Why The U.S. Government Is Buying And Destroying Homes

The U.S. government is buying up and destroying American homes. Homeowners in the floodplain are choosing to voluntarily sell their doomed properties to the government. Since 1989, FEMA has helped fun around 45 to 50,000 home buyouts. FEMA is estimated to have spent somewhere around $4 billion on the project so far but that’s just a fraction of the total amount spend on buyouts, since there are programs outside of FEMA. But not everyone is convinced buyouts are a good idea. Watch the video to find out how floodplain buyouts work and if they are helping or hurting American homeowners.

Chapters:
0:00 Introduction
1:39 How buyouts work
6:15 Costs
12:10 Managed retreat

Produced and Edited by: Lindsey Jacobson
Animation: Christina Locopo, Jason Reginato
Additional Camer by: Andrea Miller
Editorial Assistance from: Katherine Tarasov, Charlotte Morabito
Additional footage: Getty Images, New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection, WCAU, Charlotte-Mecklenburg County, WOWT, Andrea Jones
Additional sources: FEMA, Congressional Research Service
Special Thanks to: John Wendel, Debra Schooley, Doris Breitfeller, Jonathan Altino

About CNBC: From 'Wall Street' to 'Main Street' to award winning original documentaries and Reality TV series, CNBC has you covered. Experience special sneak peeks of your favorite shows, exclusive video and more.

Connect with CNBC News Online

#CNBC

Why The U.S. Government Is Buying And Destroying Homes

[quentinmanson]

The fact you can buy a home in a flood zone is insane to me

[RuthEvelyn-rcbg]

Worry about a housing crisis as a result of consumers paying more than asking for properties when they have little equity. Falling prices might lead to affordability issues and possibly even foreclosures, which would be made worse by future job losses and increased living expenses. I want to spend more than $200K, but I'm not sure how to reduce the risk.

[cutthechicken]

Houses in flood zone should not be looked at as available housing.

[casonator]

The lady they interviewed about the process was a perfect pick. Informed, educated, aware of potential issues, and still it was a very difficult process. We just don't do enough to help people know how much risk their homes are in for floods.

[shanet]

When we bought our house we looked at flood maps to make sure we didnt buy in a flood zone. Then also looked at the geography of the area ourselves to make sure it doesn't look likely. So far no problems. People should do this before they buy. Its very American of the mayors to be more concerned about tax revenue than people.

[joeriveracomedy]

River Islands outside SF built a giant development in a floodplain. I have photos of it underwater but greedy people ignored impending doom.

[KeliK]

The dear lady sharing her relocation story is very pleasant to listen to. I am surprised by how well she recollects almost every step of her journey and knows what she is talking about. Much appreciated!

[Johnrl]

Feels like a nuanced situation. If folks did not buy/build in a flood zone, but it is in one now, a buyout makes more sense.

However, if folks knew before they bought/built, a buyout makes a lot less sense.

[steven]

Before buying a home, take the time to go online and look at a topographic map. It's fast and free. Higher is better.

[WealthbuilderzTV]

I knew it was a crisis but short 7.2 million homes is crazy.

[KingRat]

1. Any property in a flood zone should not have the option to not buy flood insurance. It shoudl simply be forced and rolled into their property taxes. Why? Becuase they will be given relief even if they dont buy the insurace so we need to force them to buy the insurance.

2. Anyone who refuses insurance should be on a list that that property is not eligible for any rebuilding assitance. If that person wants flood relief then it must be contingent on a sale of the property and the land should be turned into wild space permanently.

3. If the density falls far enough, say over 2/3 of the properties have been converted already, then the remaining homes should be forced out by eminent domain as it makes no sense to keep providing services to so few homes.

4. It is a myth this property is “affordable” in any location. If they will require repeated relief in the future then this is not “affordable”. It is a collossal waste of taxpayrer money.

5. If you cannot ban the development in the flood area, then it must include a mandatory Federakl tax to force the flood insurance and this insurance must reflect the value and true risk of the property. If you want to build a million dollar home on a coast that is washing away tehn maybe you should be required to pay tens or hundreds of thousands for the insurance since we know for sure that land will wash away and that home will bne destroyed. So the cost needs to reflect the risk.

[nulnoh]

Government zones to prevent building in flood plains.
Developer ignores zoning, complaining about free market and some bs, insists on building on flood plains.
Developer sells house to American taxpayers
Houses flood
Government buys back houses on flood plains to save Americans taxpayers.

Who's winning in all this?

[retalus]

The mortgage shock was my first thought. Imagine if you went from a mortgage of sub-3 to a new one that's 7+. That's thousands extra to your monthly. If the mortgage rate and terms could be transferred to the new residence, you might see more buyout acceptance, particularly from those who still have a mortgage.

[shubashuba]

I wonder why we don't move homes more often instead of destroy them. Is it really that much more expensive?

[JohnFraser-zccu]

There's no way this will be taken advantage of by speculators buying up distressed properties :/

[timothydevries]

Generally, it's a good idea. It's safer, prevents governments from having to provide endless disaster relief, and reduces insurance costs for everyone.

[RT-xjel]

These home owners need to take the buyouts or sign agreements that the government will not bail them out in future flooding events. The purpose here isn't to ensure that they can buy better homes elsewhere. It is to help them get out of a bad situation and to get the taxpayers out having to bail them out every time there is a flood.

[sarysa]

The homeowner said that her home was not in a flood zone at first. This means that outside activity resulted in her home becoming flood prone. (Charlotte is not coastal) Seems like a just deal in her case.

[eile]

we need to stop using tax players money to pump up housing price. People should losing money from owning a house like in Japan. Housing should not be an investment, it should be treated as consumption. This way house will have limited up side.

If we think housing is an investment. then if people lose their house, it's their own fault that they invested in the wrong area. Do i get my money back if my invest on Apple, but it's losing money this year?

[mbe]

Loving that Tie Fighter in the background! That lady has good taste!