Yo, State Farm and FEMA, GAO ain’t amused
Note - This website moved Sunday Feb, 1o to a new address- http://www.folo.us Please go to http://www.folo.us to enter your comment! Thanks.
Ah, we have a little reminder of U.S. v. Scruggs context this morning from the Times-Picayune’s business writer Rebecca Mowbray:
GAO report warns of insurer bias on flood claims, recommends reforms
An inherent conflict of interest exists when private insurance companies process claims for the National Flood Insurance Program, the Government Accountability Office said Wednesday.
In an eagerly awaited report, the investigative arm of Congress urged the Federal Emergency Management Agency, which runs the flood program, to guard against covering wind damage that should be covered by private insurers.
In addition, the report recommended that Congress pass legislation that gives FEMA the authority to obtain files on a property’s wind claims so that the flood program can verify that what it is paying out is reasonable.
“Without information on both wind and flood damages to certain properties subjected to both perils, NFIP has reduced assurances that the amounts it paid for flood claims were actually limited to flood damage,” the report says.
(To view the full report, click here.)
The GAO report comes after allegations surfaced last year that some private insurance companies were billing to the flood program damage that they should have covered.
“There is an inherent conflict of interest when the same insurer is responsible for assessing damages for its own property casualty policy, as well as for the NFIP policy, each covering different perils on the same property,” the report says. The “insurer that covers a policyholder for wind losses can have a vested economic interest in the outcome of the damage determination that it performs when a property is subject to a combination of high winds and flooding.” …
This article merits reading in full, especially by us seaboard residents in the hurricane zone. Among the comments that Mowbray passes along is a FEMA lahdidah-lahdidah rightly labeled by a Consumer Federation of America spokesman “bizarre.”
Anyhow, I’ll be interested in your reactions and insights too, Researcher, Coastal Cowboy, et al. . . .
lotus
February 1, 2008 at 7:09 am
OT but holy shit!
ALL we frickin’ need, huh — a Mister Softy with even more power over our info-flow?
February 1, 2008 at 7:42 am
This has evolved into one of SF’s favorite litigation tactics. It would pay full flood policy limits a week after the storm with no causation analysis, then when policyholders sue later, SF argues that the policyholder already admitted everything was caused by flood since a flood policy payment was accepted.
February 1, 2008 at 7:55 am
Hi and welcome, silas.
I’m a little confused now, thinking SF didn’t offer flood coverage at all. If you can hep me out here, I’ll need it at the insurance-simpleton level, unfortunately.
February 1, 2008 at 8:13 am
Some NFIP policies are sold through private insurance companies who issue policies and adjust flood claims in their own names. I have flood insurance because I live next to a drainage ditch and I think it is through a private insurer.
February 1, 2008 at 8:18 am
Here is a most interesting news development.
Three On Your Side Investigates: Confessions of a Katrina Whistleblower.
http://wlbt.com/global/story.asp?s=7805373
February 1, 2008 at 8:25 am
Hi and thanks, Jane and Kycol.
Yep, Jane, I have mine via Allstate (but think it’s ridiculous that I have to carry it, since I’m 4-5 miles inland, on stilts, and near no watercourse more impressive than a 2-3′ deep streetside ditch).
Now to see what Kycol’s brought us . . .
February 1, 2008 at 8:27 am
I had thought that most garden variety home ownner’s policies only provided coverage for wind damage, and not damage caused by flooding (even if wind driven). And that to have flood coverage, one had to specifically purchase such a policy and pay the premium for it (much like earthquake coverage).
And it had appeared to me, initially at least, that much of the insurance coverage problems on the coast due to Katrina arose because many had NOT purchased the separate flood coverage, only had wind coverage, and that their homes were primarily destroyed by unexpected flooding further inland than had been seen before. In other words, many had made conscious decisions NOT to purchase the flood coverage to save money, thinking that the risk was not that great since flooding had not occurred in their area before.
IT had also appeared to me that many claims against SF and other companies were quickly settled: ones where there was no question that wind caused most of the damage, and ones where flood caused the damage, but there was flood coverage purchased. And it seemed to me that this left the situations where flood caused most of the damage and there was no flood coverage purchased, or wind and flood, in some combination caused the damage, and only wind coverage had been purchased. In the latter, it appeared that many of these cases were being settled to the satisfaction of homeowners, and that some were not. And some of the former cases were being settled, but the homeowners were having to rely primarily on govt. assistance. for relief.
And it was my understanding that further complicating all of this was the fact that many homeonwers had mortgage liens against their properties greater than the fair market value or insured value on the properties.
Now someone straighten me out and tell me where my perceptions of this situation are wrong. I am an inland dweller, not a coast dweller. And I am having a hard time understanding all of this. For instance, I know I don’t have earthquake insurance — it is my choice. IF we have an earthquake, I won’t be expecting or demanding that my home insurer pay up for the damage —even if the damage is caused by flooding due to the earthquake. IT is my understanding that such would not be coveraged, nor have I paid a premium for such coverage per the contract. So, why should I be entitled to such coverage?
February 1, 2008 at 8:37 am
BTW, I think the simple solution to all of this mess would be for potentially affected areas along the Gulf Coast to form hurricane insurance coverage pools which would cover damage whether flood, wind, or whatever due to hurricane. IF you wanted the coverage, you could opt into the pool and purchase it. The more who purchased such coverage, the cheaper it would be.
I am against homeowners not affected by such risks having to subsidize such risk for others. In other words, my homeowners coverage should not go up because someone else wants to live on the coast in a much more risky area. They should pay for or bear the risk of that decision. And I don’t think the US taxpayers (or federal govt. ) should be in the business of subsidizing people choosing to live in such risky areas (hurricanes on the coast, flooding along the MS River, mudslides and landslides on mountains in Calf., wildfires in Calf. where homes are situation in vast unmanaged forests, etc. etc. ). Thus, I am in favor of the insurance pools. That is the best and fairest way, IMO, to provide coverage to those is unique risky areas —like the Gulf coast.
February 1, 2008 at 8:38 am
yes, Jane, many of the flood policies are administered by the private companies. But when they pay, they are paying the government’s money. So in my example, the home would have two separate policies: flood and homeowners, but all coverage decisions made by State Farm.
February 1, 2008 at 8:41 am
Silas, is their any evidence that folks with the two separate coverages are having trouble getting their claims paid. Or is the issue simply the source of the funds?
February 1, 2008 at 8:52 am
Kycol, your good tip now has its own post, so thanks.
afotl, your pool idea just might be the ticket. We certainly are going to have to come up with some more-reasonable and effective solution than exists now, before global warming stirs up more mega-’canes.
One of the most basic commonsense pieces of that — which, unfortunately, I don’t foresee happening without a huge fight, and probably not at all — ought to be a ban on building on barrier islands. What we’re going to see happening to the mainland within our lifetimes will be catastrophe a-plenty, I very much fear.
February 1, 2008 at 8:59 am
I know about a few people who have been paid full flood policy limits of $350,000 (250 structure/100 contents), with the coverage decision to pay the government’s money being made by State Farm. Then State Farm pays a few thousand of its own money on the homeowners (wind) policy and closes the claim. That’s part of what the GAO report is objecting to…State Farm’s conflict of interest in making the causation decision when it can pay either (1) its own money for wind, or (2) the government’s money for flood. There’s a strong monetary incentive to say that everything was caused by flood.
February 1, 2008 at 9:52 am
Microsoft Offers to Buy Yahoo
Rest easy lotus. Yahoo is merely a shell of its former self. Semel’s next gig will be doing Decepticon voiceovers for Transformers Dos.
February 1, 2008 at 9:52 am
Rossmiller has an excellent “breakdown” of what the issues are re:which claims -may- have had a conflict of interest as well as re-explaining that in the areas where the data showed the homes were inundated or were gone FEMA directed immediate payment of full flood proceeds without even visiting the property. Kinda hard to stick an insurer with guilt when they spent the governments money the way the parent organization said to spend it.
February 1, 2008 at 10:10 am
Heh, Bud, since I won’t understand a bit of that, I won’t hafta worry (my tech-ignorance being quite blissful most of the time) . . .
February 1, 2008 at 10:10 am
Thanks for that tip, Curious.
February 1, 2008 at 10:11 am
afotl, you have articulately expressed my thoughts also regarding the State Farm Katrina issues. I’m waiting for someone to correct our thought process where we may be wrong. Having learned a lesson from Katrina, I have made a decision to purchase earthquake insurance which I had previously declined.
February 1, 2008 at 10:13 am
Good plan, nomiss, as close as y’all are to the New Madrid fault. Hope you never have a claim, though.
February 1, 2008 at 10:19 am
I don’t have any problem with the immediate flood payment. I just don’t like trying to use the immediate flood payment to say that the homeowner has admitted the damage to be caused exclusively by flood.
February 1, 2008 at 11:23 am
First, here’s the set-up:
The National Flood Insurance Program is administered by FEMA, but 95% of NFIP policies are sold by insurance companies that contract with FEMA under the Write Your Own program. The policies are backed by the federal government, not by the insurer. NFIP pays commissions to the agents and generous administrative allowances (by formula) to the companies for handling the policies. A different GAO report last year suggested that NFIP overpays for administrative costs and recommended that FEMA require companies to report their actual expenses and submit independent audits of their flood insurance operations. The fact that this is not required now shows who runs the program.
The major insurers sell homeowners policies that cover windstorm damage, generally with a high deductible for damage from named storms, and also sell federally-backed flood policies.
Flood insurance is required if you have a federally-backed mortgage and are located in the 1-percent flood hazard area (aka 100-year flood) on the FEMA maps.
The insurance company is responsible for handling flood claims on the policies it sells, with NFIP paying the adjustment costs and another generous formula payment for the company’s administrative costs.
Under the WYO agreement, the company has a fiduciary responsibility to federal taxpayers. The company can use a single adjuster to handle both the flood claim and the company’s own wind claim, but has the responsibility to provide a proper apportionment of the loss and to apply the same standards to the flood claim as it applies to its own claim.
The new GAO report says that companies have an “inherent conflict of interest” when determining whether to assign damages to flooding or wind, that NFIP/FEMA cannot determine the accuracy of flood payments because it performs almost no oversight and does not make companies explain how they divided flood damage from wind damage, that with wind and flood coverage in different policies homeowners cannot buy insurance and know in advance that hurricane damage will be covered because of differences in the policies and uncertainty about the cause of damages, and that wind/water disputes have increased because companies are using anti-concurrent causation policy language to try to exclude damage caused by winds if flooding contributed at all to the loss.
GAO recommends that FEMA have access to the insurers’ wind claims on properties with flood claims so it can provide basic oversight of the adjustment of a combined wind/water loss. GAO says companies should have to explain their methology for distinguishing between wind and flood damage.
FEMA says that oversight would be too much of a burden, and no changes are needed.
February 1, 2008 at 11:34 am
Researcher, I understand how the conflict of interest suggests that the federal govmt is being screwed. What about the policyholder? Is it just a matter of which pocket they are getting $s from, not a matter of how much? Or does this have the potential to screw them, too.
And let’s see–money is being paid out by a government agency with no oversight. What are the chances that it’s all fair and square?
February 1, 2008 at 11:48 am
Researcher, many thanks! You said: “A different GAO report last year suggested that NFIP overpays for administrative costs and recommended that FEMA require companies to report their actual expenses and submit independent audits of their flood insurance operations. The fact that this is not required now shows who runs the program.”
NMC said: “And let’s see–money is being paid out by a government agency with no oversight. What are the chances that it’s all fair and square?”
All that remains to be said is “Q.E.D.“
February 1, 2008 at 11:48 am
I can’t help but think that if you took what the average homeowner was paying for wind and flood combined, and used it to fund a program that covered any hurricane related damage, the program would be solvent.
Apparently State Farm and the other insurers think so too, as evidenced by their efforts to keep the all perils bill from being passed. State Farm and the other insurers love writing the wind policies, with every exclusion they can get Mississippi Insurance Commissioner to sign off on, but apparently have no interest whatseever in writing all perils insurance themselves.
I understand their position completely. They are making billions of dollars (3 billion in 2005, 6 billion in 2006) the way things are now. Who wouldn’t want to keep things the same when you are making those kinds of profits, even when being sued continuosly for breach of contract and fraud?
You can pay the claims you owe after a major hurrican, or you can make a profit, but apparently you can’t do both. That’s why all perils insurance needs to be a government, non-profit program. We are not looking for handouts here. Make the rates whatever they have to be to be solvent.
One thing we have learned on the coast. Insurance that will pay off when a hurricane destroys your house is a bargain at any price. Insurance you have to file a lawsuit against to get to pay when a hurrican destroys your house is a bad deal no matter how cheap.
February 1, 2008 at 11:52 am
“Insurance that will pay off when a hurricane destroys your house is a bargain at any price. Insurance you have to file a lawsuit against to get to pay when a hurrican destroys your house is a bad deal no matter how cheap.”
There it is.
February 1, 2008 at 12:15 pm
Now, an overview of State Farm Katrina wind/water cases:
The Mississippi Coast suffered about four hours of high hurricane winds before any storm surge flooding. Many properties were substantially damaged by winds, wind-driven debris, etc., and then further damaged or finished off by the storm surge. Katrina’s surge exceeded the 100 year flood on the FEMA maps, but more than 20,000 coastal residents did have flood policies and almost every one of them had flood claims. It is doubful that any home in Mississippi had damage only from flooding without substantial wind damage before and during the surge, because the storm surge area was also the area with the highest winds for the longest duration. Katrina caused wind damage all the way into Tennessee and Georgia.
Where houses were completely destroyed, it generally was not possible to prove how much damage had been caused by wind and how much by flooding.
State Farm and other insurers contacted NFIP within a week after the storm, requested that FEMA waive the requirements for detailed flood adjustments, and drafted the FEMA memorandum that waived the requirement. This account has been confirmed in depositions of FEMA personnel, and an insurance lobbyist took credit for drafting the policy in one of Becky Mowbray’s articles in the Times-Picayune.
State Farm instituted practices designed to assume that all damage in the surge area had been caused by flooding and place the burden of proof on the insured to prove otherwise.
State Farm told its (Renfroe) adjusters to go out and pay the flood insurance policy limits in the storm surge area without performing a detailed adjustment. FEMA issued the memo on 9/21/05 and adjusters were handing out flood checks for up to $250,000 on 9/22. Only after paying the full flood payment did they order engineering assessments to determine the cause of damage.
State Farm demanded that the engineers not apportion damage between wind and flooding (contrary to the NFIP/WYO contractual obligation), but instead to determine the “predominant” cause of the damage. State Farm relied on its anti-concurrent causation language to insist that wind damage was not covered if flooding was responsible for any part of the loss. So, for most slab claims, State Farm paid nothing, and sent letters saying that the loss was entirely excluded. They did not claim, and certainly did not prove, that all the damage had been caused by flooding. They insisted that they did not have to prove the extent of flood damage in order to exclude wind coverage, merely to prove that flooding contributed to the loss.
A few engineers were not in on the fix, and reported back either that there was not enough physical evidence to determine the cause of the loss, or that the evidence suggested that the home had been substantially destroyed by wind and wind-driven debris before any flooding.
In those cases, State Farm rejected the reports and made the engineering firms rewrite them to blame flooding. That is all documented in the Forensic Analysis and Engineering Corp. emails.
Eventually, a slab case (Broussard) came before Judge Senter. Jack Denton and William Walker represented the Broussards and based the case primarily on the long-standing precedent that the insurance company has the burden of proof to prove the damage is excluded, and State Farm had acted in bad faith by refusing to do so. Judge Senter agreed and issued a directed verdict for the Broussards and then gave the jury the task of considering punitive damages.
Here is Senter’s opinion:
http://www.mssd.uscourts.gov/Insurance%20Opinions/ch06cv6order0111.pdf
That decision was January 11, 2007.
Then State Farm started settling cases.
February 1, 2008 at 12:15 pm
Where does George Dale stand in all this? Hurricans have wrecked havoc on Florida for years, did Mississippi have their head in the sand, or in the pockets of BIG INSURANCE? Was George Dale not in office when CAMILLE just a little baby compared to Katrina come thru? I don’t know…Please enlighten me..Do we need to set term limits on Insurance Commissions, or do we blame this on greedy lawyers or a goverment that don’t know what the hell they are doing..If Katrina had been in a third world country we know the US would have reacted much faster with greater relief.
February 1, 2008 at 12:18 pm
I notice Cowboy hasn’t chimed in with a comment but he had some interesting information about the politics behind a lot of this - including how it’s spilling over to misinformation in the media - on the Mississippi Insurance Forum blog a couple of days ago.
February 1, 2008 at 12:26 pm
Dale came in office in the 70s, after Camile but while it was still a fresh wound, and would have to have been aware that the concurrent cause and water exclusion caselaw was out there.
Is the case where Judge Senter gave the directed verdict the one in which Walker argued in the Fifth Circuit and got pretty well roasted by the chief judge? Off topic, sort of, but Walker taught torts at the Ole Miss law school for a few years.
February 1, 2008 at 12:27 pm
Another really great comment, Researcher, and good questions, magnolia.
David Rossmiller just put up an a propos post, by the way: the U.S. just can’t tell yet whether it needs to intervene in Ex rel. Rigsby, despite yesterday’s having been the drop-dead date.
You might enjoy joining NAAS and observer in masticating DR’s analysis.
February 1, 2008 at 12:29 pm
Flood insurance is limited to $250,000 for a residential structure with an option for up to $100,000 for contents. The nonresidential limits are $500,000/$500,000. Flood policies do not cover additional living expenses, business interruption, loss of use, etc., only structure and contents.
Hardly anyone has flood coverage for the full value of the home, because of the limits on coverage and because people do not expect to have a total loss from a flood. The average flood claim in the country is around $20,000. Before Katrina, Ivan was the only event in which the average claim exceeded $50,000 (around $52,000 if I recall correctly).
In Mississippi, the average Katrina claim was $142,000, and would have been higher except that was how much coverage people had.
February 1, 2008 at 12:39 pm
Dale issued a bulletin shortly after the storm advising insurance companies that they had to prove that damage had been caused by flooding in order to exclude coverage.
They ignored him and he did little, if anything, to enforce it.
In early 2006, Dale (or Lee Harrell for Dale) wrote State Farm to say that anti-concurrent causation language did not absolve them of the burden to prove the extent of the loss caused by flooding.
State Farm wrote back that it was paying for wind damage that was separate and distinct from any flood damage, esentially shifting the burden of proof and excluding all damage where flooding might possibly be the cause.
Again, Dale’s office did little, if anything, to enforce his position.
February 1, 2008 at 12:53 pm
Researcher, that’s my experience of that office going way, way back (to the 80s)
February 1, 2008 at 1:12 pm
When one takes public office one should have Back Bone to administer with what they are charged to do. The big difference between Judge Lackey and Commission Dale is when the Judge knew something was not right he had the Back Bone to report it, when Dickie Scruggs went into Mr. Dale office and made an implied threat if Mr Dale dint’t go to SF and get him 500 million he didn’t do anything. If he had called AP before Dickie left the office and reported it to the press the people on the coast might have some relief by now.
February 1, 2008 at 1:22 pm
Magnolia, Judge Lackey also had the Back Bone to put Dale back in the race as a Democrat.
February 1, 2008 at 3:15 pm
Researcher, and others, thanks for the valuable information. That is some good stuff to help us all understand these issues better.
It appears that State Farm and some of the lawyers on the other side of litigation from them are all dirty from having fought in the mud. Two wrongs(Or multiple wrongs in this case) don’t make a right.Time for a good cleansing. MS is better than this. So are our MS Bar members. So is the insurance industry. And so is State Farm. What a shame.
February 1, 2008 at 3:43 pm
On behalf of all the authors at the Insurance Issues Forum our reactions to the GAO report, the Reuters reporting on it along with the factual reasons for the Senatorial hold on NFIP re authorization are found here:
http://mississippiinsuranceforum.blogspot.com/2008/01/gao-national-flood-insurance-program.html
Here:
http://mississippiinsuranceforum.blogspot.com/2008/01/pee-on-my-leg-and-say-its-raining-part.html
And here:
http://mississippiinsuranceforum.blogspot.com/2008/01/pee-on-my-leg-and-say-its-rainin-big.html
A big tip of the hat to Brain Martin at Representative Taylor’s office for the Vitter pdf.
sop
February 1, 2008 at 4:07 pm
Nice, Sop, btw I just mentioned one of the early posts on the site in folo’s WLBT thread - the one about the language of “wind”.
I’m hoping on of the lawyer’s here will take a look and tell me/us if there are any legal implications of defining a hurricane as a windstorm when it is not.
February 1, 2008 at 7:56 pm
Speaking of Flood coverage, did y’all see this?
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080131/ap_on_re_us/katrina_levee_suit
“NEW ORLEANS - Saying his hands were tied by law, a federal judge dismissed a class-action lawsuit against the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers over levee breaches after Hurricane Katrina, but rebuked the agency for failing to protect the city…
…The judge issued a stinging condemnation of the Corps, saying the agency “cast a blind eye” in protecting New Orleans and “squandered millions of dollars in building a levee system … which was known to be inadequate by the Corps’ own calculations.”
February 2, 2008 at 3:48 pm
By all means, build the levees correctly and use the money wisely. But, understand this —- there is NO WAY to fully protect the city of New Orleans, with many areas BELOW sea level, from a direct strike by a cat 5 hurricane, no matter how many levees, canals, or other man-made structures are built. The belief in such ability stems from the arrogance of mankind, and represents pure folly.
At the end of the day, the underlying problem in New Orleans is this (and not just in New Orleans) — it is a land use problem and issue. People (especially folks who are elderly and not very mobile) should NOT be living in these areas (expecially those below sea level) that cannot be adequated protected from the wrath and fury of mother nature. Period. IF they own the land (or what used to be swamps absent the man-made canals and levees), and want to contruct and live in a residence in such an area, they should bear that risk themselves (if allowed to do so at all –strong consideration should be made to the govt. purchasing these properties and restoring them to swamps and wetlands, or restrict them to commercial use). There should be no govt. bail-out or assistance in the event the inevitable occurs. Only those who can afford the risk should own and develop properties in such areas, if at all.
Along the MS River, between the River and the levee, folks have recreational hunting camps, lodges, cabins, etc. They are most often built up on stilts. Why? Because it will flood. Sometimes multiple times per year. And they are prepared. And when it does flood, while it is an inconveniece, it is really no big deal — not much property damage and no loss of human life.
I am growing a bit weary from all of this blame toward the state govts of LA and MS and the US govt. for the damage and loss of life caused by a natural occurence — a large hurricane. At some point, folks needs to pull themselves up by their bootstraps, and realize that it is ultimately up to them to be prepared, have a plan, and take action when warned. And part of being prepared is to make wise land use decisions, including location of residential property in safe areas. Why put your entire family in jeopardy? And proper action upon warning means to evacuate when the govt. says to evacuate. There is nothing one can do to stop a hurricane, and there is no property anyone owns more valuable than their own life. So, why stay when ordered to evacuate? When you chose to do that, 3 things can happen, and two of them are real bad: you could die; you could selfishly put yourself in need of rescue by others, who might also die trying to save you, or you could get lucky and survive. Not real smart IMO.
And guess what folks. There WILL be another hurricane to strike New Orleans and the MS Gulf coast. IT is not just a possibility, it is an eventuality. And if the same type of structures(residential and commercial) are built in the exact same places, with the same land use decisions made, and same level of precautions and preparations occuring as before, then there will be similar results. In my lifetime, there was Camille, and now Katrina. Hopefully, I will not see another like those in a long lifetime ahead, but unfortunately I probably will. Will MS and NO be ready? Will lessons be learned? Or are we just gonna do the same ol same ol, and when the inevitable occurs, blame the govt., governor, president, whoever, for an act of mother nature?
The answers lie within. Just look in the mirror.
February 2, 2008 at 4:05 pm
AFOTL, the problem is that the levee failure in New Orleans was, in fact, the result of incompetence by government. The levees were negligently designed (primary reason for failure) and negligently built and maintained. there seems to be no question of that. So I think criticism of the levee board and the corp of engineers is very warranted. And criticism of local government for the way the evacuation was handled is similarly warranted.
On the other hand you are correct about the risks of living in much– but not all– of New Orleans. There was a failure of the local government planning rebuilding– or rather, in not planning rebuilding. Basically, there are areas that just can’t support rebuilding, and that could be used as cushions to protect more viable areas, but there just isn’t the political will.
I can understand the feeling of those who did live in the lowest areas– these were their homes for decades– but saying to them they will get the same city services they’d had in a city that had to have a sane plan for reducing its exposure, risk, and infrastructure was just irresponsible.
And here I fault a failure of will by the federal government (which could have conditioned aid on fixing problems) too.
New Orleans could have come out of it more protected for next time. Instead it comes out wounded and with little reason to hope for better if the next hurricane hits it square on rather than striking a glancing blow.
February 2, 2008 at 4:15 pm
The other issue that was so catastrophic in NOLA was that Katrina hit at the end of the month — poor people are flat broke at the end of the month, and going anywhere COSTS. If the city couldn’t pull itself together to move them out of harm’s way, they weren’t in any kind of position to move themselves.
February 2, 2008 at 4:22 pm
worse than that Lotus– I’m told by someone in local gov’m't down there that in prior evacuations, they used school buses, drove them in to the projects, and drove people out. People were conditioned to expect this for years. And the buses never happened. Again, this isn’t an individual failure to me– if you’ve conditioned people for years “stay put and we’ll get you out o.k.,” you, local government, are at fault for changing the “plan” (as if there was one) at the last possible moment.
February 3, 2008 at 3:12 pm
Man cannot control mother nature. We can only hope to contain her.
Again, at its core, the problems stem from improper and perhaps irresponsible land use.
If you are so broke, poor, disabled, or otherwise unable to travel on your own, even during an emergency evacuation for an approaching hurricane, then you have absolutely NO BUSINESS living in an area on the coast, below sea level, that is so susceptible to flooding and hurricane force winds. If the area was formerly a swamp, and must be protected by a series of canals and levees, that should tell you something.
And to the extent that state or federal govt. built or susidized residential housing for such people in such areas, then I will find fault with govt.
But, hurricanes are not the fault of govt. They are not Democrat or Republican or Libertarian or Green Party. They are natural occurences that will happen again. Lessons need to be learned, or history will repeat itself.
Move those people north!!