Reply #8: Here's an interesting comment

[tammywammy]

What this story didn't relate is that these eight waterfront owners bought the levee property lots for $5,000 each AFTER they already owned their homes. When the downstream bridge was installed, they received a damage settlement of $80,000 EACH because they could not sail a sailboat under the bridge. None of them owned a sailboat but they each made a $75,000 instant profit! Some of the encroachments were permitted AFTER they were installed. The original permits indicated that the items may have to be removed in the future. The future is here.

If the encroachments are not removed BEFORE flood maps are redrawn, 375 non-waterfront homeowners will be required to purchase mandatory flood insurance at $1500 to $2000 (grandfathered rate--not transferable to new owners) per year. Some people may lose their homes because they cannot afford the added expense. Also, once in a flood zone, if a fire occurs, the owners may not be able to rebuild, therefore losing their homes! So, while I empathize with the waterfront owners losing some encroachments, how does that compare to innocent bystanders losing their homes? And if Twin Creeks gets placed in a flood zone, do you think anyone will be able to sell their homes? Especially with the mandatory flood insurance bill to new owners of $4000 to $5000 per year, and the fact they may not be able to rebuild if their home burns?

If it's just a matter of forcing someone else to pay for the encroachment removal, why not hire your own contractor (where YOU control the costs) to remove the encroachments, and THEN sue whomever you feel is responsible? This way, your neighbors will not be forced into a flood zone, and maybe this will help to prevent any further forclosures in Twin Creeks.