Large Premium Increases For Flood Insurance Facing Connecticut Shore Homeowners

If you live on the shore in Connecticut expect to see much higher premiums as the prospects for hurricanes along New England coastal areas are increasing.

“Groton Town Mayor Rita Schmidt saw her annual flood-insurance rates rise from $2,800 to $3,400 this year, despite the fact that her home on Bank Street in Mystic is up on a hill and not near the water,” says the Groton News.

“Numbers generated by The Associated Press show that 31 percent of Groton property owners requiring flood insurance face higher costs this year, despite a bill in Congress that sought to lessen the impact of higher rates. In Groton Long Point, a section of waterfront property particularly vulnerable to storm damage, an even more dramatic effect was evident, with 69 percent of properties seeing insurance cost increases.”

For more details, check out the Groton News article.

Similar Posts:

Share

3 Comments on "Large Premium Increases For Flood Insurance Facing Connecticut Shore Homeowners"

  1. Good referenced article, George, and a very timely issue that deserves better introspection by yourself and others. I am glad you brought it up.

    I think Congress and affected communities ought to consider or account for the heights and manner of both construction AND obstruction, for man-made and natural impediments in flood-prone waters. Alas, the Army Corps can’t decide at that level of analysis. It should be up to communities via taxes or special permit to allow for such localized impediments.

    The community flood zone maps recently amended do not offer minute, site-specific abnormalities affected by flood waters. Instead, the flood line definition, when blown up for a specific property, becomes a half-inch (several feet) on a plot line map–hardly indicative of where flood waters might meander.

    These maps are generally for 100-year storms as well, not for less marginal storms, even though those lesser storms, too, might be injurious to life and limb–and property– that lasts for a day or two afterward.

    While I agree that those who like to locate nearby or into such waters should pay the taxes and price for doing so (why should taxpayers pick up the subsidized tab for replacement property), so, too, should municipalities worry about the loss of or decrease in property taxes due to lower prices and lesser transfers from that particular real estate market.

    While I hardly like government intrusion into my daily affairs, in this case, more awareness by the government and homeowners at all levels can keep injury and financial losses (pardon the pun) “at bay.” IMHO

  2. I agree let’s open all shore line areas to every one! All beach front should be free- private homes- hotels- motels – dinning should be built-back far enough to enjoy the view but open to public access! I’m sure there is plenty of rocky beach front for the Mil’s to gobble up! You want it private- don’t enter- residents only then pay for it.

    • I’m not sure if your comment was addressed to me, but I have to disagree with you.

      First, this article and the “Day” article addressed flooding and the flood line placements by the Army Corps. and their associated flood insurance rates. I essentially added that the tax-paying public should not be subsidizing errant or continued construction in these flood zones–as well as to account for man-made or natural impediments to flooding.

      Second, I absolutely never alluded that only millionaires or others financially and similarly-situated means could and should purchase “all” waterfront property as against public access. I stated that the government and property owners should become more aware of the ramifications and losses of such construction in those zones.

      Third, this country was founded on individualism, including into land ownership. There are values associated with all types of land and improvements to it. You would have the public own all those rights into ALL waterfront properties–but where do you draw the line? how much is enough for the public–two streets, a quarter mile, 500 feet back from the water’s edge? are you prepared–via taxes, insurance, and labor–to pay not only for all this ownership, but the costs of annual maintenance, and personal injuries that might be sustained therein?

      While I agree with you somewhat that the public ought to have certain rights to the use and quiet enjoyment of water-front-view-access–in key areas of importance, I don’t think I want my tax dollars to pay for voluminous costs associated with the ownership, whether it be by the public solely by itself, or a private entity, or by a private/public (hotel/dining mixed use with access) merchant.

      There are recognizable costs involved in each…and assigned to that particular owner, whomever it is. My point is and was, that the public ought to be wary of those costs. Simple.

Comments are closed.