Flood Insurance presentation: Not exactly flooded with useful info

Residents get an informal flood zone map
twice a year in the DPW mailer; this one's on my fridge.

Plainfield's City Council wanted to hear about flood insurance Monday evening, and got an earful from Director Jennifer Wenson-Maier.

However, the more I listened to her presentation and the Council's questions, the more it seemed we were not being flooded with USEFUL information -- and it wasn't really Wenson-Maier's fault.

It seemed hard for the Council, which had a handout from Wenson-Maier (the public had nothing with which to follow along) that seemed comprised of a punch-list of items to do to reduce flood insurance premiums overall in the city. There were no flood maps in evidence.

(One of my constant gripes is how little USEFUL VISUAL INFORMATION is provided the Council, let alone the public -- and I include those odious PowerPoint presentations of which the Robinson-Briggs administration is so enamored.)

The reason I say it wasn't Wenson-Maier's fault is that the Council's very question didn't seem to be well-focused. What exactly is the issue?

To hear Councilor Burney, it seemed to be that some residents complain about HAVING TO PAY for flood insurance at all.

To hear Councilor Reid -- who has personal experience, with a bill that has risen from $700 to $2400 annually in a few short years -- it seemed to be the RISING COST.

Those are TWO QUITE DIFFERENT QUESTIONS and separating them could have led to a more enlightened discussion (again, not Wenson-Maier's fault if her charge was not made more clear).

One might well cringe at the very mention of FEMA -- infamous for its failures in regard to Hurricane Katrina -- yet the Council seemed not to know the basic hows and whys of flood insurance and why FEMA is at the heart of it all.

WHY PAY AT ALL?

What didn't come out at the presentation is that the REASON the vast majority of homeowners pay flood insurance is because they have mortgages and the banks who give the mortages require it as a condition for underwriting a mortgage if the property is deemed to be in a flood zone -- as determined by FEMA's official flood zone maps, part of the National Flood Insurance Program, which it administers.

Residents get a reminder twice a year in the DPW mailers that have yard waste collection information -- but ALSO CONTAIN a blue tinted approximation of Plainfield's flood zones, with information on where to get complete and accurate information.

Homeowners who have no mortgages on their property can -- and have -- canceled their flood insurance. The presumption being that they don't think they'll ever be flooded, and are willing to take their chances and be totally personally responsible in the event of flooding.

So, property owners with mortgages who must pay flood insurance have two basic choices -- 1) shut up and pay, or 2) hire a surveyor (at their own expense) to help them prepare an appeal to FEMA. These appeals, as Wenson-Maier explained, are time-consuming and expensive to prepare and must be filed by October of a year to qualify for possible reduction in premium requirements the following May.

Could premiums overall throughout the city be reduced? That seemed to be the gist of Wenson-Maier's document for the Council, which contained 21 items (I think) to be completed for a 15% reduction. Would you be surprised the learn that such a project would involved outsourcing to an engineering firm?

WHY PAY SO MUCH?

Seems to me Councilor Reid's question as to WHY PREMIUMS HAVE RISEN SO SHARPLY is a more fruitful line of investigation to pursue.

If the mitigation efforts undertaken by and in Plainfield over the years have only ENHANCED flood protection, and if the material conditions regarding residential property owners have not otherwise changed negatively, why a 350% increase in Mr. Reid's premium in a few short years?

And why are some, like Councilor Reid, paying considerably above the average of $1390/year? (1,438 flood policies divided into $2M in annual premiums.)

Are flood insurance policyholders being MILKED for reasons that have to do with the insurance companies bottom lines and not with changes in the policyholders' material conditions?

Now, THAT'S an interesting question to pursue.

And if that turns out to be the case it's more than one city's governing body can deal with; then it's time to call in the HEAVY DUTY TROOPS -- the State Legislature. Assemblyman Jerry Green should be on this one big time.

---

-- Dan Damon [follow]

View today's CLIPS here. Not getting your own CLIPS email daily? Click here to subscribe.