Wallaceville, High River - what to do?

[speedog]

So just finished reading this Calgary Herald story (link (http://www.calgaryherald.com/news/alberta/Defiant+High+River+residents+face+property+seizure/9323555/story.html)) regarding the provincial government buying out Wallaceville homes and some of the homeowners who are now defiant.

So what to do - I wonder if allowing people to buy overland flood insurance with rates based upon risk would partially provide a solution. Mortgage holders would most likely require this flood insurance and as such, affected homeowners would have to balance the cost of said required insurance versus the want of living in flood zones/plains. Add into this no more government bail-outs because overland flood insurance is available and homeowners now have options available to them - homeowners would have to determine the amount of risk they're willing to pay for either up front in an increased insurance premium or afterwards in a property that has been destroyed and now they're on the hook personally because they opted not to purchase Sadi available insurance.

Really no different then purchasing a rider on one's home insurance policy to cover certain pricier objects (jewellery, collectibles, etc) - you opt to buy this additional insurance coverage or run the risk of absorbing the loss yourself if said loss ever comes to pass.

Thoughts?

[C_Dave45]

Originally posted by speedog
So just finished reading this Calgary Herald story (link (http://www.calgaryherald.com/news/alberta/Defiant+High+River+residents+face+property+seizure/9323555/story.html)) regarding the provincial government buying out Wallaceville homes and some of the homeowners who are now defiant.

So what to do - I wonder if allowing people to buy overland flood insurance with rates based upon risk would partially provide a solution. Mortgage holders would most likely require this flood insurance and as such, affected homeowners would have to balance the cost of said required insurance versus the want of living in flood zones/plains. Add into this no more government bail-outs because overland flood insurance is available and homeowners now have options available to them - homeowners would have to determine the amount of risk they're willing to pay for either up front in an increased insurance premium or afterwards in a property that has been destroyed and now they're on the hook personally because they opted not to purchase Sadi available insurance.

Really no different then purchasing a rider on one's home insurance policy to cover certain pricier objects (jewellery, collectibles, etc) - you opt to buy this additional insurance coverage or run the risk of absorbing the loss yourself if said loss ever comes to pass.

Thoughts?

Can't be done. A company out of Winnipeg tried that when Manitoba had their catastrophic floods. They couldn't find enough people to purchase it to make the premiums feasible.


"Flood coverage is one of those very difficult products because the only people who are likely to want to pay for it are people who are in a flood zone.....A few years ago after flooding in Winnipeg, there was an experiment where people did try to get a flood product off the ground and after two years they stopped trying to sell it because they had only 30 people signed up to buy it

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/flood-damage-not-covered-warns-insurance-bureau-of-canada-1.845200

[speedog]

But if mortgage holders make it a requirement...

Governments need to get out of the business of taking on certain types (and the associated costs) of risk management, where there's a will there's a way.

[120Comm]

I don't mean to hijack the thread, but with all the talk about Wallaceville lately, I've tried and failed to locate it in relation to where it is in High River. None of the maps I can find show me exactly which community this is. Is it the little wedge of land east of the 2A by the north side of the bridge?

[C_Dave45]

Originally posted by speedog
But if mortgage holders make it a requirement...


Still wouldn't change the premium costs/payouts. It's a simple numbers game.

In Winnipeg's scenario; If after two years, only 30 people (who were in a floodplane) purchased "overland flooding" insurance...imagine what the premiums would be for those 30 when the potential payout would be probably over $10 million. How does an insurance company defray that to only 30 customers?

You can bet that if an insurance company is/was able to make a go of it (and thereby making a profit) then it would have been done by now. The fact that no where in Canada is there overland flood insurance available, is a pretty good indicator that it just isn't feasible. I'm sure Masked Bandit could weigh in on this discussion.

Don't get me wrong....I think it would be great. But I, for one, would never buy it, (because I'm not in a floodplane) nor would I want my premiums subsidizing the premiums for those that would.

[C_Dave45]

Originally posted by 120Comm
I don't mean to hijack the thread, but with all the talk about Wallaceville lately, I've tried and failed to locate it in relation to where it is in High River. None of the maps I can find show me exactly which community this is. Is it the little wedge of land east of the 2A by the north side of the bridge?

Google result: "Wallaceville, High River":

http://gatewaygazette.ca/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/HighRiverFlood2013-East1.jpg

[FraserB]

They demanded a buyout, now they have one and they are protesting it.

Mandatory buyout at the amount of the last tax assessment, regardless of whatever BS "assessment" they had done themselves. Pay the mortgage holders first and give the remaining amount to the owner. Make it all effective on day x, one day later all services are shut down to that area. Police, fire, ambulance, power, sewer, water etc... If they still want to live there, they get no flood assistance for this flood and any going forward.

And make it so that buyouts are only for principal residence.

[speedog]

Originally posted by C_Dave45


Still wouldn't change the premium costs/payouts. It's a simple numbers game.

In Winnipeg's scenario; If after two years, only 30 people (who were in a floodplane) purchased "overland flooding" insurance...imagine what the premiums would be for those 30 when the potential payout would be probably over $10 million. How does an insurance company defray that to only 30 customers?

You can bet that if an insurance company is/was able to make a go of it (and thereby making a profit) then it would have been done by now. The fact that no where in Canada is there overland flood insurance available, is a pretty good indicator that it just isn't feasible. I'm sure Masked Bandit could weigh in on this discussion.

Don't get me wrong....I think it would be great. But I, for one, would never buy it, (because I'm not in a floodplane) nor would I want my premiums subsidizing the premiums for those that would.

Did the government still remain in the disaster bail-out business in Manitoba?

The trick is to remove government bail-outs and make homeowners accountable for where they build/buy.

It would sort of be like hail coverage - Calgary homeowners probably pay a higher homeowner's insurance premium then Edmonton homeowner's based upon the increased possibility of hail events in Calgary versus Edmonton. Fast forward to August 2012 - we got an almost $21,000 check co-payable to us that has seen new siding, eaves-troughs and a patio roof on our home and yet none of neighbors even bothered making a claim despite some of them having the same type of siding. Our premiums will not go up any more than theirs as the industry recovers their costs by increasing rates across the board.

So if anyone in a flood plain or zone would be required by their mortgage holder to have over-land flood insurance and that would probably cover 75% of the people living in those areas, then the costs to the insurance companies would probably balance out over time and in fact, most of the areas that flooded this time around in Calgary have never flooded in the 34 years I've lived in Calgary. 34 years of over-land insurance riders would probably make up for one flood especially if the insurance companies invested those monies wisely.

What is key though is that government get out of the over-land flood insurance business because that is basically what they are in right now with no additional costs to the homeowners in these flood zones/plains.

[cam_wmh]

Originally posted by C_Dave45


Can't be done. A company out of Winnipeg tried that when Manitoba had their catastrophic floods. They couldn't find enough people to purchase it to make the premiums feasible.



http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/flood-damage-not-covered-warns-insurance-bureau-of-canada-1.845200

Wanted to post, just to thank you for this. I'll be quoting that Red River example.

[Khyron]

Originally posted by speedog


Did the government still remain in the disaster bail-out business in Manitoba?

The trick is to remove government bail-outs and make homeowners accountable for where they build/buy.
...
What is key though is that government get out of the over-land flood insurance business because that is basically what they are in right now with no additional costs to the homeowners in these flood zones/plains.

The current owners are not to blame. When the city/province approves a zone and says "Yep let's build houses and streets" they kinda are taking the risk. You can't just swipe out the carpet 20 years later and say sorry, your house is worthless now.

Quarry park is a red spillway which is why it was not dev'd for so long. Obviously someone convinced the city that they can mitigate the risk with higher ground foundations etc - why the hell would some guy buying a condo be on the hook? If it's not safe/floodable then the city should never have approved the development.

[speedog]

Originally posted by Khyron


The current owners are not to blame. When the city/province approves a zone and says "Yep let's build houses and streets" they kinda are taking the risk. You can't just swipe out the carpet 20 years later and say sorry, your house is worthless now.

Quarry park is a red spillway which is why it was not dev'd for so long. Obviously someone convinced the city that they can mitigate the risk with higher ground foundations etc - why the hell would some guy buying a condo be on the hook? If it's not safe/floodable then the city should never have approved the development.

K, I can understand what you're saying but what would people suggest be done in Wallaceville's case. We all know that Danielle Smith will be all over this and yet something probably needs to be done here. What do you want done as a taxpayer who will be impacted by what happens here.

[Thomas Gabriel]

The houses should be torched. They can choose to stay in their burning houses if they wish.

[Env-Consultant]

Originally posted by Khyron


The current owners are not to blame.

I disagree. Both the homeowners and the people responsible for developing these areas are equally responsible. Should these areas have been developed? Absolutely not. Should the homeowners have done their due dilligence and reviewed some flood maps and looked into the potential for this to happen prior to purchasing? 100% yes. If you're too stupid or lazy to do that, tough.

It shouldn't be my problem that some shithead decided to buy a house in an area that was certain to flood, whether that flood was a year after purchasing it or sometime during the next 100 years - we all knew it was a matter of time.

Now it is my problem - and everyone else's problem in this province.

I love the compassion we show for each other in Canada, but I'm getting awfully tired of rewarding stupidity and bailing shitheads out over and over and over. I've seen it in small towns - a house burns down and the town rallies and raises $250,000+ for the family. Sounds beautiful, no? No. It's nice, but once again, some shithead gets rewarded for doing something stupid like not having insurance or..... I don't know, slapping a house up in a floodplain.

I say tough - hope they learn a lesson. I'd rather the money goes to funding education programs for our youth, so maybe in 20 years we'll have people with decent enough brains to stop pulling shit like this.

[01RedDX]

.

[Env-Consultant]

Originally posted by 01RedDX
^ I'm sorry, but that's a load of crap. Your average family are not "Env-Consultants" or surveyors. You kinda assume that the municipality which sanctioned the building permit and collects your property tax has done its job, which is surveying for potential hazards before giving in to developers. The blame is on the developers and the various levels of government that work with those developers.

I wouldn't say it's a load of crap. Consultant or not, you bet your ass I look into this (and many other things) before dumping $300,000-800,000 into a house.

http://environment.alberta.ca/01655.html

Don't buy near the red areas. Pretty simple. But no, let's buy in areas prone to flooding, then rely on help from others for our stupidity. It's the socialist, non-accountable thought, just like you posted, that keeps this type of thing happening over and over. You think there would be a market for these houses if people started having to take responsibility for their actions? No, which would result in said areas no longer being developed....

Shared responsibility, IMO.

[01RedDX]

.

[Cos]

.

[01RedDX]

.

[speedog]

Interestingly enough, Wallaceville (or most of it) is not in a red or floodway zone - it's in a pink or flood fringe zone...

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/5040260/pics/wallace.png

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/5040260/pics/wallace1.png

Never the less, the government is moving ahead with a plan and people are once again upset. Not that many properties affected but there are a number of quite new townhomes/condos affected by this plan and these units form the bulk of the affected Wallaceville properties (Google Streetview link (http://goo.gl/maps/rP6rr).

So should the town of High River be partially on the hook for allowing these new units to be built where they were?

[Env-Consultant]

Originally posted by 01RedDX


It's like he's saying that all those people who died in the Ford Pinto fires in the '70 were to blame for their own deaths. Had they done their due diligence, and checked all the blueprints, they would have known that the bolt was placed too close to the fuel tank, so that any minor rear-end collision would result in a fire. Shared responsibility, duh!

That's not what I'm saying at all. Big difference between checking a flood map and reviewing blueprints/material placement of buildings. One requires the brain of a chimp, while the other requires much more....

[ExtraSlow]

Those flood maps were not well known before this summer. I like to think I'm as smart as most chimps, and I had never heard of them.

[thetransporter]

I cant speak for Wallaceville but I can say dealing with the AB gov flood assistance program has been a nightmare - they even came down and took pictures of my loft/small business I provided them receipts with everything damaged (which they had pictures) they seem to be more interested in collecting tax data for the federal Gov.

[speedog]

Originally posted by ExtraSlow
Those flood maps were not well known before this summer. I like to think I'm as smart as most chimps, and I had never heard of them.

Agreed but I can look at a place like Wallaceville and also drive through Wallaceville and know it doesn't take too many smarts to realize that a home in that area would be at a considerably higher risk of flooding then let's say a home in a higher part of High River like up by the fire hall in the SE..

No different then friends of our who own four homes in a row in Sunnyside and are worried what might happen to their property values now that they're in a flood fringe zone even though they never flooded this time around.

[Mista Bob]

Originally posted by Env-Consultant


That's not what I'm saying at all. Big difference between checking a flood map and reviewing blueprints/material placement of buildings. One requires the brain of a chimp, while the other requires much more....

Exactly..... right when I saw 01RedDX's original comment, I was curious just how hard it was to figure it out, so I looked to see.
Nope. Not hard at all, took a couple of seconds on google and you are set. :nut:


Originally posted by ExtraSlow
Those flood maps were not well known before this summer. I like to think I'm as smart as most chimps, and I had never heard of them.

They definitely were not unknown though. My Dad is hardly what I would call an expert when it comes to anything computer related.
Yet he managed to avoid buying a house in High River a few years ago, due to what he saw on the flood zone maps. And you can bet he is glad he did. Ended up buying a house in Okotoks, far away from any place that might flood.

So it is hardly out of reach from the 'average' person. It just requires a little bit of..... common sense.

[Cos]

.

[FraserB]

The government is taking responsibility by buying these homes out, preventing development and putting more flood mitigation in place. The morons who bought homes next to a river in a town that floods every year, then act shocked they get flooded, should be bearing a lot of the burden too.

[Mista Bob]

Originally posted by Cos


I am not saying that there are no cases where people have a responsibility to check. That being said if we double checked everything that everyone ever did it on our lives it would get ridiculous, such as 01RedDX's comment.

What is the point of having people check and certify things if the answer after they were wrong was; "oh well you didn't check yourself either did you". Imagine if we took that mentality to bridges or medical diagnosis's.

No doubt, for sure. I'm not saying that is wrong.
Merely just pointing out that hey, it isn't perfect but this is how things are right now and this is how an individual could have avoided the problem.
Clearly some things are beyond an individuals ability, but this isn't the case here in the particular topic being discussed in this thread (Wallaceville).

And obviously, people who did do their due diligence still got messed up by the floods due to the scale of the disaster. Shit happens, even to people who do their homework.

[01RedDX]

.

[Env-Consultant]

I didn't say the developers/agencies have no responsibility.....

I just said it the onus should be on everybody involved.

Don't get it twisted bro

[Cos]

.