Quote:
Originally Posted by Ironhorse
That's not how I read that:
It sounds to me like if you are using provincial funds, you must include flood proofing in your repairs. If you use your own funds, you must still include their standard of flood proofing if you want another claim for a future flood.
Perhaps someone with more legal reading ability can chime in?
|
Interesting, but I read it as this, "You take our money you play by our rules, or next time you get nothing. You don't take our money, you can do whatever you want, and you keep a rain check for next time"
Basically the money you do not use now, is put aside for possible use later. The kicker is that no flood proofing is need for you to qualify next time.
Let me give a hypothetical scenario. Insurance gives a payout for SBU. Gov't pays $3000 for outside property for damage not covered. You would then get $450 to flood proof at 15% over. The gov't requires you to install back flow valve at a cost of $10000. So what does that claim do? They take no money, because if they did, they would be out $6,550. Better to do nothing than something in this case.
This is very interesting as it actually will be a deterrent to some home owners to flood proof their place. Which is the exact oposite of what the intent of this program is (to prevent future damage).
I have an article to a person in Hamilton who flooded years ago. The city stepped up and covered the costs of "flood resisting" and paid for the sump and back flow. That is a much more logical step than saying 15% above what we pay you across the board, as some may need no upgrade and some may need thousands in upgrades. Yet they may have insurance cover this time, and the gov't is giving them no help.
Just another way I have been saying this is a good idea in theory but the details have really been lacking and vague. What if I accepted money a week ago, and now want to return it under these new rules? That is another issue. One of many that need a lot of thought.