I like the law, but here's the only problem with it. What do you do in areas like Coney Island, Rockaway, Lower Manhattan and Williamsburg where there are high rise apartment complexes in the flood zone?

After Katrina happened the Federal government had a law that no building near low-lying areas near waterways. I would hope there would be a law- no building within 3 miles of a waterway. This is the only way to avoid these problems. Parks, wetlands, and recreational areas should be made instead. This is the only way to avoid all the costs of storm damage.

I'm wondering how this contrasts or conflicts with the fact that home prices have gone up in the storm hit areas because there is less real estate available.

Cranford, NJ has been flooding for many years , many storms, Not much has been done. Nomahegan Park now has one house that is owned by union county and is abandoned.

Hmm, is downtown Manhattan, Williamsburg, Dumbo, and the rapidly gentrifying parts of Red Hook get the same type of vacate order? Or is it just were retired firefighters and policemen live?

This is an experiment. If it works it can be extended to river front properties in NJ and NY, or nationwide to the Mississippi flood plain and finally to California and the San Andreas fault. How much will it cost to vacate California?

@Superf88

Are you serious? Geez, how about throwing in stiffer penalties for bringing a gun within 100 yards of a flood plain.

The price of staying is huge...Where I live never had issues despite being on/near water.Large areas of Long Island fit into the 100 year flood plan.
The last two years have been hell...flooding and wreaked houses.... unfortunately I live in an middle class to affluent area..i don't live in a waterfront mansion yet more than likely I won't have this offer.

Flood insurance is underwritten by federal guv, accd to NPR last week... Therefore the free market is not at work here. Now the federal gov is taking another job from the market -- setting prices!

If the fed hand is so strong here -- then why on earth isn't there a co2 reduction component attached to this?

Presumably the government would dismantle the houses and remove the debris. They can't just let these building rot. It would be against health codes.

My question is how do you prevent blight. For example if 4 houses on the block take the offer these become empty lots that will attract garbage and such.

Breezy Point is great, but there are way too many houses out there. It's a sand bank, not a place to build a town.

Ideally, if 90% of residents in a neighborhood take the deal, ad there are holdouts, than the holdouts don't get insurance coverage from then on. The problem is that the flood insurance program is federally run. I don't think you want the Feds adopting or denying insurance on a case by case basis like that.

What conditions are homeowners who take this deal required to agree to in addition to selling their homes to the state? (There are always additional conditions.)

I agree with the previous commenters, if you live in the flood plain and are offered a buyout but do not take it you are on your own in the future.

Insane politics

Weren't these people required to have insurance???? If they have insurance, let them stay, but if their house gets trashed, the govt should not be buying them off. This seems so much more an insurance issue and not a flooding issue. The govt bail out money should only be to rebuild roads, restore water, and other services that the govt owns/installed.

Sweeteners = peer pressure

Love the high school mentality.

Will premium markets and/or second homes (i.e. Fire Island) be included?

Will offers be made to homeowners in Fire Island (which is in a Flood Zone) regardless of whether the homes were damaged.

If homes are purchased by the State, how will this affect property taxes to the remaining residents (since these now to be undeveloped properties are likely to be taxed much less than a developed property)?

Despite the good intentions, lawsuits will rage for 10 years as people who choose to stay are left living in ghost towns.

please buy my house!

These homeowners can take the deal or not. But the taxpayer must be indemnified against their future losses. And homeowners insurance won't be enough, given costs for rescue, infrastructure damage, etc.

I am interested in knowing the details. But I like the idea overall. I support it. I think if you build in flood areas, you should be on your own if you house gets destroyed. Paying people to move is the decent thing to do as long as that land if left to grow wild again.