- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: La Flood Recovery Funds - RESTORE
Posted on 4/3/17 at 12:58 pm to Bard
Posted on 4/3/17 at 12:58 pm to Bard
It's much better to have flood insurance. When you are fleeing your home and knowing you have coverage makes it much less stressful. You can roll the dice and hope it will be widespread enough that the government will step in but there's still a long delay getting the help. Even with immediate help from FEMA there are repercussions for it. You will be forced to maintain flood insurance thereafter and when you go to sell you will have to make it known to the buyer that the property has to maintain it no matter if it's outside a flood zone or paid in full. That "little" 30 grand will be paid back eventually.
1
Posted on 4/3/17 at 1:05 pm to Bard
quote:There are rules associated with claiming a "loss". There's a 10% of your household AIG buffer along with deducting your FEMA money and any other grants you received.
As a sidenote: I spoke to my accountant this weekend and it seems that you can claim many of the expenditures you made to bring your home back up to fair market value
Posted on 4/3/17 at 1:05 pm to poops_at_parties
quote:
1. Your insurance agent fricked up (sue their E&O policy) 2. You CHOSE to under insure your home and contents. 3. You needed more than the maximum of $250,000/$100,000 building/contents coverage. When that happens, it's the homeowners responsibility to buy excess flood coverage from a broker. 4. You stupidly let your mortgage company take care of getting your flood insurance for you. When you do this, the MORTGAGE COMPANY will only get your HOME covered, not your contents. YOU, the buyer, have to sign off on that. If you didn't know what you were signing, I shouldn't have to help you.
Well.... I lost 45 feet of land. A bulkhead. A boat house. All of it is gone, and the foundation of my house now hangs over the Amite.
NO insurance covers any of those things. It will cost over a quarter million dollars to shore up our home. None of which insurance will cover.
I can literally stand under the slab of my house and reach my hands up and still not touch the slab. If it continues to erode uninterrupted, the entire house will fall in. The flood completely shifted the rivers course.
And save me the "you shouldn't live by a river" bullshite. With that logic, new Orleans should have gotten zero after katrina. "Ya shouldn't build in a fricking bowl surrounded by water".
A river completely shifting it's course isn't exactly something that is planned on when neighborhoods get permitted for construction.
Posted on 4/3/17 at 2:03 pm to ell_13
quote:
There's a 10% of your household AIG buffer along with deducting your FEMA money and any other grants you received.
Thanks :)
Posted on 4/3/17 at 2:05 pm to WestSideTiger
quote:
You will be forced to maintain flood insurance thereafter and when you go to sell you will have to make it known to the buyer that the property has to maintain it no matter if it's outside a flood zone or paid in full.
Either that's untrue or we fell through a crack. There has been no such requirement placed on us (we're still listed as outside the flood zone). Maybe you are thinking about when one takes the secured SBA loan?
Posted on 4/3/17 at 2:07 pm to Bard
quote:FEMA requires you to keep flood insurance if you ever want FEMA aid again. It is not required for the sale of the home. The irony of that is that if you do have flood insurance, you aren't really going to get FEMA aid anyway.
You will be forced to maintain flood insurance thereafter and when you go to sell you will have to make it known to the buyer that the property has to maintain it no matter if it's outside a flood zone or paid in full.
Posted on 4/3/17 at 2:18 pm to poops_at_parties
quote:
The taxpayers should NOT have to bail out those people in the four situations above
Taxpayers shouldn't be bailing out the ones who didn't have any insurance because they weren't in the flood plain. Flood insurance in those areas is cheap, but there's still a whole bunch of people in those areas who turn it down. I hear the excuses all the time "Oh, my mortgage doesn't require it so I don't want it" or "Not now, but maybe I'll get it later"
Posted on 4/3/17 at 2:28 pm to Martini
You don't live in a flood zone. You most definitely can get up into the tens of thousands if you live in certain zones and want additional coverage over what NFIP provides.
Posted on 4/3/17 at 2:30 pm to Tiger Prawn
There's a distinction where we are talking about a real natural disaster. Sandy hitting the northeast was more likely than this flood. Two hurricanes the size of Rita and Katrina hitting in the same year were more likely than this flood. Should I have had insurance? Hindsight says yes, of course. But I don't have earthquake insurance either. Do you?
As for getting "bailout" money... I didn't "qualify" for much of it. Apparently, because I didn't have 10 kids, went to college and found a good job, and don't live above my means, I'm in too good of a situation for government help. And maybe I am. Thanks for friends and family and because we were smart enough to have a decent savings account, we aren't hurting like many other people. But I still owe a lot of money. Even on top of all that help and everything we did ourselves...
As for getting "bailout" money... I didn't "qualify" for much of it. Apparently, because I didn't have 10 kids, went to college and found a good job, and don't live above my means, I'm in too good of a situation for government help. And maybe I am. Thanks for friends and family and because we were smart enough to have a decent savings account, we aren't hurting like many other people. But I still owe a lot of money. Even on top of all that help and everything we did ourselves...
Posted on 4/3/17 at 2:42 pm to ell_13
I'm all in favor of low interest federal disaster assistance loans to help people who didn't have flood insurance or had losses that weren't covered because they underinsured or left off contents coverage.
I'm just against the grants that don't have to be paid back. Feds give out all this grant money to people who don't buy flood insurance, but then seems like every April 1, they're looking to raise flood insurance rates on everyone who's paying into the system.
I'm just against the grants that don't have to be paid back. Feds give out all this grant money to people who don't buy flood insurance, but then seems like every April 1, they're looking to raise flood insurance rates on everyone who's paying into the system.
Posted on 4/3/17 at 2:45 pm to Tiger Prawn
quote:With the stipulation that you must have insurance going forward or you get no assistance ever again.
I'm just against the grants that don't have to be paid back. Feds give out all this grant money to people who don't buy flood insurance
quote:Those rates do not subsidize those without insurance. That's not how it works.
they're looking to raise flood insurance rates on everyone who's paying into the system.
Posted on 4/3/17 at 2:48 pm to Bard
It's amazing to me that the two companies that bid to manage this contract will be allowed to rebid the new one even though neither one of them were properly licensed. This is a clear violation of Louisiana las for contractors and they are just turning a blind eye to it. A smaller company would be drug in front of the board, fined and barred from bidding the work etc. I think it's a terrible way to start the project, especially one funded with public/ federal funds. Just look like Louisiana is doing business as usual
Posted on 4/3/17 at 2:57 pm to Triggerr
quote:
It's amazing to me that the two companies that bid to manage this contract will be allowed to rebid the new one even though neither one of them were properly licensed. This is a clear violation of Louisiana las for contractors and they are just turning a blind eye to it. A smaller company would be drug in front of the board, fined and barred from bidding the work etc. I think it's a terrible way to start the project, especially one funded with public/ federal funds. Just look like Louisiana is doing business as usual
You are misinformed on how it works. The two companies bid on doing the program administration and management -- not the construction. All rebuilding and construction work will be done by licensed contractors no matter who wins. Plus, the two companies in question had obtained contractor's licenses when the question was raised. Thus, they would have had the licenses BEFORE any contract was signed.
This post was edited on 4/3/17 at 3:10 pm
Posted on 4/3/17 at 3:27 pm to Bard
quote:
Either that's untrue or we fell through a crack. There has been no such requirement placed on us (we're still listed as outside the flood zone). Maybe you are thinking about when one takes the secured SBA loan?
Apparently it's only required if you were in a flood zone and had no insurance. My mistake.
FEMA
Posted on 4/3/17 at 3:32 pm to Bard
quote:
Either that's untrue or we fell through a crack. There has been no such requirement placed on us (we're still listed as outside the flood zone). Maybe you are thinking about when one takes the secured SBA loan?
It's not true. FEMA does have the flood insurance purchase requirement after a FEMA payout, but only if you are in a flood plain. (anything but X)
Posted on 4/3/17 at 3:35 pm to beerJeep
quote:
Well.... I lost 45 feet of land. A bulkhead. A boat house. All of it is gone, and the foundation of my house now hangs over the Amite.
NO insurance covers any of those things. It will cost over a quarter million dollars to shore up our home. None of which insurance will cover.
I can literally stand under the slab of my house and reach my hands up and still not touch the slab. If it continues to erode uninterrupted, the entire house will fall in. The flood completely shifted the rivers course.
And save me the "you shouldn't live by a river" bullshite. With that logic, new Orleans should have gotten zero after katrina. "Ya shouldn't build in a fricking bowl surrounded by water".
A river completely shifting it's course isn't exactly something that is planned on when neighborhoods get permitted for construction.
I feel for you.
Who is responsible for maintaining the waterway? That's the entity you have a claim against, if anyone.
Posted on 4/3/17 at 3:36 pm to SlackMaster
quote:
You are misinformed on how it works. The two companies bid on doing the program administration and management -- not the construction. All rebuilding and construction work will be done by licensed contractors no matter who wins. Plus, the two companies in question had obtained contractor's licenses when the question was raised. Thus, they would have had the licenses BEFORE any contract was signed.
State law says you have to have a license to bid work and when submitting for the license you receive a letter that clearly says on the bottom that you cannot bid work until the license is approved by the board therefore filing your paper work does not equal having a license, secondly my understanding of the RFP was that the bidder must have a residential contractors license. This has nothing to do with the subs they are going to hire
Posted on 4/3/17 at 3:38 pm to LSUFanHouston
quote:Again, it's not a "requirement" unless you want FEMA aid again for the same type of disaster.
FEMA does have the flood insurance purchase requirement after a FEMA payout, but only if you are in a flood plain. (anything but X)
quote:
Even without the NFIRA requirement, it is a wise decision to purchase flood insurance. But, because Federal law mandates the purchase of flood insurance as a condition of disaster funding, an applicant who does not comply with the NFIRA flood insurance obligation may become ineligible for future disaster assistance. It’s that important.
This post was edited on 4/3/17 at 3:40 pm
Posted on 4/3/17 at 3:42 pm to LSUFanHouston
quote:
Who is responsible for maintaining the waterway? That's the entity you have a claim against, if anyone.
Parish says state. State says feds. Feds says army COE. COE says we do.
Or some variation of that. Basically the good ole fashioned "not our problem, call them" run around. Meanwhile every heavy rain or busy river weekend, more land gets lost. Just a shite situation all around.
Posted on 4/3/17 at 3:42 pm to Triggerr
quote:
State law says you have to have a license to bid work and when submitting for the license you receive a letter that clearly says on the bottom that you cannot bid work until the license is approved by the board therefore filing your paper work does not equal having a license, secondly my understanding of the RFP was that the bidder must have a residential contractors license. This has nothing to do with the subs they are going to hire
Again, incorrect. State law may say you must have a license to do construction, but not program or project management. The RFP said nothing about a licenae and there is precedent of other projects having program managers without a contractor's license.
Page 2 of 3
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News