After reading Heber Taylor’s editorial (“A good bill, but not a real solution to flood insurance,” March 6, The Daily News) I have a comment or two. 

I have been dealing with flood insurance requirements and regulations for probably 20 years — typical government operation. There are some good requirements and some that aren’t so good. There are a lot of things that just do not make sense, but if you are going to have flood insurance, you must play by their rules.

In our city, we build above and beyond the FEMA regulations, therefore getting a 10 percent reduction in our flood premiums. Because we build better than the Federal Emergency Management Agency requires, our damage is less during storms. 

We still pay huge amounts for premiums. Because we have less damage, we get very little in return for what we pay. 

Regarding Community Development Block Grant funds, we received less than any other community in Galveston County, not because we didn’t get hit by the storm but because we built better and were prepared. Remember: We still pay huge insurance premiums.

Now, for the big issue regarding flood insurance: the federal government’s policy on giveaways during storms. Thousands of dollars are given to folks who have never paid one penny for flood insurance and never intend to for rebuilding homes, moving expenses to other cities, and paying rent for years. Until this is fixed, the National Flood Insurance Program is going to be broke just as other “giveaway” programs from our government.

It’s just a plain and simple fix but it probably will never happen. In my opinion, if you choose not to have insurance, don’t expect to get free money.

Charlie Everts lives in Tiki Island.

Locations

(2) comments

Don Ciaccio

I agree 100%. Only those that pay premiums should be entitled to payouts. The rest can move away or save up for the next flood. Why should I pay to cover those that CHOOSE not to have insurance. This is ridiculous.

Steve Fouga

I have to agree with Don233 on this one.

If a person is in a flood zone, they should have flood insurance.

That insurance should be affordable in the same sense that any insurance is -- meaning that while a person may not enjoy paying it, they are able to fit it within a household budget commensurate with the property they own.

If a person can't afford both the property and the insurance policies to protect it, they should buy a lesser property. And moving forward, the government should not impose unaffordable insurance rates on people who already own property.

Welcome to the discussion.

Keep it Clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd, racist or sexually-oriented language.
PLEASE TURN OFF YOUR CAPS LOCK.
Don't Threaten. Threats of harming another person will not be tolerated.
Be Truthful. Don't knowingly lie about anyone or anything.
Be Nice. No racism, sexism or any sort of -ism that is degrading to another person.
Be Proactive. Use the 'Report' link on each comment to let us know of abusive posts.
Share with Us. We'd love to hear eyewitness accounts, the history behind an article.