Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

60k Houses Condemned By FEMA Using Satellite Photos

page: 1
0

log in

join

posted on Nov, 5 2005 @ 05:24 AM
link   
Using satellite photography, Federal Emergency Management authorities have asessed the hurricane damaged homes in New Orleans and summarily declared them uninhabitable. This opens the way for demolition to begin shortly. Families who have lost their homes and property can expect to recoup, at most, thirty thousand dollars.

Link



Using a sophisticated satellite inspection system, FEMA has declared 60,000 houses in New Orleans and other communities hit hardest by Hurricane Katrina damaged beyond repair, clearing the way for homeowners there to receive the maximum federal aid.

The declaration, completed this week, will mean an immediate distribution of up to $1.6 billion. Each household is entitled to as much as $26,200, officials said.


Less than 30k...This is presumably well below fair market value, which puts a whole new twist on emminent domain.

On top of the fact that FEMA proved practically useless before and during the disaster, they're managing to continue bumbling the job of providing relief from disasters. The article I linked to spins the story in such a way that could lead one to believe that this decision was made with the best interest of residents in mind, after all, the houses were only condemned to allow residents to recieve the maximum value, right?

But what if the houses are livable? What about reports coming out of the area that damage to residences was not nearly as severe as first predicted?

What about the fact that many Floridians are STILL waiting for FEMA to replace or repair roof damage from hurricanes YEARS ago?

This debacle just won't end. We've got a bonified refugee situation unfolding, the states were bankrupt before any of these disasters, even before the goddamned wars that are diverting hundreds of billions of dollars needlessly.

I'm perplexed here, really at a loss to explain the picture I'm seeing. It's one, not only of rampant disregard for private proverty, personal dignity, personal responsibility, and the right to choose, but also of continued submission; the people of this country have either stopped caring, or still care but have lost the will to act.

In any case, this latest insult does not bode well for the future of this already fading republic. The big question remains to be answered....

What will the residents do? How will they make their voices heard? Who, apart from the victims, will make it their own personal responsibility to see justice served in this case?

What are people going to do, what can they do? What indeed...

[edit on 5-11-2005 by WyrdeOne]




posted on Nov, 5 2005 @ 07:26 AM
link   
So once again the Gov't should pay in full the damage costs of everybody's homes. Why should they get full market value? They built or bought a house and a natural disaster destroyed it so the Gov't should pay for it in full. Bull. They're are lucky that they get anything at all.



posted on Nov, 5 2005 @ 08:30 AM
link   
``

ok, the homeowners, for some twisted reason get $26,200.
for a home that was destroyed, but un-insured correct?

i reckon the slum lords would also get that pay-out?

well, the former housing unit is officially condemed,
so who pays for the hauling away of the debris, homeowner or FEMA?

so, who receives or on the other hand keeps or retains the title to the land itself?

There is something swirling around in the post-Katrina muck,
it just hasn't popped to the surface yet, where we can inspect & analyse it

~~

I believe Mayor Nygan has created a Planning Committee, to organize new & updated rules for rebuilding New Orleans...

i suggest that the antiquated building codes be upgraded to a 21st century model. fer instance, do not permit that old 'stick framing' technology & materials in N.O. rebuild areas
the Habitat-for-Humanity house building effort looks good & pulls the heartstrings...but that is a roadmap to the miserable conditions which
created the dilapidated skid row communities to begin with.
Why just Re-Constitute the failures of the past?

One idea would to require composite materials instead of wood framing...
that would address the biblical infestation of termites the pre-Katrina N.O.
had... that would cut down the need for toxic chemicals to be constantly introduced into the environment to kill termites, roaches, etc.
thats just one item, there's hundreds more, if people just delved a little deeper, and did not construct the socio-economic 'house-of-cards' on a many layered, interconnected..."transfer of Wealth" model for our 30yr. dwelling.



posted on Nov, 5 2005 @ 12:45 PM
link   


So once again the Gov't should pay in full the damage costs of everybody's homes. Why should they get full market value? They built or bought a house and a natural disaster destroyed it so the Gov't should pay for it in full. Bull. They're are lucky that they get anything at all.


You missed the point for the most part.

First, to answer your question, no, the government should not have to pay the full cost to repair everyone's home.

Now, the point I was trying to make was that in this instance the government looked down from space and said 60k homes could no longer be lived in, or repaired by their owners, or sold in their present condition to another private party.

This is wrong. Period.

Insurance is way too expensive for most people, but that's besides the point. If people have nowhere else to go, and are now being told that the government is going to tear down their homes in order to (most likely) build refineries and shipping stations, WTF?

You think that's cool?

You think that's legal? Well..it is. But it damn well shouldn't be.

St. Udio
It's shaping up to be one hell of a cluster#, every urban developer in the nation has converged on the place like pigs at a trough. The thing is, New Orleans was the country's least profitable city, if memory serves. It made no money, and lost quite a bit on social programs.

The area is critical for big business, specifically energy players, and they would love nothing more than to have the whole place to themselves, without all the undesirable poor people hanging around sopping up profit.

I practically guarantee that after this whole thing pans out, NO will be transformed into a haven for the super rich and a sprawling ground for their profit engines.

But we'll have to wait and see.

[sarcasm]
There's still people waiting on rooftops I presume. Can somebody go get them before the bulldozers start rolling? I sure hope so...
[/sarcasm]



posted on Nov, 5 2005 @ 02:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by WyrdeOne

[...]

I practically guarantee that after this whole thing pans out, NO will be transformed into a haven for the super rich and a sprawling ground for their profit engines.

But we'll have to wait and see.




we are in agreement on that.

what has been odd/funny, is how the Fed. has been in an almost 'hands-off' position with New Orleans...this new decision to condemn some or many structures was a surprise to me.

not that the Benevolent Fed's policy was a surprise or unexpected,
but that the policy was enacted without public debate or any pre-announcement, so as to get feedback from various people and so on.


i suspect that the condemed property, will be razed and taken away...
just like the tax revenues assessed the homes & buildings in those areas of N.O. are being taken away from the local N.O. gov't ...
by the 'decree' of the
present, neocon dominated Administration which is guiding the Fed.

There may well be more surprises, popping up, down there on the
Mississippi Rivers delta. i think NOLA is secretly being the VPs personal Project, to remake NOLA



posted on Nov, 5 2005 @ 02:57 PM
link   
I'm gonna post an anti-conspiracy question here... Everyone talks about how the Federal Gov't has all these plans to help "BIG " to take over New Orleans in order to make huge profits. Okay cool, but what if everyone with power in the Government was actually only just really, really stupid? Like they really don't know what's going on and go with the first thing they hear that might sound like a cool idea?

It seems like the only people that get any power anymore are the rich white guys, (not being racist, just observant), that can afford to "buy" votes to get "elected." From what I gather, most of those rich white guys are only rich because the family is. To me this means that since they were rich, they really didn't need to pay attention in school or anything because they're degrees were bought. Thereby making them stupid when they need this knowledge.

I dunno...



posted on Nov, 6 2005 @ 07:17 PM
link   
Your explanation is hardly novel, it's probably the second most common cliche assorted with politics, the first of course being that all politicians are liars.

They could very well all be idiots, I could be wrong. However, I personally find it more plausible that most are criminals with average intellect and the rest are idiots.

The politicians I've known were not stupid, they were reasonably intelligent people. So, I could be wrong, but if I extrapolate my personal experience, it leads me to the conclusion that most politicians are not idiots. When they come off as idiots, it seems to me like an act.

Maybe it's a pity play, designed to elicit sympathy from the average American voter. Maybe it's a diversion, to stop people from digging too deeply into the backdoor deals and criminal enterprises operated by these n'er do well, silver spoon, college educated, professional liars.

Reporter: And you sir, what's your job?
Politician: Who, me?
Reporter: Yes, you.
Politician: It's my job to make promises to voters that I can't possibly keep, so that I'll get elected. Once elected it's my job to serve the needs of the plastics, energy, and petroleum industries, to the detriment of the American peoples' health and prosperity.

They can't possibly tell the truth, can they?

Maybe if I asked realll nicely...



posted on Jan, 2 2006 @ 12:12 AM
link   
Errr.. Does i ever cross a persons mind that maybe those houses are being condemned because of their location? If they got flooded this time, then why run the risk of it happening a second time? Its a lose lose situation for the gov't.. Lose little or big with them.

If they rebuild there, then the next time (there will be a next time) this happens people are going to be screaming "Why didn't you make sure we wouldn't build here!?!" and if they condem it the same people are going to be after them saying "Why can't we build there!?!". If they don't now, you people are going to just ignore the fact that they tried this time.

Plus, more then a few of those homes were probably leased or rented (most in poorer areas are), so the residents are getting 26k for property that almost surely dosen't add up to that. (If they had 26,000$ worth of stuff in their homes, then they shouldn't be there.. I've never had that, even when I lived in a middle class area). But hell, making a decent point for the governments actions seems like a bad idea here.. Just waiting to be called a media whore.



posted on Jan, 2 2006 @ 12:36 AM
link   
The day that it is your home, and you really have no say in the matter, you will change your tune...

I find it incredible how the government has manipulated americans into welcoming the seizure of their constitutional liberties.

First they manipulate people into welcoming military troops to "police" US citizens on US soil. "Welcome"? People were demanding it! (thugs...looters...must be stopped...shoot-to-kill...)

Now they manipulate the "good folks" into justifying the seizure of private property under policy of incomplete criteria.

People are so interesting!
Sadly...misguided...

[edit on 1/2/2006 by theBLESSINGofVISION]



posted on Jan, 2 2006 @ 01:07 AM
link   
I'm wondering how accurate the satellite photos are compared to an on the ground observation. I'm a bit confused if the money given out is for uninsured or for insured homes or for both. I would be very angry if my house wasn't flooded but got listed as condemned. Writing/calling senators and congressmen may have an impact on what FEMA does as well as a public outcry if good homes are getting condemned by FEMA. I haven't heard of this happening but I can easily imagine some national news teams having a field day if this happened.

Notifying the head of FEMA might have an impact as well. Maybe I haven't heard enough details yet and I don't know how accurate satellite photos are. I'm not even sure who normally makes a decision after a flood if a home can be gutted and restored or if it gets condemned. Except for possible exceptions which I already mentioned I believe, I would be happy to get $26,000 for an uninsured home that got totally flooded.



posted on Jan, 2 2006 @ 01:07 AM
link   
I knew this would happen.. Listen, theres a difference between stealing liberties and good judgement. I sympathize with looters, but I also relize that bleeding hearts can lead to bleeding throats. Like or not, theres a time for being nice and sympathetic and a time for cold, rational decisions.

This may be an unpopular view, but its the one that'll prevail once people think before they bite. This is a bad situation either way. As I said before, lose little or big.. Its a matter of them loosing their homes now, or have this happen again. I both sympathize and rationalize, something few people here do. The government made a good call here, even if people won't accept the truth for a chance to bash the government.



posted on Jan, 2 2006 @ 01:48 AM
link   
"Good Call"?
For who?
You?
The taxpayers?
Those that will profit from the land?

"Cold rational decisions?"
Decisions designed for what end? Profit? Is that rational? Is mysanthropy "rational" if one will CAPITALIZE from it? Is Greed rational (as the fruits of it are reaped)?

"Won't accept the truth?"
The truth of the opinions of the guys who WILL profit from their so-called truth...

"Chance to bash the govt?"
"I knew this would happen..."
listen... When someone has a logical observation, you call it bashing...
bashing...
Who really gets bashed?


Look at it from our (my?) perspective...
See why I would feel why I do.

When does bleeding hearts lead to bleeding throats?
I forget, please remind me.



posted on Jan, 2 2006 @ 03:26 AM
link   
I won't profit, but I am speaking the oily, ugly truth. I have little faith in the government, but that dosen't blind me to the truth. The decisions I speak of are not for profit, but for peoples safety, if they want to accept it or not.

Lets look at the french peasents before their revolution. Countries like Ireland and Germany had switched to the potato as a staple food, since it was better suited to their weather conditions. But the french still clung to their cereal crops despite government incentives to eaten potatos, and every winter they nearly starved out. Not long after a particularly bad winter, they revolted, despite their own bad decisions being their own fault.

We have a situation like this today, where people are clinging to an area that was flooded before, and yet they still want to come back, in spite of the government doing as best it can. (Does anyone relize how much friggin money 26,000X60,00 IS on the governments tab?) And surely enough, these same people are going to ignore whats clearly for their own good, and perponents of their bad decision making skills are supporting them. They'll be raving about how the government didn't help them get out of there next time, just as the french peasents held their government responsible for their sensless cling to cereal crops. They want to be there and live in a dangerous area, with none of the responsibility.

Just wonderfull.



posted on Jan, 3 2006 @ 07:05 AM
link   
1. 26k is the absolute MAX. If past performance re: disaster relief is any indication, most people will likely receive nothing but promises of water and oranges, and then end up walking half way across the county just to sit in an empty parking lot waiting for helicopters and relief trucks that will never come.

2. No official has used the rationale that condemning the buildings will prevent future tragedy. If that's their reasoning, fine, so be it, let's hear it. So I guess we'd better get a start on evacuating the entire East and West coast, not to mention the region around Yellowstone, and the New Madrid fault. Also, Twisters and severe thunderstorms make the center of the country quite dangerous. There is no safe place anywhere. So I guess we're all going to have to stay with Canada until someone can come by and child-proof our country for us.


3. Last I heard, the lion's share of the demolition was halted to allow for more input from the community. I'll try to find a link. I was reading just the other day about how inspectors are going around again, doing redundant inspections to make sure nobody lost a house unecessarily. The spin I remember from the print source seemed to indicate that very few homes were being condemned after all was said and done, but that could very well have been misleading or outright false information. The media is about as trustworthy as a dog waltzing out of a chicken coop surrounded by a swirling cloud of blood-stained feathers.



posted on Jan, 26 2006 @ 08:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by I See You
So once again the Gov't should pay in full the damage costs of everybody's homes. Why should they get full market value? They built or bought a house and a natural disaster destroyed it so the Gov't should pay for it in full. Bull. They're are lucky that they get anything at all.


Don't get me wrong here, for what I am about to say might cause some ####.

I watched a docco on ABC here in Australia about the Boxing day Tsunami, and saw how people which had a "house of sticks" with one living area to eat and sleep in, got a brand new brick and tile home, complete with seporate living, sleeping areas, and even a bathroom. Im sure these people had no insurance.

Us on the west coast of Australia had a cyclone only a couple of weeks ago, which flooded homes, making them unsuitable to live in, did they get any help.......nope.

I own a farm in an earthquake zone, and also wouldn't bank on getting any assistance from the government should the #### hit the fan. So to those people that got some money from your own government, consider yourself lucky that you got something.

Just a question, are there any other governments of the world that have stepped in to help the people of NO, just like our governments that have helped others in need around the world?



posted on Jan, 29 2006 @ 10:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by WyrdeOne
1. 26k is the absolute MAX. If past performance re: disaster relief is any indication, most people will likely receive nothing but promises of water and oranges, and then end up walking half way across the county just to sit in an empty parking lot waiting for helicopters and relief trucks that will never come.

I can relate to that one. I got about $3,000. Lost everything I owned. FEMA says it was worth $772. That was my total personal property loss. I think I've paid just a little more than that in taxes in my life. The Gov't isn't giving me s**t! I choose to live on the beautiful gulf coast of Mississippi. It's home. What about all the people that live in earthquake areas? Should they all just move now? Before the big one. 26k x ??? is small considering the money spent on WAR. Where are our priorities?
I relocated to Colorado after spending the hurricane in my brothers attic with my parents, wife and 2 daughters. My house was blown away. We've been here 5 months and can't make it. We're in an apartment, haven't found good jobs and arte running out of money. We decided to go back home where the restaurant I worked at is rebuilding & offered me the head chef job & a free place to live for a while. We can buy a home and a chance at opening our own restaurant within a year. We could stay here, in Boulder, CO and never reach those goals. So, we're going back, taking a chance at a better life. We can only hope we don't get blown away again.
Where was I going with this? Oh, yeah, priorities.

[edit on 29-1-2006 by corusso]

[edit on 29-1-2006 by corusso]





new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join