# Lenders Wary in Calgary



## sags (May 15, 2010)

Banks want new appraisals for pending sales and renewals on homes in flood affected areas.

http://www.calgaryherald.com/news/c...e+flood+damaged+properties/8684837/story.html


----------



## MoneyGal (Apr 24, 2009)

Hey sags, are you by any chance in Calgary? I've been in and around the city for the last week on holiday and this news doesn't surprise me at all. I've been in some of the flood-affected areas (my brother's house was in the mandatory evacuation zone) and there's an awful lot of damage. Some houses are total writeoffs to be sure. 

(We could also talk about the uncertainty about future flood relief for those who may be flooded in future...and the desire for buyouts from some affected homeowners)


----------



## Sampson (Apr 3, 2009)

Makes sense no?

It is unclear what long term initiatives the Province and City will be putting in place to mitigate future damage.

Claims for damage have not all gone in and the amount the insurers will pay out now is also unknown. An insurer is either going to cover their butt, or want certainty before moving forward. They are in the business of making money from calculated risk. You can't calculate anything at this point.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

No, I don't live in the west.

I am sorry to hear the damage is so extensive and am just hoping the people affected there are treated fairly. 

I read another article that said the insurance companies will only pay for "builder's grade" replacement, which means no hardwood floors or upgraded kitchens. Basement renovations may not be covered either.

This is not the time for banks and insurance companies to beat up on people.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

How is it that the same areas have been flooded out so many times?

Did the city allow developers to build on flood plain land?

Or are these just freakish river flows into normally dry land?


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

Just my perspective, but if any government aid goes to flood victims, it should come in the form of a buyout at pre-flood market value. Flood plains should be used for parks and the like.


----------



## kcowan (Jul 1, 2010)

In Toronto after hurricane Hazel, they bought out the owners on the flood plain and tore down the houses. This is what needs to be done in Calgary. The property developers and the city are accountable but so are the insurance companies. At least they covered themselves by not insuring against overland flooding.

Purchasers, knowing about this insurance exclusion, should have purchased elsewhere. Buyer beware!


----------



## Sampson (Apr 3, 2009)

sags said:


> Or are these just freakish river flows into normally dry land?


^ This.

I understand the City/Province needs to base planning on probabilities, and severity of incidents. Both 2005 and 2013 did not affect 'expected' flood plain lands. This sentiment is obviously now changing. People don't know what to do because they really have no basis, other than these freak accidents to create high risk areas.


----------



## Sampson (Apr 3, 2009)

kcowan said:


> The property developers and the city are accountable but so are the insurance companies. At least they covered themselves by not insuring against overland flooding.


These have never been flood areas, and they are very old communities so it isn't like the developers are building into a new, high risk area.


----------



## kcowan (Jul 1, 2010)

Sampson said:


> These have never been flood areas, and they are very old communities so it isn't like the developers are building into a new, high risk area.


That was also the case in Toronto too. On Grand Island in Louisiana, they build cottages on stilts so they will withstand the hurricanes that sweep across the island regularly. We talked to a guy in NO who trailers his boat back and forth to keep it out of danger.


----------



## Sampson (Apr 3, 2009)

I really am curious what will happen.

There probably do not even have to be such drastic actions. There are many homes in some of the most hard hit communities that upgraded/improved drainage pumps etc that were hardly affect.

Overland flooding is obviously an issue, but I would be a few feet elevation of the plot and some solid anti-flood landscaping would go a long way to mitigate any future issues. Of course, repeatedly building on a site that is now 'prone' to this damage probably will not warrant future bailouts. It is crazy how many small businesses and home owners still have nothing to go back to after well over a month.


----------



## Ponderling (Mar 1, 2013)

I guess from working over time on many land development projects that had conservation authority input here in Ontario, I sort of forgot that other areas do not have these flodd zone protection institutions.

I know the West is different in its outlook to goverment, and also can be quite flat in some areas that flood but I was a bit surprised there was no incumbent flood control authority at arms length to the City's to regulate how lands could be developerd for housing. 

Here in Mississauga we have urban areas that predate the areas controlled by conservation authorities (mostly Cooksville areas abutting Cooksville Creek).
There is also a major highway , the QEW that has a planned overland flood flow path for Cooksville Creek, because it's crossing culvert is sub-standard to todays design requirements from when it was first established in 1938.


----------



## AltaRed (Jun 8, 2009)

To the best of my knowledge, people buying lots in Calgary's flood plain know that when they purchase. But having had no such flood forever and the City approving developments, people can sort of be 'forgiven' for not taking river flood plain designations seriously. What it really amounts to is the City approving new developments (since the 1970s) that should not be developed at all, or at least without sufficient river flood protection. It is also an example of the City (and province) not spending sufficient retrofit money to protect the older neighbourhoods, AND not taking seriously, the recommendations that came out of 2005 flooding.


----------



## Berubeland (Sep 6, 2009)

I hate to admit it but I was very grateful for our mini flood here in Toronto. The last time we had such severe flooding was during Hurricane Hazel but the people who prevent building on the Flood prone lands are under continual attack by pro development groups and we collectively have the attention span of a goldfish. This flood did cause damages but it was a very valuable reminder that our scenic Don Valley is the end zone of a very large watershed. No one lost their lives but I'm pretty sure that most of use will remember the Don Valley Parking Lot underwater and sporting some submerged vehicles.


----------



## fraser (May 15, 2010)

If I was a lender I would be very careful as well. 

Some Calgary banks were hit with a mortgage fraud a few years ago-mostly attributable to failure to complete proper appraisal and approval procedures, and sub standard work by a few a questionable members of the legal profession.


----------



## Plugging Along (Jan 3, 2011)

Sampson said:


> I really am curious what will happen.
> 
> There probably do not even have to be such drastic actions. There are many homes in some of the most hard hit communities that upgraded/improved drainage pumps etc that were hardly affect.
> 
> Overland flooding is obviously an issue, but I would be a few feet elevation of the plot and some solid anti-flood landscaping would go a long way to mitigate any future issues. Of course, repeatedly building on a site that is now 'prone' to this damage probably will not warrant future bailouts. It is crazy how many small businesses and home owners still have nothing to go back to after well over a month.


This flood was really a combination of the perfect storm. excuse the pun. The storm front up in the west at Canmore hovered and deposited directly over the bow and continued over Calgary. Much of the water Calgary received was upstream, and just got worse as the rains stayed in Calgary. Berms were built from recommendations from the last flood, which then redirected the water into some of the areas which are not considered on the flood plain. There really wasn't a way to predict the changing of waterflow from the mitigations last time. This is one thing to consider, is that if mitigation is put in, it could cause secondary risks of other areas which currently are not in the flood plains. 

The other piece that caused alot of damage is that because the power had to be cut in whole communities, ouses that might have been fine, were flooded,because their sump pumps had o power. I know a person who had their own generator and had it running, and their damage was minimum compared to their neighbors. Generators would be a good mitigation for any one with amp,pumps. My neighbor has a amp pmp and we live high on the hill, they had to run and borrow a generator in case of black outs. 



AltaRed said:


> To the best of my knowledge, people buying lots in Calgary's flood plain know that when they purchase. But having had no such flood forever and the City approving developments, people can sort of be 'forgiven' for not taking river flood plain designations seriously. What it really amounts to is the City approving new developments (since the 1970s) that should not be developed at all, or at least without sufficient river flood protection. It is also an example of the City (and province) not spending sufficient retrofit money to protect the older neighbourhoods, AND not taking seriously, the recommendations that came out of 2005 flooding.


My understanding is that only two of the areas would be considered new developments by your standards in the last 30 years. Those houses that were developed more recently, the owners sign a waiver acknowledging they are on the flood plain and accept the consequences. Retrofitted houses would only help so much in the destruction that hit this time. There were many recommendations that were taken from 2005, creating of the Emergency Operations Centre and Data Centre was just one of them. That was one of the things that saved the city, and allowed it to respond so quickly. That same centre that saved the city was under scrutiny just a few years ago in terms of spending as 'there was other infrastructure that was more urgent'. Right now people want to build in order to mitigate against future disasters. That comes at a cost. What will be given up? In a few years time, if no disaster happens, then people will complain that it was over done, if a disaster does hit then there will be the question why wasn't even more spent. 

Also, as I stated above, what happens when you put in a mitigation, and it causes something else to flood, or the river has changed it's path. Right now, one big challenge is trying to even identify what is considered the flood plain for the next big one.


----------

