FEMA trailers cause denial for relief - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

Poppinjay · 02-24-2006, 11:03 AM

First FEMA allows 22,000 people to be turned out to the streets by discontinuing their motel program while keeping almost the same number of trailers stuck empty in an Arkansas mud hole, now those lucky enough to get a trailer are being denied when they apply to various agencies for relief in dealing with the aftermath of Katrina.

Why?

Because these trailers, which people do have to pay to rent and which belong to FEMA and will be taken back eventually, are considered an asset to those renting them. Under this logic, if you take a cab to the airport, that cab is a financial asset you have to declare. Or if you take the subway to the welfare office, I guess you would have to claim the train.

And these trailers which are not much more than a box with basics are considered a $10,000 asset. So people are not getting aid because they "own" a $10k asset. They can't sell it. They can't even keep it, move it, paint it, or sublet it. But it's an asset.

This news comes on the heels of Mike Chertoff saying he would be releasing several FEMA "products" and other aid to help people. I feel incredulous that this screwed up agency continues to find new and innovative ways to make victims of Katrina its prison bitch.

samcol · 02-24-2006, 12:49 PM

The only thing I can even think of is that the relief is intended to go this bad. There is a group of people who want nothing less than the military to be called in at the drop of a hat for any type of national disaster or terrorist event (real or just scares). The only way they can get this is if the FEMA continues to fail. I see news reports every now and then that basically ask questions like "in the next terror attack/natural disaster/ bird flu attack will we have to call in the troops?" Although I don't have exact quotes I've seen Bush call for that kind of power in speeches.

ObieX · 02-24-2006, 01:27 PM

Well, i think that some coaxing to get them off the government funds is needed. They've gotta start rebuilding their lives at some point, and they can't do that when they're getting everything handed to them. I know they *lost* everything.. but that doesn't mean they don't have to work to rebuild their own lives.

The whole military thing on the home soil makes me worry too. Isn't there something somewhere that specifically prevents the army from being deployed on US soil? Like.. isn't it against the law? Of course that doesn't apply to the new agencies. Which is what government tends to do (especially these days).. if one agency is specifically forbidden to do something just form another one that works the exact same way and name it something different and the problem is solved. Loopholes are your best friend. Cuz its not about the spirit of the law its about the exact fine tuned wording. and even then only an interpretation of what that specific exact wording is supposed to mean.

Poppinjay · 02-24-2006, 01:35 PM

It's a short to expect them to have it all together at this time. When Floyd hit where I lived, there were people in alternative housing for three years. In very many cases, there are still no houses to go back to or businesses to work for.

aceventura3 · 02-24-2006, 01:47 PM

And to think some people want more government in our lives. They want government bigger and bigger and bigger. When will they realize that people helping people is always going to be better than government "taking" (through taxes) from one person to give to another.

I suggest we get rid of FEMA. They clearly added no value, so what's the point of the agency existing.

Poppinjay · 02-25-2006, 08:58 AM

I disagree. FEMA worked very well under James Lee Witt, and also pretty decent under Julius Becton. The agency provided a great deal of aid during hurricanes Floyd, David, and Hugo.

The big difference then? FEMA was an independent agency. Now it's under the auspices of Homeland Security.

I do agree in one respect, Homeland's first change to FEMA was to add 50% more government beauracracy that it didn't need. I'm not sure why this administration thought that was a good idea.

ubertuber · 02-25-2006, 09:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

When will they realize that people helping people is always going to be better than government "taking" (through taxes) from one person to give to another.

I suggest we get rid of FEMA. They clearly added no value, so what's the point of the agency existing.

This is a little confusing ace. Reading between the lines, I'm gathering that you think charity helping people is better than government taking taxes and helping people?

I can understand where that point comes from, but at some level there has to be a coordinating agency or party to make sure that all of the individual charities aren't out buying water and no one buys blankets... That's an extreme example, but Katrina did show us that a major disaster brings up a lot of different needs and a lot of problems that only have long term solutions. To me, thats a formula that requires coordination by a government agency - I just don't see any other way to do it. I've also never (yet) heard a plan to accomplish that sort of large scale disaster response that sounded feasible.

So, on the whole FEMA is better than no FEMA, but competent FEMA is best of all...

aceventura3 · 02-27-2006, 10:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ubertuber

This is a little confusing ace. Reading between the lines, I'm gathering that you think charity helping people is better than government taking taxes and helping people?

I can understand where that point comes from, but at some level there has to be a coordinating agency or party to make sure that all of the individual charities aren't out buying water and no one buys blankets... That's an extreme example, but Katrina did show us that a major disaster brings up a lot of different needs and a lot of problems that only have long term solutions. To me, thats a formula that requires coordination by a government agency - I just don't see any other way to do it. I've also never (yet) heard a plan to accomplish that sort of large scale disaster response that sounded feasible.

So, on the whole FEMA is better than no FEMA, but competent FEMA is best of all...

I think we had the most effective results from regular people and even from comapnies like the often hated Walmart. They responded with truckloads of needed items. I voted for Bush, but Walmart was delivering needed items before Bush did his first fly over.

I have confidence in people. Remember the 16 year-old kid who took a school bus a drove it full of people to Huston. He "coordinated" his trip while FEMA was "coordinating" conference calls. I also remember a story about a guy who chartered a plane with his own money to deliver supplies and then to take people out. He did this while congress watched it all on TV or did talk shows The stories go on and on. I stand by my point. FEMA added no value and people helping people is better than government helping people.

Poppinjay · 02-27-2006, 11:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

I think we had the most effective results from regular people and even from comapnies like the often hated Walmart. They responded with truckloads of needed items. I voted for Bush, but Walmart was delivering needed items before Bush did his first fly over.

I have confidence in people. Remember the 16 year-old kid who took a school bus a drove it full of people to Huston. He "coordinated" his trip while FEMA was "coordinating" conference calls. I also remember a story about a guy who chartered a plane with his own money to deliver supplies and then to take people out. He did this while congress watched it all on TV or did talk shows The stories go on and on. I stand by my point. FEMA added no value and people helping people is better than government helping people.

Anecdotes do not equal data. If anything, Katrina proved how ineffectual it is for random people to provide the rescue effort. After previous disasters, FEMA operated extremely well. Now that Bush has placed them under homeland security, they are extremely ineffectual.

I guess if his whole plan was to destroy FEMA, that was the perfect way to do it. Otherwise, it was one of the few truly decent agencies that did good work before Bush, Chertoff, and Brownie got their mitts on it.

aceventura3 · 02-27-2006, 02:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Poppinjay

Anecdotes do not equal data. If anything, Katrina proved how ineffectual it is for random people to provide the rescue effort. After previous disasters, FEMA operated extremely well. Now that Bush has placed them under homeland security, they are extremely ineffectual.

I guess if his whole plan was to destroy FEMA, that was the perfect way to do it. Otherwise, it was one of the few truly decent agencies that did good work before Bush, Chertoff, and Brownie got their mitts on it.

Yes I gave anecdotes, but all you gave was an opinion.

Here is another anecdote. I lived in Southern California during and after the '94 Northridge earthquake. FEMA added no value then either. The result was rampant fruad with many people taking advantage of grants and low interest loans. And now we still have most people without earthquake insurance, sitting back waiting for the next earthquake and remembering that FEMA will come to the rescue with "free" money. I call that a big negative, and certainly not adding an value.

I also remember after the earthquack people coming together and helping one another in ways that had never happend before and has not happened since.

Here is some data. California gets back $.75 for every dollar sent to the federal government. What if California got to keep a protion of that $.25? Then the state might not need federal government dollars to help repair highways after a big earthquake. If the state doesn't have to deal with the federal government then things get done faster. Now how can you argue with that? I guess you have to assume the folks in Washingto are smarter than the folks are locally. I don't believe that for one second. Do you?

P.S. I just looked at your sig, you are in Washington. I guess I know the answer to my question.

Poppinjay · 02-28-2006, 05:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

Yes I gave anecdotes, but all you gave was an opinion.

Here is another anecdote. I lived in Southern California during and after the '94 Northridge earthquake. FEMA added no value then either. The result was rampant fruad with many people taking advantage of grants and low interest loans. And now we still have most people without earthquake insurance, sitting back waiting for the next earthquake and remembering that FEMA will come to the rescue with "free" money. I call that a big negative, and certainly not adding an value.

I also remember after the earthquack people coming together and helping one another in ways that had never happend before and has not happened since.

Here is some data. California gets back $.75 for every dollar sent to the federal government. What if California got to keep a protion of that $.25? Then the state might not need federal government dollars to help repair highways after a big earthquake. If the state doesn't have to deal with the federal government then things get done faster. Now how can you argue with that? I guess you have to assume the folks in Washingto are smarter than the folks are locally. I don't believe that for one second. Do you?

P.S. I just looked at your sig, you are in Washington. I guess I know the answer to my question.

I've only lived here two months. I developed an appreciation for FEMA from living for years in Hurricane Alley on the southeast coast.

And I don't work for the federal government.

As far as offering just my opinion, look at the OP. The data is that people are being abused by a system that is supposed to help. This is an agency that has done great things in the past. All I can offer for data on that is the dead bodies that DIDN'T exist after Hugo, Floyd, David, Isabelle...

aceventura3 · 02-28-2006, 07:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Poppinjay

I've only lived here two months. I developed an appreciation for FEMA from living for years in Hurricane Alley on the southeast coast.

And I don't work for the federal government.

As far as offering just my opinion, look at the OP. The data is that people are being abused by a system that is supposed to help. This is an agency that has done great things in the past. All I can offer for data on that is the dead bodies that DIDN'T exist after Hugo, Floyd, David, Isabelle...

I look at the net results. When you add up the good things FEMA has done and subtract the bad things the net result is bad.

Overtime what happens is that people become more and more reliant on the agency as opposed to taking initiative and advance preparation. The first disaster FEMA responded to was like a godsend, because no one had expectations and they were happy with the added assistance. The second time people saw what FEMA did and thought o.k. we have that part taken care of, then FEMA steps in and does a good job. Then the third time, people say o.k. FEMA is really good we will rely on them even more. So everyone starts "building a house of cards" with higher and higher expectations of FEMA while taking less and less initiative and advance planning. The house of cards finally fell, at the cost of thousands of lives who may have been saved if people were not sitting around thinking FEMA was going to save the day.

I believe the original intent of FEMA was to dole out money, and not handle initial response. With Katrina, everyone got to the point of thinking that FEMA was going to come in and solve every issue. They did not have the capacity to do that. And shame on us for thinking they should or could.

When you have a remote government agency responsible for those things that should be planned for and handled locally you end up with what happened after Katrina, a disaster after the disaster. It is time for people to stop waiting for the federal government to come in a save the day.

Do you think it is possible for a federal agency to be able to provide initial response for every possible natural disaster in this country? What role do you think local planners should play? How big would FEMA have to be to coordinate with the disaster recovery plans of every city in the country for initial response? What role should state governments play? You already know how I would answer these questions, but I am not clear on where you would want to go with FEMA.

Poppinjay · 02-28-2006, 08:03 AM

FEMA is actually a coordination agency, not a government dole. Nobody is getting free trailers or rent or a steak dinner on our dime from FEMA. People staying in the trailers have to pay the cost of their residency. Then, eventually, FEMA takes back the trailers.

You can't rely on hoping some nice person will come along and build a levy. You can't rely on hoping some nice person will come along and bus people out of town. You can't even rely on any corporation to provide relief or aid in times of disaster. When it happens, it's a great help. But a coordinating agency is needed, and FEMA has done a good job of it up until this administration added layers of government to it by placing it under the auspices of Homeland Security.

aceventura3 · 02-28-2006, 08:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Poppinjay

You can't rely on hoping some nice person will come along and build a levy.

Things get built when there is an economic need for them to be built. At least that is the way the system was designed to work. In New Orleans you had failures because: City looked to state and Federal; State looked to City and Federal; Federal looked to City and State. They spend millions on the Super Dome but don't spend money on the levey. That is government failure. And you want more government? Because of the NFL the Super Dome will be ready for use before most of the destroyed homes. Why? Because the nice folks at the NFL said if you want pro football fix the Dome ASAP.

Quote:

You can't rely on hoping some nice person will come along and bus people out of town. You can't even rely on any corporation to provide relief or aid in times of disaster.

Why not?

Yes, each city and state should have emergency plans. If people know that other people need help, you can bet help will be on the way. When people think government is going to handle it they sit back and think government will handle it.

Quote:

But a coordinating agency is needed, and FEMA has done a good job of it up until this administration added layers of government to it by placing it under the auspices of Homeland Security.

Are we really talking about FEMA or is this really just to bash Bush?

Poppinjay · 02-28-2006, 10:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

Things get built when there is an economic need for them to be built. At least that is the way the system was designed to work. In New Orleans you had failures because: City looked to state and Federal; State looked to City and Federal; Federal looked to City and State. They spend millions on the Super Dome but don't spend money on the levey. That is government failure. And you want more government? Because of the NFL the Super Dome will be ready for use before most of the destroyed homes. Why? Because the nice folks at the NFL said if you want pro football fix the Dome ASAP.

I'll agree with this in some respect. The Superdome is going to be re-furbished before any low income housing or levy, but not because the NFL is threatening to remove pro football, but because pro football generates millions of dollars, especially in NOLA where the super bowl is a frequent lessee.

Likewise, if people built stadiums and signed TV deals to watch levees being built, they'd be built quicker and more durable than ever thought possible.

But people don't really care to watch levees being built, and it is the short sightedness of local businesses to make re-building the dome a priority.

Quote:

Are we really talking about FEMA or is this really just to bash Bush?

How am I bashing Bush? I'm just trying to make clear what has gone wrong with FEMA. It's long been a right wing paranoia that FEMA could take over the country in the right circumstances. After the creation of homeland security, FEMA was tucked away under its umbrella with several layers of bureaucracy to null it. Then to render it completely useless, they placed a manager at the head of the agency who lied on his resume that he had been head of disaster preparedness in Oklahoma City when it turns out he was little more than a secretary who gave a political donation to the right folks in the right amount.

aceventura3 · 02-28-2006, 02:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Poppinjay

I'll agree with this in some respect. The Superdome is going to be re-furbished before any low income housing or levy, but not because the NFL is threatening to remove pro football, but because pro football generates millions of dollars, especially in NOLA where the super bowl is a frequent lessee.

The Super Bowl is not going to be in NOLA for a long time, if ever again. The odds are that the Saints will leave NOLA. The NFL is concerned that there will be enough people to fill the Superdome for the eight regular season games scheduled.

So, not only do we have the issue with the trailers, but we also have FEMA spending millions on the Superdome for 8 games, while homes rot. This is bordering on insanity, but thats what you get with big government agencies. I don't want FEMA bigger, I want to get rid of it. I bet we could re-visit this post and have the same discussion about the same kinds of problems when Hilary Clinton is President

Quote:

Likewise, if people built stadiums and signed TV deals to watch levees being built, they'd be built quicker and more durable than ever thought possible.

But people don't really care to watch levees being built, and it is the short sightedness of local businesses to make re-building the dome a priority.

When my grandfather was alive he lived on and worked some farm land near a levy. He cared about the levy, and did not give a crap about sports. He would inspect the levy all the time, as would others. Oops, I sorry - thats another anecdote.

Quote:

How am I bashing Bush? I'm just trying to make clear what has gone wrong with FEMA. It's long been a right wing paranoia that FEMA could take over the country in the right circumstances. After the creation of homeland security, FEMA was tucked away under its umbrella with several layers of bureaucracy to null it. Then to render it completely useless, they placed a manager at the head of the agency who lied on his resume that he had been head of disaster preparedness in Oklahoma City when it turns out he was little more than a secretary who gave a political donation to the right folks in the right amount.

At one point I actually thought Bush should go in with the military and take control of the state, but that would have been unconstitutional. The federal government has to work with the state government and is not able to do anything without the state's o.k.. With so many layers of authority nothing is going to get done fast.

You lived in Florida, after a hurricane there, isn't the initial response handled by the State and local folks? What did FEMA actually do for you?

Poppinjay · 03-01-2006, 05:33 AM

Actually I lived in eastern North Carolina during Hugo, Floyd, and Isabelle.

I didn’t need anything done for me personally because I lived in a house that had been through hurricanes since 1765. What helped me indirectly was that FEMA provided trailers for at cost rent to the hundreds of people who were left homeless. FEMA also negotiated loan and delivery of equipment for my business so that we could get back to full functionality quicker than if we had to wait for the ordering process to take place. At that point, we were an island so no mail was coming in anyways.

Additionally, FEMA drew up a proposal to equip police and coast guard in our area with a compatible communications system to make communicating work better during times like that. It was one of the last things FEMA did before becoming a part of homeland security.

aceventura3 · 03-01-2006, 09:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Poppinjay

Actually I lived in eastern North Carolina during Hugo, Floyd, and Isabelle.

I didn’t need anything done for me personally because I lived in a house that had been through hurricanes since 1765. What helped me indirectly was that FEMA provided trailers for at cost rent to the hundreds of people who were left homeless. FEMA also negotiated loan and delivery of equipment for my business so that we could get back to full functionality quicker than if we had to wait for the ordering process to take place. At that point, we were an island so no mail was coming in anyways.

Additionally, FEMA drew up a proposal to equip police and coast guard in our area with a compatible communications system to make communicating work better during times like that. It was one of the last things FEMA did before becoming a part of homeland security.

Why do you think the folks in NOLA thought FEMA was going to handle evacuation, food, water, medical, rescue, security, communications, etc, right after Katrina? What you described above, seems to me, to be an acceptable role for FEMA, if we have to keep it. But like I said in an earlier post, in CA when FEMA set up, people who I thought were honest, lied to get "free" money. It was a major contrast, on one hand you had people doing heroic things to help others, then you had rampant fruad. It was a defining moment for me.

02-24-2006, 11:03 AM	#1 (permalink)
Poppinjay You had me at hello Location: DC/Coastal VA	FEMA trailers cause denial for relief First FEMA allows 22,000 people to be turned out to the streets by discontinuing their motel program while keeping almost the same number of trailers stuck empty in an Arkansas mud hole, now those lucky enough to get a trailer are being denied when they apply to various agencies for relief in dealing with the aftermath of Katrina. Why? Because these trailers, which people do have to pay to rent and which belong to FEMA and will be taken back eventually, are considered an asset to those renting them. Under this logic, if you take a cab to the airport, that cab is a financial asset you have to declare. Or if you take the subway to the welfare office, I guess you would have to claim the train. And these trailers which are not much more than a box with basics are considered a $10,000 asset. So people are not getting aid because they "own" a $10k asset. They can't sell it. They can't even keep it, move it, paint it, or sublet it. But it's an asset. This news comes on the heels of Mike Chertoff saying he would be releasing several FEMA "products" and other aid to help people. I feel incredulous that this screwed up agency continues to find new and innovative ways to make victims of Katrina its prison bitch. __________________ I think the Apocalypse is happening all around us. We go on eating desserts and watching TV. I know I do. I wish we were more capable of sustained passion and sustained resistance. We should be screaming and what we do is gossip. -Lydia Millet

02-24-2006, 01:27 PM	#3 (permalink)
ObieX Pickles Location: Shirt and Pants (NJ)	Well, i think that some coaxing to get them off the government funds is needed. They've gotta start rebuilding their lives at some point, and they can't do that when they're getting everything handed to them. I know they lost everything.. but that doesn't mean they don't have to work to rebuild their own lives. The whole military thing on the home soil makes me worry too. Isn't there something somewhere that specifically prevents the army from being deployed on US soil? Like.. isn't it against the law? Of course that doesn't apply to the new agencies. Which is what government tends to do (especially these days).. if one agency is specifically forbidden to do something just form another one that works the exact same way and name it something different and the problem is solved. Loopholes are your best friend. Cuz its not about the spirit of the law its about the exact fine tuned wording. and even then only an interpretation of what that specific exact wording is supposed to mean. __________________ We Must Dissent.

02-24-2006, 01:35 PM	#4 (permalink)
Poppinjay You had me at hello Location: DC/Coastal VA	It's a short to expect them to have it all together at this time. When Floyd hit where I lived, there were people in alternative housing for three years. In very many cases, there are still no houses to go back to or businesses to work for. __________________ I think the Apocalypse is happening all around us. We go on eating desserts and watching TV. I know I do. I wish we were more capable of sustained passion and sustained resistance. We should be screaming and what we do is gossip. -Lydia Millet

02-24-2006, 01:47 PM	#5 (permalink)
aceventura3 Junkie Location: Ventura County	And to think some people want more government in our lives. They want government bigger and bigger and bigger. When will they realize that people helping people is always going to be better than government "taking" (through taxes) from one person to give to another. I suggest we get rid of FEMA. They clearly added no value, so what's the point of the agency existing. __________________ "Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on lunch." "It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions on vegetarianism while the wolf is of a different opinion." "If you live among wolves you have to act like one." "A lady screams at the mouse but smiles at the wolf. A gentleman is a wolf who sends flowers."

02-25-2006, 08:58 AM	#6 (permalink)
Poppinjay You had me at hello Location: DC/Coastal VA	I disagree. FEMA worked very well under James Lee Witt, and also pretty decent under Julius Becton. The agency provided a great deal of aid during hurricanes Floyd, David, and Hugo. The big difference then? FEMA was an independent agency. Now it's under the auspices of Homeland Security. I do agree in one respect, Homeland's first change to FEMA was to add 50% more government beauracracy that it didn't need. I'm not sure why this administration thought that was a good idea. __________________ I think the Apocalypse is happening all around us. We go on eating desserts and watching TV. I know I do. I wish we were more capable of sustained passion and sustained resistance. We should be screaming and what we do is gossip. -Lydia Millet

02-24-2006, 12:49 PM	#2 (permalink)
samcol Junkie Location: Indiana	The only thing I can even think of is that the relief is intended to go this bad. There is a group of people who want nothing less than the military to be called in at the drop of a hat for any type of national disaster or terrorist event (real or just scares). The only way they can get this is if the FEMA continues to fail. I see news reports every now and then that basically ask questions like "in the next terror attack/natural disaster/ bird flu attack will we have to call in the troops?" Although I don't have exact quotes I've seen Bush call for that kind of power in speeches.

02-28-2006, 08:03 AM	#13 (permalink)
Poppinjay You had me at hello Location: DC/Coastal VA	FEMA is actually a coordination agency, not a government dole. Nobody is getting free trailers or rent or a steak dinner on our dime from FEMA. People staying in the trailers have to pay the cost of their residency. Then, eventually, FEMA takes back the trailers. You can't rely on hoping some nice person will come along and build a levy. You can't rely on hoping some nice person will come along and bus people out of town. You can't even rely on any corporation to provide relief or aid in times of disaster. When it happens, it's a great help. But a coordinating agency is needed, and FEMA has done a good job of it up until this administration added layers of government to it by placing it under the auspices of Homeland Security. __________________ I think the Apocalypse is happening all around us. We go on eating desserts and watching TV. I know I do. I wish we were more capable of sustained passion and sustained resistance. We should be screaming and what we do is gossip. -Lydia Millet

03-01-2006, 05:33 AM	#17 (permalink)
Poppinjay You had me at hello Location: DC/Coastal VA	Actually I lived in eastern North Carolina during Hugo, Floyd, and Isabelle. I didn’t need anything done for me personally because I lived in a house that had been through hurricanes since 1765. What helped me indirectly was that FEMA provided trailers for at cost rent to the hundreds of people who were left homeless. FEMA also negotiated loan and delivery of equipment for my business so that we could get back to full functionality quicker than if we had to wait for the ordering process to take place. At that point, we were an island so no mail was coming in anyways. Additionally, FEMA drew up a proposal to equip police and coast guard in our area with a compatible communications system to make communicating work better during times like that. It was one of the last things FEMA did before becoming a part of homeland security. __________________ I think the Apocalypse is happening all around us. We go on eating desserts and watching TV. I know I do. I wish we were more capable of sustained passion and sustained resistance. We should be screaming and what we do is gossip. -Lydia Millet