Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
(Cough, Cough) Thanks, FEMA!
People are still living in FEMA trailers left after Hurricane Katrina, the trailers are basically poisoned, and the DHS has no idea to do with the poor schlubs coughing themselves silly from all the chemicals.
Katrina washed away Joe Fineran's home in Bay St. Louis, Miss., and he has lived in two travel trailers since December 2005. The first tested at 0.38 ppm of formaldehyde -- nearly four times the higher EPA limit and 48 times the .008 ppm minimal-risk standard. The second tested slightly better, at 0.18 ppm. In both trailers, however, Fineran, 35, and his fiancŽe, Michelle, have suffered burning eyes, coughing and sinus attacks. "Even my dog is sick," says Fineran. "His nose is running all the time, his eyes are running."
Fineran asked FEMA to relocate him. Per the latest directive, FEMA has offered him a mobile home or a Katrina Kottage. Fineran would gladly take either one -- but he has been refused permits at every turn. FEMA won't approve a Katrina Kottage unless the soil on his coastal property passes stability tests. He's paying for soil tests, but so far the results are inconclusive. He can put a mobile home on his property if he can get a permit for it from the City of Bay St. Louis -- but the city has turned him down, saying it will only grant a permit if FEMA uses its federal authority to secure it.
After explaining the permit problem to a FEMA official last week and asking for help securing the mobile home permit, the FEMA staff member refused to intervene. "I said to her, 'Lady. I'm dying in this damn trailer.' And she says, 'Well, if you want to give up and die, go ahead.' I won't tell you what I said next," Fineran laughs.
Amanda Spake's whole piece is worth a read, especially the bits about the tiny FEMA database of rental units for the trailer-bound to move out into. Has anyone set up a private charity or non-profit tasked with placing Katrina victims in new homes? If not, why not?
Pre-emptive faux troll|8.22.07 @ 9:37AM|#
See what evil limited government brings? Damn Bush and his ultra-limited government!!!!
edna|8.22.07 @ 9:42AM|#
the claims of chemical poisoning are... interesting. one can't say definitively that they're contrived, but they have every appearance of being so. the photo is a perfect cap. where's the puppy?
|8.22.07 @ 9:42AM|#
How is this not on the news? This is such a bigger crisis than
Iran/Iraq/Hillary's pantsuits. We're killing OUR OWN CITIZENS with
red tape.
'Well, if you want to give up and die, go ahead.' It's for
people like this that I refuse to actively disbelieve in an
afterlife.
|8.22.07 @ 9:49AM|#
If there's no private charity or non-profit set up to help people, the answer is obvious as to why: the government is taking care of it. That's where all my tax dollars go, right?
Jennifer|8.22.07 @ 9:52AM|#
FEMA aside, this is just one more example of why we need to get rid of for-your-own-good laws like "YOU are not allowed to build YOUR home on YOUR property unless I decide it's safe enough. Better to remain homeless than live in a home I consider subpar."
|8.22.07 @ 9:58AM|#
Has anyone set up a private charity or non-profit tasked
with placing Katrina victims in new homes?
The local Habitat for
Humanity is doing what they can.
|8.22.07 @ 10:02AM|#
A friend just returned to LA from the MS coast after building homes for locals. It was through private charity.
D. Greene|8.22.07 @ 10:07AM|#
I work for an environmental consulting firm and we do indoor air
quality testing, including testing for formaldehyde. When you take
an air sample of formaldehyde, you analyze it with NIOSH method
2016.
It is pretty clear that FEMA has been housing people in trailers
where formaldehyde levels are above the OSHA Recommended
Exposure Limit for 8 hour work shifts, which is 0.016 PPM with a
cieling of 0.1 PPM. That exposure level is a TWA, or Time-Weighted
Average.
However, the OSHA Permissible Exposure Limit (PEL) is 0.75
ppm over an eight hour TWA. This applies to worker exposure on an 8
hour shift. This is probably the legally actionable part even
though the trailer readings are below the PEL, because people live
in these trailers for more than 8 hours a day. FEMA shitbag
beancounters probably think they can get around this since levels
were reported at 0.38 ppm, technically below OSHA requirements for
workers.
I don't really understand what FEMA is thinking here. If a private
home developer temporarily housed clients in trailers with these
levels of formaldehyde, they would be sued for every last penny
they had.
dhex|8.22.07 @ 10:11AM|#
"I don't really understand what FEMA is thinking here."
that unless the whole lot of them end up on youtube fucking dogs
and bunnies and drinking the blood of children, that there are no
real-world consequences to their actions? (for them i mean)
|8.22.07 @ 10:19AM|#
See what evil limited government brings? Damn Bush and his
ultra-limited government!!!!
You know what they say, conservatives tell us that government can't
work and then they get elected and prove it.
Jennifer|8.22.07 @ 10:23AM|#
Has anyone set up a private charity or non-profit tasked
with placing Katrina victims in new homes? If not, why
not?
Maybe because it wouldn't do any good? The guy in the story already
has a piece of property, and apparently a mobile home to put on it,
but he isn't allowed to because the government hasn't deigned to
give him permission to live on his own land. What makes you think
the government would be any more forthcoming about issuing permits
to charities rather than property owners?
|8.22.07 @ 10:26AM|#
FEMA aside, this is just one more example of why we need to
get rid of for-your-own-good laws like "YOU are not allowed to
build YOUR home on YOUR property unless I decide it's safe enough.
Better to remain homeless than live in a home I consider
subpar."
That seems like a bit of a stretch. The fact that the system is not
perfect doesn't mean that it's not in our society's best interests
to make sure that buildings meet basic safety codes.
|8.22.07 @ 10:27AM|#
Getting rid of FEMA would be a good thing I think, but even
before that - why not housing vouchers and let folks take the funds
and purchase trailers from the private sector directly? As the
earlier commenter noted, if a private firm sold trailers like this,
they'd be sued for eternity (which is why they wouldn't do it in
the first place). The Stafford Act exempts government employees
from individual liability for what they do in crises. And try suing
FEMA...
Plus, we all know how good the gov't is at purchasing things at
competitive prices. Vouchers would have also got FEMA out of the
business of having petty tyrannical power over people's lives (not
to mention killing them...) as documented in Spake's piece.
rho|8.22.07 @ 10:29AM|#
Interestingly, among the best of the private charities is the
Lutheran church. Many friends and families had their homes cleaned
out, sheetrock hauled out, and other such labor-intensive jobs by
roving gangs of cheerful Lutheran teens and young adults.
As to those Katrina Cottages, my father-in-law is involved with the
installation of those, and he says they are very nice. The biggest
problem is the federal and state rules about where you can put the
things, and the level of construction needed to prevent the
buildings from becoming projectiles during the next hurricane.
|8.22.07 @ 10:31AM|#
Jennifer:
Yes, several groups are down in NO building and rebuilding homes.
Habitat for one, Common Ground for another, plus any number of
religious and other charities. The problem is that the number of
folks who need housing is huge.
The instability and uncertainty of the political environment has
made it very difficult for the private sector to play a stronger
role as firms cannot be certain what they will or will not be
allowed to do, not to mention residents.
Folks might find this
piece of interest along these lines.
|8.22.07 @ 10:40AM|#
That seems like a bit of a stretch. The fact that the system
is not perfect doesn't mean that it's not in our society's best
interests to make sure that buildings meet basic safety
codes.
Of course...at the expense of the individual.
The Owner\'s Manual|8.22.07 @ 11:05AM|#
"Has anyone set up a private charity or non-profit tasked with
placing Katrina victims in new homes? If not, why not?'
Indeed, Dave. What are you waiting for?
iowan|8.22.07 @ 11:07AM|#
That seems like a bit of a stretch. The fact that the system
is not perfect doesn't mean that it's not in our society's best
interests to make sure that buildings meet basic safety
codes.
Even a libertarian can argue that individuals should be protected
from fraud, where a builder says the house meets certain standards
yet it doesn't. But society does not have a right to dictate the
minimum required standards for all people.
If poor people decide that it is better to live in a house of
marginal quality rather that live on the street or in a
FEMA-provided trailer, then the government should stay out of the
way.
GILMORE|8.22.07 @ 11:09AM|#
'Well, if you want to give up and die, go ahead.'
All too common an attitude by Government employees. Dont ask us to
actually get anything done. We're not beholden to you. We are
beholden to the bureaucracy. You are just a data point.
|8.22.07 @ 11:13AM|#
For the money FEMA is spending, it could probably buy up all those sub-prime foreclosed houses sitting (or soon to be sitting) on the market.
|8.22.07 @ 11:14AM|#
You are just a data point.... besides which, it's time
for lunch. You can just stand there behind the rope line, sir, I'll
be back in an hour and half.
*slams window*
Jennifer|8.22.07 @ 11:43AM|#
According to the local government officials who wrote the zoning codes for nearby towns, homelessness is far preferable to living in a house of less than 2,500 square feet. Homelessness is also better than living in a prefabricated home of any size.
|8.22.07 @ 11:51AM|#
But society does not have a right to dictate the minimum
required standards for all people.
You can argue all day about who has what right, but pragmatically
having some minimum building safety code works out better than not
having one. Plus, people would rather the government provide some
level of assurance that buildings are safe rather than having to
figure it out for themselves.
Jennifer|8.22.07 @ 11:58AM|#
pragmatically having some minimum building safety code works
out better than not having one
But don't take Dan's word for it! Instead, ask Joe Fineran how
wonderfully protected he is by those minimum safety codes.
|8.22.07 @ 12:11PM|#
But don't take Dan's word for it! Instead, ask Joe Fineran
how wonderfully protected he is by those minimum safety
codes.
Tell ya what, find some countries where people can just build
anything anywhere and compare those places with countries like ours
that have building codes. Let me know how much better they are.
|8.22.07 @ 12:15PM|#
Why are people still in FEMA trailers after 2 years?
Move. Get a fcking job.
I don't give a rat's ass about formaldehyde in these trailers.
Jennifer|8.22.07 @ 12:31PM|#
Tell ya what, find some countries where people can just
build anything anywhere and compare those places with countries
like ours that have building codes. Let me know how much better
they are.
Better yet, Dan, explain how and why Joe Fineran is helped by the
codes which say he can't put a home ON HIS OWN PROPERTY. Seriously:
explain to us here why he's safer living in a polluted trailer.
Explain why he should be grateful the government won't let him put
a home on his property.
Jennifer|8.22.07 @ 12:50PM|#
Why are people still in FEMA trailers after 2
years?
In at least one man's case, it's because the government won't allow
him put a home on his property. Dan can explain why this is for the
man's own benefit.
The Wine Commonsewer-Reg US Pa|8.22.07 @ 12:56PM|#
Jennifer's excellent points notwithstanding, who, in their right
mind, would continue to live in a trailer that is poisoning their
family?
Oh, please, Dear FEMA, I mean Dear God, please give me another free
trailer to live in. Hold the formaldehyde.
|8.22.07 @ 1:01PM|#
You know what they say, conservatives tell us that government can't work and then they get elected and prove it.
If the proper functioning of socialism hinges on the need to have a
specific party in charge, then socialism is flawed. In a democracy,
power tends to go back and forth between different parties...
eventually, a party you don't like WILL be elected, and will 'mess
up' your glorious government program.
Getting rid of FEMA would be a good thing I think, but even before that - why not housing vouchers and let folks take the funds and purchase trailers from the private sector directly?
Duh? Do you really need to ask that question? Because the companies
that sold those trailers to FEMA paid a whole lot of money to
lobbiests and made lots of donations to politians to get the
contracts for those trailers.
If the government doesn't buy the trailers, how can politians skim
money off of it?
You can argue all day about who has what right, but pragmatically having some minimum building safety code works out better than not having one.
In this case, the person *IS* building to safety code. The trouble
is, he can't get a local building permit without FEMA approval
first... and he can't get FEMA approval without a local building
permit. A catch 22.
Tell ya what, find some countries where people can just build anything anywhere and compare those places with countries like ours that have building codes. Let me know how much better they are.
How well traveled are you? In those places without building codes,
high end buildings tend to be perfectly safe. People don't build
office buildings, or expensive hotels without insurance, and
insurance companies tend to have stricter codes than most
government agencies. The low end buildings for the poor tend to be
unsafe, because of the lack of resources to build a safe
building.
However, the real problem is poverty. If you instituted strict
building codes, the people in the shanty towns still aren't going
to be able to build buildings to code. They simply can't afford it.
Strictly enforcing building codes means that they will be homeless
and jobless, not that they will suddenly be living in a comfortable
and safe enviornment.
Unsafe buildings is a problem of poverty and cost, not a problem of
a lack of regulation.
edna|8.22.07 @ 1:47PM|#
re: trolling, dhex, thanx for the encouragement.
these are not great levels for chronic exposure, but the symptoms
described seemed rather hysterical. this isn't instant-death-level,
this is "after ten years, you might show some symptoms" level,
enough to legislate (boo!) but john-edwards-quality evidence of
short-term problems.
anyone think about opening a window?
iowan|8.22.07 @ 2:06PM|#
You can argue all day about who has what right, but
pragmatically having some minimum building safety code works out
better than not having one. Plus, people would rather the
government provide some level of assurance that buildings are safe
rather than having to figure it out for themselves.
Great Dan, but today's building codes are not limited to safety
codes. They stray far and wide from the minimum set of requirements
to ensure that the occupant can safely live in a building. Today's
building codes regularly interfere with providing temporary shelter
to get people off the streets and into safer
situations than they are now.
Besides, building safety issues can be dealt with like any other
liability issue. If you build a house and someone gets hurts, you
lose everything and in egregious cases you go to jail.
iowan|8.22.07 @ 2:16PM|#
By the way, I would much rather pay a private, for-profit
organization to inspect my house than an untouchable, government
bureaucracy. I trust someone I can fire and sue far more than a
nameless, faceless bureaucrat with a guarenteed job and
pension.
Being untouchable is supposed to make them immune to outside
pressure, but given the nature of mankind, it just makes them
tyrants.
Geotpf|8.22.07 @ 2:41PM|#
I think it should be possible to seperate out zoning laws and other regulations of that sort that dictate the style or height or whatever of the building from building codes that are there to make sure the building doesn't fall down. I'm against the first and very strongly for the second.
|8.22.07 @ 2:49PM|#
Better yet, Dan, explain how and why Joe Fineran is helped
by the codes which say he can't put a home ON HIS OWN PROPERTY.
Seriously: explain to us here why he's safer living in a polluted
trailer. Explain why he should be grateful the government won't let
him put a home on his property.
First off, I don't see anything in the story to indicate that
Fineran can't build a home on his own property. It's just that FEMA
is not willing to give him one without first knowing that
it won't wash away - isn't that the reason he's in this mess in the
first place (his house was inadequately built on unsafe
land)?
Still, I'll admit that you might have a point if you were saying
that this situation is an example of where standards should be
relaxed to deal with emergency situations.
But I don't think you have a point when you say this example
illustrates that we should get rid of building codes altogether.
Like I said, please let me know if there are any modern societies
that haven't found them to be necessary.
The Wine Commonsewer-Reg US Pa|8.22.07 @ 2:51PM|#
Edna, actually the formaldehyde smell in the trailers has another name that we all love. It's the smell of a NEW CAR. It dissipates over a few weeks. And, yes, opening the windows helps. :-)
The Wine Commonsewer-Reg US Pa|8.22.07 @ 2:53PM|#
Building codes don't always ensure that buildings don't fall down. See: Mexico City Earthquake where all the government buildings fell down and all the privately owned buildings didn't.
iowan|8.22.07 @ 2:58PM|#
Tell ya what, find some countries where people can just
build anything anywhere and compare those places with countries
like ours that have building codes. Let me know how much better
they are.
Been to Moscow many times. Every building constructed before the
fall of the soviet union is unsafe.
Government oversite is not a panacea for all that ails
humanity.
iowan|8.22.07 @ 3:04PM|#
. . . isn't that the reason he's in this mess in the first
place (his house was inadequately built on unsafe land)?
Which raises the real question: "why do we need to bail him out for
making bad choices in the first place?"
|8.22.07 @ 3:21PM|#
Which raises the real question: "why do we need to bail him
out for making bad choices in the first place?"
Probably because having thousands and thousands of homeless,
desperate people out there angry from the lack of support from
their society is not likely to work out well for anybody.
That and the basic notion that extreme social darwinism is great
until it's applied to you.
iowan|8.22.07 @ 3:36PM|#
Probably because having thousands and thousands of homeless,
desperate people out there angry from the lack of support from
their society is not likely to work out well for
anybody.
Knowing the government will bail you out if you get into trouble
while living under precarious circumstances increases the number of
people that get hurt by natural disasters Dan.
Everyone, and I mean everyone in positions of authority, knew NO
was going to be under water some day.
edna|8.22.07 @ 3:40PM|#
dan, you gotta get better at trolling.
"hey, what are those people complaining about? they're saving their
heirs from having to pay for embalming!"
|8.22.07 @ 9:05PM|#
I don't get it. If he wants to move out he moves out. He wants to move but the government won't pay? He decides to stay. What's the problem?
The Wine Commonsewer-Reg US Pa|8.22.07 @ 9:22PM|#
Probably because having thousands and thousands of homeless,
desperate people out there angry from the lack of support from
their society is not likely to work out well for
anybody.
Why would you assume that absent FEMA there would be no support
from society? It was the government that wouldn't allow the
Salvation Army into the flood zone in the first place.
|8.22.07 @ 11:16PM|#
When people who don't care about whether the government does its
job well take over the government, the government ends up not doing
its job well.
Rhetoric about the unimportance of good government can cause people
to oppose the use of government; it can also cause people to use
the government for their own ends, without the slightest attention
to making it function well at its assigned tasks.
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245