A perfect storm is brewing in the United States. Housing prices, Inflation, bank collapse, severe drought in the agricultural belt, recession, food shortages, diesel fuel and heating oil shortages, baby formula shortages, available automobile shortages and prices, the price of living place. It's all coming together and it could lead to a real disaster towards this year (or sooner). With inflation currently at about 6%, my primary concern is how to maximize my savings/retirement fund which has been sitting duck since forever with zero to no gains.

The fact you can buy a home in a flood zone is insane to me

fear a housing crash due to people buying homes above asking prices with little equity. If prices drop, affordability and potential foreclosures may arise, worsened by future layoffs and rising living costs. I want to invest more than $300k, but I'm not sure on how to mitigate risk.

Worry about a housing crisis as a result of consumers paying more than asking for properties when they have little equity. Falling prices might lead to affordability issues and possibly even foreclosures, which would be made worse by future job losses and increased living expenses. I want to spend more than $200K, but I'm not sure how to reduce the risk.

Houses in flood zone should not be looked at as available housing.

The lady they interviewed about the process was a perfect pick. Informed, educated, aware of potential issues, and still it was a very difficult process. We just don't do enough to help people know how much risk their homes are in for floods.

When we bought our house we looked at flood maps to make sure we didnt buy in a flood zone. Then also looked at the geography of the area ourselves to make sure it doesn't look likely. So far no problems. People should do this before they buy. Its very American of the mayors to be more concerned about tax revenue than people.

River Islands outside SF built a giant development in a floodplain. I have photos of it underwater but greedy people ignored impending doom.

The dear lady sharing her relocation story is very pleasant to listen to. I am surprised by how well she recollects almost every step of her journey and knows what she is talking about. Much appreciated!

I knew it was a crisis but short 7.2 million homes is crazy.

Before buying a home, take the time to go online and look at a topographic map. It's fast and free. Higher is better.

Feels like a nuanced situation. If folks did not buy/build in a flood zone, but it is in one now, a buyout makes more sense. However, if folks knew before they bought/built, a buyout makes a lot less sense.

Government zones to prevent building in flood plains. Developer ignores zoning, complaining about free market and some bs, insists on building on flood plains. Developer sells house to American taxpayers Houses flood Government buys back houses on flood plains to save Americans taxpayers. Who's winning in all this?

The mortgage shock was my first thought. Imagine if you went from a mortgage of sub-3 to a new one that's 7+. That's thousands extra to your monthly. If the mortgage rate and terms could be transferred to the new residence, you might see more buyout acceptance, particularly from those who still have a mortgage.

Generally, it's a good idea. It's safer, prevents governments from having to provide endless disaster relief, and reduces insurance costs for everyone.

I wonder why we don't move homes more often instead of destroy them. Is it really that much more expensive?

1. Any property in a flood zone should not have the option to not buy flood insurance. It shoudl simply be forced and rolled into their property taxes. Why? Becuase they will be given relief even if they dont buy the insurace so we need to force them to buy the insurance. 2. Anyone who refuses insurance should be on a list that that property is not eligible for any rebuilding assitance. If that person wants flood relief then it must be contingent on a sale of the property and the land should be turned into wild space permanently. 3. If the density falls far enough, say over 2/3 of the properties have been converted already, then the remaining homes should be forced out by eminent domain as it makes no sense to keep providing services to so few homes. 4. It is a myth this property is “affordable” in any location. If they will require repeated relief in the future then this is not “affordable”. It is a collossal waste of taxpayrer money. 5. If you cannot ban the development in the flood area, then it must include a mandatory Federakl tax to force the flood insurance and this insurance must reflect the value and true risk of the property. If you want to build a million dollar home on a coast that is washing away tehn maybe you should be required to pay tens or hundreds of thousands for the insurance since we know for sure that land will wash away and that home will bne destroyed. So the cost needs to reflect the risk.

The homeowner said that her home was not in a flood zone at first. This means that outside activity resulted in her home becoming flood prone. (Charlotte is not coastal) Seems like a just deal in her case.

Loving that Tie Fighter in the background! That lady has good taste!

These home owners need to take the buyouts or sign agreements that the government will not bail them out in future flooding events. The purpose here isn't to ensure that they can buy better homes elsewhere. It is to help them get out of a bad situation and to get the taxpayers out having to bail them out every time there is a flood.

There's no way this will be taken advantage of by speculators buying up distressed properties :/

Well it protects the people and return it back to nature Win win. Protect all Americans and nature.

we need to stop using tax players money to pump up housing price. People should losing money from owning a house like in Japan. Housing should not be an investment, it should be treated as consumption. This way house will have limited up side. If we think housing is an investment. then if people lose their house, it's their own fault that they invested in the wrong area. Do i get my money back if my invest on Apple, but it's losing money this year?

Buying flooded houses makes for a great theme during election year.

Informative!

People hate the government until they get their turn feeding at the trough😂

We need to build more homes!! preferably in areas that are not going to flood

If I owned a home in a flood zone, I would be celebrating somebody purchasing it from me. There's nothing nostalgic about having a home flood, even once. Or worrying about it happening. And once it's been flooded, it has to be disclosed to future buyers. Meaning the home just lost permanent value and might never be marketable. Only a fool would purchase a home that has previously been flooded. You are trapped permanently. If you're thinking that maybe, well, it's not so bad. You're not thinking clearly. When homes in flood zones are totaled, they should be razed and no one should be able to rebuild there. Certainly not with any government insurance. And they shouldn't be entitled to any government benefits or insurance for any future flooding if they are ever rebuilt by speculators. Rich speculators should pay all the freight associated with building in flood zones. They must not rely on other taxpayers to subsidize them before or after the flood inevitably happens.

Moral Hazard: this artificially encourages risky home purchases in flood plains without financial consequences, unless they require original purchases prior to a past date. If I was in an at risk home I'd take It but this screws up the proper market valuation of climate risk

take the buyout especially if the water was already up to your frontsteps, mailbox, or car...like who would even pay inflated price for that house knowing the neighborhood is prone to flooding

This is looking like the lawmakers are using taxpayer money to bailout insurance companies. The only one that benefits financially is the companies that are insuring these homes.

Interesting and important thanks

What about buying homes out in Tornado Valley???

Maybe updating flood maps to include “high risk” areas as flood plains would mean insurance products could be appropriately priced to risk, then that would serve as incentive to not build in those areas. Not really a fan of moral hazard buyouts… especially on properties that haven’t even flooded yet.

Suddenly, all our elected officials have homes along the coast, along fault lines, near volcanos, and in flood plains.

Wasting tax dollars. Let insurance companies handle this. They got the money hell

I know of two federally-subsidized senior housing projects that abut rivers. I would be terrified to live in them. The federal government does have some ability to control ill-advised construction in a flood plain - e.g., by refusing to subsidize rents on any new project built in a flood plain. It also would be cost-effective for the agencies in charge of subsidies to be proactive by demanding (and paying for) remediation to minimize the risk to tenants, perhaps by constructing berms or levees to redirect high water (e.g., on those two projects I just mentioned). In other words, spend a little now to save a lot later.

The government should FORBID the building of any house in a flood zone!!! It is irresponsible to allow a person/family to build a house in a flood zone, knowing it will get damaged or destroyed in the next flood.

Because under free market conditions: the value of something can skyrocket! When somebody important wants it,

the appraisal needs to match

Just make them ALL wildlife sanctuaries. Then any injuries are natural to being in the WILD

In the long term this is good for affodability because it lowers risks insurance companies have to take to insure homes. Insurance companies are going to charge unaffordable rates for any homes located in a flood zone. Making the mortgage payments that usually include the insurance unaffordable. Even if the base older home may be cheaper than new construction. Outliers like this cost more than they are worth. Not to mention the health and safty risks of flooding and mold.

Land behind our house floods up to 3 feet. Rich white guy on our street owned the land, so he knew it flooded and was where the water held. It was supposed to become a lake in the 70’s. He decided he wanted apartments. I sent all my pictures of it flooding during Hurricane Matthew to the county council. It was finally sold to a church group who made a church on stilts and a raised parking lot while keeping the flood area open. Now I get to deal with noise Wednesday, Saturday, Sunday, and weddings. Ugh.

floodplain water damaged homes made the cost of insurance unaffordable by many

Do these buy outs extend to large rental operations, I don't feel like they should. I wouldn't mind a house on pillars with a habitat under the house.

Why not put in resiliency parks on the bought properties? Hoboken and NYC have helped control flooding events with them

Old neighborhoods are probably less at risk of flooding, if the homes have been there for 100 year old, the area was safer. It is not a guaranty but it might be one element to consider when choosing a location.

What about the ones that had their homes paid off and were force to move. Let’s focus on them please

Why did they build on a flood zone in the first place? I'm pretty sure the river has flooded before so why do we keep building there? 😢

The thing is like yeah some areas are flood prone but they're not like significantly flood prone, then of course you have the historical element. I think if they're not significantly flood prone than they should then houses have to be raised minimums risk. Another thing that isn't actually explored is some of this is man-made. When I say this a man-made flood disaster is our streets are not made to absorb water. So this increases the risk of flooding. In areas that would not otherwise have a risk of flooding.

Banks should not lend mortgages to houses in flood areas...

Why would they push that house into the water only to turn around and try to bring awareness about pollution?

Makes complete sense. Good job Fed govt.

The day after the flood in Hawaii, 1988, the city wanted to clean up the debris along side of the street. I kept the refrigerator for evidence for the insurance claim.

A bad investment decision in many cases doesn't apply to banks. Thus, a bail out.

Despite the fact that climate change is occurring, the government is doing the least to prevent it from causing property damage. Also, helping insurers to reduce the increase in their rates. This puts the burden of the cost of climate change on individuals, businesses and governments who are already struggling with the effects of the economic crisis. It is clear, then, that the government needs to take action to mitigate the effects of climate change.

Imagine you built home and then government destroys it More reasons why Gen z should fight for this country :/

Always remember, When they say "FED Funding" it means printing money. just FYI.

Better buy out large tracts of New Orleans, the older low income housing is sitting on land that is below sea level and strata is shirking inward.

Thats what insurance is for

There's also scam buyers in Charlotte NC

I do wonder what people will do when insurance providers add additional costs for living in a floodplain. They already are stepping away from Florida's hurricanes and California's wildfires, seems floodplains would be the next step.

In january 2023 there was only 650,000 homeless at any given night yet we need 7 million new homes , very strange

I think we need to solve the climate crisis before we do the housing one because if we dont then there will be no houses to inhabit

The developer should be on the hook for building and selling in a flood zone.

Part of the equation is the fact people have built homes in stupid locations. Its more expensive to keep rebuilding after a flood in these places than to relocate and demolish and block new construction in the problem areas. I work in the damage remediation field, mainly water, so i have seen the aftermath first hand. This includes the river flood in St Louis.

never understood people rebuilsing their flooded homes in like the mississippi flood plains or in like hurricane destroyed homes on the east coast especially ones hit twice or three times. id never feel even comfortable

That home looked perfectly fine...

U.S Government -translated U.S. taxpayers

As a taxpayer, I’d much rather my money go to protecting vulnerable people from financial ruin than bailing out incompetent businessmen 👍

Who would've ever thought that the climate has cycles and areas that have flooded or burned in the past might just flood or burn again in the future... DUH!

Who built those homes near nad areas in the first place? 🤔

I just moved to eastern Kentucky, where flooding and even tornados are a very real part of existence. I am an Idaho native so wildfires are probably the only natural disaster that was a constant seasonal threat and more so because Boise is right against foothills leading to the cascade mtns and the continental divide so it has always had an inversion problem. The home I bought here is on property that backs up to a creek and is in an AE flood zone which for someone like me just going off of federal designations that means you shouldnt even pitch a tent here. I liked this house though and being curious as I am I wondered well how the hell do all these other people in the few hundred homes here make it. It made no sense and like most things that are intentionally misleading I believe its designed to. I spent hours trying to find out a very simple question. What is the day to day, season to season, annual reality of living in this home and I did so without expectations of getting a definitive answer but a general one. I found bupkis. Besides most flood map here click bait that took you to some sort of subscribe or you might die sites just showing info thats free, the state, FEMA, weather sites, and universitys were just maps with varying colors, some had data and some had virtually none. I dug and I dug. Finally I found that the creek had flooded just the previous year and in between mile markers very close to the property I was looking at! Deal breaker? No turns out it was the culvert running along the road that had filled, swollen, and flooded which blocked traffic and caused some damage I think. The road is named after the creek as is common anywhere and also has a # designation which Im not used to. So saying such creek flooded meant the road had flooded not the creek (Can still be bad under insane weather circumstances Troublesome creek was the culvert flooding not the creek I believe and that killed people and destroyed a lot.). I started making return trips to the area from ohio and not many locals could really say they remembered if that route or creek had flooded or if so when. I started looking for a very specific kind of person that I knew wouldnt be too hard to find. Someone from a generational family that was still on the land thathey if not their parents, grandparents had owned and could tell me the straight dope with certainty and no cautionary tales, or speculations. I finally found a Guy looked to be in his mid to late 60s out in the middle of grass of course cutting some wood with Im assuming was his grandson. Damn Im rambling; Anyways guy told me the last time the creek had flooded badly he wasnt even a teen yet and the water got up to below his waist then. He pointed where the old homestead had been , where his house was now, and his sisters. Told me the water back then wouldnt have come real close to the houses as they sat and after I asked said in his opinion flood insurance was a waste of money but Id have to make up my own mind about that. He nor his sister had flood coverage and he said even if you do its quite a time before you get what you paid for and thats if they dont find a reason to deny you especially FEMA. I know af appalachian fatalism but what he said made sense. I knew of Sandy and obviously Katrina and when an entire area is devastated tthe insurance companies seem to be pretty comfy waiting to pay out and I assume as usually is thats because it benifits them financially. I had state farm agent tell me that if I didnt get flood insurance they wouldnt cover my home with homeowners which I still think was her policy and not theres and when I asked if she could just get me some quotes for all of it she said sure and never returned my call. Shortly after I just got the bill for my auto liability insurance which led me to believe that call wasnt coming. Later when I called to pay over phone cuz I had procrastinated it ended up being same agent so I asked about the quotes to which she said she thought that had been taken care of which was shining me on and that she had looked at my house on realty sites and that I was out for homeowners because I had a deck with 2 stairs or more and no hand railing! Maybe thats in the fine print but again I could tell SHE didnt want to Insure my home through her employer. Oh and btw the deck is a demo job to be fair. not taken care of and potentially hazardous but that wasnt even mentioned and the tone of her voice was slightly like yeah we found out about your deck. It was weird and so was she. I got a mental picture of her an her character and after getting on line they were both pretty damn close. I digress again. I asked about flood and she said she could run some numbers if I wanted and I said yeah sure. Didnt ask about coverage limit for property or structure whi sch I thought was off but I had already decided I was going to find another state farm branch to go to. I couldnt imagine having to deal with her if I had a claim for auto and didnt want to talk to her again at all actually but theres some more I wont get into that helped with that. She called sometime later with same flat Im really happy but not to be calling you and probably just in general tone and told me that she had run numbers for x amount of coverage and it came out to almost $300 and that that was through FEMA. That bothered me because id have just contacted them myself and had been asking specifically about state farm yet once again she just couldnt bring herself to say they wouldnt cover me or she didnt want them too which I really think was it. So I ended up calling Kentucky Farmers and they quoted me over the phone $1600 or $1800 for the year which was more in line with what my neighbors were paying alongside mortgage. This made me feel better because often times insurance will only cover properties because banks hold the note on them and they are huge customers so its good business but once a mortgage isnt attached they will either raise substantially or cancel policy. Happened to my dad in Lowman Id when property was paid off. He was mad because it was greener than a park but if youve ever seen tho,sse fires, as he has, even from a distance you understand that in timber defensible space means little if the whole forest is on fire. SO to conclude finally I found all supposedly streamlined, constantly updated, user friendly, easy to understand, just put your address here sites to be absolutely useless and that google searches, (which I only recommend if your very confident in your internet rresearch abilities) and the life blood of any area the old timers that made the place what it is gave me so much more info than anywhere else. If it had been 20 yrs ago I would replace google with the municipal library or one at a college if available. The original google thats great not only for bookd and such but for the people that work there and can help you sort through micro film or evenjust tell you about what you are looking for. After watching many of these documentaries and seeing premiums go up while claims dont in regular areas Im quite convinced thatt all thes high risk flood designation areas where its mandatory to have flood insurance for some lenders and any with federal ties that once again the regular 95% of the country are subsidizing the other 5% who often have large expensive homes in wilderness or right on the coasts and are insured to the hilt not in case but knowing damn well that eventually there going to get all the money in premioums and then some back when they have to file a major claim due to absolutely avoidable natural disasters. So thats my take. the people in the valley pay for those that have to be above us all in the hills maybe just in case we forget our station in life. Or they build smack dab in the middle of a hundred wooded acres so that they can really enjoy nature and some quiet instead of being "in town" where fire defense efforts can be easily coordintated and successful. Most with a road not suitable for large fire engines to access safely or space to turn around and reposition, nor any defensible space, or fire suppression systems to keep house temp down, etc. Then what I consider the worst. The ones that just have to be right on the beach which obviously erodes and such like the shores of any body of water much less an ocean. A lot of those people have major investments in many companies, and maybe wield enough influence together or alone to make sure that the buck gets passed on instead of ending up on their doorsteps but maybe you think Im being a bit paranoid or conspiratorial and to that I would say youre on you tube so try watching some 60 minutes or frontline but beware you may never be able to put your head back in the sand once you do. Others know that its just the way things go in American although more now than ever.

i worry with rising storms globally that America might not be able to afford to do this anymore :C

Thats there fault for buying a home near the waters

It's not the cost that prevents people from buying homes. It's the red tape that determines whether you qualify to buy a home 🫣 Even just renting a home, usually requires that you make three times the rent 🫤 why? So if they raise the rent they know you may be able to pay it 😒 lots of people dont have a home because of others peoples greed...

the Gov should not be buying these properties at all. The GOP would let them sink. You bought a doomed house you take the fall.

It's not government job to buy homes even if they are located in areas that are prone to natural disaster. Rather use the money to build new housing in areas not prone to natural disasters.

The Swamp is buying more swampland? Makes sense.

The insurance companies should be forced to pay for their moves.

Im sorry, but this actually makes sense. Why spend the money to rebuild when its just going to flood again? I hate to quote the bible for an argument, but "the wise man builds his house upon the rock." On a seperate note, there is an environmentally protected flood plain across from my parents' house. It is FULL of derelict buildings as it is illegal to build new construction. New, modern buildings designed for flooding could be built in their place, but NOOOOO. You can't build there.

Build with flooding in mind. Just don't ask why the house is on pontoons.

Why the goverment provids flood insurance to people that build on the beach or flood plane is stupid. I cannot get goverment flood insurance in my state. If my house washes away so be it. I knew the risk and have enjoyed the view. I read an article about people building in flood plains 50 years ago it was critical of incentives encouraging people to build knowing every 30 years the floods would return.

13:25 hell no we always bail out corporations. What kind of logic is that. Help working class people damit

Why wouldn’t she get a fixed mortgage rate when the rates were so low?

Everything is going to s**t. I'm going to live in a van when I retire.

Making land off limits and property more expensive...

So stupid people buy/build a house in a flood zone and we have to bail them out? What a crock of crap.

Climate change has accelerated this process of buying out homeowners in flood and wildfire areas. Life over property is the key reason. Insurance companies are adjusting their rates to keep ahead of future disasters that will decimate communities!

You build your house in a flood zone, its your problem, not the govts.

Step 1: Invest in real estate in floodplains. Step 2: Sell floodplain real estate to the government. Step 3: Profit Step 4: Repeat/ build new property in another floodplain.

It’s hard to nail down specific predictions for the housing market because it’s not yet clear how quickly or how much the Federal Reserve can bring down inflation and borrowing costs without tanking buyer demand for everything from homes to cars.

Buyouts help the rich. They should not be bought out of their bad decisions.

If you buy a home with the last few years, five years that you know is in the floodplain, and there are other options available to you and then your house floods, and you were able to get insurance honey use your insurance, but the government should not be bailing you out at all. They should not be buying up your house and rescuing you. If you knew that your house was in a flood zone, you had other options and you still chose to buy the house in that area now I have no pity I have absolutely no feelings of empathy for you. You knew what you were doing I don’t feel bad. Enjoy your pool in your living room. But I understand if you bought your house in the 1990s, 2001 2004 and you didn’t know that you were in a flood zone and you’ve become in a flood zone as climate change just happened water levels have gone up etc. etc. but at the same time if you bought your house in 1982 and your two roads away from the ocean I don’t really care what your excuses you knew there was a chance that you might get water really close to your front door if not in your living room so it also is a degree of common sense in that example

Give them a final buyout offer, and make it clear there will be no more bail outs for the next flood. The "Fair market value" for a house built in a flood plane is essentially zero, so these homeowners should be eternally thankful to their tax paying peers for gifting them hundreds of thousands of dollars in profit even though their investment was a total failure.

Who is dumb enough to build on a floodplain?

How can the Government afford all this if we have a national debt?

We need to build cities expecting floods and the streets rivers.

What's the likelihood taxpayers are bailing out well connected millionaires who built oceanfront mansions knowing the risk?

Yeah … you know what I don’t support any of this. Do your due diligence and accept responsibility for living in fire zone, flood zone, hurricane zone, or tornado zone. My tax dollars should not be going toward this. This is a racket for the local and state governments to get more money from the Fed. We can help out people like Hawaii during that recent tragedy. That doesn’t mean the government has to buy out property.