Is This Fair? No

[Cookiely]

PLEASE DON'T MAKE THIS POLITICAL. I'M HAPPY FOR THOSE IN LOUISIANA BUT I DON'T UNDERSTAND HOW YOU CAN OFFER ONE STATE THIS AID AND IGNORE THOSE SUFFERING IN MISSISSIPPI WHICH WAS HIT JUST AS HARD OR HARDER IN SOME SECTIONS. DO YOU THINK THIS IS FAIR?
Bush touts $4.2 billion plan for Louisiana homeowners
President eyes recovery efforts on 10th trip to devastated Gulf

Wednesday, March 8, 2006; Posted: 4:11 p.m. EST (21:11 GMT)

NEW ORLEANS, Louisiana (CNN) -- During a tour of the hurricane-damaged Gulf Coast, President Bush on Wednesday pressed Congress to pass a proposal that would reimburse up to $150,000 to each Louisiana homeowner who lost a residence to Katrina.

"We've all been working to figure out how to come up with a housing plan that will restore the confidence of the people of this important part of our country," Bush said after visiting a levee repair site in New Orleans.

"And in order to make sure that housing plan meets its goals, Congress should make sure that the $4.2 billion I requested goes to the state of Louisiana."

The $4.2 billion plan is part of a $20 billion supplemental funding bill before Congress.

If homeowners already have received funds from the Federal Emergency Management Agency or insurance payouts, the amount would be subtracted from the $150,000, said Don Powell, the administration's point man on storm recovery.

Congress is considering allowing all homeowners affected by Katrina to apply for the $4.2 billion in proposed housing aide, according to The Associated Press. Bush wants to limit access to those funds to Louisianans, the AP reported.

"I appreciate the determination by the folks down here to rebuild," Bush said. "I fully understand and I hope our country understands the pain and agony that the people of New Orleans and Louisiana and the parishes surrounding New Orleans went through."

With surveys showing his approval rating dropping, Bush stopped in New Orleans Wednesday and later visited Mississippi on his way back to Washington from his Texas ranch.

The daylong tour was the president's 10th visit to the region since the storm hit August 29, killing more than 1,300 people.

In Mississippi, Bush announced an extension of more than three months for the federal government to pay for debris removal in that state. Only about half of the rubble left by Katrina has been removed.
Levee repair

In New Orleans, Bush also urged Congress to authorize more funds for levee repair. Breached levees and resulting floods left more than three-quarters of the city underwater after the hurricane hit.

"Congress heard our message about improving the levees, but they shortchanged the process by about $1.5 billion," Bush said.

"And so, in order to help fulfill our promise on the levees, Congress needs to restore the $1.5 billion to make this a real commitment, to inspire the good folks down here that they'll have a levee system that will encourage development and reconstruction."

Questions have been raised about whether repairs to the levees will adequately protect New Orleans during the upcoming hurricane season.

The president said the first part of his strategy is to make sure the levees are strong.

"We fully understand that if people don't have confidence in the levee system, they're not going to want to come back," Bush said. "People aren't going to want to spend money or invest."

He said he had received a briefing from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers that says repairs to the levee system are on schedule to meet a June 1 deadline.

"They're identifying and correcting design and construction deficiencies so that as we go into the start of the hurricane season, the levees will be equal [to] or better than they were before Katrina," Bush said.
Lower 9th Ward

The president also toured some of the areas still in shambles. He met with debris removal workers in the hard-hit Lower 9th Ward, where this week demolition began on some 118 homes that were destroyed by floodwaters. Bodies continue to be found among the wreckage.

The president said a lot more work needs to be done to clean up the city.

"[The] vast majority of debris on public property has been removed," he said.

"Most of the remaining debris is on private property in yards or inside houses that need to be gutted or demolished. To get the debris, the residents need to give permission -- in most cases -- to the local authorities.

"The problem is obviously many homeowners are still displaced -- and that's why we're working at all levels of government to encourage evacuees to inspect their properties and to salvage what they can and to make decisions about the future."
Unemployment benefits extended

Earlier this week, the White House announced it was extending to 39 weeks the time that victims of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita can collect disaster unemployment benefits. The previous cutoff was 26 weeks.

White House spokesman Scott McClellan said Tuesday the federal government has committed some $88 billion to help rebuild the Gulf Coast.

Still, Bush and the federal government have come under harsh criticism about the handling of Katrina's aftermath.

A congressional report released in February slammed the government's response to Katrina, calling it a "failure of leadership," and a White House report concluded that inexperienced disaster response managers and a lack of leadership contributed to vast federal failures.

An ABC News/Washington Post poll conducted March 2-5 showed that 63 percent of the respondents disapproved of the way Bush handled the post-Katrina situation.

"We're six months now after the storm, and there are still large swaths of [New Orleans] that look like they did a month after the storm. It's just inexcusable," said Matt Fellowes, a senior research associate at the Washington think tank Brookings Institution who visited the city and surrounding area in mid-February to assess rebuilding efforts. (Full story)

CNN's Suzanne Malveaux contributed to this report.

[ROCK]

Its fair. MS should have there political leaders asking for the same treatment. Squeaky wheel gets the grease...

[stormie_skies]

I don't even think its just that - Haley Barbour had the President's ear throughout Katrina in ways that Blanco never did - but weren't a lot more homes destroyed in LA than were in MS?? As I understand it (and I could be very wrong, this was just the last I heard), the first installment of aid was split evenly between the two states, even though LA was hit by 2 hurricanes and has quite a bit more coastline. I don't have the numbers at the moment, but doesn't it make sense that the area where the most people were affected would receive the most aid?

[Pearl River]

don't even think its just that - Haley Barbour had the President's ear throughout Katrina in ways that Blanco never did - but weren't a lot more homes destroyed in LA than were in MS?? As I understand it (and I could be very wrong, this was just the last I heard), the first installment of aid was split evenly between the two states, even though LA was hit by 2 hurricanes and has quite a bit more coastline. I don't have the numbers at the moment, but doesn't it make sense that the area where the most people were affected would receive the most aid?

I believe 207,000 LA homes compared to 65,000 MS homes.

[Ixolib]

Actually, it's apples and oranges, so a fair comparison may not fit this issue.

Mississippi homeowners (self included) are, however, getting the same treatment that LA homeowners are are getting - including the up to $150K per loss. The only difference between LA and MS is that LA residents still get the grant EVEN IF THEY LIVED IN A FLOOD ZONE YET FAILED TO PURCHASE FLOOD INSURANCE!!!! In my opinion, that is the only unfair piece of the whole puzzle. And, I believe, downright wrong...

Why should we (the US citizens) pay for someone's loss when they:
a. knew they were in a flood/surge zone.
(and)
b. they failed to maintain flood insurance on their property.

In MS, to get the grant, we have to meet these criteria:
• Homeowner owned and occupied their home as of August 29, 2005.
• Home was located in Harrison, Hancock, Jackson or Pearl River Counties, Mississippi.
• Home was homeowner’s primary residence on August 29, 2005.
• Homeowner maintained homeowners insurance on the property.
• Home was located outside the pre-Katrina designated flood zone (FEMA-designated 100-year flood zone) on August 29, 2005, and flooded as a result of Hurricane Katrina.

Only 1 application per home is allowed. If homeowner does not meet all the requirements listed above, they do not qualify for this program.

Read here for all the details...
http://www.mississippi.org/UserFiles/File/Home_Owners_Assistance_Program/hap3606.pdf

[Cookiely]

Actually, it's apples and oranges, so a fair comparison may not fit this issue.

Mississippi homeowners (self included) are, however, getting the same treatment that LA homeowners are are getting - including the up to $150K per loss. The only difference between LA and MS is that LA residents still get the grant EVEN IF THEY LIVED IN A FLOOD ZONE YET FAILED TO PURCHASE FLOOD INSURANCE!!!! In my opinion, that is the only unfair piece of the whole puzzle. And, I believe, downright wrong...

Why should we (the US citizens) pay for someone's loss when they:
a. knew they were in a flood/surge zone.
(and)
b. they failed to maintain flood insurance on their property.

In MS, to get the grant, we have to meet these criteria:
• Homeowner owned and occupied their home as of August 29, 2005.
• Home was located in Harrison, Hancock, Jackson or Pearl River Counties, Mississippi.
• Home was homeowner’s primary residence on August 29, 2005.
• Homeowner maintained homeowners insurance on the property.
• Home was located outside the pre-Katrina designated flood zone (FEMA-designated 100-year flood zone) on August 29, 2005, and flooded as a result of Hurricane Katrina.

Only 1 application per home is allowed. If homeowner does not meet all the requirements listed above, they do not qualify for this program.

Read here for all the details...
[url]http://www.mississippi.org/UserFiles/File/Home_Owners_Assistance_
Program/hap3606.pdf[/url]

Thanks for the information. The article seemed to state it was only for residents of Louisiana. I'm glad those affected in Mississippi won't be left out.

[TSmith274]

Actually, it's apples and oranges, so a fair comparison may not fit this issue.

Mississippi homeowners (self included) are, however, getting the same treatment that LA homeowners are are getting - including the up to $150K per loss. The only difference between LA and MS is that LA residents still get the grant EVEN IF THEY LIVED IN A FLOOD ZONE YET FAILED TO PURCHASE FLOOD INSURANCE!!!! In my opinion, that is the only unfair piece of the whole puzzle. And, I believe, downright wrong...

Why should we (the US citizens) pay for someone's loss when they:
a. knew they were in a flood/surge zone.
(and)
b. they failed to maintain flood insurance on their property.

In MS, to get the grant, we have to meet these criteria:
• Homeowner owned and occupied their home as of August 29, 2005.
• Home was located in Harrison, Hancock, Jackson or Pearl River Counties, Mississippi.
• Home was homeowner’s primary residence on August 29, 2005.
• Homeowner maintained homeowners insurance on the property.
• Home was located outside the pre-Katrina designated flood zone (FEMA-designated 100-year flood zone) on August 29, 2005, and flooded as a result of Hurricane Katrina.

Only 1 application per home is allowed. If homeowner does not meet all the requirements listed above, they do not qualify for this program.

Read here for all the details...
[url]http://www.mississippi.org/UserFiles/File/Home_Owners_Assistance_
Program/hap3606.pdf[/url]

Thanks for the information. The article seemed to state it was only for residents of Louisiana. I'm glad those affected in Mississippi won't be left out.

The problem here is that they flooded, with or without insurance, because of a failed levee. The levees are a federal responsibility. The insurance issue is really moot in this scenario.

However, I agree, we all need more help... both in Mississippi and Louisiana.

[Ixolib]

The problem here is that they flooded, with or without insurance, because of a failed levee. The levees are a federal responsibility. The insurance issue is really moot in this scenario.

However, I agree, we all need more help... both in Mississippi and Louisiana.

I hear what you're saying... My problem - if we could really call it that - is the folks who live BELOW sea level (they knew that), in an area that is in a KNOWN surge/flood zone (they knew that)), and STILL fail to buy flood insurance (and they knew that).

My question remains = why is the grant money going to help them when they failed to take the appropriate precautions pre-Katrina.

Contrast that with MY situation:

--I am at 20.5 feet ABOVE sea level.
--I was NOT in a flood zone or surge zone.
--But I WAS flooded by Katrina's surge.
--And I was told by my lender, my insurance company, the city, the county, and the feds that I did NOT need flood insurance.

Now, because of the relatively limited funds available via the grant money, my situation will be considered exactly the same as someone (in LA) who lived BELOW sea level in a known flood zone. Just doesn't make sense to me...

[sunny]

The problem here is that they flooded, with or without insurance, because of a failed levee. The levees are a federal responsibility. The insurance issue is really moot in this scenario.

However, I agree, we all need more help... both in Mississippi and Louisiana.

I hear what you're saying... My problem - if we could really call it that - is the folks who live BELOW sea level (they knew that), in an area that is in a KNOWN surge/flood zone (they knew that)), and STILL fail to buy flood insurance (and they knew that).

My question remains = why is the grant money going to help them when they failed to take the appropriate precautions pre-Katrina.

Contrast that with MY situation:

--I am at 20.5 feet ABOVE sea level.
--I was NOT in a flood zone or surge zone.
--But I WAS flooded by Katrina's surge.
--And I was told by my lender, my insurance company, the city, the county, and the feds that I did NOT need flood insurance.

Now, because of the relatively limited funds available via the grant money, my situation will be considered exactly the same as someone (in LA) who lived BELOW sea level in a known flood zone. Just doesn't make sense to me...

I have friends who lived in Meraux. They carried flood insurance. But they are getting little to no help from the insurance company, and if memory serves, I think they told me they will get a max of $26,500 from the Government to rebuild. They feel that they are being penalized for CARRYING flood insurance. How is that fair? Unfairness seems to rule the day where this situation is concerned.

[Ixolib]

I have friends who lived in Meraux. They carried flood insurance. But they are getting little to no help from the insurance company, and if memory serves, I think they told me they will get a max of $26,500 from the Government to rebuild. They feel that they are being penalized for CARRYING flood insurance. How is that fair? Unfairness seems to rule the day where this situation is concerned.

Excellent point there too. You are right - no matter how or who was impacted -- somewhere, someplace, something worked out to be unfair...

[Pearl River]

hear what you're saying... My problem - if we could really call it that - is the folks who live BELOW sea level (they knew that), in an area that is in a KNOWN surge/flood zone (they knew that)), and STILL fail to buy flood insurance (and they knew that).

My question remains = why is the grant money going to help them when they failed to take the appropriate precautions pre-Katrina.

If they did not carry flood insurance, they do not receive the full amount of the grant.

[TSmith274]

Yeah, I believe the maximum for the uninsured is 60%. I think that's the number. I really wish that everyone could be made whole again. With the amount of money that is being wasted, I believe this could have been done. We really need a new system... perhaps fund the flood insurance program more than it is now. Katrina was a $200 billion disaster. Why not make the flood insurance useful... in other words, make it truly able to make people whole again. Or, for coastal residents... enact a "hurricane insurance" program. That way, wether it is flooding, wind, or a combination of the two... people are covered regardless. I think this is what our government needs to do. Too many people are getting screwed over. Lets have the feds pay for disasters BEFORE they happen by fully funding a hurricane insurance program, so our people don't have to go through this.

[aquaholic901]

I hear what you're saying... My problem - if we could really call it that - is the folks who live BELOW sea level (they knew that), in an area that is in a KNOWN surge/flood zone (they knew that)), and STILL fail to buy flood insurance (and they knew that).

My question remains = why is the grant money going to help them when they failed to take the appropriate precautions pre-Katrina.

I couldn't agree more.

[Lindaloo]

Yeah, I believe the maximum for the uninsured is 60%. I think that's the number. I really wish that everyone could be made whole again. With the amount of money that is being wasted, I believe this could have been done. We really need a new system... perhaps fund the flood insurance program more than it is now. Katrina was a $200 billion disaster. Why not make the flood insurance useful... in other words, make it truly able to make people whole again. Or, for coastal residents... enact a "hurricane insurance" program. That way, wether it is flooding, wind, or a combination of the two... people are covered regardless. I think this is what our government needs to do. Too many people are getting screwed over. Lets have the feds pay for disasters BEFORE they happen by fully funding a hurricane insurance program, so our people don't have to go through this.

Gene Taylor, Congressman for Mississippi, is trying to get the cap raised on flood insurance. He will do it too. So that is a plus!