Letter: Waterfront should pay more insurance
An overhead view of flooded Sayville, after Superstorm Sandy. (Oct. 31, 2012) Credit: Ed Betz
Regarding "Protesting flood insurance hike" [News, Sept. 29], waterfront property and communities are usually expensive. Years ago, when my real estate agent wanted to sell me a foreclosed property on a canal for $199,999, I jumped at the opportunity. But I changed my mind when I spotted the sump pump in the basement.
I was reminded of driving with my father out to Shirley to see Grandma, who lived next to a canal. We picked her up when every hurricane and bad storm was forecast. Why? My family remembered the "Long Island Express," the hurricane of 1938.
If one chooses to live near water, one must accept the risks of storm damage. I am not implying that residents deserve to suffer storm damage, but it is unfair to expect taxpayers to supplement the National Flood Insurance Program. I decided not to risk living near the water.
Drivers pay higher insurance premiums after moving violations and accidents. Common sense dictates that homeowners in high-risk areas should do the same with flood insurance. The rest of us should not have to pay for someone's choice to live in a high-risk area.
Ellen O'Connor, Merrick
