, houses were destroyed when an ice jam caused flooding of low lying areas near the St. John river. The fed govt forbid rebuilding in the flood zone. Understand this is not a wealthy town. Now look at Florida or the Barrier islands of the Carolinas, coastal Texas. Too big to fail. I'd like to take this opportunity to point out that FEMA, that bloated,top heavy, govt behemoth that runs on paperwork, political pull, and BS is a creation of that illustrious Pres J. Carter. What more do we need to know?
 
Yes it is all about the money. Is that really a surprise to anyone? Tourism creates over 1.5 trillion dollars a year and accounts for nearly 8 million jobs in the US alone. Now throw in the fishery and shipping ports in the same low lying communities and we really have a problem. People have to live where the work is. What's the proposal for all these people that would be displaced? Keep in mind there are less than 7 million unemployed as we speak. I don't have the answers but this is obviously not it.
 
This may become a major player in the issue. Insurance! Banks will not lend money on a boat, car, home etc that is not insured. Insurance companies are going to rethink what and where they insure.

Could Irma bust Florida’s top insurers?

By MARY WILLIAMS WALSH
The New York Times

When the storm is over and the streets are safe again, Floridians will be checking what has become of their homes. They may also want to check on their insurers.

The big national carriers like State Farm and Allstate cut back on writing homeowners’ insurance in Florida years ago, citing catastrophic risks and unhelpful state regulators. Those reductions left a vacuum that the state filled, initially, with a state-owned insurer, Citizens Property Insurance. Eventually, the state offered incentives to coax some brave new insurers into the market.

As a result, all that may seem to stand between Florida’s homeowners and potential ruin is one state-owned insurer and dozens of relatively little-known companies that do all or most of their business in the state. They all have the benefit of the Florida Hurricane Catastrophe Fund, which, with no major storms in the past 12 years, has $17 billion at the ready — a sum that may not be nearly enough.

“This can really be a hurricane that can bust the insurance industry,” said Shahid Hamid, a finance professor at Florida International University’s International Hurricane Research Center. “When I saw Irma’s track, I was tremendously concerned.”

Whether policyholders can be made whole is likely to depend on reinsurance — the custom-tailored insurance that the Florida insurers themselves take out — and other financial vehicles that they have to fall back on. But the number of variables at play — the exact path of the storm, the companies’ balance sheets and the details of their reinsurance contracts — could produce differing fortunes for the various companies.

Fortunately, some forecasters sharply rolled back their damage estimates, as Irma moved up the Florida Peninsula and lost strength.

“There may yet be a Florida insurance market on Tuesday,” said Charles C. Watson Jr. of Enki Holdings LLC, who had been projecting losses of $172 billion on Sunday morning but just $49 billion by evening.

AIR Worldwide, a catastrophe modeling firm in Boston, predicted Monday that Irma’s insured damage in the United States would cost the industry $20 billion to $40 billion. If insured property in the Caribbean was included, the total projected losses would range from $25 billion to $55 billion, according to Kevin Long, a spokesman.

Insurer strength could be more of an issue in Florida than it was in eastern Texas, where most of Hurricane Harvey’s damage was caused by inland flooding. Homeowners’ insurers generally do not provide flood insurance. While Irma was bringing flooding to Florida, too, the greater damage was expected to be from high winds, a peril covered by standard homeowners’ policies.

Investors dumped the stocks of Florida insurers last week as they anticipated the resulting claims and losses. Not all the insurers are publicly traded, but the second largest in the Florida market, Universal Property & Casualty Insurance, saw the shares of its corporate parent, Universal Insurance Holdings, drop by 15 percent on Thursday. It regained some of that ground Friday and was up more than 13 percent Monday.

Hamid led the development of the Florida Public Hurricane Loss Model, which is used by state regulators to assess insurers’ financial strength, among other things. But he said it was impossible to predict which insurers might be vulnerable, because the companies’ exposures vary by region and the terms of their reinsurance contracts are not known.

Long before Hurricane Irma started bearing down, Hamid stress-tested the larger homeowners’ insurers in Florida and found that they would withstand a worst-case scenario, as he defined it at the time: a storm like Hurricane Andrew in 1992.

Until now, Andrew was ranked as Florida’s most destructive storm, causing $27 billion in damage — $47 billion in today’s dollars. Twenty-two insurers went under, leaving a million policyholders without coverage.

Joseph L. Petrelli, president of Demotech, an Ohiobased company that reviews and rates regional and specialty insurers — including about 50 in Florida that represent 60 percent of the state’s homeowners’ insurance market — suggested that Irma could be more significant because it would cause such a wide swath of damage.


CURTIS COMPTON / ATLANTA JOURNAL-CONSTITUTION

Jay Lassiter, a resident of St. Marys, Georgia, looks at the remains of boats wrecked when their docks were destroyed as Hurricane Irma swept through on Monday.

“It’s about 350 miles wide,” he said of the storm, “so the entire state is going to be hit by just one event. It’s the first time in history that every county in Florida was on hurricane watch.”

Using the same benchmark as Hamid, Petrelli said he believed his Florida client insurers could withstand a storm like Hurricane Andrew, mainly because they currently hold more reinsurance than ever.

Reinsurance allows companies to transfer some of their exposure to other, wellcapitalized companies, adding capacity but reducing their profits. Petrelli said that was why the national insurers pulled back from Florida — their reinsurance needs in other states were far less expensive and did not undermine profits.

“We make them buy more reinsurance every year,” he said of his Florida clients, “because the value of homes goes up every year, the number of homes goes up every year, and the cost of repairs goes up every year.”

The insurers pass at least some of the cost on to their customers. Homeowners in Florida spent about $1 billion on insurance in 1991, the year before Hurricane Andrew. Last year, they spent nearly $9 billion.

“Insurance rates are pretty high,” said Hamid. “The average rate for $300,000 coverage, built pre-1992, is $11,500, and it’s higher if you’re near the coast.”

He said the state’s building codes had improved since Hurricane Andrew, and people who upgrade older houses to the new standards can get “a huge discount” on their premiums. His own home, about 20 miles from the cost, costs about $7,000 a year to insure, he said.

“People complain a lot, but they’re really afraid of losing their coverage,” he said. After a series of hurricanes in 2004 and 2005, polls showed that Florida residents were more worried about affordable homeowners’ insurance than any other issue except public education.

The largest homeowners’ insurance company in Florida remains Citizens Property Insurance. It was formed in 1993, the year after Hurricane Andrew, and for many years it dominated the market in Florida, causing consternation because its size meant the state was bearing significant risk, stoking worries that a really big storm would mean a taxpayer bailout.

By 2011, Citizens estimated that a 100-year storm would cause $24.5 billion in losses, and it had the resources — including the state catastrophe fund and reinsurance — to cover just $13 billion.

That year, Citizens opened up its books and let the private insurers buy its most profitable policies, in big batches. The goal was to reduce the role of the state, so that while big risks would still be there, for-profit companies would bear more of them.

The initiative succeeded, said a company spokesman, Michael Peltier. Today, Citizens is about one-third its former size. With fewer policyholders, it estimated that it would get only $6.6 billion in claims after a 100-year storm. It has enough resources to cover that without taxpayers getting involved, company projections show. Citizens now screens prospective customers to make sure it takes only those deemed too risky for the companies to insure, like homeowners near the coasts.

Citizens builds reserves, buys reinsurance and issues catastrophe bonds to sophisticated investors, just as the private insurers do, Peltier said. But Citizens also has a risk-management tool that private companies do not: the taxing power of the state. If Hurricane Irma turns out to be devastating enough to use up all existing resources, Citizens has the authority to assess virtually all policyholders in the state, no matter what type of insurance they hold or whether they bought it from Citizens.

The private companies have nothing like that. If one of them blows through all its existing resources, it will end up insolvent. In such cases the company is typically closed, and a state-led “guarantee” mechanism takes over, seeking to pay homeowners as much as possible from what is left and assessments on other insurers. Homeowners would be unlikely to be paid the full cost of their claims.

But whether Hurricane Irma will be bad enough to cause insolvencies remains unknown.

The problem, Petrelli said, is that insurers base their risk-management strategies on what their catastrophe models tell them they need. “Nobody has ever seen a storm of this particular path and size,” he said. “In all candor, it hasn’t been factored into the catastrophe models.”
 
Last edited:
I have no problem with funding port or rail repairs. I do have problems with money to rebuild in flood prone areas and assistance to those who choose not to insure.
 
How many years to repay us with the tax money? Then they can start to contribute to the general operation of our country once again. Like I said, I'm not against paying for infrastructure. Private property is another thing. Are the refineries and chemical plants govt owned or are they private corporations? Can they afford insurance? My guess is they have so much in reserve they self insure. How about their employees? Don't those high paying jobs allow them to purchase insurance? Why are they entitled to my tax dollars any more than those folks in Alagash?
 
Why are they entitled to my tax dollars any more than those folks in Alagash?

Why were those hit by Hurricane Sandy entitled to MY tax dollars? Because we are all in this together. The point is that there is NO WHERE on this planet that is exempt from natural disasters and, if there were, there is no way everyone could live & work there.
 
As far as I'm concerned the people who were hit by sandy were not entitled to our tax money. I watched FEMA come to my town after a flooding rain and again after the barely recognizable remnants of sandy. They were practically begging folks to take handouts for things the citizens should have taken care of on their own. States and towns chased funding by following FEMA protocols that raised the costs of repair astronomically. Brush chipping costs alone almost doubled because all the chips had to go to a central point to be weighed and tallied. It's a dollar chasing a dime.

If someone doesnt care enough about their property to insure it why should I bail them out? As I said before, infrastructure is a different matter, and the waste and corruption involved could very well negate the benifit there also, but private property is the responsibility of the owner.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top