Why The U.S. Government Is Buying And Destroying Homes

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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

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?

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.

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.

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

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.

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.