5 ms·
Would any type of records search available to a homeowner prepurchase have turned up these floodplain maps?
by yellow_postit 9y ago
Would any type of records search available to a homeowner prepurchase have turned up these floodplain maps?
- TallGuyShort 9y agoI agree they should be available, but it may not have made a difference. Most people don't read any records when purchasing a home or base such a decision on things like this. I've had flood plain maps included in my mortgage paperwork, but I've also had the other parties sit their being verbally impatient while I actually look through everything instead of just signing where they show me.
- jordanb 9y agoOf course those other parties, at your closing, bear no risk themselves if you sign (regardless the contents of the papers) and stand to lose their commission if you don't.
- TallGuyShort 9y agoWhich is extra screwed up even from the respective employers' perspective. They're loaning me more than 10 times more money than I've ever borrowed. Several times my salary. My ability to take care of the house and honor the terms of my homeowners' insurance is the only thing protecting their investment. Don't they WANT me to take it really seriously and know what I'm committing to?
- bonniemuffin 9y agoWhen I bought a house, my agent got me all the documentation a day or two ahead of time so I could read through it before the closing day. I can't imagine trying to read and sign that giant stack of papers while people are waiting on you.
- jpindar 9y agoI've noticed that whenever you have to sign a contract or agreement of any kind. No one expects you to read it.
- deelowe 9y agoYou should have reviewed the map during due diligence, not at closing. Closing is for checking that the terms of the deal are properly documented not for research.
- TallGuyShort 9y agoWell I can tell you the map was not available prior to closing. I requested it and all documents. Town and County governments only referred me to the Metropolitan District, whose board cancelled meetings and ignored all attempts. Closing was the first time I saw anything. That's why I didn't feel bad making them wait.
- deelowe 9y agoIt's not the seller's fault the county is a pain in the ass. Again closing is not for due diligence. Even if you had found an issue, you would have lost your escrow. I would be pissed too if a buyer tried to find a reason to back out of a deal at closing. That's not what that's for and you could have cost them a ton of money if you had found an issue. [Edit] fyi the proper way to make the seller care about such things is to extend due diligence and let them know you'll need a flood map before you'll move forward on the deal.
- amigoingtodie 9y agoParent is well within his rights. I would be pissed if I bought property that knowingly floods, but the seller's agent insists it is the responsibility of the buyer's agent to discover this. What if the buyer relied on the seller's agent? You believe the buyer is at fault?
- deelowe 9y agoI don't "think" it's the buyer's responsibility. It literally is their responsibility (excluding special circumstances). The large majority of contracts are written with the assumption that the buyer performs due diligence during a specific period. Once that period is up, there are penalties for backing out. The buyer is in violation of the contract if they back out of the offer. Rights have little to do with contract law in this case by the way. Note we're talking about public records such as flood plains here, not the seller lying on a disclosure form or some other form of fraud.
- pmorici 9y agoUltimately the politicians knew and were politically pressured by the developers to not take any strong action. So because of this, according to this article, the only mention of flooding risk was in the plat documents which are a drawing of the lots which no one probably looks at unless they have a property line dispute with their neighbor.
- hydrogen18 9y agoWhen I bought my house in TX I had to explicitly go through a separate agreement with the mortgage defining what a flood plain was and how it could affect my property. I'm not even in a flood plain and had to learn about them. I guess if you buy cash you might not know, but in general it's in the documentation you get while purchasing a house here in TX.
- alyandon 9y agoYep, exact same experience here when I purchased my home in the Dallas area.
- bonniemuffin 9y agoThe Harris county flood map shows Lakes on Eldridge, for example, as being outside the 100 year flood plain-- so if I was looking for information before buying a house in that neighborhood, I would've gotten as far as this and then felt reassured and stopped looking. http://www.harriscountyfemt.org/ http://www.harriscountyfemt.org/
- mannykannot 9y agoEven if the map was realistic, the 100-year boundary is not the level beyond which the flood risk is too rare to care about. At that level, the expectation is that the house will be flooded at some point.
- cat199 9y agoIt floods here. period. If you live near these reservoirs, you drive by them daily or at least weekly, and see them turn into giant lakes after a mild storm (which for us can mean dropping several cm/in in the course of an hour or even minutes), and are also aware that we get big storms from time to time. Thinking you are not at risk of flooding anywhere in the area, or near these reservoirs especially, is basically living in denial.
- asclepi 9y agoA quick check on Google Maps shows that right next to LOE is a road named "Addicks Dam Rd." That's a red flag. Zooming out on the satellite view reveals what certainly looks like a reservoir structure. More red flags. Googling "Addicks Dam" leads you to the Addicks Reservoir Wikipedia page which doesn't sound reassuring (even when you consider the pre-Harvey version of that page). Of course, hindsight is 20/20, but it doesn't seem like there was anything in the way of due diligence to avoid choosing this neighborhood. I certainly believe however that realtors and the local government said that everything was fine in pre-Harvey times, as both had something to lose with saying the opposite. That's why I never rely on those sources alone. There's a lot of additional information to be gained from Google Maps and OSM, satellite views, walking in the environment, checking historic news, talking with residents, etc. before settling on a neighborhood.
- deelowe 9y agoYeah, the flood plain map... They are free and publicly available. Typically your county will be the one to ask, but they are available at the state and federal level as well.
- sbov 9y agoAs others mentioned, you can get a flood plain map from several sources. However, some of them can be wrong. The federal map for our home is wrong and puts us in a flood plain. But that map was from before our development was built, which slightly relocated a creek. For whatever reason, our county refuses to submit their updated map. But the previous homeowner got a special note at the federal level saying it isn't in a flood plain.
- foolfoolz 9y agoin California it's required to give this information to buyers as part of disclosures, not sure about texas
- topspin 9y agoCalifornia homeowners are dealing with some rather serious problems of their own at the moment. They're still counting bodies from the wildfires. However excellent the CA regulatory regime is it appears there is some work to do there as well.
- sxates 9y agoI purchased a house last year in the Oakland Hills. I learned when I started calling around to secure insurance for it that it was in the "maximum wildfire risk zone", which meant none of the big national insurance companies will touch it - making it difficult to insure. And you can't get a mortgage without that insurance, so you have no excuse for not knowing the risks. In addition to that, the City of Oakland (and other cities in the area) have strict fire prevention ordinances for those who live in these high risk areas. You are required to maintain a defensible space around your house, to remove dead trees and shrubs, clean up dry leaves, keep grass short, remove tree limbs < 6' from the ground, etc etc. and the fire department comes by at least once a year to inspect your property to make sure you do it. If they find you in non-compliance they fine you $330 on the spot and schedule another inspection for a couple weeks later. Again, no excuse for not knowing your risks. Similar regulations are in place for utilities and businesses to reduce the risk. Seems to me California is doing a much better job dealing with natural disaster preparation, but there's only so much the state can reasonably do.
- topspin 9y agoBased on aerial views of the burned out subdivisions the problem is zoning. The structures have almost no separation from each other; only 5-10' on average as seen in video from Santa Rosa[1]. In subdivisions where the fire spared some homes the line between the burned out properties and the survivors is often a street; a modest residential street provided enough separation to stop the fire. So CA and its various governments have been either allowing or requiring developers to plat large homes on tiny lots with next to no separation. Fed by wind the fire leapt from one home to the next burning out whole subdivisions. While the efforts you cite to control brush are admirable they can't prevent this; the houses are too tightly packed and will burn en-mass with no help from brush at all given enough wind. Bottom line; this is indeed a regulatory problem. Obviously that rankles those that habitually give CA every benefit of the doubt in all things but physics doesn't care. [1] http://www.sfgate.com/news/article/Drone-footage-reveals-utter-devastation-to-Santa-12278094.php http://www.sfgate.com/news/article/Drone-footage-reveals-utt...