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

День тому

The U.S. government is buying up and destroying American homes. Homeowners in the floodplain are choosing to voluntarily sell their doomed properties to the government. Since 1989, FEMA has helped fun around 45 to 50,000 home buyouts. FEMA is estimated to have spent somewhere around $4 billion on the project so far but that’s just a fraction of the total amount spend on buyouts, since there are programs outside of FEMA. But not everyone is convinced buyouts are a good idea. Watch the video to find out how floodplain buyouts work and if they are helping or hurting American homeowners.
Chapters:
0:00 Introduction
1:39 How buyouts work
6:15 Costs
12:10 Managed retreat
Produced and Edited by: Lindsey Jacobson
Animation: Christina Locopo, Jason Reginato
Additional Camer by: Andrea Miller
Editorial Assistance from: Katherine Tarasov, Charlotte Morabito
Additional footage: Getty Images, New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection, WCAU, Charlotte-Mecklenburg County, WOWT, Andrea Jones
Additional sources: FEMA, Congressional Research Service
Special Thanks to: John Wendel, Debra Schooley, Doris Breitfeller, Jonathan Altino
» Subscribe to CNBC: cnb.cx/SubscribeCNBC
» Subscribe to CNBC TV: cnb.cx/SubscribeCNBCtelevision
About CNBC: From 'Wall Street' to 'Main Street' to award winning original documentaries and Reality TV series, CNBC has you covered. Experience special sneak peeks of your favorite shows, exclusive video and more.
Want to make extra money outside of your day job? Take CNBC’s new online course How to Earn Passive Income Online to learn about common passive income streams. Register today and save 50% with discount code EARLYBIRD: cnb.cx/3Iwblnk
Connect with CNBC News Online
Get the latest news: www.cnbc.com/
Follow CNBC on LinkedIn: cnb.cx/LinkedInCNBC
Follow CNBC News on Instagram: cnb.cx/InstagramCNBC
Follow CNBC News on Facebook: cnb.cx/LikeCNBC
Follow CNBC on Threads: cnb.cx/threads
Follow CNBC News on X: cnb.cx/FollowCNBC
#CNBC
Why The U.S. Government Is Buying And Destroying Homes

КОМЕНТАРІ: 356

@quentinmanson3287 11 днів тому

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

@damnkris 10 днів тому

Sort of, but try to flip the situation. To ban selling those homes would also entail making it impossible for the people currently living there to ever move somewhere else (unless bought out by government). They should definitively ban development though.

@GoldTau-km9dm 10 днів тому

And that they rebuild in them and wildlife zones after the disasters again and again.

@quentinmanson3287 10 днів тому

@@damnkriswhat about this. The responsibility falls on the lender for allowing the poor investment. Have the banks pay not tax dollars. Prevent lenders from lending to these property types. You can still buy them but with cash only.

@3zObafouzr 10 днів тому

@@damnkris how are you going to sell someone a home in a flood zone without lying?

@cordelearts 10 днів тому

It’s called freedom.

@cutthechicken194 11 днів тому

Houses in flood zone should not be looked at as available housing.

@cutthechicken194 2 дні тому

@@wbay3848 No its not

@casonator 10 днів тому

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.

@stevenbrady440 9 днів тому

One way to do this, to let them know, is to bring their insurance rates up to reflect what the risk is. Money has way of bringing clarity to situations.

@l-dogtheman1685 9 днів тому

Same with beachfront properties. With rising sealevels due to man made climate change, those houses are extremely at risk and protecting them from the rising ocean will be very expensive. Rich people can afford dams or other methods to keep away the water, which is why they will probably continue to buy houses on the coast despite climate change, but the rest will have huge problems once the water level rises several feet

@colorbugoriginals4457 5 днів тому

@@stevenbrady440hate to agree, but you're absolutely right.

@CarlosSanchez-en6mr 3 дні тому

@@stevenbrady440yup, if it wasn’t for the heavily federally subsidized insurance these people enjoyed in the past, 99% of these homes would have never been built in the first place

@stevenbrady440 3 дні тому

@@CarlosSanchez-en6mr I agree. I have had multiple waterfront houses. I could not believe that people who lived inland were subsidizing my insurance. Insanity. Horrendous public policy.

@shanet7511 10 днів тому

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.

@joeriveracomedy 11 днів тому

River Islands outside SF built a giant development in a floodplain. I have photos of it underwater but greedy people ignored impending doom.

@Korloko 11 днів тому

Rich people freeload the most.

@paillette2010 10 днів тому

Greedy developers and a greedy city/muni that won't stand up against it.

@jimba6486 9 днів тому

@@Korlokonot true, the average voter is the biggest freeloader. Look at what they just did, funded 2.5 wars while racking up 1T dollars every 100 days at the future America’s expense. Some rich ahole doesn’t hold a candle to the theft by average voters who too ignorant and narcissistic to care about the damage their government is doing for generations of people to come.

@KeliK1 11 днів тому

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!

@clintdawley 7 днів тому

She doubled her mortgage at 59. That’s stupid.

@GD-8 6 днів тому

@@clintdawley So you'd rather stay and wait for the flood to come flush you out of your house while you're on the toilet? Yeah, that's so much smarter.

@clintdawley 6 днів тому

@@GD-8 did I say that she should stay. No. I didn’t. Scroll on fool.

@GD-8 6 днів тому

@@clintdawley so dumfk, tell us what else she could do other than get that 5.9 then?

@nulnoh219 11 днів тому

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?

@candaceferguson8325 10 днів тому

Not the taxpayer

@stupidminotaur9735 День тому

1. flood zones are often flat. 2. for insurance reasons often they just say yea this is a flood zone in 50-100/200 years flood a big 1. 3. citys are often supposed to build drains but dont for new housing areas but just dont

@stupidminotaur9735 День тому

1. flood zones are often flat..... 1.5 flat zones are cheaper to build on 2x-3x/5x cheaper

@warmike 22 години тому

The developer

@Johnrl21 11 днів тому

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.

@bobsagat122 11 днів тому

Bro people sometimes dont have all the knowledge of something..thats no reason to let them suffer if they can be helped. These things are going to be happening everywhere around all coastlines because of our endless and needless waste and consumption of resources.

@the0ne809 11 днів тому

but some of these people bought the houses decades ago when information was harder to get.

@lukethompson5558 11 днів тому

@@bobsagat122 They should have known. Caveat emptor

@jennifertarin4707 11 днів тому

Sometimes, the flood plain moves. Rivers have minds of their own and go where they want, regardless of the damage they cause. Also, placed aren't always designated as flood plains if they don't flood often enough or at all in the past. Foe years, my grandparents' house wasn't considered in a flood plain, despite being only about 50 yards from a stream that floods in the winter. Additionally, this information isn't or wasn't available for everyone

@charlesbridgford254 10 днів тому

In the UK, it's a case of sucking it up. It's just a managed retreat, managed by the owner of the asset.

@WealthbuilderzTV 11 днів тому

I knew it was a crisis but short 7.2 million homes is crazy.

@tmzz3609 11 днів тому

That's just a lie though. There are certainly shortages regionally(around large cities with growing economies). There are currently 15 million empty homes in the US........ Not apartment units........ Empty single family homes...... How can we be 7.2 million "housing units" short if there are literally twice as many homes sitting empty. There is currently 3-4 million empty apartments on top of that. There are blocks and blocks of empty houses in every large Midwest city. Houses in Detroit can be bought for less than a one single paycheck from a minimum wage worker

@Truth-of-the-matter 11 днів тому

I think it depends if that figure is all single family homes. We definitely need to diversify our neighborhoods with single family homes and condos. Not everyone wants or needs a single family dwelling.

@Liam1694u 11 днів тому

We aren't short 7.2 million homes. A vast majority of those shortfalls could be eliminated if we stopped letting private equity firms buy up residential homes as investment assets and tax dodges (many of which sit VACANT). Corporations buying residential homes should be illegal or at least heavily regulated and taxes.

@Demopans5990 11 днів тому

@@Liam1694u It's called squatters. You ain't going to find enough security to guard all those vacant properties

@lam7499 11 днів тому

@Liam1694u we should add regulations, but regardless we need to build more homes. If we can build so much we have a housing excess, that'd be even better.

@KingRat71 11 днів тому

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.

@lukethompson5558 11 днів тому

We’ve become a nation of bailouts

@Csilva857 11 днів тому

@@lukethompson5558 Only for the rich

@awesome9174 10 днів тому

What idiot insurance company would willingly give insurance to such high risk individuals?

@KingRat71 10 днів тому

@@awesome9174 they dont. That is why flood insurance is onlyt offered through the federal government. And why we need to frce those peopel to buy it (at a realistic cost and not subsidised by the rest of us) and not let them opt out since their local politicians will lobby to bail them out anyway when disaster happens.

@steven4315 11 днів тому

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

@jennifertarin4707 11 днів тому

We can do this now, but 20 years ago or even 10 years ago, this wasn't available. Also, I'm pretty sure that many small towns don't have topographical maps available (I know my hometown doesn't have those resources)

@TheJimbob1603 10 днів тому

Why bother? The government will save my ass if I make a bad decision.

@mrmrmrmaster 10 днів тому

@@jennifertarin4707 the USGS has surveyed, and made available to the public for free, every mile of the continental US since at least the mid 1900s. Topographical maps are available.

@steven4315 10 днів тому

@@jennifertarin4707 Topographical maps have been available from the government for many years. They are now free online for any place in the US. Topographic-map.---

@YourCapybaraAmigo_17yrsago 6 днів тому

@@steven4315 but they weren't always easily accessible 10 or 20 or 30 years ago. And also due to climate change, flood threats are getting worse every year. If a person bought the home 20 years ago, like that one woman the home could have been in a perfectly safe location. None of us are geological experts. We have to rely on what the people we trust are telling us at the time we purchase our home. Blame the Mayors and the planning commission's who are corrupt and are allowing development to occur in known flood likely areas. That's the root of the corruption. If I'm a prospective buyer and I see that there's homes or units on a given location I'm going to assume that all due diligence was done and that they are safe. Or at least an average person would think that and they couldn't be blamed for doing so. The fault doesn't lie with the homeowner and why are you even defaulting to blaming them, when there are so many other players in the situation that are far more to blame. Homeowners aren't scientific experts, if they're told a a home is safe why wouldn't they believe that?;? The problem was with the states, the local municipalities, the local authorities, and any builder who knowingly developed in a flood-likely areas. But you just sleep over all of that and blame the home buyer? Why won't you put the blame where it belongs? That's sus af.

@retalus 11 днів тому

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.

@clarekramer411 6 годин тому

That would be nice, but realistically is it right to help certain people and not others? Is it fair? People lose money on houses all the time. Also properties are condemned all the time to build roads etc

@RT-xj7el 11 днів тому

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.

@bobsagat122 11 днів тому

What are you even talking about and how does a comment that makes no logical sense like gramatically lol get 5 upvotes from people. Like what sense did they take away from this?

@DuffyGabi 11 днів тому

You are using logic. Governments favor victimhood over logic.

@ipadsrawesome3667 9 днів тому

@@bobsagat122 what didnt you understand? It seemed clear to me. If the gov decides your house is in an unsafe location you take all the risks if you turn down the offer.

@sarysa 9 днів тому

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.

@stevenbrady440 9 днів тому

If I owned a home in a flood zone, I would be celebrating somebody purchasing it from me. There's nothing nostalgic about having a home flood, even once. Or worrying about it happening. And once it's been flooded, it has to be disclosed to future buyers. Meaning the home just lost permanent value and might never be marketable. Only a fool would purchase a home that has previously been flooded. You are trapped permanently. If you're thinking that maybe, well, it's not so bad. You're not thinking clearly. When homes in flood zones are totaled, they should be razed and no one should be able to rebuild there. Certainly not with any government insurance. And they shouldn't be entitled to any government benefits or insurance for any future flooding if they are ever rebuilt by speculators. Rich speculators should pay all the freight associated with building in flood zones. They must not rely on other taxpayers to subsidize them before or after the flood inevitably happens.

@timothydevries383 11 днів тому

Generally, it's a good idea. It's safer, prevents governments from having to provide endless disaster relief, and reduces insurance costs for everyone.

@amazon4716 8 днів тому

Well it protects the people and return it back to nature Win win. Protect all Americans and nature.

@JohnFraser-zc8cu 11 днів тому

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

@juanspyro4658 11 днів тому

I don't think there's a huge risk of speculators buying high risk areas, what I wonder is if there are speculators building the new homes and sell it to the government at a higher markup though it doesn't seem like very big business

@f_pie 11 днів тому

NO WAY, wall st would NEVER do that, just like they would never play games with the fed

@f_pie 11 днів тому

@@juanspyro4658 I'm gonna start doing it, it will be free money

@Matt-nn9mv 9 днів тому

Lol. It's already happening. The government is the speculator

@shubashuba9209 11 днів тому

I wonder why we don't move homes more often instead of destroy them. Is it really that much more expensive?

@lukethompson5558 11 днів тому

Sometimes they pay to have them lifted

@mbe102 11 днів тому

Loving that Tie Fighter in the background! That lady has good taste!

@eile4219 11 днів тому

we need to stop using tax players money to pump up housing price. People should losing money from owning a house like in Japan. Housing should not be an investment, it should be treated as consumption. This way house will have limited up side. If we think housing is an investment. then if people lose their house, it's their own fault that they invested in the wrong area. Do i get my money back if my invest on Apple, but it's losing money this year?

@charlesbridgford254 10 днів тому

That's the case in the UK. Bought a house in a daft area? Too bad.

@clamato54 11 днів тому

Moral Hazard: this artificially encourages risky home purchases in flood plains without financial consequences, unless they require original purchases prior to a past date. If I was in an at risk home I'd take It but this screws up the proper market valuation of climate risk

@dachicagoan8185 11 днів тому

Suddenly, all our elected officials have homes along the coast, along fault lines, near volcanos, and in flood plains.

@GA-yv3zw 9 днів тому

This is looking like the lawmakers are using taxpayer money to bailout insurance companies. The only one that benefits financially is the companies that are insuring these homes.

@lindatullos9430 4 дні тому

FEMA insurance is government insurance , so if they get rid of the properties , government doesn't have to rebuild again.

@Animalkisser 9 днів тому

What about buying homes out in Tornado Valley???

@Michael-yi4mc 8 днів тому

I sold my house on Mars. Much too windy.

@Skyler827 11 днів тому

We need to build more homes!! preferably in areas that are not going to flood

@stevechrollo8074 11 днів тому

More areas are going to flood. We have limited land

@Demopans5990 11 днів тому

So commie blocks?

@AaronJ323 10 днів тому

@@stevechrollo8074 there is vast land in the mid west no flooding just tornadoes.

@stevechrollo8074 10 днів тому

@@AaronJ323 still cant support 200 million population

@TheTruthSeeker756 11 днів тому

People hate the government until they get their turn feeding at the trough😂

@darinherrick9224 7 днів тому

Yeup.

@Rick-og6oy 5 днів тому

People hate other people feeding off the government because now their trough gets less

@alicemark5918 9 днів тому

I'm so happy I made productive decisions about my finances that changed forever. I'm a single mother living in Vancouver Canada, bought my first house in October and hoping to retire soon if things keep going smoothly for me.

@timberwolfe1645 11 днів тому

Just make them ALL wildlife sanctuaries. Then any injuries are natural to being in the WILD

@nicolasbenson009 3 дні тому

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.

@berniceburgos- 3 дні тому

Consider reallocating from real estate to other reliable investments like stock, crypto or precious metals . Severe recessions offer market buying opportunities with caution, as volatility can yield short-term trading prospects. Not financial advice, but it may be wise to invest, as cash isn't ideal in this period.

@KarenLavia 3 дні тому

It's often true that people underestimate the importance of financial advisors until they feel the negative effects of emotional decision-making. I remember a few summers ago, after a tough divorce, when I needed a boost for my struggling business. I researched and found a licensed advisor who diligently helped grow my reserves despite inflation. Consequently, my reserves increased from $275k to around $750k.

@SandraDave. 3 дні тому

nice! once you hit a big milestone, the next comes easier.. who is your advisor please, if you don't mind me asking?

@KarenLavia 3 дні тому

Certainly, there are a handful of experts in the field. I've experimented with a few over the past years, but I've stuck with ‘’Melissa Terri Swayne” for about five years now, and her performance has been consistently impressive.She’s quite known in her field, look-her up.

@HectorWhitney 3 дні тому

I just looked her up on the internet and found her webpage with her credentials. I wrote her a outlining my financial objectives and planned a call with her.

@kittyanya 5 днів тому

Land behind our house floods up to 3 feet. Rich white guy on our street owned the land, so he knew it flooded and was where the water held. It was supposed to become a lake in the 70’s. He decided he wanted apartments. I sent all my pictures of it flooding during Hurricane Matthew to the county council. It was finally sold to a church group who made a church on stilts and a raised parking lot while keeping the flood area open. Now I get to deal with noise Wednesday, Saturday, Sunday, and weddings. Ugh.

@nbnsraz 11 днів тому

Maybe updating flood maps to include “high risk” areas as flood plains would mean insurance products could be appropriately priced to risk, then that would serve as incentive to not build in those areas. Not really a fan of moral hazard buyouts… especially on properties that haven’t even flooded yet.

@thaexception3406 10 днів тому

Informative!

@timsimmons5190 10 днів тому

Wasting tax dollars. Let insurance companies handle this. They got the money hell

@SincerelyFromStephen 10 днів тому

And when they stop operating in flood prone regions?

@chapman1569 День тому

Old neighborhoods are probably less at risk of flooding, if the homes have been there for 100 year old, the area was safer. It is not a guaranty but it might be one element to consider when choosing a location.

@milliedragon4418 2 дні тому

The thing is like yeah some areas are flood prone but they're not like significantly flood prone, then of course you have the historical element. I think if they're not significantly flood prone than they should then houses have to be raised minimums risk. Another thing that isn't actually explored is some of this is man-made. When I say this a man-made flood disaster is our streets are not made to absorb water. So this increases the risk of flooding. In areas that would not otherwise have a risk of flooding.

@scrumbles 9 днів тому

Im sorry, but this actually makes sense. Why spend the money to rebuild when its just going to flood again? I hate to quote the bible for an argument, but "the wise man builds his house upon the rock." On a seperate note, there is an environmentally protected flood plain across from my parents' house. It is FULL of derelict buildings as it is illegal to build new construction. New, modern buildings designed for flooding could be built in their place, but NOOOOO. You can't build there.

@johnmckeon4498 4 дні тому

In the long term this is good for affodability because it lowers risks insurance companies have to take to insure homes. Insurance companies are going to charge unaffordable rates for any homes located in a flood zone. Making the mortgage payments that usually include the insurance unaffordable. Even if the base older home may be cheaper than new construction. Outliers like this cost more than they are worth. Not to mention the health and safty risks of flooding and mold.

@mora103 7 днів тому

It's not the cost that prevents people from buying homes. It's the red tape that determines whether you qualify to buy a home 🫣 Even just renting a home, usually requires that you make three times the rent 🫤 why? So if they raise the rent they know you may be able to pay it 😒 lots of people dont have a home because of others peoples greed...

@vanhasydan4754 3 дні тому

Part of the equation is the fact people have built homes in stupid locations. Its more expensive to keep rebuilding after a flood in these places than to relocate and demolish and block new construction in the problem areas. I work in the damage remediation field, mainly water, so i have seen the aftermath first hand. This includes the river flood in St Louis.

@StarryniteTrist 3 дні тому

take the buyout especially if the water was already up to your frontsteps, mailbox, or car...like who would even pay inflated price for that house knowing the neighborhood is prone to flooding

@SouoLuizfromBR 11 днів тому

the appraisal needs to match

@gwendolynmorgan7803 3 дні тому

Why not put in resiliency parks on the bought properties? Hoboken and NYC have helped control flooding events with them

@MaybeTheyreBatman 5 днів тому

Interesting and important thanks

@finnellwilliam 5 днів тому

If you buy a home with the last few years, five years that you know is in the floodplain, and there are other options available to you and then your house floods, and you were able to get insurance honey use your insurance, but the government should not be bailing you out at all. They should not be buying up your house and rescuing you. If you knew that your house was in a flood zone, you had other options and you still chose to buy the house in that area now I have no pity I have absolutely no feelings of empathy for you. You knew what you were doing I don’t feel bad. Enjoy your pool in your living room. But I understand if you bought your house in the 1990s, 2001 2004 and you didn’t know that you were in a flood zone and you’ve become in a flood zone as climate change just happened water levels have gone up etc. etc. but at the same time if you bought your house in 1982 and your two roads away from the ocean I don’t really care what your excuses you knew there was a chance that you might get water really close to your front door if not in your living room so it also is a degree of common sense in that example

@jordanfgfox7237 10 днів тому

Imagine you built home and then government destroys it More reasons why Gen z should fight for this country :/

@dominosnostradamus2415 9 днів тому

13:25 hell no we always bail out corporations. What kind of logic is that. Help working class people damit

@ChetHanks-eh1md 11 днів тому

the Gov should not be buying these properties at all. The GOP would let them sink. You bought a doomed house you take the fall.

@marcusm8009 10 днів тому

Do these buy outs extend to large rental operations, I don't feel like they should. I wouldn't mind a house on pillars with a habitat under the house.

@StarryniteTrist 3 дні тому

never understood people rebuilsing their flooded homes in like the mississippi flood plains or in like hurricane destroyed homes on the east coast especially ones hit twice or three times. id never feel even comfortable

@MarcelBryan 11 днів тому

Despite the fact that climate change is occurring, the government is doing the least to prevent it from causing property damage. Also, helping insurers to reduce the increase in their rates. This puts the burden of the cost of climate change on individuals, businesses and governments who are already struggling with the effects of the economic crisis. It is clear, then, that the government needs to take action to mitigate the effects of climate change.

@qwite9309 11 днів тому

You gotta realize that for all these protection programs theres a bunch of people who think its a waste of government spending and gives the government too much power and its prevalent a lot that basically half of congress is represented by republicans who don't think climate change will cause any of these crises or care

@aryaastark9201 2 дні тому

Half of the government (republicans) don't even believe in climate change. How are you going to change their minds?

@Michael-yi4mc 8 днів тому

The day after the flood in Hawaii, 1988, the city wanted to clean up the debris along side of the street. I kept the refrigerator for evidence for the insurance claim.

@hotshot-te9xw 11 днів тому

I think we need to solve the climate crisis before we do the housing one because if we dont then there will be no houses to inhabit

@lrobie123 7 днів тому

floodplain water damaged homes made the cost of insurance unaffordable by many

@ILWU4Ever2024 5 днів тому

Climate change has accelerated this process of buying out homeowners in flood and wildfire areas. Life over property is the key reason. Insurance companies are adjusting their rates to keep ahead of future disasters that will decimate communities!

@ericscottstevens 15 годин тому

Better buy out large tracts of New Orleans, the older low income housing is sitting on land that is below sea level and strata is shirking inward.

@hbarudi 10 днів тому

Banks should not lend mortgages to houses in flood areas...

@Mike_Genisys 5 годин тому

The developer should be on the hook for building and selling in a flood zone.

@vrr6368 10 днів тому

U.S Government -translated U.S. taxpayers

@oas8766 День тому

Always remember, When they say "FED Funding" it means printing money. just FYI.

@jimba6486 9 днів тому

Yeah … you know what I don’t support any of this. Do your due diligence and accept responsibility for living in fire zone, flood zone, hurricane zone, or tornado zone. My tax dollars should not be going toward this. This is a racket for the local and state governments to get more money from the Fed. We can help out people like Hawaii during that recent tragedy. That doesn’t mean the government has to buy out property.

@jasmines.6325 3 дні тому

That home looked perfectly fine...

@pierreclifton1865 3 дні тому

Makes complete sense. Good job Fed govt.

@macbook802 11 днів тому

Thats what insurance is for

@EnufAlrdy909 4 дні тому

Who would've ever thought that the climate has cycles and areas that have flooded or burned in the past might just flood or burn again in the future... DUH!

@Michael-yi4mc 8 днів тому

Buying flooded houses makes for a great theme during election year.

@BunkerSquirrel День тому

As a taxpayer, I’d much rather my money go to protecting vulnerable people from financial ruin than bailing out incompetent businessmen 👍

@mhodge0890 10 днів тому

What about the ones that had their homes paid off and were force to move. Let’s focus on them please

@MsAchampion 7 днів тому

Who built those homes near nad areas in the first place? 🤔

@connorferguson2269 4 дні тому

i worry with rising storms globally that America might not be able to afford to do this anymore :C

@Dakid015 9 днів тому

There's also scam buyers in Charlotte NC

@johnalvarado1394 7 днів тому

Because under free market conditions: the value of something can skyrocket! When somebody important wants it,

@sgtpepperz25 4 дні тому

Making land off limits and property more expensive...

@kk-xj5oz 9 днів тому

It's not government job to buy homes even if they are located in areas that are prone to natural disaster. Rather use the money to build new housing in areas not prone to natural disasters.

@oceansunsetak 9 днів тому

Why the goverment provids flood insurance to people that build on the beach or flood plane is stupid. I cannot get goverment flood insurance in my state. If my house washes away so be it. I knew the risk and have enjoyed the view. I read an article about people building in flood plains 50 years ago it was critical of incentives encouraging people to build knowing every 30 years the floods would return.

@zachjones6944 11 днів тому

Who is dumb enough to build on a floodplain?

@Bremend 11 днів тому

I do wonder what people will do when insurance providers add additional costs for living in a floodplain. They already are stepping away from Florida's hurricanes and California's wildfires, seems floodplains would be the next step.

@jennifertarin4707 11 днів тому

Flood insurance (as far as I know) is only available from the federal government

@andreware7638 10 днів тому

Buyouts help the rich. They should not be bought out of their bad decisions.

@rodolfoalva422 7 днів тому

Why wouldn’t she get a fixed mortgage rate when the rates were so low?

@zatosan729 10 днів тому

A bad investment decision in many cases doesn't apply to banks. Thus, a bail out.

@Dieselpwr 7 днів тому

The Everglades are a drained swamp But let’s blame global warming

@MrBezyBez 10 днів тому

Step 1: Invest in real estate in floodplains. Step 2: Sell floodplain real estate to the government. Step 3: Profit Step 4: Repeat/ build new property in another floodplain.

@dreadfuldonkey 9 днів тому

In january 2023 there was only 650,000 homeless at any given night yet we need 7 million new homes , very strange

@lindatullos9430 4 дні тому

7.2 million lol there are 15 million vacant homes because of equity funds buying up homes for Airbnb or worse ,speculation in cities.

@___beyondhorizon4664 11 днів тому

Ehy buil home near flood zone? Home owner get FEMA help, homeless get no help

@mari0c0leman 10 днів тому

Why would they push that house into the water only to turn around and try to bring awareness about pollution?

@jynxie17 9 днів тому

Why did they build on a flood zone in the first place? I'm pretty sure the river has flooded before so why do we keep building there? 😢

@sheaskateboarding 10 днів тому

We don’t have money to help these people, but we can send 95 billion to Ukraine, Israel and Taiwan for war aid 😒. The problem could be fixed with a percent of that money being sent over.

@dylanattix2765 7 днів тому

Native American tribes never set up their homes in flood plains, always along peripheries and upland areas.

@jayjya 11 днів тому

States that haven’t supported climate change intervention shouldn’t get any of these supports from the federal government

@01ai01 2 дні тому

So my tax dollars are being funneled to people who bought houses built in insanely dumb locations so that they can then afford to outbid me on other houses.

@KevinSmith-qi5yn 10 днів тому

Build with flooding in mind. Just don't ask why the house is on pontoons.

@haroldmaynor9161 11 днів тому

The Swamp is buying more swampland? Makes sense.

@DanyCesc83 10 днів тому

Too many middle men in these transaction, like anything done by the state or federal side it takes a long time because many entities are touching the money before it gets to where it needs to go, Do an audit on how is spent on adminstrative cost...

@4Realkevv 10 днів тому

Thats there fault for buying a home near the waters

@BladeMasterz916 11 днів тому

We need to build cities expecting floods and the streets rivers.

@jennifertarin4707 11 днів тому

What does that even mean?

@BladeMasterz916 10 днів тому

@@jennifertarin4707 Homes elevated on mounds. So the floods can flow through the streets.

@FireAnalityze 9 днів тому

I guess its confusion

@bbb-un9hq 10 днів тому

Give them a final buyout offer, and make it clear there will be no more bail outs for the next flood. The "Fair market value" for a house built in a flood plane is essentially zero, so these homeowners should be eternally thankful to their tax paying peers for gifting them hundreds of thousands of dollars in profit even though their investment was a total failure.