[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Mail]  [Sign-in]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register] 

"Pete Rose, 'Shoeless' Joe Reinstated by MLB, Eligible for HOF"

"'Major Breakthrough': Here Are the Details on the China Trade Deal"

Freepers Still Love war

Parody ... Jump / Trump --- van Halen jump

"The Democrat Meltdown Continues"

"Yes, We Need Deportations Without Due Process"

"Trump's Tariff Play Smart, Strategic, Working"

"Leftists Make Desperate Attempt to Discredit Photo of Abrego Garcia's MS-13 Tattoos. Here Are Receipts"

"Trump Administration Freezes $2 Billion After Harvard Refuses to Meet Demands"on After Harvard Refuses to Meet Demands

"Doctors Committing Insurance Fraud to Conceal Trans Procedures, Texas Children’s Whistleblower Testifies"

"Left Using '8647' Symbol for Violence Against Trump, Musk"

KawasakiÂ’s new rideable robohorse is straight out of a sci-fi novel

"Trade should work for America, not rule it"

"The Stakes Couldn’t Be Higher in Wisconsin’s Supreme Court Race – What’s at Risk for the GOP"

"How Trump caught big-government fans in their own trap"

‘Are You Prepared for Violence?’

Greek Orthodox Archbishop gives President Trump a Cross, tells him "Make America Invincible"

"Trump signs executive order eliminating the Department of Education!!!"

"If AOC Is the Democratic Future, the Party Is Even Worse Off Than We Think"

"Ending EPA Overreach"

Closest Look Ever at How Pyramids Were Built

Moment the SpaceX crew Meets Stranded ISS Crew

The Exodus Pharaoh EXPLAINED!

Did the Israelites Really Cross the Red Sea? Stunning Evidence of the Location of Red Sea Crossing!

Are we experiencing a Triumph of Orthodoxy?

Judge Napolitano with Konstantin Malofeev (Moscow, Russia)

"Trump Administration Cancels Most USAID Programs, Folds Others into State Department"

Introducing Manus: The General AI Agent

"Chinese Spies in Our Military? Straight to Jail"

Any suggestion that the USA and NATO are "Helping" or have ever helped Ukraine needs to be shot down instantly

"Real problem with the Palestinians: Nobody wants them"

ACDC & The Rolling Stones - Rock Me Baby

Magnus Carlsen gives a London System lesson!

"The Democrats Are Suffering Through a Drought of Generational Talent"

7 Tactics Of The Enemy To Weaken Your Faith

Strange And Biblical Events Are Happening

Every year ... BusiesT casino gambling day -- in Las Vegas

Trump’s DOGE Plan Is Legally Untouchable—Elon Musk Holds the Scalpel

Palestinians: What do you think of the Trump plan for Gaza?

What Happens Inside Gaza’s Secret Tunnels? | Unpacked

Hamas Torture Bodycam Footage: "These Monsters Filmed it All" | IDF Warfighter Doron Keidar, Ep. 225

EXPOSED: The Dark Truth About the Hostages in Gaza

New Task Force Ready To Expose Dark Secrets

Egypt Amasses Forces on Israel’s Southern Border | World War 3 About to Start?

"Trump wants to dismantle the Education Department. Here’s how it would work"

test

"Federal Workers Concerned That Returning To Office Will Interfere With Them Not Working"

"Yes, the Democrats Have a Governing Problem – They Blame America First, Then Govern Accordingly"

"Trump and His New Frenemies, Abroad and at Home"

"The Left’s Sin Is of Omission and Lost Opportunity"


Status: Not Logged In; Sign In

Corrupt Government
See other Corrupt Government Articles

Title: Broken Bible Belt: Homes in Ruins From Tornadoes Denied Aid by FEMA for ‘Insufficient Damage’
Source: TB
URL Source: http://www.theblaze.com/stories/bro ... -fema-for-insufficient-damage/
Published: Jun 18, 2011
Author: Naked Emperor News
Post Date: 2011-06-18 09:54:37 by CZ82
Keywords: None
Views: 44983
Comments: 90

Broken Bible Belt: Homes in Ruins From Tornadoes Denied Aid by FEMA for ‘Insufficient Damage’

Posted on June 13, 2011 at 9:33am by Naked Emperor News

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.


Poster Comment:

Why does this not surprise me.... If you're not of the "correct" political persuassion and not of the "correct" religious persuassion then you're not going to get any money.......

Post Comment   Private Reply   Ignore Thread  


TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest

Comments (1-42) not displayed.
      .
      .
      .

#43. To: Fred Mertz (#41)

disability check

So, that is the angle for eligibility; he can't work. But, can he perform limited work beyond sucking cheap beer?

buckeroo  posted on  2011-06-18   11:29:13 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#44. To: buckeroo (#43)

He feeds my dog when I'm out of town. I give him generous gas money when he does that.

Fred Mertz  posted on  2011-06-18   11:31:25 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#45. To: Fred Mertz (#44)

Is he your boyfriend Fred?

A K A Stone  posted on  2011-06-18   11:33:45 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#46. To: A K A Stone (#45)

Are you Stoned again or just fantasizing?

Fred Mertz  posted on  2011-06-18   11:35:26 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#47. To: Fred Mertz, A K A Stone (#44)

Make sure you ping A K A Blockhead before he thinks a healthy man can receive food-stamps like "candy" he may think you proved his point when in fact, your presentation proves Stone's prejudice is unfounded, at least in this one instance.

buckeroo  posted on  2011-06-18   11:36:02 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#48. To: buckeroo (#47)

They government hands out money like candy.

They have no sense of what that costs tax payers. They don't care. It is like candy to them to receive votes.

A K A Stone  posted on  2011-06-18   11:37:14 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#49. To: A K A Stone (#48)

Do you receive government assistance in any way?

buckeroo  posted on  2011-06-18   11:40:05 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#50. To: buckeroo (#49)

They paved my street last year. Does that count?

A K A Stone  posted on  2011-06-18   11:43:19 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#51. To: A K A Stone (#50)

HELL no. We are talking about direct benefits that YOU applied for, similar to federal disaster relief or food-stamps.

Do you own a home?

buckeroo  posted on  2011-06-18   11:46:41 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#52. To: buckeroo (#51)

Still making payments.

Are you divorced?

A K A Stone  posted on  2011-06-18   11:48:11 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#53. To: A K A Stone (#52)

Still making payments.

Is this a FHA guaranteed loan?

buckeroo  posted on  2011-06-18   11:50:04 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#54. To: buckeroo (#53)

Nope.

Are you divorced?

A K A Stone  posted on  2011-06-18   11:51:13 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#55. To: A K A Stone (#54)

Is this a VA loan?

buckeroo  posted on  2011-06-18   11:52:34 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#56. To: buckeroo (#55)

I wish it was a VA loan. But in' not a veteran. If I was I would probably get a better deal.

A K A Stone  posted on  2011-06-18   11:55:11 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#57. To: A K A Stone (#56)

Out side of your own state support for a home loan, you probably have a commercial loan. Good for you. What percentage of the loan amount was required for the down payment?

buckeroo  posted on  2011-06-18   11:57:50 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#58. To: buckeroo (#57)

nunya

A K A Stone  posted on  2011-06-18   11:58:26 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#59. To: A K A Stone (#58)

Does "nunya" mean zero? Are you saying you have a zero down home loan? Were you a "first time buyer?"

buckeroo  posted on  2011-06-18   12:03:21 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#60. To: buckeroo (#59)

Nunya means none of your business.

But there was a down payment required.

Yes I was a first time home buyer.

A K A Stone  posted on  2011-06-18   12:05:36 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#61. To: A K A Stone (#60)

How many more years will you be a debt-slave to your mortgage company?

Fred Mertz  posted on  2011-06-18   12:07:09 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#62. To: Fred Mertz, A K A Stone (#61)

How many more years will you be a debt-slave to your mortgage company?

It probably was bailed out too.

mininggold  posted on  2011-06-18   12:09:32 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#63. To: Fred Mertz (#61)

About 10. Unless I start paying extra.

A K A Stone  posted on  2011-06-18   12:10:50 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#64. To: A K A Stone (#60)

Since you won's suggest the amount "down" I shall be left with some assumptions, particularly since being a "first time buyer" qualifies you (and many families) for reduced standards on commercial bank loans based on federal government REQUIREMENTS through the federal CRA.

That is to say, you didn't receive a dime; yet, based on your application to purchase a home through a local lender you fell within REQUIREMENTS to force the loan at a reduced down-payment. It is probably serviced by the same bank or financial institution but was sold to FREDDIE-MAC or FANNIE-MAE.

Am I correct?

buckeroo  posted on  2011-06-18   12:12:26 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#65. To: A K A Stone (#56)

I wish it was a VA loan. But I'm not a veteran. If I was I would probably get a better deal.

Maybe, maybe not.....

I'm a retired military and got a better deal through my local bank, but I think that is the exception rather than the rule.....

"I love the 45 caliber M1911, I respect the 9MM M9 Beretta but I only carry a CZ for my own personal protection". Quote courtesy of Lt Col John Dean Cooper, recognized as the Father of Modern Handgunning

CZ82  posted on  2011-06-18   12:14:03 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#66. To: buckeroo (#64)

You're incorrect.

It was sold. Chase owns it.

A K A Stone  posted on  2011-06-18   12:15:24 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#67. To: A K A Stone (#66) (Edited)

It was sold. Chase owns it.

AH_HA! It was part of a re-bundled loan package sold to fannie-mae or freddie-mac.

So, what has these questions and answers proved? You and family (and this not an issue in fact, congratulations for a responsible personal choice) have benefited from being ELIGIBLE to purchase a home through US FEDERAL requirements.

And, the same happens with federal disaster relief programs with the exception of reduced interest loans and no fees. There is no "candy" at all.

buckeroo  posted on  2011-06-18   12:20:52 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#68. To: buckeroo (#67)

When the government acts unconstitutionally and gives out money in so doing. I consider it like giving out candy.

So maybe we are in more agreement than you think.

A K A Stone  posted on  2011-06-18   12:23:40 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#69. To: A K A Stone (#68)

When the government acts unconstitutionally and gives out money in so doing. I consider it like giving out candy.

Oh ... now, you are changing your tune. I guess it is OK to receive federal guidance programs through the banks so you can enjoy your home, but it is NOT OK to act unconstitutionally.

Where is written in the US Constitution that the federal government can mandate CRA upon your bank?

buckeroo  posted on  2011-06-18   12:35:56 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#70. To: buckeroo (#69)

If I go to buy a house. I have no control over what hurdles/helping hands that the federal government puts on the process.

A K A Stone  posted on  2011-06-18   12:37:16 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#71. To: buckeroo (#69)

No I am not changing my tune. Just clarifying it so you can understand better.

A K A Stone  posted on  2011-06-18   12:37:45 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#72. To: A K A Stone (#70)

I have no control over what hurdles/helping hands that the federal government puts on the process.

Yes you do. You just don't know about it, is all. The reason is easy to understand, too. Most real estate agents/brokers AND bankers want to sell paper, that is how they make money. If you can't qualify for a strict commercial loan (i.e 20% or more down) they transparently qualify you for other programs that are pre-existing. Ultimately, it is a FHA loan.

It is what you pay for in fees when you want a home and apply for eligibility BEFORE a real estate agent even takes you house shopping; they always perform a pre-qualification check for ELIGIBILITY before wasting any time.

buckeroo  posted on  2011-06-18   12:47:35 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#73. To: A K A Stone, mininggold (#71) (Edited)

Just clarifying it so you can understand better.

You can't clarify anything on this thread, Stone. But, it is OK for YOU to be involved in some federal program to purchase a home while you think "candy" is given away by the federal government in a disaster relief program as in the article of this thread.

In order to be ELIGIBLE for disaster relief programs (low or zero cost fees and low interest loans) the federal government must see compliance towards the same guidelines for each and every case considered. This thread's article is a sham; the people described, received a form letter because THEY DIDN'T PROPERLY APPLY.

As mininggold originally told you, most people goto their insurance agents FIRST. That is the proper way to receive possible benefit allowances.

For me, I would seek a professional contractor to record, photos, film, write-ups, estimates and supporting documentation, FIRST.

But in all cases, a distraught homeowner seeks local expertise FIRST before going to the federal government. HELL, the federal government doesn't even know how to balance a balance sheet.

buckeroo  posted on  2011-06-18   13:00:25 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#74. To: buckeroo (#73)

As mininggold originally told you, most people goto their insurance agents FIRST. That is the proper way to receive possible benefit allowances.

I don't necessarily think the government should give the victims any money.

But if they have money for non citizens in Mexico. Then I think the priories are wrong.

A K A Stone  posted on  2011-06-18   13:02:33 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#75. To: A K A Stone (#74)

I don't necessarily think the government should give the victims any money.

But if they have money for non citizens in Mexico. Then I think the priories are wrong.

They would be giving the grants to the insurance companies not to any US citizens, as the insurance companies would be the ones handling the claims. The article states the home owners had insurance.

mininggold  posted on  2011-06-18   13:09:55 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#76. To: A K A Stone (#74)

I don't necessarily think the government should give the victims any money.

And, the US government doesn't. So where do achieve this gobble-de-goop concept?

But if they have money for non citizens in Mexico. Then I think the priories are wrong.

Those international agreements are based on low interest loans and some subsidies, not cash pal; those subsidies have strings attached, too. America performs these humanitarian gestures all the time, all over the world.

buckeroo  posted on  2011-06-18   13:14:11 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#77. To: buckeroo (#76)

Those international agreements are based on low interest loans and some subsidies, not cash pal; those subsidies have strings attached, too. America performs these humanitarian gestures all the time, all over the world.

You once gave me a hard time saying I support foreign aid. Because I said I would support our Navy rescuing some people at sea who needed help.

Just providing context.

A K A Stone  posted on  2011-06-18   13:15:55 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#78. To: A K A Stone (#77)

That is absolutely correct, too. An expanded mission for the defense of our nation is a socialist's boondoggle; it adds unnecessary expense to the federal government while concealing the actual budget for the defense through political posturing.

buckeroo  posted on  2011-06-18   13:24:23 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#79. To: buckeroo (#78)

I guess I'm just a nice guy. If our navy was out cruising the waters. And a person was having problems and drowning. I would have no problem rescuing the individual. None at all.

A K A Stone  posted on  2011-06-18   13:27:58 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#80. To: A K A Stone (#79)

I guess I'm just a nice guy. If our navy was out cruising the waters. And a person was having problems and drowning. I would have no problem rescuing the individual. None at all.

Yeah, the US government has a Coast Guard for our shorelines, both internal to the nation and sea coasts.

We need a US Navy during wartime to guard and defend the US, not the world. Are you familiar with how many commissioned ships are actively engaged in the fleet? Some 320 ships/submarines and all sorts of support fleets ALL over the world.

And there are another 300 ships in mothballs sold to allies all the time but can be re-commissioned based on any war demands.

Why does America have to police the world from your position and play benevolence: because America is a nice nation and is in the nearby waters because of "mission statement."

The "mission statement" for US defense is vastly overstated.

buckeroo  posted on  2011-06-18   13:36:29 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#81. To: buckeroo (#80)

I don't see how throwing a life jacket and pulling someone in would jeopardize anything.

A K A Stone  posted on  2011-06-18   13:38:10 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#82. To: A K A Stone (#81)

So, why have a "mission" for US defense then? You are pandering to some sort of "humanitarian appeal" that goes no where with me.

There is no reason for the US to police the world with all these fleets, in the first place. Your perspective is silly at best and is GENUINELY_OFF_TOPIC based on the article of the thread.

buckeroo  posted on  2011-06-18   13:47:00 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#83. To: buckeroo (#82)

A K A Stone  posted on  2011-06-18   13:48:33 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  



      .
      .
      .

Comments (84 - 90) not displayed.

TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest

[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Mail]  [Sign-in]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register] 

Please report web page problems, questions and comments to webmaster@libertysflame.com