Flood prepa­ra­tions

Houston Chronicle Sunday - - OUTLOOK -

Re­gard­ing “Flood in­sur­ance costs may fall for many” (Page B1, Fri­day), there are many things wrong with this pic­ture. First of all, it should not re­quire priv­i­ti­za­tion to use more so­phis­ti­cated flood­ing mod­els for de­ter­min­ing rates. Se­condly, I love the bit about “Con­ceiv­ably, homes that would see rate of­fers jump from pri­vate in­sur­ers could re­main on the fed­eral pro­gram postre­form”. So what this re­ally ap­pears to be is a give­away for pri­vate in­sur­ers — al­low­ing them to cream the low-risk prop­er­ties and leave the gov­ern­ment stuck with the high-risk prop­er­ties, lead­ing to the in­evitable bank­ruptcy of the fed­eral pro­gram. When­ever at­tempts have been made to re­form the pro­gram so that the cost of in­sur­ance ac­cu­rately re­flects the risk, there has been so much push­back that it has yet again been turned into a sub­sidy for peo­ple liv­ing in flood-prone ar­eas. This bill solves noth­ing, cre­ates a give­away to in­sur­ance com­pa­nies, and will lead to ei­ther the col­lapse of the fed­eral pro­gram or tax­payer sub­si­dies.

Alan Jack­son, Hous­ton

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from USA

© PressReader. All rights reserved.