Comments on: Response-to-recovery: The housing crisis

By: William R. Cumming

William R. Cumming — Fri, 16 Nov 2012 15:24:08 +0000

Well more evidence of cluelessness at the WH on domestic crisis management. Maybe Brennan trained by the CIA should take on Housing and Recovery.

Evidence–the National Disaster Recovery Strategy was referred to in the Thursday afternoon update. Not the National Disaster Housing Strategy. And the recovery strategy produced and released IMO before the housing strategy. Clearly someone thought this distinction was unimportant or ignorant of the two separate uncoordinated strategies. I would have mentioned both or the housing strategy unless as I suspect FEMA, having lost the earthquake hazards reduction program lead in 2002, its national security emergency preparedness lead in 2003, numerous other programs, functions, activities departure since 2003, and what I think is probably a permanent departure of the LTR [long-term recovery] lead it is obvious whatever FEMA’s Hurricane Sandy performance it is a step child that no responsible entity wants to go beyond being a channel for funding and information in disasters. So death by a 1000 cuts seems FEMA’s future. No real advocates left for its all-hazards mission and goals.

Too bad since I believe this slow bleeding to death of FEMA by last three administrations a huge mistake and almost ensuring a larger future DoD role in civil domestic crisis management.

By: William R. Cumming

William R. Cumming — Thu, 15 Nov 2012 15:22:57 +0000

And did I mention that under Congressional mandate there is in fact a published final National Disaster Housing Strategy!
Its current relevance and usage unknown to me!

By: William R. Cumming

William R. Cumming — Thu, 15 Nov 2012 15:21:11 +0000

Hoping my comments present and past make all understand that neither FEMA nor HUD as currently organized are fully competent to handle disaster housing issues at the level of Katrina and Sandy!

Again, while laughed at, during my time in
FEMA I argued for specific plans in several areas of the USA as a baseline to house up to 5M without housing.

By: William R. Cumming

William R. Cumming — Thu, 15 Nov 2012 14:10:01 +0000

Perhaps some discussion of the NFIP would be appropriate. The basic principle of that program is that existing occupancy of the flood plain prior to FEMA mapping that flood plain would receive a permanent subsidy in the form of lower premiums for flood insurance in return for STATES and their Local Governments controlling floodplain development, in particular for single family and 1-4 family housing, in the face of that known risk.
The FEMA maps are the enforcement arm of the program but they are gamed in many ways.
Now that program should be reformed by returning to the original statutory scheme and flood insurance should only be provided in mapped areas of the 1% annual occurrence [exceedence] flood ofter erroneously referred to as the 100-year flood.
Congress conducted partial reform this last July when it mandated that full acturial rates should be paid post-loss and this mandate will heavily impact the required flood insurance on the Jersey and NY shores.

In NOLA because of a decision early on in the NFIP to not show as flood prone properties behind levees and flood walls and below dams, the people occupying those areas of NOLA knew of the malfeasance, misfeasance, and non-feasance of local flood plain management and bought federal flood insurance at extremely cheap rates since they were technically in non-flood prone areas. Thus the almost $20B outlays of the NFIP post-Katrina.

In a Boston Globe opinion piece today the author opined on some of these issues.

By: William R. Cumming

William R. Cumming — Thu, 15 Nov 2012 06:54:32 +0000

Interesting post! Housing in American life is as proved often the last best hope of some kind of investment that will outrun the slicky boys of Wall Street. Used to be like stuffing money under the mattress with assurance unless stolen will be there. Well the financial crisis since 2008 has proved that money invested in housing may or may not be there when needed. But whether a good investment or not we all need a roof over our heads. HUD of course has a basic charter to do that since its formation in 1966 and startup under Secretary Weaver. But of course the USA does NOT provide decent, safe, sanitary housing for all. Why?

Even before Mother Nature sometimes intervenes, a great deal of subsidy to waste is represented by the unlimited mortgage deduction that favors the wealthy. And then of course you have to “own” property to have an insurable interest in the property. And much of
STATE and LOCAL taxes including the provision of education is based on the property tax.

And then there is the second or third home that some own for not just investment but occupancy. The Internal Revenue Code requires that these non-principal residences be occupied by the owners just two weeks a year to allow the tax benefits of rental housing to be achieved.