I used to write off Annie's statements as mad raving, but the more I see how Sam acts the more I'm starting to think she might be telling the truth after all.
The flood-risk zones requiring flood insurance are insufficient to rely solely upon being forced to get insurance. Some floods extend past those zones or hit areas not covered by them.
Echoing a sibling comment, lots of landlords require it now, and the basic packages that insurers offer you as a bundle with auto or other forms of insurance are pretty decent, depending on state.
Typically seems like $100-200 per year for coverage that would handle the loss of most of one's possessions, provided you don't get screwed by "well, you don't have the receipt" or "we only cover water ingress, not floods or leaks".
What do you consider useful? While I do not know how easy it is to make a claim, but my policy is a bit over $100 annual and covers some $20-30k loss. Which feels more than sufficient.
Hopefully, I never have to use it, and it is just a tax I pay.
I'm talking about people buying houses near a river that floods regularly and not purchasing flood insurance. Someone else brought up renter's insurance in response to my comment about flood insurance. Renter's insurance is cheap, btw. I have something like $300k coverage for less than $10/month bundled with my car insurance.
Probably a lot? I've moved around a bunch over the past 20 years, so have had several landlords. I think all of them for the past decade have required proof of insurance when signing the lease. I don't think anyone I rented from required it before 2018ish
The rep who introduced the bill quoted Hitler in a speech 2 days into her term. And then she spent the next 5 years advocating for horrible, repressive legislation. Disgusting.
Also don't make usernames that reference old message boards or any of my interests. Maybe sprinkle in some mentions of fake hobbies and jobs and places I've lived too.
Ownership of paintball guns is regulated under the state-level firearms act in most (all?) states and territories.
You can use them under the direct supervision of the licensed owner, but it's still quite restrictive. If you were to take one and shoot at cameras on the street it would vandalism plus firearms offences, most of which start at inversion of innocence, massive fines and move pretty quickly into prison time.
If you actually purchased one yourself in Queensland, you would need a Cat A firearms license, genuine reason, permit to acquire, safe storage etc as for a firearm.
NSW used to be similar, but a few years ago the state government had a rare moment of common sense and did away with most of that pointless bullshit.
reply