General

Houston was warned by scientists but called them alarmists

1235782

Comments

  • edited September 2017
    @SC, rx

    That's why I didn't go for EQ insurance. Deductible is 15% minimum. Also, I remember seeing 200$ a month 10 years ago when I was in the market for EQ insurance. I spent $20 K for retrofitting my home including steel pillars in the garage and a new concrete foundation under the garage door. They also added sheer walls to the crawl space, and additional bolts to secure the house to the foundation.

    This works out to having had EQ insurance for ten years, give or take. But I'd still eat the 15% deductible which, for a Bay Area home, is quite expensive.

    This way, at least the house won't suffer catastrophic damage. Hopefully.

    And I won't have to move out for six or nine months if the above is true.
  • edited September 2017
    @RedShift and @SCC,

    I remember when EQ insurance was exquisitely expensive (I want to say around $1,000/yr + on a home where the extensive low-deductible homeowner policy was $800. Skipped it then. That was for a two story in Laguna Niguel. Our current place in Irvine was built in 2003, and we're maybe within 15 miles of the Newport-Mesa fault, but the moderate price for EQ coverage made it a no-brainer.

    As to CEA "running out of money," that issue exists for most high-risk pools. And the taxpayers generally cough up the excess. Which is exactly why our buddy in Houston is going to depend on.

    Might be worth checking rates. Perhaps it's highly dependent on construction, location and proximity to known faults.
  • edited September 2017
    @SCC, I don't know if you looked at the comments section of the LA Times article:
    Unfortunately, some of the information in this article is now out of date. This article ran 17 years ago (articles.latimes.com/2000/feb/25/business/fi-2645) and seems not to have been updated since then, so portions of the text are now inaccurate.

    CEA’s policy offerings have changed significantly over the years—most notably in 2016—and Californians are now able to select a policy that meets their needs and budget. We now offer a wider array of coverage choices and deductible options and a higher retrofitting discount. And because we’re a not-for-profit organization, we’ve been able to reduce rates by a combined 55 percent over the past 20 years, to keep coverage affordable.

    The best way to see what it could cost to cover a house, condo unit, mobilehome or apartment in California is to use CEA’s online premium calculator, at www.earthquakeauthority.com/california-earthquake-insurance-policies/earthquake-insurance-premium-calculator. Premium costs are based on a home’s vulnerability to earthquakes (factors such as its location, age and construction type) and the choices made by the policyholder.

    CEA is financially strong, too, with more than $15 billion in claim-paying capacity. That’s more than enough to pay covered losses if a devastating earthquake—like the 1906 San Francisco, 1989 Loma Prieta or 1994 Northridge earthquake—were to reoccur today.

    Scientists say we are overdue for a large earthquake, so we encourage all Californians to learn more and take steps to reduce their risk of earthquake loss. Readers can visit EarthquakeAuthority.com for the latest information about earthquake insurance available through the California Earthquake Authority.
  • edited September 2017
    @SVV, that houselogic article is totally full of crap. "Earthquake coverage typically costs between $1.50 and $3 per square foot (e.g., a 2,000-square-foot home may cost between $3,000 and $6,000 to insure), with a typical deductible of 5% to 15% of the home’s value. For example, if the home is insured for $200,000, the deductible would be $10,000 to $30,000, possibly with separate deductibles for the structure and the contents."

    Really? So 'splain why my CEA coverage (the highest coverage options with the lowest deductibles) costs $400/yr for a 2100 sf home. They are wrong by almost an order of magnitude!

    This is why people get overwhelmed with incorrect information on the Internet. Or overwhelmed by the overwhelming scientific evidence of, say, ACC.
  • edited September 2017
    Yikes! SVV->SCC. I need a drink.
  • edited September 2017
    Sorry for this earthquake diversion from flooding, but here is the CEA quote for a $1,200,000 home built in 2003, and picking a few of the options (5% deductible on building, etc.):
    Policy Details:Homeowners
    Policy Type Choice
    ZIP xxxxx
    Year Built 2003
    Masonry Veneer Coverage No
    Estimate Date 09/12/2017
    Effective Start 2017
    Dwelling:
    Coverage $1,200,000
    Deductible ($)$60,000
    Deductible (%)5%
    Building Code Upgrade:
    Coverage$30,000
    Personal Property:
    Coverage$25,000
    Deductible ($)$3,750
    Deductible (%)15%
    Breakable CoverageYes
    Loss of Use:
    Coverage$15,000

    Premium:
    Monthly$52.33
    Annual$628.00

    So you can see that the article quoted above showing ridiculous amounts is indeed ridiculous.

    HOWEVER, for fun I did the same calculation for an 87 year old, two story duplex building in West LA, raised foundation, no EQ retrofits. Same policy limits as the above example. YIKES!!! $7,000. Note that this is a total of about a 5,000 sf home (2 x 2500sf).

    So as I originally said, a building's age, construction and location are going to be the most major factors. But more modern construction for SoCal (slab foundation, post-1980s vintage) will have much more affordable (and thus "no brainer") premiums.
  • edited September 2017
    According to the National Ice Center, the Arctic ice is running right along the 10-year average. Scientific data is supporting a slow-down, if not a reversal of the Arctic ice melt! Captain Plant, is the National Ice Center a denier group??!!! Goofy liberal!!

    http://www.natice.noaa.gov/ims/images/sea_ice_only.jpg
  • edited September 2017
    Come on cheese . . . don't ignore half the evidence to fit your narrative.
  • edited September 2017
    @Welfare_Mitch. Isn't it amazing what you can show when you cherry pick graphs. The issue is not so much how a particular year relates to the mean of the last 10 years but what are the long term trends. Here is the raw data Welfare-Mitch. Btw. do you prefer Welfare_Mitch or Welfare-Cheese??
    https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/snow-and-ice/extent/
    July is off 16 % from the mean from 1979
  • edited September 2017
    There once was a weatherman named Mitch
    Who said slopping at the trough was a bitch
    But when warming waters rose
    And AGW limited the snows
    He said melting ice was only a glitch
  • edited September 2017
    The Northern hemisphere is losing sea ice at .71 million km2 or 7.25% per decade.
    How these facts grab you, Welfare_Mitch
  • edited September 2017
    North West Passage sufficiently ice free for commercial shipping.
    https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/25/world/europe/russia-tanker-christophe-de-margerie.html
  • edited September 2017
    Hey Captain Planet, that is during the multi-decadal warming period. No big-ass friggin' deal. It did that between the 1920s and the 1940s. We had a cooling period from the 1950s through the 1970s which expanded the Arctic ice to its peak in the early 1980s. Then, it started to warm again through the 1990s and the 2000s. This brought a melt down of the Arctic ice. It is curious that the Antarctic ice expanded during this time period. Why don't you pay attention to what is happening now?

    https://nsidc.org/data/masie/

    This is the Multisensor Analyzed Sea Ice Extent. It is a higher resolution method of measuring the Sea ice extent than the NSIDC 15% method. Click on download data. Then click ftp site. Then click masie 1km extent 6,7 kb.

    There you can see days 253, 254, and 255. Looks like day 253 was the bottom at 4,578,052.26 km2. Day 254 was 4,653,830.80 km2, and day 255 is 4,715,108.14. Little too soon to say, but I think the sea ice melt is over with for 2017, and the sea ice is beginning its freeze up cycle.

    I can see Captain Planet, Hellasmarter Dude, Better Red Than Dead, sabby, 60cc SamO, La Miria, and ozone hole Mike all goin' "Geeeyyyaaawwwwd Dammittt! Melt dammit melt!!

    Yep, 5 years in a row that the Arctic sea ice has closed ABOVE the 2012 minimum. The multi-decadal cycle is underway!
  • edited September 2017
    Have the Welfare-Cheese-Mitch acolytes abandoned him?
  • edited September 2017
    @Sabbia, maybe they're having a large pizza with extra gubmint cheese.
  • edited September 2017
    Hey sabby, I don't need support from anybody. I can support myself. Meanwhile, check out MASIE data. Four days in a row the Arctic ice is growing. Check the ftp site. Google Chrome will display it.

    ftp://sidads.colorado.edu/DATASETS/NOAA/G02186/masie_1km_extent_sqkm.csv

    NSIDC data is based on a 5-day running mean. It is just a matter of a few days that NSIDC will reflect that the Arctic ice has quit melting for the year and is now freezing up.

    https://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/charctic-interactive-sea-ice-graph/

    Confirmed, the scientific data does not support the idea that the Arctic ice is melting away to oblivion. And all of you global warming worshippers are goin' wwwaaaahhhhhhhh about it!
  • edited November -1
    "I can support myself."

    Can you afford flood insurance that is priced based on risk, that does not need gubmint guarantees?
  • edited September 2017
    Make that, 3 days in a row from the MASIE data. Something tells me you liberals won't look at it. The numbers are too intimidating for you!
  • edited September 2017
    Something tells me @Mitch is avoiding answering a simple question: if the TRUE COST OF FLOOD INSURANCE (i.e., the pool is made from premiums + investments, minus claims paid), could he "support [himself]?"
  • edited November -1
    Hey Hellasmarter Dude, FEMA sets the rate based on flood risk. Who in the hell are you to decide what is the "correct" insurance premium is? Are you an expert in this field? I think not!
  • edited September 2017
    Ah, Mitch. Let's deflect to big bad gubmint rant. It's getting old. I asked you a question: if the FREE MARKET, NON-SUBSIDIZED FLOOD INSURANCE policy was priced on the risk and pool size, and would require NO taxpayer largesse, could you still afford your home?
  • edited September 2017
    @Welfare_Mitch. Answer the question. If the free market dictated the flood insurance price to be 3 times as much as the government subsidized flood insurance would you have still taken your welfare?
    Also why do you keep giving us daily arctic sea ice updates? If you plug in the last ten years they are all more than 2 SD below the 30 year mean until 2010. Also did you even look at this link which shows all the data not just your cherry picked data? Guess you don't have to worry about climate change. Your government welfare flood insurance will take care of you.
Sign In or Register to comment.