Government Flood Assistance - What's Fair?

[troutman]

Originally Posted by burn_this_city

I'm tired of us high ground suburbanites subsidizing these inner city floodplain dwellers. They really ought to start paying for their fair share if they want that lifestyle.

Hill People >>>> Bog People

[Arsenal14]

Originally Posted by GGG

Given a flood of somekind was predicted on the Monday there would have been ample time for people to move expensive items from their storage up into their Condo.

There is a huge difference between "a flood of some kind" and "the largest flooding in the history of the city". Most of the affected condos are quite a large distance from the river and there was certainly no concern about flooding prior to the Thursday (the evacuation order for Victoria Park went out around 6:00 that night). I know personally I went to my locker and moved stuff of the floor onto higher shelves before I left, but I suspect that didn't help as the entire locker has now been underwater for close to two weeks.

[SebC]

Originally Posted by Slava

Why do you have to turn every thread into this discussion? We get it. You want the city limits to end at 17th avenue in the south and 16th avenue in the north. I, for one, can't wait until the day you buy a property and its in the suburbs!

I will mention it when it's relevent to the dicussion. That happens a lot because it's relevent to a lot of Calgary issues. It would be downright silly to get rid of the floodplain subsidy without accounting for the suburban subsidy. Furthermore, if you understand why we shouldn't have a floodplain subsidy, then you should easily be able to understand why we shouldn't have a suburban subsidy either.

And your representation of my position is far from accurate (not even a hyperbole, just wrong). I've always said that I don't want to impose arbitrary limits on where people can live... I just want them to pay for their lifestyle choices.

Small tip, if you don't want to talk about the sprawl subsidy, then just ignore (or report) the post. If you reply to me, I'll be inclined to reply to you.

[mykalberta]

If you had a finished basement and its ruined it doesnt affect your ability to live in your home. Finishing a basement isnt a necessity in Alberta. I think the money should go to if you lost your home - maybe a flat fee for all basements - say 5K. Your expensive electronics shouldnt be replaced on the governments dime - the money should simply go for cleanup to make sure the rest of the home is safe.

In Calgary I feel alot worse for the people in Bowness then I do for people along the Elbow and it has nothing to do with home value or the abiltiy to recover. The Elbow floods alot where as the Bow flooding is a truly rare occurance that its flooding causes anymore than minor damage

Some people who actually lost their home may need to simply walk away. Cougar Creek in Canmore is a situation where the gov should give some assistance but not replacement value of the home. In a situation like that the home owners need to first go after the town and if they lose in court then they may just need to declare bankruptcy and walk away from the home.

There will be alot of interesting situations in the coming months/years as people rebuild or think about rebuilding.

[OldDutch]

Originally Posted by mykalberta

If you had a finished basement and its ruined it doesnt affect your ability to live in your home. Finishing a basement isnt a necessity in Alberta. I think the money should go to if you lost your home - maybe a flat fee for all basements - say 5K. Your expensive electronics shouldnt be replaced on the governments dime - the money should simply go for cleanup to make sure the rest of the home is safe.

In Calgary I feel alot worse for the people in Bowness then I do for people along the Elbow and it has nothing to do with home value or the abiltiy to recover. The Elbow floods alot where as the Bow flooding is a truly rare occurance that its flooding causes anymore than minor damage

Some people who actually lost their home may need to simply walk away. Cougar Creek in Canmore is a situation where the gov should give some assistance but not replacement value of the home. In a situation like that the home owners need to first go after the town and if they lose in court then they may just need to declare bankruptcy and walk away from the home.

There will be alot of interesting situations in the coming months/years as people rebuild or think about rebuilding.

Just curious, but do you have any idea of the scale of suffering you would cause if the government did this? You have people who are high producers in the economy, and your going to bankrupt a large group of them? Then what does that lead to, divorce, suicide? These people have businesses to, and what if this causes them to shut down throwing people out of work?

I sorry to pull the "I pay a lot of taxes", cause I do. Much of it for infastructure to the suburbs which I will never use, or aid to other provinces or countries I have never been to. Never complianed once about that, I just want my fair share when I need it.

My basement is Sunnyside is ruined. I am going to take a kick in the pants on property value, and now I have to build my own basement back up again? That is a huge hit in the six figures.

Why should I? My damage was due to sewer backup. The city pumping station shut off and the sewers fill all out homes on our street. To me the government must take some responsibility for that.

I know people want to see everything in black and white, but the flood victims here go from High River to Sunnyside sewer. Not every victim is the same and you can just bankrupt or financially strangle people. It ends up starting a chain of events that causes way more harm than good.

[Canehdianman]

Originally Posted by OldDutch

Just curious, but do you have any idea of the scale of suffering you would cause if the government did this? You have people who are high producers in the economy, and your going to bankrupt a large group of them? Then what does that lead to, divorce, suicide? These people have businesses to, and what if this causes them to shut down throwing people out of work?

I sorry to pull the "I pay a lot of taxes", cause I do. Much of it for infastructure to the suburbs which I will never use, or aid to other provinces or countries I have never been to. Never complianed once about that, I just want my fair share when I need it.

My basement is Sunnyside is ruined. I am going to take a kick in the pants on property value, and now I have to build my own basement back up again? That is a huge hit in the six figures.

Why should I? My damage was due to sewer backup. The city pumping station shut off and the sewers fill all out homes on our street. To me the government must take some responsibility for that.

I know people want to see everything in black and white, but the flood victims here go from High River to Sunnyside sewer. Not every victim is the same and you can just bankrupt or financially strangle people. It ends up starting a chain of events that causes way more harm than good.

I don't pay taxes so that you can redo your $100,000 home theatre room. The Province should be helping people out with getting their houses livable again (new furnace, new water heater, new supports, etc...), not redoing their $100,000 basement built on a flood plain.

As an aside, I thought sewer backup was covered by most insurance companies (although I did see on the news that some companies have their policies worded such that it excludes backup caused by flood). Is this the case for you?

[manwiches]

Originally Posted by Devils'Advocate

. But if you are a young couple just starting a family and don't remember a flood, you are looking at factors like whether there is a good school nearby, a safe community, affordability, access to work, features of the house, state of the home.... there is no land surveyor that comes and tells the new homebuyer that there is a significant chance of flood.

A land surveyor wouldn't be able to tell you this anyways on an RPR when you bought a home...

They also can't predict if you're in an flood plain or not...

[Bill Bumface]

If it's an old house, usually an inspection of any original timbers in the basement will show signs of past flooding. I had someone look at the fir 4x4 posts in my basement when I bought it, and they commented that there was zero signs of being submerged in their 102 year existance, so likely not much flooding concern.

[ken0042]

Originally Posted by pylon

Personally, I am of the opinion now is the perfect time to address this once and for all. High River is all but destroyed, I would much rather see the gov't buy all those people out in a one shot deal at fair market value, but they cannot rebuild the town there. Yeah it will cost a lot more now, but it will save the government money and resources over the long haul. I sympathize with them, but you can only sympathize so long if you CHOOSE to live in such a vulnerable area that has been proven over and over and over and over to be a stupid place to live.

I've thought about this- how much would it cost to rebuild the town somewhere else? Just by property value alone- going by having 3880 households and a value of $200K each; that would be $776 million in just households. Never mind businesses, the cost of roads, streetlights, sewers, etc.

$776 M could build a significant amount of flood control. I'm thinking of some sort of berm around the town. The roads in and out could go over the berm.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by OldDutch

Just curious, but do you have any idea of the scale of suffering you would cause if the government did this? You have people who are high producers in the economy, and your going to bankrupt a large group of them? Then what does that lead to, divorce, suicide? These people have businesses to, and what if this causes them to shut down throwing people out of work?

I sorry to pull the "I pay a lot of taxes", cause I do. Much of it for infastructure to the suburbs which I will never use, or aid to other provinces or countries I have never been to. Never complianed once about that, I just want my fair share when I need it.

My basement is Sunnyside is ruined. I am going to take a kick in the pants on property value, and now I have to build my own basement back up again? That is a huge hit in the six figures.

Why should I? My damage was due to sewer backup. The city pumping station shut off and the sewers fill all out homes on our street. To me the government must take some responsibility for that.

I know people want to see everything in black and white, but the flood victims here go from High River to Sunnyside sewer. Not every victim is the same and you can just bankrupt or financially strangle people. It ends up starting a chain of events that causes way more harm than good.

I think for this flood they need to bail out everybody as it has been so long since a flood of this magnitude has hit and historically they have paid for all damages. BUT in future if you choose to rebuild your basement, knowing you are at risk for a flooding event should you be covered again? This is where the question becomes murkier.

[Bownesian]

Good news for us today: Unifund has reconsidered their earlier position and decided that they will cover all of the losses in our basement - structure and possessions.

I'd like to think it was my ominous "We'll see." when the adjustor told me they wouldn't be covering anything but I'm guessing it has more to do with pressure from the government and the stories from the inspectors that most of the basements flooded from beneath simultaneously from above.

We're still going to be flood-hardening the basement, not using it as before and building "up".

[CaptainYooh]

Calgary Herald today published Don Braid's opinion article, where he warns about scammers that might (and will) try profiting from the flood and Government assistance. Also, he opines that Government should fully reimburse people for the damages to their homes based on their actual property assessment value and for the lost stuff - based on the fixed rates for each item (e.g. $300 per lost TV regardless of what TV it was etc.). I consider Braid a good journalist and I have a lot of respect for his opinions, normally; but in this case I am not sure I agree with him. As in my original post, this would mean that people in a $5M home could get a $1M reimbursement from the taxpayers, while people in a $300,000 home would only get a $20,000 assistance, hypothetically.

I think the amount of flood assistance should be evaluated on needs first, on wealth - second and on actual damages - third.

[AFireInside]

Originally Posted by CaptainYooh

Calgary Herald today published Don Braid's opinion article, where he warns about scammers that might (and will) try profiting from the flood and Government assistance. Also, he opines that Government should fully reimburse people for the damages to their homes based on their actual property assessment value and for the lost stuff - based on the fixed rates for each item (e.g. $300 per lost TV regardless of what TV it was etc.). I consider Braid a good journalist and I have a lot of respect for his opinions, normally; but in this case I am not sure I agree with him. As in my original post, this would mean that people in a $5M home could get a $1M reimbursement from the taxpayers, while people in a $300,000 home would only get a $20,000 assistance, hypothetically.

I think the amount of flood assistance should be evaluated on needs first, on wealth - second and on actual damages - third.

Yeah I certainly don't agree with him on this at all.

The government should be helping people get their houses livable again. How you fix that is a whole other situation. Obviously that means completely rebuilding in High River, which is fine. But replacing someone's finished basement in Elbow Park or any other area should not be a priority. Just because no one had any concerns about certain areas flooding before shouldn't determine whether they get things replaced. If a lightening bolt hits a house, does the government reimburse the owner because they weren't expecting it?

If your new basement and entertainment center got ruined that's up to insurance. If it was sewer backup that should absolutely be covered.

If my house outside the flood plain flooded unexpectedly I'd get no reimbursement from the government to replace anything, let alone my big screen. My insurance would have to cover it, and if they didn't I guess I'm out of luck. This being a large flood shouldn't change any of that. It absolutely sucks, but tax dollars shouldn't be going to unnecessary items.

It's an awful situation all around, and hopefully all the insurance companies step up and provide coverage for those with sewer back up.

[Kavvy]

Originally Posted by SebC

I will mention it when it's relevent to the dicussion. That happens a lot because it's relevent to a lot of Calgary issues. It would be downright silly to get rid of the floodplain subsidy without accounting for the suburban subsidy. Furthermore, if you understand why we shouldn't have a floodplain subsidy, then you should easily be able to understand why we shouldn't have a suburban subsidy either.

And your representation of my position is far from accurate (not even a hyperbole, just wrong). I've always said that I don't want to impose arbitrary limits on where people can live... I just want them to pay for their lifestyle choices.

Small tip, if you don't want to talk about the sprawl subsidy, then just ignore (or report) the post. If you reply to me, I'll be inclined to reply to you.

Didn't you grow up south of Anderson? I remember picking you up from your parents place once.

I am all for more inner city development, however, most of the places flooded.. were inner city. Bowness has been around a long long time.

I agree with the opinion of no new basements. Whenever a house gets knocked down in one of these areas to make room for an infill, make it a law that the permit states no basement! Wouldn't solve the problem, but would help a little bit, without to much impact on the people in the area.

As for the people already living there and not planning to do an infill... follow the course, nothing anyone can do without political suicide/get shut down in court. You can't just make laws for anything, courts will shut you down.

[Regular_John]

Just to stir the pot a little... Vacation/Second homes.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgar...w.html?cmp=rss

As the flood cleanup continues, Albertans with vacation or rental homes are wondering if they'll get any help from the government.

The provincial and federal governments are helping homeowners pay for everything from lost furniture and food to cleanup and landscaping.

But that assistance is only earmarked for Albertans whose primary residences were affected by the flooding.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgar...w.html?cmp=rss

[Rathji]

Ouch, that kind of sucks, for people who own rental properties I mean.

Not just them, but the renters themselves. How many homes will end up unlivable and condemned if owners need to walk away rather than pay for costly cleanup and renovation? It's not like we have a huge glut of rental homes on the market.

I don't know if that's a large enough number to be concerned about, though.

[Kavvy]

Originally Posted by Rathji

I don't know if that's a large enough number to be concerned about, though.

Isn't mission Rental property central?

Still blows for those people. I can see it from both sides of the coin, but as my only skin in the game is my tax payer dollars, much easier for me to say that.

[SebC]

Originally Posted by Kavy

Didn't you grow up south of Anderson? I remember picking you up from your parents place once.

I did, though I don't know what your point you're trying to make.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by jaydorn

Just to stir the pot a little... Vacation/Second homes.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgar...w.html?cmp=rss

Rental properties should be bailed out in the same manner as any other small business. On the otherhand the government doesnt bail people out when the stock market goes down so why should they bail out other forseeable disasters.

I can see not bailing out vacation properties though.

[ken0042]

The flip side to all of this is that the insurance industry does not cover damage caused by rivers flooding. Does it cover other natural disasters like a tsnunami, or earthquakes? It brings about the question of which is better; is it better for the gov't to bail out those affected? Or should the gov't force the insurance industry to start offering coverage? What would that do to our insurance rates?