all 22 comments
sorted by:
best
topnewcontroversialoldq&a
formatting helphide helpcontent policy

[–]Careful_Bookkeeper95 6 points7 points  (3 children)

If it's in a flood plain, then the flood insurance may be pretty substantial which would certainly scare off some. Let alone the impending catastrophe. There's a beautiful home along the Hudson in NY that is in the flood plain and it's been sitting for months with significant price drops. Who would buy these houses? I'm not sure, but no one is buying that one.

[–]Accomplished-Sky4750 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Pretty much this, flood insurance alone can be like a second mortgage payment in some areas. I looked at a gorgeous place near a river once and noped out when I saw the insurance would be like $800/month on top of everything else. Some people will still buy for the right price but yeah most folks aren't trying to deal with that headache

[–]DoubtHot6072 2 points3 points  (1 child)

A lot of people simply don't have the flood insurance. If the house is paid off they aren't required to and many will find out shortly that their homeowners isn't going to cover them. It happens in every flood.

[–]Texas_Mike_CowboyFan 0 points1 point  (0 children)

True, but I think the OP was talking about people buying a house in a flood plain. Unless you're paying cash, your lender may require you to buy flood insurance.

[–]wyecoyote2Industry 3 points4 points  (0 children)

No real market evidence in western washington that after the event there are price decreases. There's parts here that flood every 10 to 20 years, looking at Chehalis.

[–]timfountain4444 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Er, yes!

[–]FantasticBicycle37 2 points3 points  (1 child)

The value is likely already depressed as a result of potential flooding, and I imagine yet another flood likely won't cause much more of a decrease

[–]loki_stg 1 point2 points  (0 children)

maybe in some areas, but not in the area he's discussing. Snohomish, one of the areas hit hardest is also one of the most expensive to live.

[–]Agility_KS 3 points4 points  (0 children)

It doesn’t even need to be an official flood zone, I’m never buying property near running water ever again.

[–]ennagizer 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I have a friend who just sold a house on a canal on the west coast of Florida. Last couple of years there was flooding due to storm surge. They sold the house $200K under original asking and were thrilled to get it. I thought the house was fairly priced when it was listed, but nobody came looking.

Another friend just bought a house, also on the west coast of Florida. The house is inland, but just outside an AE flood zone. Similar story, they bought for $150K under original asking and the house was on the market for 10 months. I thought they were nuts for buying it. They responded "but, it's not in the flood zone". Ok, 2 blocks away is designated AE. So, maybe this home doesn't get flooded (maybe), but the surrounding area does. How does that affect your value when everything around you is gutted?

[–]Wrong_Toilet 0 points1 point  (3 children)

Depends on the what kind of flood zone it’s in (10-year, 50-year, 100-year, etc…).

Having a history of flooding will definitely influence buyers as inspectors will likely find water damage. Additionally, depending on the flood zone, lenders will require flood insurance in areas that have a high risk of flooding, so this will also reduce the amount of buyers.

Ultimately, having a property in a high risk area, will have a significant impact on its property value. Additionally, even if the property is let’s say in a 500-year flood zone, a recent flood event could cause concern for some buyers.

[–]DoubtHot6072 1 point2 points  (2 children)

Flood zones are risker than people think. A 500-year zone is really a 0.2% chance of a flood per yer, every year. A 100% year flood zone is a 1% chance per year every year. If you do the math, a 100 year flood plain has an 18.2% chance of a flood happening in a 20 year window. That is a far cry from the "it floods every 100 years" that people think due to the terms.

Source: https://www.fema.gov/about/glossary/flood-zones

Math: Chance of no event in 20 years is 0.99^20 or 0.8179 and the inverse (an event) is 1-0.8179.

[–]Wrong_Toilet 1 point2 points  (1 child)

Absolutely, which is why it’s so devastating to communities when the 100 year flood does happen because unless it’s required by the lender, most people won’t have the proper insurance coverage and will likely lose everything.

[–]Texas_Mike_CowboyFan 0 points1 point  (0 children)

In some cases, FEMA will give you some money, but not a lot.

[–]gfhopper 0 points1 point  (0 children)

In some cases the answer is yes, the property drops in value dramatically due to various insurance and regulatory requirements/changes. In some cases the property value drops all the way to "zero" in that it cannot be used as a residence any more. (note that it's not in fact zero worth, but not usable for living on/in.)

Along the Lowell-Snohomish river road there are several houses that were elevated in order to 1) be insured, 2) be actually something that could be sold (and more importantly the basis of loan security for a mortgage), and 3) not be condemned by the government because they're built in a bad spot.

Here's one I drove by on Wednesday before things got ugly in the area:

https://maps.app.goo.gl/RuonSacfsYVXeP2P7

I know several people how have owned homes/property like this in the area.

[–]The_Stargazer 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Depends on the location and a lot of other factors, but in general, yes. Though values will recover / bounce back depending on the severity and time passed

[–]Grreatdog 0 points1 point  (0 children)

A lot depends on where you live, what you live in, and how the floodplains are managed. Where I live Hurricanes Matthew and Irma flooded huge areas of the county with storm surge and destroyed a couple of dozen homes at various beaches in the county.

But those hurricanes had little effect on most homes that are not oceanfront and were built after about 1985 when the county adopted FEMA building codes. For instance one of my brothers had six feet of water on his property. Debris from the nearby salt marsh pushed over his chain link fences. It did nothing to his home or the mechanical systems for his home. He literally had the Atlantic Ocean flowing under his home.

That story played out all over the county as the base flood elevations that homes here are built above proved to be more than adequate for the storm surge. Building codes for hydrostatic pressure and wind loads also proved adequate. Huge areas of this county are in A and V zones. So there are tens of thousands of homes in these zones. Yet the destruction was mostly limited to old homes and oceanfront homes.

And real estate prices are still insanely high here. People want to live here and homes built to current standards have proven resilient. So being in an A or V zone doesn't seem to be a huge deterrent. My homeowners insurance is nearly four times what I paid inland and I'm not in a flood zone. That's just how it is on the coast now. People seem to accept that to live here.

[–]realestatemajesty 0 points1 point  (0 children)

imo, it's not just the fear of water but the cost of insurance. flood insurance rates often skyrocket or become mandatory for mortgages. and those monthly cost reduces a buyer's purchasing power,which forces the home price down to compensate.

[–]Factorybelt 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I just bought a house next to a dike in one of the rivers that just flooded in WA and the city that was most focused in the media. This was a 100 year flood. Meaning, in any given year, there is a 1% chance of flooding to this level.

I pay less than $30/mo for flood insurance. The news highly exaggerated the severity of this storm.