Maybe its time to reconsider, what and how its rebuilt along the coasts. Why should taxpayers keep supporting this risk? Like the farmer in Iowa whose never seen the ocean, struggles with his crop to put food on Americans tables,,, while these houses produce a burden on Americans wallets. Do get me wrong, I love the beach, but maybe its time for a change.

^^dont get me wrong...

There is no easy answer. The government also subsidizes farming, another risky venture.

Also, those homeowners add to the local economy --paying taxes, patronizing local businesses, employing local contractors, etc.

Climate change is going to make these storms less frequent, but more severe. As the ocean warms, the storms will continue to gain strength coming up the east coast.
Homeowners have to be able to buy some sort of insurance to protect their assets or there will be simply no point in building or buying a home on a barrier island. If the state can get federal money to rebuild, why shouldn't homeowners be able to buy flood insurance?
We need to have a serious discussion about this.
Thanks for the article.

With the extension of the flood insurance program this summer, several changes will take place in the near future. The cost to insure those secondary homes will be increasing and the flood insurance program will also be expanding to more areas to increase the size of the program. Flood insurance is easily available while home insurance in coastal areas will remain a challenge! But the recent 5 year extension is addressing the debt the program has incurred.
The key will be to improve the quality of the construction and make it less prone to flooding.

Really people, there are all types of storms all over the country, if we took this approach, then what about areas flooding from rain, hit hard by snow, tornadoes, earthquakes, mudslides, droughts causing fires all over the country, etc. No matter where you live there will be some type of weather condition to deal with it.

jT - Whether taxes should be used to rebuild in vulnerable regions is an extremely complicated consideration. I don't have the ultimate answer. I do know though that the cost of eliminating government contributions to disaster recovery and reconstruction, could, in the fairly long time horizon, put a greater financial burden on government and society as a whole (consider the costs to society inevitably incurred by displaced people, lost infrastructure, etc).
I can be more directly responsive to the example you raise though. Farmers in Iowa benefit from the coasts by vacationing here, and from the economic activity here too. Even if they do not vacation here, they benefit from the knowledge that they have that option. And, keep in mind that taxpayers subsidize farmers and the vast majority of the taxpayers will never farm (of course). A rebuttal to this last point may jump out, but that is also the rebuttal to your objection to subsidies for coastal redevelopment. And, though the fairness arguments against farm subsidies are somewhat weak, the financial argments against it, in many cases, are much stronger.

Every year people pay homeowner and flood insurance premiums and never put in a claim. Then something happens and all of a sudden people have a problem when we file a claim. When my insurance company has to pay off it has nothing to do with federal dollars. If the feds want to rebuild the barrier island infrastructure then good for them. That's what they are there for. If I pay for Federal flood protection via my yearly premium then they have to pay up. That's the contract and the law. Cuomo asking for 30 billion is the joke. Let the insurance companies pay out like they are supposed to. If you don't have insurance that's on you, not the government. I am a Dem.

Exactly, what is all the uproar, homeowners are required to have insurance if they owe a mortgage, if you own your home outright, and do not insure your investment, then something happens, that is stupidity

repuplicans on rebuilding the shore ,,," lets borrow the money from social security "

@Thomas - that statement only shows a lack of knowledge sir. Try staying on point.

iNSURANCE COMPANIES love collecting those premiums, but they sure dont like paying on them

Donna, this is one of many storms that have caused great damage, and it is not unusual for insurance premiums to go up "Temporarily " having lived most of my life on the Gulf Coast, where hurricanes happen much more often than the East Coast, seems Galveston , Houston and all the surrounding Texas cities have survived, even after one of the worst storms in history, the 1900 hurricane that hit Galveston, Texas.
This insurance hype is just another devasting piece of news that people already over whelmed do not need to deal with at this time. Why does all news have to be over
"Sensationalized"

1. Flood insurance is required to obtain a mortgage on property in a flood hazard zone. Ending the program would be catastrophic.
2. The federal flood insurance program should be put on a more sound actuarial basis, as is apparently being done: (a) adjusting premiums for enhanced risks and (b) broadening the premium base.
3. Flood insurance is basically a gap-filler. It covers a risk excluded from typical homeowners' policies and for which basically no private-market coverage is available. I'm no fan of big government, but this is something the private sector really can't cover.
4. Risk differentials can be accounted for by higher premiums. If actuarially sound, those premiums will internalize the cost of (re)building in hazardous locations.

It would seem to me that insurance premiums are intended to provide the buffer in the event of loss - catastrophic or otherwise. The same holds true for automobile, home owners, floor insurance and life insurance. The carriers underwriting the policies and providing the coverage are indeed in business to make money. Due to unfortunate circumstances, e.g. force majeure related events, they have to from time to time pay out from their coffers. That is the way it works and there shouldn't be federal, state or local taxes invested to rebuild people's homes, whether primary or secondary properties. If one doesn't have appropriate insurance coverage, then they are the person(s) at risk and consequently bear the expense themselves to remeidate, restore, rebuild or abandon. The choice is theirs and not the liability of a government entity. .

Let's move from the New York Times article on insurance to the article it published today on churches: NYT's Link below takes you on a tour of our some storm-reavaged historic churches in Ocean Cty. Includes a hard to read update on All Saint's Church in Bay Head, NJ which a lot of us have been inquiring about. http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/13/nyregion/regional-places-of-worship-seek-to-rebuild.html?_r=0

Kevin - would agree with you if the gov't didn't make it the problem of the govt (and therefore us, the people, who control it).

Insurers are not allowed to set rates they want to insure. Many leave markets only to be told they must remain in-state on some coverage lines or risk losing others.

Remember premiums are NOT intented to provide a buffer in event of loss. They are meant to fully insure the loss they are calculated to cover. And the means to calculate is to offer a product to many that will provide to only a few, at a price that ensures the math works.

Insurers are usually frighteningly accurate - actuaries are very good at this math. Where the process breaks down is when it is overly regulated - when the govt forces insurers to offer insurance at prices that are deemed acceptable.

Imagine the outcry if insurers came to homeowners in Monmouth after the storm and said "ok - market rates for all" and the premiums on all houses here jumped 10 fold? If someone making 65,000 gross per annum but who has lived in their house for generations was told they now must pay 8,000 per year for homeowners not 800? Making up the numbers but the point remains. The govt is in this because it has chosen to be in this.

flood insurance is only purchased by consumers who are in a flood zone---which means premium dollars are collected from only the ones who would have a flood. As a result, how much flood property coverage can be offered and at what cost? This is why it is backed by FEMA, and not private insurers. Prior to Sandy flood premiums are going up 13% in 2013. jim

Kevin, Correct and I agree with all your points. I do feel bad for those on or close to the Water. Yet, that was their choice to where they wanted to live and their responsibility to make sure they have enough insurance coverage or if at all. The problem is many either don't want to pay, they take the chance because they will not part with their money or feel it is never going to happen. Especially if they don't have mortgage on it. There is no requirement to buy insurance if you don't owe anything on it. Others have insurance but it is the minimum amount of coverage yet expect the insurance to pay for much more than what their policy was worth. Some individuals want top dollar as new for older furniture, rugs, appliances and outdated houses. Who I do feel bad is for the elderly that bought their homes long ago, much lower cost and could no longer afford the flood insurance and had no where else to go. It is all a risk, but the risk should be with those who made that choice. In no way should we be paying for private companies that own beaches or businesses on the beach. Why should we pay for those who is benefiting in anyway. Like I stated above, it is not like we get to go on the beaches for free or get anything free in return.

Instead of alowing people to rebuild and rebuild in flood prone areas suppose they got one bite of the apple. If you have flood insurance, first time you have a choice rebuild or buy out, second time, no choice, buy out a fair maket value. The real estate becomes property of the government (that used to be the people) and the private owner is whole to buy elsewhere.
When you find yourself in a hole, stop digging!

Looks like Island Beach State Park will now expand north to the new inlet.

In 17 years my flood insurance has gone up from $310 per year up to $1,420 per year. The vast majority of that price increase has been since Hurricane Katrina. I've never made a claim until this storm. I'm not the type of person to ask for help or money from anyone. This time the damage is more than most working people could pay out of pocket. The entire first floor and all systems have to be gutted and replaced. That's why I've paid my premiums and all those rate increases all these years. I hope I never have to make a flood claim again.

I live full time on the water and would like my house put up on pilings to eliminate this disaster again. I have a clause I've been paying extra for to do just that and the flood insurance is fighting me on it. Why not elimate the risk? It is just nuts.

i've been paying for flood insurance for years and now that i have suffered damages caused by flooding from the storm, i can't collect from my policy because the damages were to my foyer, garage and contents in my garage. flood insurance will only pay out if the damages are to your main living area or structure to your property. all of the new properties in ocean city fall into this same category. the only properties that qualify are the older properties that have living space at street level.

In reading through this thread, it looks like many of the same people who have a beef with property owners who elect not to get flood insurance and think they should be required to get it also have a beef with government regulation, particularly government forcing people to do things like buy insurance...

Donna - Thanks for responding...I just wish I understood what you wrote. It meanders from false premise to invalid conclusion and ends up with wacky political spew.

The only thing I can say that may be on point to your comment is that I believe in a free country, but not one free of government. As to health care, there is a broad consensus among economists, especially public health policy specialists, that the most efficient means of delivery is a single payer system (with one entity, perhaps the government, providing and administering the insurance, but, not, as people often misunderstand, providing health care). I mention that because you brought it up but I do not get the connection.

Hello Jay - something like Medicare or Medicaid? How are they performing? Maybe the US Postal Service is a good example of centralized government ops and efficiencies for millions of residents.

Are you able to demonstrate how a single payer system lowers costs which is the problem.

Costs are always the problem ie budget deficits. Too many costs

Donna Griffin, well stated and I agree. I know some individuals that happen to be town workers, police, teachers who's health insurance pays for messages. It is ridiculous and they wonder why the town's don't have money and going broke. Why do they have these Cadillac plans that most who are paying for them have the basic plan if any. It is out of control and way to many mandates according to my insurance broker. In NJ health insurance policies there in the thousands in mandates compared to other states who have in the hundreds mandates big difference and the reason why NJ health insurance is ridiculously high. The ones who has others paying for insurance does not care, they would if they were paying more for them. The governor started making public workers pay additional money, it is a start but it is still way off base and they should be paying more. Don't even get me started with the ridiculous pensions that is a bad pyramid scheme that will go bust if something is not done.

Sorry folks, the word should have been "massages"

I find it amazing how so many people now have reached the conclusion that summer vacation homes on NJ's barrier islands are inappropriate. For years, while nothing was wrong, NJ residents were happen to collect enormous property tax payments from people owning homes on its barrier islands. If you question the size of these payments, take a look at the annual taxes being paid by Toms River and Brick residents on the barrier island. In fact, it is hard to believe that Ocean County could survive without the taxes being paid by its barrier island residents. As I understand it, these small islands make up about 33 percent of the County's tax base. These residents use relatively little services and don't send children to school there. Maybe people could focus on the real benefit that exists for local residents by this situation. Also, after years of paying flood premiums, this is probably the first meaningful instance that the barrier island residents will be making significant claims. I'd like to know how much of the national program's already existing debt relates to NJ's barrier islands. Residents have paid the requested premiums and are rightfully getting payment under coverage for which they contracted. This is not a windfall, but the insurer's obligation.

Do you know how many people are going to have to pay for this storm that does not live on the barrier islands or even close to the Ocean?... I am almost sure with what has to be paid out is nothing close to what you all paid in premiums. Not even close.