Rebuilding rules paralyze some shore-dwellers struggling with Superstorm Sandy
TOMS RIVER, N.J. — George Kasimos has almost finished repairing flood damage to his waterfront home, but his Superstorm Sandy nightmare is far from over.
Like thousands of others in the hardest-hit coastal stretches of New Jersey and New York, his life is in limbo as he waits to see if tough coastal rebuilding rules make it too expensive for him to stay.
That's because the federal government's newly released advisory flood maps have put his Toms River home in the most vulnerable area — the “velocity zone.” If that sticks, he'd have to jack his house up 14 feet on stilts at a cost of $150,000 or face up to $30,000 a year in flood insurance premiums.
“Everyone assumes when you say a ‘home on the water,' people have tons and tons of money, but that's not the case,” said Kasimos, whose Toms River home was filled with a foot and a half of water in the storm. “Most of these homeowners are middle class.”
Even as those in the most vulnerable coastal areas have struggled to recover from the storm, federal authorities have been issuing them a sobering warning: Raise your homes above the flood plain or face soaring flood insurance costs.
For many, it's an impossible choice. They can't afford to do either. And many unanswered questions have left residents paralyzed with indecision.
Until the flood maps are finalized in coming months by the Federal Emergency Management Agency, homeowners won't know for sure how high they'll have to raise their homes, or if they have to raise them.
Officials are urging people to elevate their houses because they are eligible for federal financial aid. About $350 million of New York City's and $600 million of New Jersey's Sandy relief funding has been allocated for the repair of single- and two-family homes, which could help defray the cost.
The process of house-raising is laborious and prohibitively expensive, especially for working-class people who are saddled with storm repair costs. Even a small cottage can cost $60,000 to elevate, while a sprawling multilevel home could run upwards of $250,000.
“You're damned if you do, and you're damned if you don't,” said Karly Carozza, who is living with her parents while she and her husband decide when to repair their small ranch house in Brick Township, N.J. “It seems like waiting makes the most sense, but when people have nowhere to go, how long do you want them to wait?”
In Broad Channel in the New York City borough of Queens, where the air smells like fish and ramshackle bungalows are built along the docks, few people are raising their homes. The firefighters, police officers and auto mechanics who live on this marshy island simply can't afford it.
“The thing that scares me is that we've invested and worked on our houses our whole life,” said Frank Porcella, who took out a mortgage to pay for flooding damage to his bungalow. “They'll make this place and the area around it a ghost town.”
Several months before Sandy hit, Congress quietly passed the Biggert-Waters Flood Insurance Reform Act, a bill that authorized skyrocketing premium increases for people in flood-prone communities.
It was a desperate attempt to keep the program financially solvent after it was nearly bankrupted by an onslaught of claims from Hurricane Katrina, which forced the federal government to borrow about $17 billion from the Treasury.
“When Biggert-Waters was passed in 2012, the big issue was this debt,” said Larry Larson, a senior policy adviser for the Association of State Floodplain Managers. “And the reality that the program could probably never pay it back.”
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.
- Clinton focuses on economy’s future in speech
- Hope dims for Fla. teens lost at sea
- Family finds $1M gold treasure in Florida
- Oklahoma earthquakes shut down wells
- Cat found alive aboard sunken boat pulled from Lake Havasu
- Backers of Colo. school board recall claim 90K signatures
- Congress embraces highway bill
- Minn. man accused of slaying protected Zimbabwean lion says he thought the trip was legal
- GOP says there’s no deal with Clinton on Benghazi testimony
- Artists’ community in Calif. reeling after girl’s death; teen boy arrested
- Conservation group reports pollution high in state parks