4 ms·
“There was, back in the 90s, an amendment to the National Flood Insurance Program called the Upton Jones Amendment,” said Couch, “and it essentially paid 40% of
by spicyusername 4y ago
“There was, back in the 90s, an amendment to the National Flood Insurance Program called the Upton Jones Amendment,” said Couch, “and it essentially paid 40% of the property policy to relocate the home, and paid 110% of the policy to demolish the home.”
“Well, in its short five-year existence, with the combination of hurricanes, the lunar tides, and some bad stuff weather-wise, it proved to be very [costly], and 75% of the applicants were for demolishing their homes,” added Couch. “So, as you can imagine, the insurance lobby put the kibosh on that pretty quickly.”
A bummer that targeted special-interest lobbying always seems to have the tactical advantage that diffuse citizen interests lack.
- zmgsabst 4y agoIsn’t that due to citizens not caring enough to spend $1-5 each hiring their own lobbyists? Stop funding politicians and start funding private lobbyists, then vote based on how well politicians respond to your lobbyist.
- anm89 4y agowhy would you pay 110% up front to demolish? It seems like they are intentionally incentivizing the worst outcome. Or is there some reason they wanted these people to demolish their homes? I mean if they were trying to avoid claims on these homes, it seems like those claims would only pay out 100% right? so now they are opting in to paying more than their worse case scenario?
- dagw 4y ago*it seems like those claims would only pay out 100% right? 100% of the value of the house perhaps. But they probably also cover things like any other loss of valuables in the house plus the cost of shelter temporary and relocation costs. Plus if someone dies or is seriously injured in the disaster they might also have to pay out for that. In addition there are costs that the local and national government will have to take when dealing with someones house being destroyed, and they might be willing to pay the insurance companies a bit to take that risk off their table.
- anm89 4y agoYeah , I'd imagine extra liability related to a death is probably a pretty good explanation. Government theory is interesting as well. Thanks for the input.