Would a $250 monthly saving justify renting a ground-floor flat with a flood history?
Housing"The building is insured," the manager said when I asked about the new skirting boards. My partner squeezed my hand as if that settled it. Outside, he said, "Two hundred and fifty a month is money we could actually save."
We're comparing two US rentals: $1,600 for this ground-floor flat and $1,850 for an upstairs place across town. The cheaper one is nearer both our jobs. The manager told us water entered during a storm three years ago and said drainage work has since been completed. We haven't seen the repair details. There's no visible damage now, and I can't tell from a pleasant viewing what the route out would be like during severe weather.
The [National Flood Insurance Program's renter guidance](https://agents.floodsmart.gov/topics/selling-flood-insurance/campaigns/flood-insurance-renters) explains that standard renters insurance doesn't cover flood damage and a landlord's flood policy doesn't cover our belongings. So "the building is insured" hasn't answered the question I was asking. We haven't obtained a contents-only flood quote yet.
I don't want to treat a past flood as proof it will happen again. I also don't want to count the full $250 as savings before understanding the remaining costs and disruption. What information would make this a reasonable choice, and what uncertainty would be too much?