Editorial: Yes on Measure P

FEMA maps have enlarged flood zones to force more people to buy flood insurance to increase the pool of funds. I do not live in Foster City but I come in contact with FEMA maps as part of my job. The people in Foster City are being given a false choice. What happens when that $90 million dollar levy no longer is adequate to prevent requirements of flood insurance the next time FEMA revises their maps. FEMA mapping is a racquet and the good people of Foster City are taking this without even questioning the map makers.

What if you could avoid paying costly flood insurance, get protected by a FEMA accredited levee and avoid paying 29% more for the levee bond each year for 30 years?
Interested?
The City has $20 million in excess reserves it could use to pay down the size of the $90 million levee bond to $70. Since they ALREADY have our $20 million, this will reduce the additional amount we would need to pay by $20 million.
The election in November gives us a last chance. Vote “NO” on June 5th to let the City Council know you want the City to put a $70 million levee bond on the ballot in November.
The only difference from passing it in June instead of November is that if it passes in June you will be required to make a 29% higher payment each year for 30 years!

This whole episode reminds me of an old story: After an exam, a doctor gives his patient 6 months to live.

"But Doc! I can't pay my bill! . . ."

The doctor scratches his head, then says: "Alright. I'll give you another 6 months!"

FEMA reminds me of the doctor. If Foster City is a flood zone, then declare it a flood zone! If it's not a flood zone (and it's not) then what's going on here?

I've lived in Foster City for almost thirty years. I make it a point to check the tide charts and head on over to the levy when there's a King tide. Water levels aren't particularly close to the top of levy at these times -- maybe 3 or 4 feet from the top? Given current rates of sea-level rise . . . that gives us a couple of hundred years before we have a problem! (You can easily google and check tide charts yourself. It looks to me like high tide for the year will be on July 13th at 12:14 am.)

Part of the point here is that we _can_ forecast tides quite a way out; we know there's no current threat. Some people have been talking about run-up as potentially adding to the problem, but I've also heard that experts have expressed the opinion that storm run up won't exacerbate the flood issue in this shallow bay because an offshore storm that pushes water into the bay can't exist at the same time as storm within the bay that would cause run up. Part of the "yes on P" meme has been "it's cheaper to pay the extortion, oops, I mean bond payments than to pay the insurance." But it's unlikely that any existing loan in Foster City would be subject to this, since I doubt there are any government-backed loans that currently exist on Foster City homes. At the very least, I've never heard this relevant question quantified. How many existing loans will require flood insurance if FEMA declares that Foster City is a flood zone?

Yes, future loans will probably require flood insurance on an annual basis; but that also begs the question. Why can't lenders do independent analyses to recognize that there's virtually zero current risk?

(And as the author points out -- we have a pump system! How many other "flood zones" can say that?)

It's a frustrating situation, and I can't help feel that Foster City is being victimized. P will indeed probably pass -- there doesn't appear to even be a "No on P" campaign organized. I think this author is probably correct when he says:

"Rather than engage in a costly and likely fruitless battle, the city was smart to acquiesce and proceed with all due haste . . ."

That doesn't mean we have to like it.