FEMA rejects aid claims on homes battered by tornado

[Bad_Daddy 2,209]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/yblog_thelookout/20110614/ts_yblog_thelookout/citing-insufficient-damage-fema-rejects-aid-claims-on-homes-battered-by-tornado

When that tornado ripped through Alabama in late April, it turned Jonathan Stewart's house into a pile of rubble.

Soon afterward, an inspector from the Federal Emergency Management Agency came to the house--or what remained of it, anyway--in Pleasant Grove, near Birmingham, where Stewart, his wife Lisa, and their two kids live. The inspector took pictures and notes, as part of a process to allow the Stewarts to get help from the disaster relief agency.

But a few days later, Stewart received a letter from FEMA. "Based on your FEMA inspection, we have determined that the disaster has not caused your home to be unsafe to live in," the letter said. It informed Stewart that he didn't qualify for a FEMA grant--in part because his home had suffered "insufficient damage."

"Lisa and I looked at the letter and laughed," Stewart told the Birmingham News.

The Stewarts weren't alone. The home of Lashunta Tabb, who lives in a town nearby, had half its roof blown off and three damaged walls, and its siding stripped off. She said it's uninhabitable. But FEMA also turned her claim down, citing the same reason: insufficient damage.

"Although the disaster may have caused some minor damage, it is reasonable to expect you or your landlord to make these repairs," the letters received by both Tabb and the Stewarts said. "At this time you are not eligible for FEMA housing assistance."

FEMA has said that people who think they were incorrectly turned down for aid should appeal the decision. But it said that less than 1 percent of those declared ineligible had done so.

In fact, Stewart said he has since found out that his insurance coverage will replace his house, meaning he's ineligible for a FEMA grant anyway.

But he added that he wonders how many other people there who might qualify for FEMA funds, but received that same "insufficient damage" finding, and abandoned the process in frustration.

FEMA has issued similarly head-scratching "insufficient damage" findings in response to several other recent disasters, including Hurricane Katrina in 2005, and Hurricane Dolly, which ravaged Texas in 2008. A pending lawsuit charges that the agency improperly denied aid to thousands of poor farm workers whose homes were badly damaged by Dolly.

But some say FEMA is in a no-win position. After the 2004 Florida hurricanes and Hurricane Katrina, the agency came in for heavy criticism from both Congress's General Accounting Office and detractors in the press, for paying out money to people who shouldn't have qualified.

"In Katrina they lost so much money because they were not careful about payout," Clare Rubin, a disaster management consultant, told the News. "The GAO hit them hard."

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

They're just trying to please Eric Cantor. He made it clear: no cuts in the budget no help for disaster victims. Just that simple.

[Staashi 371]

It's called duplication of benefits - if insurance will take care of your claim, you cannot receive FEMA nor HUD benefits. It is fraud.

[slim 1,533]

It's called duplication of benefits - if insurance will take care of your claim, you cannot receive FEMA nor HUD benefits. It is fraud.

Just like all other government programs. If you work hard and/or pay for it yourself through prior planning and/or good money policy, you're not eligible for help. But, if you have no plan at all and no money, the government will take care of you.

[Zero Sum 305]

This is the house apparently. Yep, seems livable to me.

I sense a retraction is coming soon. Unless there's more to the story and as Staashi says, there may be some other form of storm damage insurance at play.

[Usui Takumi 1,562]

This is the house apparently. Yep, seems livable to me.

I sense a retraction is coming soon. Unless there's more to the story and as Staashi says, there may be some other form of storm damage insurance at play.

Haha, that is laughable.

[slim 1,533]

I still don't understand why it's the government's job to pay for your house when it gets destroyed.

I sense the irony in FEMA ruling this house is still liveable but that still doesn't explain why we find it necessary for the government to hand out money after a natural disaster.

A responsible homeowner should have insurance or a plan of action in the event their home is destroyed. If they don't, why is it my responsibility to pay for it? Why is it yours?

[Zero Sum 305]

I still don't understand why it's the government's job to pay for your house when it gets destroyed.

I sense the irony in FEMA ruling this house is still liveable but that still doesn't explain why we find it necessary for the government to hand out money after a natural disaster.

A responsible homeowner should have insurance or a plan of action in the event their home is destroyed. If they don't, why is it my responsibility to pay for it? Why is it yours?

Because in concept that's what civilized societies do for its members.

But to be specific, we're talking about Aid for which is applied for and loans that can also be applied for.

[slim 1,533]

Because in concept that's what civilized societies do for its members.

Society, sure. Government? Not so much.

There are non-profits and aid agencies to handle that sort of thing. It's not the government's job.

But to be specific, we're talking about Aid for which is applied for and loans that can also be applied for.

Loans? I read grants. Grants aren't paid back. So, what that tells me is someone's house is destroyed and tax dollars go to pay for repair or rebuild. That's not right. I don't understand how it's legal either.

[Usui Takumi 1,562]

I still don't understand why it's the government's job to pay for your house when it gets destroyed.

I sense the irony in FEMA ruling this house is still liveable but that still doesn't explain why we find it necessary for the government to hand out money after a natural disaster.

A responsible homeowner should have insurance or a plan of action in the event their home is destroyed. If they don't, why is it my responsibility to pay for it? Why is it yours?

FEMA aid isn't that black and white. For instance, there may not be an insurance solution for certain disasters, or insurance companies may refuse to cover certain areas, properties etc.

[Usui Takumi 1,562]

Society, sure. Government? Not so much.

There are non-profits and aid agencies to handle that sort of thing. It's not the government's job.

Loans? I read grants. Grants aren't paid back. So, what that tells me is someone's house is destroyed and tax dollars go to pay for repair or rebuild. That's not right. I don't understand how it's legal either.

Its not entirely tax money, it also runs on donations.

[slim 1,533]

FEMA aid isn't that black and white. For instance, there may not be an insurance solution for certain disasters, or insurance companies may refuse to cover certain areas, properties etc.

And some folks don't even have insurance.

What doesn't make sense is why those without insurance or those not covered by insurance would be PAID by the government to rebuild their house. Those who are responsible enough to insure their place and/or take action on their own get nothing. Those who are irresponsible are rewarded. Just like everything else the government does.

[Zero Sum 305]

Society, sure. Government? Not so much.

There are non-profits and aid agencies to handle that sort of thing. It's not the government's job.

Loans? I read grants. Grants aren't paid back. So, what that tells me is someone's house is destroyed and tax dollars go to pay for repair or rebuild. That's not right. I don't understand how it's legal either.

That's why I say there are two kinds of payments- aid (grants) and loans (emergency).

Government is part of society.

But perhaps you are right. You shouldn't be forced to have your precious tax dollars help your fellow citizens when in need. You should not have to pay any tax either; and you should also be denied the benefits of tax-supported endeavors (and I do mean everything that is supported one way or another by tax revenues).

And some folks don't even have insurance.

What doesn't make sense is why those without insurance or those not covered by insurance would be PAID by the government to rebuild their house. Those who are responsible enough to insure their place and/or take action on their own get nothing. Those who are irresponsible are rewarded. Just like everything else the government does.

Well they get insurance payments that I think are a heck of a lot more than what FEMA would pay out. Win for the responsible homeowners since you want to put it into those terms.

[Usui Takumi 1,562]

And some folks don't even have insurance.

What doesn't make sense is why those without insurance or those not covered by insurance would be PAID by the government to rebuild their house. Those who are responsible enough to insure their place and/or take action on their own get nothing. Those who are irresponsible are rewarded. Just like everything else the government does.

I doubt they are on par with each other. You get what you pay for in the end.

[Ban Hammer 13,551]

But perhaps you are right. You shouldn't be forced to have your precious tax dollars help your fellow citizens when in need. You should not have to pay any tax either; and you should also be denied the benefits of tax-supported endeavors (and I do mean everything that is supported one way or another by tax revenues).

we need a single payer homeowner's insurance - with penalties for not carrying it, just like the health insurance