This woman is upset because FEMA says they want her to bring her 75 year old mobile home up to current flood and hurricane standards.

I don’t have any problems with this. If you want to live in an area that is prone to hurricanes and flooding, either bring your house up to current standards or don’t expect government handouts.

Your house is a 75 year old trailer. Don’t expect taxpayers to give you thousands of dollars to fix it.

On the other hand, the county is taxing an ancient mobile home on an assessed value of $237,000 not counting the land. That is ridiculous

Categories: Welfare State

19 Comments

Jonathan · November 13, 2024 at 11:48 am

Ugh, more arbitrary bureaucrats.
They never explained their condemnation and then insist that code requires an expensive appeal.
They are the ones who decided to follow that code – they can decide exceptions and the appeal process.
The best option would be for the locals to make a bigger stink about this to force the issue.

Big Country Expat · November 13, 2024 at 2:52 pm

My hunch? The guy who owns the property wants to sell it for YUUUGE money to a developer (it’s right on the beach) and then scarper w/the $$$. The politicos in question are probably making a boodle in a kickback scheme, and together they’re using the back-to-back storms as justification to nuke the park into oblivion.

    Some rando · November 13, 2024 at 7:09 pm

    Interesting and likely true, BCE. (Looking forward to your take on SecDef, btw)

wojtek · November 13, 2024 at 6:39 pm

“either bring your house up to current standards or don’t expect government handouts”

I don’t think this is a correctly stated alternative, as the lady has no choice here.
Moreover, I think that the above statement is in clear contradiction with an earlier claim:

“If we were to grant government the power to declare that you can’t live somewhere because it is too expensive to provide services there, then you open the door to government getting involved and ruling over your entire life.”

(I hope we can agree that insurance is a service?)

    Divemedic · November 14, 2024 at 7:44 am

    It isn’t an contradiction. No one is saying that she can’t live there. She can live there, just not with government funding.

    Yes, insurance is a service. It isn’t a government service.

      wojtek · November 15, 2024 at 6:25 pm

      But a government subsidized insurance is a government service. And if they condemned her house/trailer then I think it exactly means that she can’t live there.

        Divemedic · November 15, 2024 at 7:03 pm

        No one forces you to have insurance. The market just isn’t willing to insure a 75 year old piece of shit trailer against hurricanes, so they get government insurance.
        I would argue that the government shouldn’t provide insurance at all, not that the government should keep paying to repair your crappy hovel.
        Condemning the house just means that no one can live in it until it is repaired.

Don Curton · November 13, 2024 at 7:48 pm

I didn’t see where she was asking for govt money, she was upset that the govt wasn’t going to allow her to spend her own money without bringing it up to code. In my opinion, let her spend her money as she pleases. If she can’t get insurance, too bad. If she wants govt money, too bad. But if she wants to spend $60k to fix up a trailer house, more power to her.

The fact that the govt is taxing her 75 year old trailer on a $237k valuation is criminal. My grandmother lived in a trailer during her later years and IMO the usable lifespan is, at most, 30 years. And when we needed to replace it we found a 5 year old trailer for roughly $20k (back in the 90’s). It has to be the locale.

    Divemedic · November 14, 2024 at 7:47 am

    The land isn’t included in that assessment.

      EN2 SS · November 14, 2024 at 3:19 pm

      Because taxing the property that high would affect the sale to a developer

Rick · November 13, 2024 at 10:18 pm

I read the linked article. No one is asking for taxpayer monies. DM, what made you think that applies here?

Residents are asking why the red tags prior to any inspection?
The condition has been created that either a resident secure alternate residence, or they defy, and violate, ordinance associated with red tag by continuing to occupy their homes.
The residents are looking for compliance from the same government that demands compliance from citizens.
A weak excuse is proffered; gov employees are overworked. Apparently not overworked enough to post red tags.
Gov asking forbearance while not willing to grant the same.

    Divemedic · November 14, 2024 at 7:47 am

    Who is providing flood insurance?

      Rick · November 14, 2024 at 11:36 am

      So flood insurance is a handout now? In most cases it is mandatory. Let’s not drift a field.

      Your original construct was, ‘either comply with code, or don’t expect govt handouts’.

      Among other things, gov is clamping down on resident’s ability to comply. Even when shown ability to comply with 50/50 rule, govt remains unmoved.

      To reiterate, no one is asking for anything, what makes you think they are?

The Southern Nationalist · November 14, 2024 at 4:21 pm

I can understand and agree with her anger on these issues.
This is Agenda 21-50 principles being put into place to move these people out and turn the entire area into a “buffer zone” where no human is allowed to live.
The best way to get rid of people is to jack up their tax where they can’t afford to it and tell them about the new regulations and all the blah blah that goes with it.
The Toyota Mega Site has now been built about a quarter mile from my home and lo and behold, the two government agencies responsible for this monstrosity has created a map to include “buffer zones” (more Agenda 21-50 crap) so that they can carve up the whole area and build housing, industrial sites, business parks, ect.,
I’ve seen this map and my area is designated as “future land use” which tells me that they are going to leave me alone until they aint ready to leave me alone.

Nolan Parker · November 15, 2024 at 5:57 am

If they weren’t ripping her off with taxes, maybe she would have enough money to have replaced that ancient trailer house. I’ve never Seen one that survived for 75 years.

Terrapod · November 16, 2024 at 10:32 am

You have put the arrow in the bullseye. IMHO no government or office bureaucrat should be allowed to “assess” the value of ANYTHING. The value I pay at time of purchase is the ONLY metric that applies. Taxes and any other fees or what euphemism they use for taking money should be based solely on the bill of sale.
When I sell my property, the value at that point defines the taxes of the buyer.
While we are at it, capital gains are another false mechanism to tax yet more. Yes the market value of my home (but notice, not my car or any other possessions outside of maybe precious metals) may gain in value, but I also maintain, use and build on it to keep up that value. So no tax should be applied to gains. Only at point of sale/purchase and only on the accurate value transacted (heck, go to a flat 10% for federal and 5% for state at point of sale on everything-this is quite fair as even the illegal invaders will pay tax). Of course now we get into the fight over “control” and not taxation per se. When the 16th amendment is expunged and replaced with only one tax, that of point of sale for feds and states, all is a power game for control over others. Kicks the soap box to the next person.

TRX · November 16, 2024 at 10:46 am

> On the other hand, the county is taxing an ancient mobile home on an assessed value of $237,000 not counting the land. That is ridiculous

Ridiculous, and common nationwide.

A friend’s house tripled in “taxable value” one year. A few years later, the “value” of my house went up – are you ready for this? – 500%.

It’s a scam run by tax authorities, usually at the county level. The more the “value” of the things they tax, the more tax money they bring in, since real estate taxes are usually (not always) based on the dollar “value” of a property. Easy-peasy. Investors, “flippers”, and others like it, because the house they bought for $x is magically worth 2, 3, or 4$x, all to their profit. Everyone wins.

Except the homeowner who isn’t planning to sell, who watches his tax rate ballooning up.

    Terrapod · November 16, 2024 at 9:21 pm

    Well do I know this. County asessed the value of my property upwards 40% due to the COVID rush of Illinois escapees coming to my town as Michigan did not have as draconian a shutdown. They drove up values bidding stupid high to get housing here. It has not come down nor will it as the township and county want the higher cash flow. New young local buyers cant afford down payments or the elevated interest rates. It sucks.

TRX · November 16, 2024 at 10:50 am

“Government flood insurance” wasn’t something I’d ever heard of, so I looked it up.

Apparently the Feds have horned in on the property insurance business, just like in the college business and loan business.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.