Very interesting video.

http://www.mvn.usace.army.mil/hps2/v...over_video.asp

As you will hear towards the end, the gulf faces storm surge frequencies that
are significantly greater than the Netherlands (by a factor of 100 if I heard
correctly, our 100 year surge is their 10,000 year surge.). Also note that the
Katrina surge far surpassed the 100 year design surge of 16 feet, Of course, it
was hard to hear that detail in all the cacophony that flooded the waves (pardon
the pun) after Katrina. I always thought the Corps got a bum-rap in that deal.

On 05/04/2011 8:32 AM, wrote:
On Tue, 05 Apr 2011 10:02:20 -0400, John
wrote:


Very interesting video.

http://www.mvn.usace.army.mil/hps2/v...over_video.asp

As you will hear towards the end, the gulf faces storm surge frequencies that
are significantly greater than the Netherlands (by a factor of 100 if I heard
correctly, our 100 year surge is their 10,000 year surge.). Also note that the
Katrina surge far surpassed the 100 year design surge of 16 feet, Of course, it
was hard to hear that detail in all the cacophony that flooded the waves (pardon
the pun) after Katrina. I always thought the Corps got a bum-rap in that deal.

With the earth moving capability we have in this country, it was
simply stupid not to bring those washed out areas above sea level
before they were allowed to rebuild.. That is the law of the land in
virtually every other place that FEMA sells flood insurance. For far
less money than we will spend on the next flood we could have fixed
New Orleans and we will have another flood there. It is not "if" only
"when".

Agreed, be it 3 years or a 100. But the land was cheap. Isn't just New
Orleans either, all over the world with more and more people, more
people live it flood areas, volcanoes and fault lines.

I would be nervous right now if I lived in California. With quakes in
Chile, NZ, Japan, Alaska -- the west coast of North America is about due.

wrote:
On Tue, 05 Apr 2011 10:28:41 -0600,
wrote:

Agreed, be it 3 years or a 100. But the land was cheap. Isn't just New
Orleans either, all over the world with more and more people, more
people live it flood areas, volcanoes and fault lines.

I live in a FEMA flood area, although we have not had a flood here for
the 150 year recorded history (and who knows when it was just indians)
FEMA will still require that if I do anything to my house that is more
than 50% of the appraised building price, I need to tear it down and
build 4 feet higher than I am now.
This has shocked more than a few of my neighbors since the houses are
appraised unrealistically low. Most houses have an effective cap of
around $30,000-40,000 on any additions or repairs.


Well, then, insist the assessors re-appraise your house at market value.

On Tue, 05 Apr 2011 14:48:28 -0400, Harryk
wrote:

wrote:
On Tue, 05 Apr 2011 10:28:41 -0600,
wrote:

Agreed, be it 3 years or a 100. But the land was cheap. Isn't just New
Orleans either, all over the world with more and more people, more
people live it flood areas, volcanoes and fault lines.

I live in a FEMA flood area, although we have not had a flood here for
the 150 year recorded history (and who knows when it was just indians)
FEMA will still require that if I do anything to my house that is more
than 50% of the appraised building price, I need to tear it down and
build 4 feet higher than I am now.
This has shocked more than a few of my neighbors since the houses are
appraised unrealistically low. Most houses have an effective cap of
around $30,000-40,000 on any additions or repairs.


Well, then, insist the assessors re-appraise your house at market value.

The problem is land value vs house value. In many waterfront areas
around here a vacant lot will sell for about the same price as a lot
with an older but quite livable house. Some people prefer a vacant
lot because they don't need to start with a tear down.

Wayne B wrote:
On Tue, 05 Apr 2011 14:48:28 -0400,
wrote:

wrote:
On Tue, 05 Apr 2011 10:28:41 -0600,
wrote:

Agreed, be it 3 years or a 100. But the land was cheap. Isn't just New
Orleans either, all over the world with more and more people, more
people live it flood areas, volcanoes and fault lines.
I live in a FEMA flood area, although we have not had a flood here for
the 150 year recorded history (and who knows when it was just indians)
FEMA will still require that if I do anything to my house that is more
than 50% of the appraised building price, I need to tear it down and
build 4 feet higher than I am now.
This has shocked more than a few of my neighbors since the houses are
appraised unrealistically low. Most houses have an effective cap of
around $30,000-40,000 on any additions or repairs.

Well, then, insist the assessors re-appraise your house at market value.

The problem is land value vs house value. In many waterfront areas
around here a vacant lot will sell for about the same price as a lot
with an older but quite livable house. Some people prefer a vacant
lot because they don't need to start with a tear down.


Nothing beats local knowledge! :)

On 05/04/2011 2:01 PM, Wayne B wrote:
On Tue, 05 Apr 2011 14:48:28 -0400,
wrote:

wrote:
On Tue, 05 Apr 2011 10:28:41 -0600,
wrote:

Agreed, be it 3 years or a 100. But the land was cheap. Isn't just New
Orleans either, all over the world with more and more people, more
people live it flood areas, volcanoes and fault lines.

I live in a FEMA flood area, although we have not had a flood here for
the 150 year recorded history (and who knows when it was just indians)
FEMA will still require that if I do anything to my house that is more
than 50% of the appraised building price, I need to tear it down and
build 4 feet higher than I am now.
This has shocked more than a few of my neighbors since the houses are
appraised unrealistically low. Most houses have an effective cap of
around $30,000-40,000 on any additions or repairs.


Well, then, insist the assessors re-appraise your house at market value.

The problem is land value vs house value. In many waterfront areas
around here a vacant lot will sell for about the same price as a lot
with an older but quite livable house. Some people prefer a vacant
lot because they don't need to start with a tear down.

So people buy them, wait for the weather to trash it and get federal
moneys for bailout.

On 05/04/2011 6:13 PM, wrote:
On Tue, 05 Apr 2011 17:11:08 -0600,
wrote:

On 05/04/2011 2:01 PM, Wayne B wrote:
On Tue, 05 Apr 2011 14:48:28 -0400,
wrote:

wrote:
On Tue, 05 Apr 2011 10:28:41 -0600,
wrote:

Agreed, be it 3 years or a 100. But the land was cheap. Isn't just New
Orleans either, all over the world with more and more people, more
people live it flood areas, volcanoes and fault lines.

I live in a FEMA flood area, although we have not had a flood here for
the 150 year recorded history (and who knows when it was just indians)
FEMA will still require that if I do anything to my house that is more
than 50% of the appraised building price, I need to tear it down and
build 4 feet higher than I am now.
This has shocked more than a few of my neighbors since the houses are
appraised unrealistically low. Most houses have an effective cap of
around $30,000-40,000 on any additions or repairs.


Well, then, insist the assessors re-appraise your house at market value.

The problem is land value vs house value. In many waterfront areas
around here a vacant lot will sell for about the same price as a lot
with an older but quite livable house. Some people prefer a vacant
lot because they don't need to start with a tear down.

So people buy them, wait for the weather to trash it and get federal
moneys for bailout.

That looked like a bad bet to me. Flood and windstorm will cost you
about $4,000 a year for $100,000 in coverage and there will still be a
several thousand dollar deductible for a storm that might not happen
that often or cause that much damage.

Insurance is about amortization of risk.

In article , payer3389
@mypacks.net says...

wrote:
On Tue, 05 Apr 2011 10:28:41 -0600,
wrote:

Agreed, be it 3 years or a 100. But the land was cheap. Isn't just New
Orleans either, all over the world with more and more people, more
people live it flood areas, volcanoes and fault lines.

I live in a FEMA flood area, although we have not had a flood here for
the 150 year recorded history (and who knows when it was just indians)
FEMA will still require that if I do anything to my house that is more
than 50% of the appraised building price, I need to tear it down and
build 4 feet higher than I am now.
This has shocked more than a few of my neighbors since the houses are
appraised unrealistically low. Most houses have an effective cap of
around $30,000-40,000 on any additions or repairs.


Well, then, insist the assessors re-appraise your house at market value.

That's not how it works, you idiot!

wrote:
On Tue, 05 Apr 2011 14:48:28 -0400,
wrote:

wrote:
On Tue, 05 Apr 2011 10:28:41 -0600,
wrote:

Agreed, be it 3 years or a 100. But the land was cheap. Isn't just New
Orleans either, all over the world with more and more people, more
people live it flood areas, volcanoes and fault lines.
I live in a FEMA flood area, although we have not had a flood here for
the 150 year recorded history (and who knows when it was just indians)
FEMA will still require that if I do anything to my house that is more
than 50% of the appraised building price, I need to tear it down and
build 4 feet higher than I am now.
This has shocked more than a few of my neighbors since the houses are
appraised unrealistically low. Most houses have an effective cap of
around $30,000-40,000 on any additions or repairs.

Well, then, insist the assessors re-appraise your house at market value.

Most people are not willing to pay higher taxes. It was actually a
goodthing they didn't keep up with the market price in the go go days
because they would have to cut taxes now. The way it is, they are just
telling us, we were not paying enough in 04-06 and we should be happy
our taxes are staying where the SOH cap keeps them.

This did not really bother me and my projects because I did a little
at a time (open one permit, close it then open another one) and acted
as "owner/builder" so my cash outlay was pretty low compared to what I
got.
I did build everything new as storm friendly as I could.
I have impact rated windows and no drywall. It is stucco in and out
with block walls.


Smart.

If we have flooding from the Bay here, the world has ended. We're about
115 feet above sea level.

On Tue, 05 Apr 2011 14:46:04 -0400, wrote:

On Tue, 05 Apr 2011 10:28:41 -0600, Canuck57
wrote:

Agreed, be it 3 years or a 100. But the land was cheap. Isn't just New
Orleans either, all over the world with more and more people, more
people live it flood areas, volcanoes and fault lines.

I live in a FEMA flood area, although we have not had a flood here for
the 150 year recorded history (and who knows when it was just indians)
FEMA will still require that if I do anything to my house that is more
than 50% of the appraised building price, I need to tear it down and
build 4 feet higher than I am now.
This has shocked more than a few of my neighbors since the houses are
appraised unrealistically low. Most houses have an effective cap of
around $30,000-40,000 on any additions or repairs.

One of my neighbors ran up against that but with a *lot* of sweat
equity and some creative finagling he managed a complete do over.