If lawmakers can seize property insurance assets that a private citizen paid for, then what prevents them from doing the same with all other forms of insurance? When you die, they can just argue that your death somehow created a public burden that your insurance assets should satisfy. When you total your car, they can do the same. This is completely reprehensible, unlawful and should be appealed to the supreme court. If allowed to stand, every private contract falls within the scope of what government can target.
More anti-government paranoia. I don’t suppose you live in any rust-belt towns like Huntington where the economy is poor, vacancy’s abound and the local chamber of commerce could use some help in attracting business. So, if I am a guy who owns a number of old buildings (where I might not even live) in a somewhat crappy section of town, there is more incentive to take the settlement money for my burned out building and put it in my pocket.
This is actually a good use of government. It is good for the neighboring businesses, residents, and gives the local government some power against encroaching urban blight (including crack houses). With reduced state budget help for cities these days, it is good to see local governments can have some control and move swiftly. Nobody is taking property. They are forcing building owners to do the right thing. Who knows? It may make it easier for them to sell their properties. The comments in your post are far-fetched, childish, and are not likely to happen.
Throw in feeding the homeless while you are at it please. Tell us it is for cleaning up crack houses. Tell us it is for attracting business, getting rid of urban blight, etc, etc….and truly, who could object to those noble causes? But that isn’t the point. The “cause” isn’t what I’m opposed to, or why policyholders and insurers are troubled by this. Giving ANY third party (not just government) a handhold/foothold in a contract that they weren’t party to is my objection. An insurance policy is a private contract. What I’m talking about is the establishment of legal precedent and the slippery slope that is created. Are long term legal consequences too “childish” to think about? If so, “the cause” (whatever it happens to be that day) will inexorably trump private contracts, whenever the question arises.
We have updated our privacy policy to be more clear and meet the new requirements of the GDPR. By continuing to use our site, you accept our revised Privacy Policy.
If lawmakers can seize property insurance assets that a private citizen paid for, then what prevents them from doing the same with all other forms of insurance? When you die, they can just argue that your death somehow created a public burden that your insurance assets should satisfy. When you total your car, they can do the same. This is completely reprehensible, unlawful and should be appealed to the supreme court. If allowed to stand, every private contract falls within the scope of what government can target.
How about if they pay only “reasonable” debris removal to the city & deal with the insured on everything else?
More anti-government paranoia. I don’t suppose you live in any rust-belt towns like Huntington where the economy is poor, vacancy’s abound and the local chamber of commerce could use some help in attracting business. So, if I am a guy who owns a number of old buildings (where I might not even live) in a somewhat crappy section of town, there is more incentive to take the settlement money for my burned out building and put it in my pocket.
This is actually a good use of government. It is good for the neighboring businesses, residents, and gives the local government some power against encroaching urban blight (including crack houses). With reduced state budget help for cities these days, it is good to see local governments can have some control and move swiftly. Nobody is taking property. They are forcing building owners to do the right thing. Who knows? It may make it easier for them to sell their properties. The comments in your post are far-fetched, childish, and are not likely to happen.
Throw in feeding the homeless while you are at it please. Tell us it is for cleaning up crack houses. Tell us it is for attracting business, getting rid of urban blight, etc, etc….and truly, who could object to those noble causes? But that isn’t the point. The “cause” isn’t what I’m opposed to, or why policyholders and insurers are troubled by this. Giving ANY third party (not just government) a handhold/foothold in a contract that they weren’t party to is my objection. An insurance policy is a private contract. What I’m talking about is the establishment of legal precedent and the slippery slope that is created. Are long term legal consequences too “childish” to think about? If so, “the cause” (whatever it happens to be that day) will inexorably trump private contracts, whenever the question arises.