New Orleans...revealed
BBC NEWS Americas Washington diary: Sex, Fema and Katrina
I found a few things in this article to be disturbing. #1: They have tour buses that show people the destroyed areas of the city for $35/person. #2: A woman who no longer has a home there (it was completely destroyed) is still paying a mortgage on it. #3: They're doing an extreme makeover on a home surrounded by damaged homes? Isn't that a little insensitive?
Just my two cents...
7 comments:
I guess I don't have a problem with people making a buck showing people the destroyed areas. I am surprised that people are willing to pay it rather than explore it on their own. The destroyed areas are not hard to find.
Why should the bank be liable (i.e. the woman gets to default on her mortgage payment) just because the woman made a bad investment by buying a home at the bottom of a large lake that had yet to be filled? It wasn't the banks fault that the hurricane took her home so why should they be penalized?
Let me pose a hypothetical question to you. If you won (or made) millions of dollars and wanted to redo your house to fullfill your every wish and desire right where it is now because you love the neighborhood so much, despite your neighbors housing remaining as they are, would that be insensitive? We should be free to spend our own money or use our own connections/wit to get what we want. Personally I think rebuilding of any kind should be banned unless the owner signs a waiver saying that they forgo any disaster money now and in the future and affirm that they are building in a hurricane prone zone.
It's just disturbing to me to be making money off of people's suffering. If the funds were being used by the city for rebuilding, then it wouldn't seem so bad.
(Now, try to look at this without your view on the geographical location of New Orleans. Think of this as Anywhere, USA.) I was thinking of house insurance. Based on my experience, mortgage companies require house insurance to be kept on a home. I would think this woman's would be no different, so why isn't the insurance company forking over the funds for this home? That's what insurance is for!
But this isn't the homeowners own money, this is a tv program focusing on one home among a destroyed city. I just think it's insensitive. These home makeover shows go overboard on their changes and I think it would be much more beneficial to focus on things that would benefit a whole neighborhood rather than one person's home. Fortunately I saw a preview for ABC's Extreme Makeover Home Edition and they are planning to redo a whole neighborhood. That made me feel better.
I can see and understand your views on points one and three but not two.
Say my house was in anyville and got destroyed by a tornado. Insurance would pay for it because I have paid my premiums and the insurance covered tornados. But the lady in question was uninsured because the insurance company wouldn't insure her for flood damage because she lived in a flood prone zone as most in New Orleans do. She went ahead and lived there and now is forced to pay for her bad decision.
To me, it is just not right that we keep bailing people out for building (or buying) houses in areas prone to hurricanes and then have to pay them my tax dollars everytime a hurricane comes along. New Orleans has been completely leveled seven times in the past three hundred years... now eight. It will happen again.
For every billion dollars spent by the government, that is an average of four dollars out of your pocket.
Oh, I forgot to make a point. The reason I am insured for tornados because the destruction of my house due to one is significantly less than a house getting flooded in New Orleans. In other words, the insurance company is taking a chance that they can make money off me and others like me and still make some money, a chance they are unwilling to take with the lady and the flooded house. You wouldn't want to be forced to gamble your life savings on a deck of cards stacked in the dealer's favor would you?
Nowhere in this article does it state she was uninsured for flood damage. If that is the case, then that was the risk she took for owning a home there and she's paying the consequences.
I still think it strange. When I refinanced my home with a new lender, they investigated my town for proximity to a water source and would have required me to get flood coverage if they considered it a viable risk.
Personally, if I couldn't get flood coverage in a coastal city like New Orleans, I wouldn't own a home! I wouldn't be willing to take that risk.
I'm not an expert on flood insurance but I do know it is a bit different than your average insurance policies. I think the nation needs to take a look at it especially since our coasts and waterways are getting more built up every year. I'm guessing they are all hoping global warming is not really an issue. If it is, maybe you and I will end up with oceanside property!
I think the midwest, being in a cradle between mountain ranges, might become underwater property if the ice caps melt.
Post a Comment