OT: Would you look at a house in a flood zone?

[Nooch]

My wife and I are starting to look at purchasing our first house after renting for the last however many years.. We live in NJ, and the taxes are really the killer. But there are a bunch of properties that have taken water only twice in the last 25 years, the last time being during hurricane Irene, and are completely re-done because of it, and affordable because of the history.

We don't *want* to be in a flood zone, running the risk of losing everything and then having to be displaced while we fix it all.. but the way the market is here, most of what we can afford looks to fall into the same situation.

What are your thoughts? Would you even consider it?

(Unfortunately, moving out of state right now is out of the question -- NJ Law now requires public school teachers to live within the state -- my wife is recently certified in NJ and the state has a lot more job prospects than NY, where we might be able to find something a little easier)

[echelon_john]

I would say no, only because weather extremes seem to be happening with more frequency. I'm not a climate change alarmist, but it does seem like more weather anomalies closer together in the last 10-15 years.

Having seen what people went through here in VT with Irene, I don't think you can minimize the effect that a serious flood could have on your life. Safety aside, mitigation can take years and years.

[Lewis Moon]

That's a tough one. For me: no.
Part of my job is knowing about the total crap shoot that is the prediction of flood intervals, and all the damage/consequences that follow. This is all inland, but applicable because it has the same driver: climate/weather.

Have you considered how much the (mandatory?) flood insurance will add to your payment? What do the predictive models say about sea level rise in your area? Are the CoE boys and girls doing anything about the issue in your area?

Really, in this "climate" :rolleyes: I wouldn't take the chance. It could be 25 years...it could be this summer.

[CNY rider]

Not a chance.

[verticaldoug]

By the worst house in a good neighborhood. Not a good house in a bad neighborhood.

Floods are a pain. 2 floods in 25 yrs. 1 every 12.5 years. I would not consider it. Chances are even if the area doesn't flood, you have high water table and flooded basement every other year on heavy rainfall.

Life's too short to worry about flooding every time a Nor'easter is forecast.

[EDS]

My wife and I are starting to look at purchasing our first house after renting for the last however many years.. We live in NJ, and the taxes are really the killer. But there are a bunch of properties that have taken water only twice in the last 25 years, the last time being during hurricane Irene, and are completely re-done because of it, and affordable because of the history.

We don't *want* to be in a flood zone, running the risk of losing everything and then having to be displaced while we fix it all.. but the way the market is here, most of what we can afford looks to fall into the same situation.

What are your thoughts? Would you even consider it?

(Unfortunately, moving out of state right now is out of the question -- NJ Law now requires public school teachers to live within the state -- my wife is recently certified in NJ and the state has a lot more job prospects than NY, where we might be able to find something a little easier)

Probably worth looking into costs/availability of flood insurance for areas previously affected before buying.

[DreaminJohn]

I'm in a similar situation here in NJ.

I would buy something in a flood zone, but only after the FEMA "lines" have been finalized. They've submitted the new ones, but our controversial Governor keeps telling us that they're not final.

I don't even understand all of the rules yet, but I do know that the rules (insurance, (re)building) are substantially different for properties inside the lines.

[AngryScientist]

nope.

100 year storms seem to come every few years lately.

you've got a kiddo now, flood waters can literally drive you crazy when they are rising and you are powerless to do anything about it. then comes the constant worry of mold damage in the house, with a family, i wouldnt risk it. add to that the hassle of displacing yourself and others can be monumentally stressful.

add to that, you're not going to get a mortgage in one of those areas without good flood insurance, and the expense of that might offset what you could get elsewhere.

it's a bad idea.

[Ken Robb]

What insurance can you buy in the zone? Will available financing be limited or very expensive? The resale value will always be lower than homes not in the zone. We buy homes to have a place to live but we also usually expect them to be good long-term investments. I was a real estate broker for 36 years. I saw people buy homes that really didn't suit their lifestyles because they were good investments. I also knew people who bought "tainted" homes with the understanding that the investment potential was reduced because these homes suited their lifestyles and they were primarily interested in having a home they liked and met their needs. The investment potential was a secondary consideration. Only you can weigh these pros/cons.

I think the ideal scenario would be to find a home NOT in the zone that may not be your dream home but has the potential to be improved/expanded as your budget increases. There are many areas where "100 year" storms have occurred much more frequently lately. Just look at the news reports from Fargo. I would do anything I could to avoid living through a flood.

Oops, I see there are several posts made while I was composing my answer so I apologize for my redundancy.

[Ralph]

No.....Would not consider it. Flood insurance is only going to get more and more expensive, as more and more of the real cost of this program is put where it should be put....on the homeowners themselves. Even the normal insurance is going to cost more and more over time as insurers attempt to build up there piggy bank getting ready for another killer tropical storm.

That's in addition to the hassle factor of cleaning up after a flood, plus all the losses incurred you cannot insure against.

Kinda strange this subject came up. My wife and I have this real nice Florida home with no mortgage....and Florida has relatively low real estate taxes. I figure with taxes, insurance (sink hole but no flood), and maintenance, my house costs about 2-3% of it's value every year just to own it, plus the cost of having all that dead money sitting there. I think my house is a lousy investment. I could pay a couple thousand a month in rent, have the house money invested, and be way ahead in my opinion. But I don't have kids anymore to raise and provide a stable home for. A big factor for a younger couple to consider.

So think carefully before you buy a "right priced" piece of property in an area that will require flood insurance if you plan to have a mortgage. There is a good reason it is affordable.

[Nooch]

Yeah, I certainly don't know all the info, we're very new to the process and just learning the ropes. I just keep coming across properties that are just out of this world, well, because they were practically just rebuilt...

Alas, it's probably not worth the risk. We may find that renting is still the better situation for us in a few months..

[AngryScientist]

I just keep coming across properties that are just out of this world, well, because they were practically just rebuilt...



by the way, anyone who is using insurance money to rebuild a flooded house with the intention of selling it, probably isnt doing it the right way, they're doing it the cheap way.

[charliedid]

Not unless it's built on stilts...

[shovelhd]

My mother lived in a house a block from the beach and was displaced by Sandy. Lost pretty much everything. Had just enough flood insurance to get out. She has sold the house. The new owners are going to raze it and build a McMansion.

The FEMA flood heights in her area have been redrawn three times since she bought it in 1968. Twice in the last 8 years. This is the problem. You can build a FEMA compliant home today, and 5-10 years from now, it's not, and it gets flooded out. Now, after going through the hell of temporary housing, you have to raise it or rebuild in order to get flood insurance again. It's a cycle that repeats ad infinitum.

As much as I would love to live by the ocean, after what she has been through, no way.

[echelon_john]

Can't stress enough the point made above about the smaller/less expensive/needs more work house in a nicer neighborhood. If you're motivated and somewhat handy (i.e. don't have to pay a contractor for many improvements) this will be both a relatively more secure investment financially (as much as real estate can be at this point), potentially give you more opportunity to improve/customize to your taste as budget/earnings evolve and needs arise, and be quicker to sell when/if the time comes.

Also, you're probably already aware of this, but there are a lot of formulas/calculators out there that propose to tell you how much mortgage you can afford. I would ignore most of them and come up with a realistic monthly payment based on your current/historical rent and subsequent cash flow, and extrapolate your new mortgage based on current interest rates and term. Just because the calculator says you can afford a mortgage payment that's 28% (as an example) of your monthly income doesn't mean you SHOULD.

[redir]

Absolutely not! Turn and run away now.

BTW I am in the same situation as you, looking for a house. Good luck.

[Lewis Moon]

by the way, anyone who is using insurance money to rebuild a flooded house with the intention of selling it, probably isnt doing it the right way, they're doing it the cheap way.

Yep. I've seen some of the "work" done by flippers. Be careful.

For me buying a house that had been flooded would be like buying a car with a salvage title.

[parris]

I have to agree with what others have said. Our area has suffered 2 major floods in the last 5 years. The first flood was considered a 100 year flood so many friends and co-workers repaired and rebuilt their places. 5 years later we got slammed with a storm that caused a flood substantially worse than the first. The majority of the people affected in the first flood also got nailed in the second one as well.

[Ralph]

I believe you have to think a "little outside of the box" these days with regard to investments, particularly real estate and your home.

With climate change, increasing costs of insurance and local taxes, increasing costs of maintenance, I'm getting prepared to let someone else carry those burdens....someone who still thinks about residential real estate the way we all did 20-30 years ago. They can own where I live. Apartment, Condo, or house. Large corporations owning thousands of properties can provide me a living place cheaper than I can provide....I'm beginning to think. My money can be invested elsewhere...where I have an advantage.

I still believe in owning some real estate. But would prefer to own it on the stock exchanges, and not own what I live in. I want to be able to sell with the click of the mouse. I just believe times are changing. The real estate market around here is getting hot again, there is a shortage of homes for folks to buy. Before long....maybe they can have mine.

[67-59]

I'd say NO as well.

Like someone else said, I don't consider myself an alarmist in terms of climate change...but our 14-inch snowfall on May 2 has me wondering. Our local meteoroligist said that the total May snowfall for our town from 1893-2012 was less than 5 inches -- that's less than 5 inches in 120 years. Then we got 14 inches in one day. Seems like lots of towns have stories like that in the past couple of years.

I HATED renting...but to me, the risk of losing everything in the next "storm of the century" (coming next year to a town near you) would be too great.

[redir]

Year evaluated events are often misunderstood. As a geologist let me explain in a nut shell :)

A 100 year event does not mean that there is a likelihood that you will have a huge flood once every 100 years rather it means that there is a 1 in 100 chance that you will have a huge flood THIS year. IOW a 1% chance in any given year you will have a huge flood. There is no correlation year to year. But it's a reasonable system for the purposes of civil engineering and buying property.

[Nooch]

I HATED renting...but to me, the risk of losing everything in the next "storm of the century" (coming next year to a town near you) would be too great.

I'm with ya. Problem being is trying to find something to rent that fits our needs will end up likely costing more than owning (at least on paper, not to factor in expenses that come with owning, repairs, and all that other stuff that's typically covered in a lease).

Around here, if you're trying to rent a house, people are trying to get their mortgage and taxes paid in what they're asking for rent -- and that's just crazy expensive.

I don't mind renting -- and do see the value in the fact that someone else is responsible for everything that goes wrong. But we just need more space with the baby, the bikes, etc...

I told my wife -- Let's move to Colorado. We'll take your mother with us. No dice.

[MattTuck]

I guess you can unpack the question in to two more basic issues.

1.) Would you live in a flood zone?

2.) Would you own property in a flood zone?


With the current science and technology, weather forecasts are pretty good and I don't see any reason (if you took due care) that you or your family would be in danger due to a weather event. In other words, if you hear a storm is coming and you know you're in the potential path, you get the hell out of town.

The second question is more complicated and I doubt I can offer much beyond what has been said already. I'm not a fan of the housing market right now in general (PM me if interested, and I can send you some links as to why) due to issues with that market, macro conditions and the fed's policies. That said, all real estate is a local game, so I'm not saying there aren't deals to be had.

My advice would be to approach one of these owners and inquire about renting their property.

[redir]

I'm with ya. Problem being is trying to find something to rent that fits our needs will end up likely costing more than owning (at least on paper, not to factor in expenses that come with owning, repairs, and all that other stuff that's typically covered in a lease).

Around here, if you're trying to rent a house, people are trying to get their mortgage and taxes paid in what they're asking for rent -- and that's just crazy expensive.

I don't mind renting -- and do see the value in the fact that someone else is responsible for everything that goes wrong. But we just need more space with the baby, the bikes, etc...

I told my wife -- Let's move to Colorado. We'll take your mother with us. No dice.

I hear ya. My wife and I had a sweet deal renting a place from a nice old lady for the last ten years. She transferred the property to her daughters who immediately want to raise the rent to the point it's not worth it. I tried to convince them that if we leave they won't be able to get this kind of rent. Oh well off we go.

What I fear in home ownership is having to work on this and that and not being able to go for 6 hour bike ride when ever I please or even sitting around doing nothing. Most of my home owner friends are always putting in a new floor, fixing the roof, paving the drive way... Blah!

[biker72]

I lived almost 20 years too close to the Mississippi River. Stay away from water and railroad tracks.

[Scuzzer]

I told my wife -- Let's move to Colorado. We'll take your mother with us. No dice.

That's funny. I was going to suggest moving here but realized it would be totally unwanted advice.

[yngpunk]

nope.

add to that, you're not going to get a mortgage in one of those areas without good flood insurance, and the expense of that might offset what you could get elsewhere.

it's a bad idea.

I'd suspect that even with flood insurance, you're going to have a hard time finding a mortgage. Also, since you're in a flood zone, you're going to have a hard time finding flood insurance, probably your only option will be through the government, since most private insurers aren't going to want to cover you when you're in a flood zone. Lastly, you might want to make yourself aware of what flood insurance expense would be...it's probably a *lot* more expensive than you think it will be, provided that you can get it.

Good luck

[Nooch]

That's funny. I was going to suggest moving here but realized it would be totally unwanted advice.

I tell ya, I look at Fort Collins day in and day out... I see 5 bedroom homes for under $250k, with $1600 annual taxes and say '****, that be a nice way to wake up every morning, with the mountains, etc....'

but then there's the fact that I wouldn't have a job squared away, the fact that I probably wouldn't be making my NY Metro salary, etc...

her whole family is here (or close enough -- long island). While I could leave mine behind and visit for the holiday's, her family's a bit closer... she's just not having it, lol.

[Columbus SLX]

Are the houses in a designated Flood Zone, or just scarily close to water in the event of a big storm?

At least in MA, a flood zone designation is a legal thing and it's tough to even buy that kind of house with bank financing as has been mentioned.

I guess my question is academic, since I tend to agree with everyone's "no" votes.

Good luck finding a place. I'm doing the same now - my current house is under agreement but having a hell of a time getting my offer accepted on the new place.

[Scuzzer]

the fact that I probably wouldn't be making my NY Metro salary, etc...

You need a NY Metro salary to live there but you don't really need one to live here. It is kinda hard to go from making craploads of cash to only making partial craploads but on a relative basis you can do just as well. My wife and I have lived off of one income for 14 years (when our first kid was born) and I wouldn't have it any other way, although there are times that I add up the lost income and wonder what we would have done with it. Maybe I wouldn't be riding a 95 Casati as my main road rig.

[rugbysecondrow]

No. twice in 25 years? No way Jose.

[67-59]

[QUOTE=MattTuck;1345809]With the current science and technology, weather forecasts are pretty good and I don't see any reason (if you took due care) that you or your family would be in danger due to a weather event. In other words, if you hear a storm is coming and you know you're in the potential path, you get the hell out of town.
[QUOTE]

I can only assume you're kidding. Not long before our recent 14-inch dumping of snow, they told us we might get about half of that. Next thing we knew, roofs were collapsing, overweighted tree branches were falling onto roadways, and power lines were snapping under the weight of the snow.

I also recall a ride last year where I checked the NWS forecast (habit) just before leaving. I remember it vividly because the forecast said there was a 0% chance of rain for the next 3 or 4 hours - usually they hedge their bets by saying 10% chance. Safe, right? Well yeah...until it started hailing on me 30 minutes into the ride.:help:

I want to give the weather folks the benefit of the doubt, but lately I think I'd be better off just calling someone who lives 50 miles west of me and asking them to look out the window....

[Nooch]

You need a NY Metro salary to live there but you don't really need one to live here. It is kinda hard to go from making craploads of cash to only making partial craploads but on a relative basis you can do just as well. My wife and I have lived off of one income for 14 years (when our first kid was born) and I wouldn't have it any other way, although there are times that I add up the lost income and wonder what we would have done with it. Maybe I wouldn't be riding a 95 Casati as my main road rig.

Ah, but to factor in the other debt (school loans -- no credit cards), I probably still need the NY salary :(

[tv_vt]

No, no, and no. You'll constantly live with the worry of it flooding. You'll pay more in insurance every year. You may need to go through more hoops to get financing. And you will have a harder time selling it.

Keep looking, elsewhere.

[William]

If you haven't already done it, take a look at the FEMA National Flood Insurance Reform act.
http://www.fema.gov/national-flood-insurance-program

..Key provisions of the legislation will require the NFIP to raise rates to reflect true flood risk, make the program more financially stable, and change how Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) updates impact policyholders.





William

[Tandem Rider]

In '92 I helped a buddy raise his house and put it on a new poured foundation. The new foundation is really just a 2 car garage with a man cave and storage. When the next "event" happened he just moved his stuff out. When the water went down it was scoop out the mud, pressure wash, paint, move back in.

His wife's family lives very nearby so they have a place to go, sounds like you do too, which is why I'm bringing it up.

Talk to a local engineer who is familiar with local soil conditions before looking at a house and getting your hopes up. Cabinets, paint and carpet are cheap if the soil won't withstand flood cycles.

[witcombusa]

NO way!

I prefer the top of a hill. No flooding issues and the side benefit is that it will help your cycling :banana:

[SpokeValley]

Fuggeddabouttit.

[HenryA]

First house I ever owned was in an official flood zone, so we had to buy more expensive flood insurance. The truth was that the house was on a hill well above any possibility of flooding -- short of something that would cover half the United States.

I'd live in a flood zone, but it'd have to be a situation like the one above. I'd probably never even consider anything that's been flooded recently and re-habbed by strangers.

[Louis]

Hell no.

I'd commute an extra 30 min each way to avoid that.

[shovelhd]

Also, since you're in a flood zone, you're going to have a hard time finding flood insurance, probably your only option will be through the government, since most private insurers aren't going to want to cover you when you're in a flood zone.

The government IS the only option for flood insurance in FEMA flood zones. You buy it through insurance agents but the insurer is the US Government.

[OtayBW]

As the saying goes, if you buy a house in a floodplain, you have a fool for a client........

....or something like that.

[572cv]

Many good comments here, the thrust being, no. not in a flood zone. I would also think that the resale value, i.e. your investment over the time you are living there, is going to be compromised by the weather changes the planet is enduring. So, some neighborhoods in a flood zone that were once ok are going to become less desirable, and some other neighborhoods, out of the flood zone are going to be more so. Always go for the location, the house can be a tear down. I realize that you may be on a tight budget, but the advice still holds. Get a good spot to start with.

[Uncle Jam's Army]

I would say it depends where you live. I bought in a flood plain that has not had a flood since the area was declared a flood plain. I live in Southern California, but not near the coast (Santa Ana). The house is 41 years old and there has never been any real flood threat here.

Call me a fool if you like, but I feel that our house is quite safe from a flood threat. Earthquakes, however . . . . .

[nahtnoj]

You have to assess it on a case by case basis.

I don't know where you are looking in NJ, but a lot of homes near water are older, not built with shoddy modern materials, and can regularly have wet basements with no ill affect. If we're talking regular flooding on the 1st floor, that is a different story, but basement? Meh.

My grandmother's house has high water marks in the basement from 1906, 1930, and 2006. Hurricane Anges high water mark is a brass plaque mounted in the dining room. House was built pre-1850. I'm sure there were other times that weren't recorded. Its no worse for the wear (well, other than Agnes).

Not sure I'd be real enthusiastic about something built post WWII, though.

[Vonruden]

A big No