为何美国政府收购房屋又要销毁房屋？
Why The U.S. Government Is Buying And Destroying Homes
译文简介
美国政府正在购买并销毁美国的房屋。处于洪水泛滥区的房主们选择自愿将他们即将面临危险的房产出售给政府。
正文翻译
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.
美国政府正在购买并销毁美国的房屋。处于洪水泛滥区的房主们选择自愿将他们即将面临危险的房产出售给政府。自1989年以来，FEMA（联邦紧急事务管理局）已经帮助处理了大约45,000到50,000套房屋的回购。FEMA估计已经在这个项目上花费了约40亿美元，该项目已投入 10 亿美元，但这只是收购总支出的一小部分，因为还有其他项目在FEMA之外。但并不是所有人都认为回购是一个好主意。观看视频了解洪水泛滥区的房屋回购是如何运作的，以及它们是否在帮助或伤害美国房主。
评论翻译
很赞 ( 4 )
收藏
A perfect storm is brewing in the United States. Housing prices, Inflation, bank collapse, severe drought in the agricultural belt, recession, food shortages, diesel fuel and heating oil shortages, baby formula shortages, available automobile shortages and prices, the price of living place. It's all coming together and it could lead to a real disaster towards this year (or sooner). With inflation currently at about 6%, my primary concern is how to maximize my savings/retirement fund which has been sitting duck since forever with zero to no gains.
美国正面临一场完美风暴。房价、通货膨胀、银行倒闭、农业带严重干旱、经济衰退、食品短缺、柴油和取暖油短缺、婴儿奶粉短缺、汽车短缺及其价格、生活成本等问题都在汇聚，这可能在今年（或更早）导致真正的灾难。考虑到目前的通货膨胀率约为6%，我主要关心的是如何最大限度地利用我的储蓄/退休基金，这些基金一直以来都处于坐以待毙的状态，几乎没有收益。
The fact you can buy a home in a flood zone is insane to me
我觉得在洪水区还能买房真是太疯狂了。
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.
担心由于消费者在房产上支付高于要价的价格而导致的住房危机，当他们几乎没有净资产时。房价下跌可能导致负担能力问题，甚至可能导致丧失抵押品赎回权，而未来失业和生活费用增加会使情况变得更糟。我想花超过20万美元，但不确定如何降低风险。
Houses in flood zone should not be looked at as available housing.
洪水区的房子不应该被视为可用住房。
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.
我们买房时查看了洪水地图，以确保我们没有买在洪水区。然后还亲自查看了该地区的地理情况，确保房子不太可能被洪水淹没。到目前为止没有问题。人们在买房前应该这样做。市长们更关心税收收入而非人们的安全，这真是很美国的做法。
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.
他们采访的女士是一个完美的选择。她了解情况、教育程度高、意识到潜在问题，但过程仍然非常困难。我们真的没有做足够的工作来帮助人们了解他们的房屋面临的洪水风险。
One way to do this, to let them know, is to bring their insurance rates up to reflect what the risk is. Money has way of bringing clarity to situations.
一种方法是通过提高他们的保险费率来反映风险。这会让他们意识到风险的存在。金钱往往能使情况变得更清晰。
One way to do this, to let them know, is to bring their insurance rates up to reflect what the risk is. Money has way of bringing clarity to situations.
一种方法是提高保险费率以反映风险。这种方式可以让人们清楚地认识到风险。金钱往往能带来清晰的认识。
Same with beachfront properties. With rising sealevels due to man made climate change, those houses are extremely at risk and protecting them from the rising ocean will be very expensive. Rich people can afford dams or other methods to keep away the water, which is why they will probably continue to buy houses on the coast despite climate change, but the rest will have huge problems once the water level rises several feet
海滨地产也是如此。由于人为气候变化导致海平面上升，这些房屋面临极高的风险，保护它们免受海洋上升的威胁将非常昂贵。富人可以负担得起建造大坝或其他防护措施，这就是他们可能会继续购买海岸上的房产的原因。而其他人则会在海平面上升几英尺后面临巨大的问题。
原创翻译：龙腾网 https://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处
River Islands outside SF built a giant development in a floodplain. I have photos of it underwater but greedy people ignored impending doom.
旧金山附近的河岛在一个洪水区建了一个大型开发区。我有它被淹没的照片，但贪婪的人们忽视了即将来临的灾难。
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!
这位亲爱的女士分享她的搬迁故事，听着非常愉快。她能够清晰地回忆起几乎每一步，并且对自己所说的事情非常了解，令人非常感激！
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.
感觉这是一个复杂的情况。如果人们在购买/建造时并未处于洪水区，但现在却在洪水区，那么买断就更有意义了。然而，如果人们在购买/建造之前就知道它位于洪水区，那么买断的意义就小得多。
Bro people sometimes dont have all the knowledge of something..thats no reason to let them suffer if they can be helped. These things are going to be happening everywhere around all coastlines because of our endless and needless waste and consumption of resources.
兄弟，有时候人们对某些事情了解不够，但这不是让他们遭受痛苦的理由。如果可以提供帮助，就应该这么做。这些问题将会发生在所有海岸线周围，因为我们无尽且不必要的资源浪费和消费。
Sometimes, the flood plain moves. Rivers have minds of their own and go where they want, regardless of the damage they cause. Also, placed aren't always designated as flood plains if they don't flood often enough or at all in the past. Foe years, my grandparents' house wasn't considered in a flood plain, despite being only about 50 yards from a stream that floods in the winter. Additionally, this information isn't or wasn't available for everyone
有时候，洪泛区会移动。河流有自己的“意志”，它们会按自己的方式流动，不管造成多大的损害。此外，如果某个地方过去没有经常被洪水淹没，或者根本没有被洪水淹没，那么它们并不总是被指定为洪泛区。多年来，我祖父母的房子没有被认定为洪泛区，尽管它离冬天会洪水的溪流只有大约50码的距离。此外，这些信息并不总是或曾经不对所有人公开。
Before buying a home, take the time to go online and look at a topographic map. It's fast and free. Higher is better.
在买房之前，花点时间在线查看一下地形图。这既快又免费。地势高的地方更好。
原创翻译：龙腾网 https://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处
We can do this now, but 20 years ago or even 10 years ago, this wasn't available. Also, I'm pretty sure that many small towns don't have topographical maps available (I know my hometown doesn't have those resources)
我们现在可以做到这一点，但20年前甚至10年前，这些资源是不可用的。此外，我非常确定许多小镇没有地形图（我知道我的家乡就没有这些资源）。
原创翻译：龙腾网 https://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处
Generally, it's a good idea. It's safer, prevents governments from having to provide endless disaster relief, and reduces insurance costs for everyone.
通常来说，这个主意不错。这更安全，防止政府不得不提供无尽的灾后援助，也减少了所有人的保险成本。
原创翻译：龙腾网 https://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处
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.
震惊是我的第一个想法是抵押贷款。想象一下，如果你从一个低于3%的贷款利率转到一个7%以上的新贷款，这意味着每月额外多出几千块。如果抵押贷款利率和条件可以转移到新住所，你可能会看到更多人接受买断，特别是那些仍有抵押贷款的人。
原创翻译：龙腾网 https://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处
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?
政府划定区域，禁止在洪泛区建造建筑物。开发商忽视规划，抱怨自由市场和一些废话，坚持在洪泛区建设。开发商将房子卖给美国纳税人。房子被淹了。政府回购洪泛区的房子以拯救美国纳税人。在这一切中，谁在获胜？
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.
任何位于洪水区的物业都不应该有选择不购买洪水保险的选项。它应该被强制并计入他们的房产税中。为什么？因为即使他们不买保险，也会获得救助，所以我们需要强制他们购买保险。
I wonder why we don't move homes more often instead of destroy them. Is it really that much more expensive?
我想知道为什么我们不更频繁地移动房屋，而是选择摧毁它们。真的要贵那么多吗？
原创翻译：龙腾网 https://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处
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.
这位房主说她的房子最初不在洪水区。这意味着外部活动导致她的房子变得易于洪水。（夏洛特不是沿海城市）在她的情况下，这似乎是个公平的交易。
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.
这些房主需要接受买断，或者签署协议，政府在未来的洪水事件中不会再进行救助。目的不是为了确保他们能在其他地方购买更好的房子，而是帮助他们摆脱困境，避免纳税人每次发生洪水时都要救助他们。
原创翻译：龙腾网 https://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处
Maybe updating flood maps to include “high risk” areas as flood plains would mean insurance products could be appropriately priced to risk, then that would serve as incentive to not build in those areas. Not really a fan of moral hazard buyouts… especially on properties that haven’t even flooded yet.
也许更新洪水地图以包括“高风险”区域作为洪泛区，这样保险产品可以根据风险进行适当定价，然后这将成为不在这些地区建设的激励因素。我并不真正支持道德风险收购……尤其是那些还没有被洪水淹没的房产。
There's no way this will be taken advantage of by speculators buying up distressed properties :/
没有办法确保投机者不会买入这些困境中的房产 :/
Moral Hazard: this artificially encourages risky home purchases in flood plains without financial consequences, unless they require original purchases prior to a past date. If I was in an at risk home I'd take It but this screws up the proper market valuation of climate risk
道德风险：这人为地鼓励在洪泛区进行冒险性的购房，没有财务后果，除非要求原始购买在过去某个日期之前。如果我在一个高风险的房子里，我会接受这种买断，但这会破坏气候风险的正确市场估值。
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?
我们需要停止使用纳税人的钱来推高房价。房子应该像在日本那样成为消费品，而不是投资。这样房价将有有限的上涨空间。如果我们认为住房是一项投资，那么如果人们的房子被淹了，他们应该承担投资失败的后果。如果我的苹果投资今年亏损，我能拿回我的钱吗？
We need to build more homes!! preferably in areas that are not going to flood
我们需要建造更多的房子!! 尽量在不会发生洪水的地区
In the long term this is good for affodability because it lowers risks insurance companies have to take to insure homes. Insurance companies are going to charge unaffordable rates for any homes located in a flood zone. Making the mortgage payments that usually include the insurance unaffordable. Even if the base older home may be cheaper than new construction. Outliers like this cost more than they are worth. Not to mention the health and safty risks of flooding and mold.
从长远来看，这有利于人们的负担能力，因为它降低了保险公司为房屋投保所承担的风险。保险公司将对任何位于洪水区的房屋收取难以承受的保费。这使得通常包括保险的抵押贷款变得难以承受。即使老房子比新房子便宜。像这样的异常值的成本高于它们的价值。更不用说洪水和发霉带来的健康和安全风险了。
I know of two federally-subsidized senior housing projects that abut rivers. I would be terrified to live in them. The federal government does have some ability to control ill-advised construction in a flood plain - e.g., by refusing to subsidize rents on any new project built in a flood plain. It also would be cost-effective for the agencies in charge of subsidies to be proactive by demanding (and paying for) remediation to minimize the risk to tenants, perhaps by constructing berms or levees to redirect high water (e.g., on those two projects I just mentioned). In other words, spend a little now to save a lot later.
我知道有两个联邦补贴的老年人住房项目毗邻河流。住在里面我会感到害怕。联邦政府确实有一些控制在洪泛区进行不明智建设的能力，例如，通过拒绝补贴任何新建的洪泛区项目的租金补贴。对负责补贴的机构来说，要求（并支付）补救措施以尽量减少租户面临的风险，或许可以通过修建护堤或堤坝来转移高水位（例如，在我刚才提到的这两个项目中），这也是具有成本效益的。换句话说，现在花一点钱，未来可以节省很多钱。
take the buyout especially if the water was already up to your frontsteps, mailbox, or car...like who would even pay inflated price for that house knowing the neighborhood is prone to flooding
如果水已经涨到你前门台阶、邮箱或车子的位置，最好接受买断...谁会愿意以虚高的价格买那种房子，知道那个社区容易发生洪水。
Do these buy outs extend to large rental operations, I don't feel like they should. I wouldn't mind a house on pillars with a habitat under the house.
这些收购是否扩展到大型租赁操作，我觉得不应该。我不会介意在柱子上建一栋房子，房子下面有一个栖息地。
Why not put in resiliency parks on the bought properties? Hoboken and NYC have helped control flooding events with them
为什么不在买断的地块上建立抗洪公园呢？霍博肯和纽约市已经通过这些公园帮助控制洪水事件。
The day after the flood in Hawaii, 1988, the city wanted to clean up the debris along side of the street. I kept the refrigerator for evidence for the insurance claim.
1988年洪水过后第二天，市政府想清理街道两旁的废墟。我保留了冰箱作为保险索赔的证据。
Better buy out large tracts of New Orleans, the older low income housing is sitting on land that is below sea level and strata is shirking inward.
最好买下新奥尔良的大块土地，因为老旧的低收入住房位于低于海平面的土地上，而地层正在向内收缩。
原创翻译：龙腾网 https://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处
Because so many people overpaid for homes even while loan rates were low, I believe there will be a housing catastrophe because these people are in debt. If housing costs continue to drop and, for whatever reason, they can no longer afford the property and it goes into foreclosure, they have no equity since, even if they try to sell, they will not make any money. I believe that many individuals will experience this, especially given the impending mass layoffs and rapidly rising living expenses.
由于许多人在贷款利率较低时仍为房屋支付了过高的价格，因此我相信，由于这些人负债累累，住房灾难将会发生。如果住房成本继续下降，无论出于何种原因，他们再也买不起房子，房子被取消赎回权，他们就没有资产，因为即使他们尝试出售，也不会赚钱。我相信许多人将会经历这种情况，尤其是考虑到即将到来的大规模裁员和生活费用的快速上涨。
The thing is like yeah some areas are flood prone but they're not like significantly flood prone, then of course you have the historical element.
I think if they're not significantly flood prone than they should then houses have to be raised minimums risk.
Another thing that isn't actually explored is some of this is man-made. When I say this a man-made flood disaster is our streets are not made to absorb water. So this increases the risk of flooding. In areas that would not otherwise have a risk of flooding.
问题在于，虽然某些地区易受洪水影响，但并不是非常严重。然后当然还有历史因素。我认为，如果这些地方不那么容易受洪水影响，那么就必须提高房屋的防洪风险等级。另外，实际上没被探讨的一个方面是，有些洪水灾害是人为造成的。所谓人为洪水灾害是我们的街道无法吸收水分，因此增加了洪水的风险。在那些本来没有洪水风险的地区也是如此。
Why did they build on a flood zone in the first place? I'm pretty sure the river has flooded before so why do we keep building there?
他们为什么一开始要建在洪水泛滥区？我很确定这条河以前发生过洪水，那我们为什么还要继续在那里建房呢？
Old neighborhoods are probably less at risk of flooding, if the homes have been there for 100 year old, the area was safer. It is not a guaranty but it might be one element to consider when choosing a location.
老旧区可能不太容易遭受洪水侵袭，如果这些房屋已经存在了100年，那这个地区可能更安全。这不是绝对保证，但在选择位置时可以考虑这一点。
A bad investment decision in many cases doesn't apply to banks. Thus, a bail out.
许多情况下，糟糕的投资决策不适用于银行，因此需要救助。
This is looking like the lawmakers are using taxpayer money to bailout insurance companies. The only one that benefits financially is the companies that are insuring these homes.
这看起来像是立法者在用纳税人的钱来救助保险公司。唯一从中获利的财务上是那些为这些房屋提供保险的公司。
Why the goverment provids flood insurance to people that build on the beach or flood plane is stupid. I cannot get goverment flood insurance in my state. If my house washes away so be it. I knew the risk and have enjoyed the view. I read an article about people building in flood plains 50 years ago it was critical of incentives encouraging people to build knowing every 30 years the floods would return.
政府为什么要为在海滩或洪水区建房的人提供洪水保险是很愚蠢的。我在我州无法获得政府洪水保险。如果我的房子被冲走，那就这样吧。我知道风险并且享受了这个景色。我读过一篇关于50年前在洪水区建房的文章，批评了鼓励人们在每30年洪水会回来的地方建房的激励措施。
It’s hard to nail down specific predictions for the housing market because it’s not yet clear how quickly or how much the Federal Reserve can bring down inflation and borrowing costs without tanking buyer demand for everything from homes to cars.
很难准确预测房地产市场的走势，因为还不清楚联邦储备系统能多快或多大程度上降低通货膨胀和借贷成本，而不会导致对从房屋到汽车等各种商品的需求骤降。
never understood people rebuilsing their flooded homes in like the mississippi flood plains or in like hurricane destroyed homes on the east coast especially ones hit twice or three times. id never feel even comfortable
我一直不理解为什么人们会在像密西西比洪水区这样的地方，或者在东海岸被飓风摧毁的房屋中重建，尤其是那些被冲击过两三次的地方。我自己绝对不会感到舒适。
I do wonder what people will do when insurance providers add additional costs for living in a floodplain. They already are stepping away from Florida's hurricanes and California's wildfires, seems floodplains would be the next step.
我确实在想，当保险公司对洪水区的住房增加额外费用时，人们会怎么做。他们已经开始退出对佛罗里达州飓风和加州野火的保险，看来洪水区可能是下一个目标。
I think we need to solve the climate crisis before we do the housing one because if we dont then there will be no houses to inhabit
我认为我们需要先解决气候危机，然后再解决住房危机，因为如果不解决气候危机，就没有房子可住了。
Despite the fact that climate change is occurring, the government is doing the least to prevent it from causing property damage. Also, helping insurers to reduce the increase in their rates. This puts the burden of the cost of climate change on individuals, businesses and governments who are already struggling with the effects of the economic crisis. It is clear, then, that the government needs to take action to mitigate the effects of climate change.
尽管气候变化正在发生，但政府在防止其造成财产损失方面做得最少。同时，政府也在帮助保险公司减少他们的费用增加。这把气候变化的成本负担转嫁给了个人、企业和已经在经济危机影响下挣扎的政府。因此，显然政府需要采取行动来减轻气候变化的影响。
The insurance companies should be forced to pay for their moves.
保险公司应该被强制赔偿他们的行动费用。
Part of the equation is the fact people have built homes in stupid locations. Its more expensive to keep rebuilding after a flood in these places than to relocate and demolish and block new construction in the problem areas. I work in the damage remediation field, mainly water, so i have seen the aftermath first hand. This includes the river flood in St Louis.
问题的一部分在于人们在不适合的地方建房子。洪水过后，在这些地方继续重建比在问题地区重新安置、拆除和阻止新建筑要昂贵得多。我在损害修复领域工作，主要是水灾，因此我亲眼见过这种情况，这包括圣路易斯的河水泛滥。
It's not government job to buy homes even if they are located in areas that are prone to natural disaster. Rather use the money to build new housing in areas not prone to natural disasters.
即使房屋位于自然灾害多发区，也不是政府的职责去购买这些房屋。应该把钱用来在不容易发生自然灾害的地区建造新住房。
Climate change has accelerated this process of buying out homeowners in flood and wildfire areas. Life over property is the key reason. Insurance companies are adjusting their rates to keep ahead of future disasters that will decimate communities!
气候变化加速了对洪水和野火区域房主的买断过程。生命优先于财产是关键原因。保险公司正在调整他们的费率，以应对未来可能摧毁社区的灾难！
Too many middle men in these transaction, like anything done by the state or federal side it takes a long time because many entities are touching the money before it gets to where it needs to go, Do an audit on how is spent on adminstrative cost...
这些交易中涉及太多中间人，就像国家或联邦层面上的任何事务一样，因为许多实体在资金到达需要的地方之前都会接触这些钱，所以需要很长时间。应该对行政成本的支出进行审计。
We don’t have money to help these people, but we can send 95 billion to Ukraine, Israel and Taiwan for war aid . The problem could be fixed with a percent of that money being sent over.
我们没有钱帮助这些人，但我们可以向乌克兰、以色列和台湾（地区）提供 950 亿美元战争援助。只需将其中一定比例的资金汇过去，就可以解决问题。
Now it is safe to say that in fact, the possibilities of exploring the world in humans are very limited. They are literally insignificant.
现在可以安全地说，人类探索世界的可能性非常有限。他们实际上微不足道。
So my tax dollars are being funneled to people who bought houses built in insanely dumb locations so that they can then afford to outbid me on other houses.
因此，我的税款就被用在了那些购买了建在极其糟糕地段的房屋的人身上，这样他们就有能力以高于我的价格买下其他房屋。
People should not be able to profit from these properties... gov't should pay the last sale price or current floodplain appraised value, whichever is lower. Bad investments should have a negative consequence, not made whole by taxpayer
人们不应从这些财产中获利……政府应支付最后的销售价格或当前洪泛区评估值中的较低者。坏投资应该有负面后果，而不是由纳税人来弥补。