PDA

View Full Version : Homes In Ruins From Tornadoes Denied Aid By FEMA For ‘Insufficient Damage’



Serpo
13th June 2011, 05:11 PM
Homes In Ruins From Tornadoes Denied Aid By FEMA For ‘Insufficient Damage’
Posted by Real News Reporter on June 13th, 2011
tornado-1-620x408

Jefferson County resident Jonathan Stewart said he laughed in shock after the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) claimed the house his family lost in the deadly April 27 twister was ‘not unsafe to live in’.

Displaced families in tornado-ravaged Alabama are outraged after being denied federal aide to rebuild their flattened homes – due to ‘insufficient damage’.

The devastating reality is the house is now a concrete slab surrounded by rubble.



Mr Stewart told AL.com a FEMA inspector saw first-hand the Pleasant Grove residence he shared with his wife, Lisa, and their two children was ripped from the ground. Three days after the visit, however, he received a letter reading: ‘Based on your FEMA inspection, we have determined that the disaster has not caused your home to be unsafe to live in.

‘Although the disaster may have caused some minor damage it is reasonable to expect you or your landlord to make these repairs. At this time you are not eligible for FEMA housing assistance.’

Mr Stewart told the website: ‘Lisa and I looked at the letter and laughed.’ While he has since found out his insurance coverage will replace his house, the family is not alone.

Lashunta Tabb’s home 15 miles away in North Smithfield Manor was stripped of its siding, and more than half of her roof blew off with tornado-force winds.

She too, received a letter claiming there was ‘insufficient damage’ – the number one reason in Alabama the people are determined ineligible for FEMA grants, worth up to $30,200.

It is not yet known how many Alabama tornado victims received the letter.

FEMA deputy branch director for individual assistance Lynda Lowe said finding of insifficient damage are often correct, and many of those who filed for assistance did not have damage.

FEMA officials encourage whose who believe they were wrongly declared ineligible to file for an appeal through local disaster recovery centres.

Spokesman Renee Bafalis said: ‘If you have a question why you received a determination of ineligibility, go in there and let them look it up and help you file an appeal.’

A report issued on Wednesday, however, revealed few disaster victims follow through.

It showed less than one percent of the 25,081 applicants initially declared ineligible for any reason had appealed, leaving the potential for millions of dollars in federal aide to go unclaimed.

An applicant has 60 days from the date of the determination letter to appeal.

It was not known at press time how many applicants were declared ineligible in Alabama due to insufficient damage. However, similar findings have occurred after nearly every recent disaster.

THE BUREAUCRACY BEHIND APPLYING FOR FEMA AIDE:

When a disaster victim applies for a FEMA grant, an inspector is dispatched to the applicant’s property.

Inspectors carry laptops connected to a database called NEMIS (National Emergency Management Information System), which guides them through measuring rooms and assessing damage.

Items marked for repair or replacement are priced depending on the geographic region.

Letters are issued based on the computerised report, telling an applicant whether he qualifies for FEMA assistance.

An applicant has 60 days from the date of the determination letter to appeal.

What qualifies as ‘insufficient damage’ remains unclear.

A pending lawsuit accusing FEMA of improperly denying thousands of farm workers in Texas money to repair their homes after Hurricane Dolly struck in 2008 based on the insufficient damage finding claims that FEMA used a concept called ‘deferred maintenance’ to back the rejections.

Deferred maintenance is not referenced in any regulation, Jerry Wesevich, an attorney with Texas Rio Grande Legal Aid who represents the plaintiffs, told AL.com.

Mr Wesevich described deferred maintenance as a ‘shorthand term that FEMA uses when it determines somehow that a condition of a home prior to the disaster caused the damage after the storm’.

An Alabama inspectors’ coordinator for FEMA said deferred maintenance is no longer used in assessing damage, although there is a place for inspectors to note ‘pre-existing’ conditions.

http://www.realnewsreporter.com/?p=5389

mick silver
13th June 2011, 05:16 PM
seen this on the news today .... there was no house there . what a joke we have for a government

ximmy
13th June 2011, 05:23 PM
In the meantime more aid for israel ensues...

As cities and states shutdown basic programs and sell off parks and lands due to a lack of money, Israel will ask the U.S. for $20 billion in additional military aid. This is being supported by various members of Congress and the Administration, who continue to spend wildly abroad while demanding cuts in education, the environment, and other programs at home.

In an interview with the Wall Street Journal Defense Minister Ehud Barak has said that the unrest in the Arab world requires billions more from the United States for Israel. Israel had criticized the United States for not propping up dictators like Mubarak.

Israel already receives $3 billion in military aid a year from the U.S. — an amount criticized by some as excessive, particularly in these difficult economic times. Ron Paul has sought to end foreign aid to countries like Israel and Egypt. Not only was that proposal defeated, but an increase in aid is likely to be approved.

In the meantime, Americans continue to struggle financially as their leaders spend billions of dollars abroad. I believe in foreign aid but there has to be some logical limit when citizens are being told that their cities and states are near or at bankruptcy.

http://jonathanturley.org/2011/03/10/israel-to-seek-20-billion-more-in-u-s-aid/

Gaillo
13th June 2011, 05:28 PM
what a joke we have for a government

Yeah... and not even a funny one! :(

po boy
14th June 2011, 04:24 AM
If your roof blows off or your house floods then you should probably contact your insurance agent, if you made the choice for whatever reason to not purchase insurance then I believe you should be on your own.
Events in life happen and that is why I purchase insurance on my place and don't feel I should also pay to replace yours because you rolled the dice and didn't carry insurance.

I agree problem is they still are taxed and are received nothing. Take away taxes and the on your own policy is fair. As far as insurance it is a scam most would be better off putting those premiums in a hole in the ground. If they look back through past weather patterns they may find safer places to live.

Twisted Titan
14th June 2011, 06:26 AM
insurance companies are in the business of taking your hard earned money and giving you nothing in return......and if you file a claim they fight tooth and nail to deny it

JDRock
14th June 2011, 07:12 AM
dont worry...all those european and 3rd world shitholes we have been sending aid to for 50 years are now LINING UP TO GIVE AID! eyeroll...

JJ.G0ldD0t
14th June 2011, 07:50 AM
insurance companies are in the business of taking your hard earned money and giving you nothing in return......and if you file a claim they fight tooth and nail to deny it

I have known instances where this proves true - At the same time, Insurance could not have become an "industry" by never paying out. Kinda be hard to keep clients that way.

Perfect world / the free market rules. You buy insurance, fire falls from on high- insurance fulfills their contract.
This is not a perfect world. Most have been conditioned to rely on our Broke ass gov't with their hand in our pocket at the point of a gun. Then expect .gov to take care of it.

We are right where they want us.

madfranks
14th June 2011, 08:24 AM
This shouldn't come as a surprise to anyone who knows that to government, policy comes first and results are secondary. You could be dying on the side of the road and if it was against their policy they wouldn't help you. Remember a couple weeks ago the firemen who wouldn't save the drowning guy because they didn't have their wet gear and it was against policy to go in the water without it? As they sat there and watched, a good samaritan jumped in and saved the guy. Frikkin' government.