Aug., 2008: Public comments on LRA & law about appeals
IN ACTION PLAN AMENDMENTS FOR NEW LAW: An Aug. 2008 Posting
LRA And The 2008 Law 872
1. Send your public comments to LRA in an email to ocd@la.gov
Easiest way to make your comments:
If you are not a big-computer person and you agree with CHAT, you could just write:
Public Comments on LRA Amendments 27 and 28
LRA has to open up appeals to applicants who did not have a fair appeal.
LRA needs to have appeals run by an independent agency under fair rules.
There must be detailed guidelines for how appeals are decided.
LRA should not spend grant money on individual mitigation measures ($7500 for shutters etc.).
Instead, LRA should use the Hazard Mitigation Money for that.
The link for the bill
http://www.legis.state.la.us/billdata/streamdocument.asp?did=504663
The link for the Action Plan Amendments from LRA that are missing any mention of appeals reform
http://www.doa.louisiana.gov/cdbg/dractionplans.htm
From Citizens’ Road Home Action Team (CHAT)
August 12th, 2008 at 7:08 pm
Dear Concerned Citizen,
Please send your public comments on the LRA Action Plan Amendments 27 and 28 to ocd@lra.gov and also paste them here with the first line like this:
Public Comments on LRA Amendments 27 and 28
Thank you!
Melanie Ehrlich
Co-Chairman, Citizens’ Road Home Action Team (CHAT)
August 13th, 2008 at 9:13 am
Public Comments on LRA Amendments 27 and 28
I have been in appeals through ICF, Administrative Judges, and now
OCD. I want the appeals process looked at. Asking ICF to look at it’s own appeals is like having the fox guarding the hen house and killing the chickens. ICF almost always finds in it’s own perceived interest, not in the interest of the applicants. I have had poor luck with ICF appeals due to their already pre-formed judgments as to the applicant or handbook correctness. I do not trust ICF in any way. They in my opinion are buzzards feeding on carrion. They have, I have found out, no honor or sense of truthfulness.
PLEASE give us a real reform in the appeal process by having it done by independent third parties who have nothing to loose or gain. Give the applicants at least an even chance. ICF in my observations never gives the applicants an even chance. I do not think the former ICF employees will be open or fair, even as contractors. I have submitted my last appeal and have gone past the 15 day waiting period. So that does not work too well for quick turnaround on my appeal.
Thanks for the input
Homer Branch
New Orleans LA 70117
Still waiting for my road home grant!
August 13th, 2008 at 12:11 pm
Public Comments on LRA Amendments 27 and 28
LRA has to open up appeals to applicants who did not have a fair appeal.
LRA needs to have appeals run by an independent agency under fair rules with guidelines for how appeals are decided.
We were approved for an appeal, recieved the paperwork, signed and returned it (twice), and then found out we were denied afterward,
only when calling to find out the status of the appeal. We have never recieved anything in the mail stating why the appeal is now denied
after being granted. Because it was an assignment, we were denied the appeal. We followed the instructions given to us by the employees
of the Road Home program for almost three years, but now we’re told we are not eligible. It seems in order to get a fair appeal, we would have had to hire a lawyer to do the paperwork, but then again the rules change so often, that may not have gotten a fair appeal either.
The original amount of the value of the house that was determined by the RH program was incorrect, as was the size of the lot,
square footage of the house, etc. It’s the Road Home’s program errors, but they seem to be excused from their mistakes at the loss
of the homeowners.
E. Hodges
Arabi, LA 70032
August 13th, 2008 at 2:27 pm
Please consider this:
Serious appeals reform must be put in the LRA Action Plan Amendment #28;that you approve of applicants getting the highest pre-storm value in their file, LRA policy that is often ignored;and that in Amendment #27, LRA should use FEMA money, not Road Home grant money, for the $7,500 individual mitigation grants for things like storm shutters.
According to the new law, ACT 872, and a meeting of several state legislators and applicant advocates with LRA Executive Director Paul Rainwater about this new law, LRA was supposed to include in an Action Plan Amendment opening up appeals to all who unsuccessfully tried to get a fair settlement of their dispute and there is now supposed to be an independent body to hear appeals.
However, LRA has neglected to make any mention of appeals in the new Action Plan Amendment #28. This is in violation of the law. The Action Plan must be fixed immediately because so many Road Home applicants did not have access to appeals or to a fair appeal with a full copy of their file.
The part of amendment 28 that is compliance with Act 872 and is fair and should be put into action immediately is as follows.
If more than one method of determining pre-storm value is available, the pre-storm value used in the Road Home calculation will be based on the method with the highest value, regardless of any difference between the values determined by different methods.
Lastly, Amendment 27 proposes to use up Road Home grant funds on individual mitigation measures ($7500), even for applicants who received $150,000. This is wrong. There is FEMA money available for this under the FEMA Hazard Mitigation Program. We are concerned that the $1.2 billion of FEMA money which LRA publicly promised to spend on Road Home applicants is being spent for other less compelling purposes. It seems that LRA is trying to use up Road Home grant money for less important purposes so that there will not be enough to fix the mistakes for so many shortchanged applicants in distress.
This may not mean a lot to you but to the people who this applies to it would be a life saver. There are so many people who have been treated so unfairly throughout the whole process from the beginning of Road Home. I have spoken to so many about Road Home and their experiences and unless you were one of the fortunate first to receive their grants the process was and is a nightmare.
I applied in Sept 2006. I almost had a nervous breakdown from the perils I was put through, a lost file, then my pre storm value ( which was a drive by ), damage estimate, and severity of damage type being changed to a lesser amount by someone in the office, ( who had never seen my house and it’s damages), to a forced closing that had over 200 people in line being shuttled through like a cattle drive., being told I couldn’t appeal and if I did not accept the pitiful amount offered I’d get nothing.
When I did find out I could appeal, I did and another horror began. After not hearing anything for the last couple of months about my appeal on 7-2-2008, Latasha in the Appeals Hotline # 866-594-6163 told me my appeal had been closed out, she did not know why, but she’d reopen it and send me verification of this. Guess what? A verification letter never came and I cannot reach anyone at that number but a recording saying to leave my name and number and someone would call me back in the order the call was received. That was 2 days ago and several messages ago. Same old , Same old lies.
Just the description of my plight should encourage you to get involved and help us, the people of Katrina get the help we need to become whole again. If you have any compassion Please help us by making sure the above is applied. Anything else you can do to help the people who are left behind would be a blessing.
The federal government was reluctant to entrust Louisiana with such a responsibility to adequately distribute such monies to it’s people , let’s prove them wrong.
Thank You for reading my letter .
Rena Whitaker,
August 13th, 2008 at 9:09 pm
Public Comments on LRA Amendments 27 and 28
LRA should allow additional appeals because in some cases the appeals process was not fair.
For the process to be fair an independent agency should be established to determine appeals.
There must be detailed guidelines for how appeals are decided.
On mitigation awards the money should be paid from CDBG block grants not from Road home funds. People who sold at a loss or who otherwise were omitted from fair payment allowing them to rebuild should be allowed to reenter the programs.
LRA should not spend grant money on individual mitigation measures
($7500 for shutters etc.)
Kenneth Ehrlich New Orleans LA
ehrlich8@gmail.com
——————————————————————————–
August 14th, 2008 at 9:06 am
How in the world is someone who does not have a computer, or does not understand the computer tasks required, supposed to even know what is happening (or that something is happening) regarding LRA. This entire process is the worst miscarrige of law, justice and policy that I have experienced. Even the responses now required are so convoluted as to send a sound mind whirling into an abyss.
August 14th, 2008 at 9:06 am
Public Comments on LRA Amendments 27 and 28
Just because you name a thing does not make it so. There is currently no true “appeal” or “resolution” process. The entire business of LRA and its administration by ICF is ad hoc but not arbitrary or capricious. The behavior of staff seems scripted. The behavior of supervisors follows a similar script. The “good cops” are there in person, the “bad cops” are the ones who send terse, arrogant, or threatening letters which are always unsigned (ostensively because the work load is so great and ICF has no time – I think it is to avoid accountability). It is not unusual for communications to be erroneous, fraudulent, or entrapping. [These are not idle accusations. All or based on first hand knowledge of the documented experiences of one applicant.] Senior officials ignore legal requests for files and communication with attorneys. Applicant files are misrepresented and tampered with [documents appear and disappear without explanation].
Neither ICF nor LRA have demonstrated their willingness or ability to handle appeals or reconciliations fairly, justly, equitably, or timely. Therefore applicants should have immediate access to an independent and impartial [compensation cannot be based on piece work and bonuses for fraudulent reporting like the original contract] agency. I suggest appointment by the HUD Secretary since the State of Louisiana has been unwilling or unable to intervene in the process for years.
It is my understanding that the authorizing legislation from Congress involved compensation of $150,000 per dwelling identified by satellite imaging to rebuild New Orleans. That legislative intent seems to have been perverted by administration using means testing, diverting funds to other needs-projects, and administering the money as a loan program. And now the program is diverting more money into mitigation for which there are other programs.
As I told the Deputy Assistant Secretary for Grant Programs, I wrote about CDBG as early as the 1980s. LRA demonstrates nothing has been learned and only one thing has been changed since then. Now government has added an addition privatized layer of bureaucracy to the administration of funds making the program less responsible, less accountable and less efficient and effective at targeting the need identified in the authorizing legislation.
It is time Louisiana steps up, admits the program is flawed and do the right thing by fixing it so victims of the failure of the Federal levee system can finally get down to the business of reclaiming their city, their homes, and their lives. I am constantly reminded of President Bush’s words “..whatever it takes, for as long as it takes…” There is no way of knowing whether the former promise is being kept because LRA is guaranteeing that the latter is implemented to mean “as long as possible.”
Dennis W. Gleiber, Ph.D.
University of New Orleans, Political Science, Retired
New Orleans
August 14th, 2008 at 9:38 am
Public Comments on LRA Amendments 27 and 28
LRA has to open up appeals to applicants who did not have a fair appeal.
LRA needs to have appeals run by an independent agency under fair rules with guidelines for how appeals are decided.
LRA should not spend grant money on individual mitigation measures ($7500 for shutters etc.).
Instead, LRA should use the Hazard Mitigation Money for that.
Homer Branch
Orleans Parish Bywater Area
August 14th, 2008 at 10:11 am
Please reconsider using the legal back door to screw flood and hurricane victims out of the compensation that they deserve. I do not understand why a program that has been fully funded needs to resort to waste and fraud in order to not perform in the manner for which it was designed. If the goals of those running the program were the same as those who designed the program, the program would be over by now and flood/hurricane victims would have been properly compensated. There is no reason that the the applications from victims of the floods/hurricanes can’t be processed in a logical and straightforward manner.
Yours truly,
Laura LeBon
August 14th, 2008 at 2:50 pm
(No Subject)
From: William Yurt (hills309@msn.com)
Sent: Thu 8/14/08 3:11 PM
To: ocd@la.gov; hills309@msn.com (hills309@msn.com)
Dear OCD,
Please follow these items below and in the future do exactly as CHAT recommends and directs and you will be doing a good job for the recovery of this city. If you can’t figure out what the right thing to do is and have to be chased around like this you are either incapable of doing your job or it is something nefarious. The peoples recovery is being sabotaged by this foolishness and it is downright running folks out of town. I am suspicious as it is simply impossible for there to be such monumentally persistent inefficiency. If you are involved in fraud and collusion with this federally supplied money for criminal purposes an FBI investigation is called for and God help you all as you are ravaging already destroyed U.S. citizen human beings. Federal prison will be far too good for you. Finish your job honestly, morally and correctly, stop being a puppet for ICF or whomever and whatever then get out of our lives. You all have been doing a sabotage job on us that is as truly unforgiveable as “Brownies” good job. Very sincerely, William Yurt
Public Comments on LRA Amendments 27 and 28
LRA has to open up appeals to applicants who did not have a fair appeal.
LRA needs to have appeals run by an independent agency under fair rules with guidelines for how appeals are decided.
LRA should not spend grant money on individual mitigation measures ($7500 for shutters etc.).
Instead, LRA should use the Hazard Mitigation Money for that.
WILLIAM T. YURT
1494 MITHRA ST.
NEW ORLEANS, LA. 70122-2016
August 14th, 2008 at 11:55 pm
Public Comments on LRA Amendments 27 and 28 LRA has to open up appeals to applicants who did not have a fair appeal as well as use the highest pre-storm value in an applicant’s file when fixing shortchanging mistakes. LRA needs to have appeals run by an independent agency under fair rules with guidelines for how appeals are decided. LRA should not spend precious grant money on individual mitigation measures ($7500 for shutters etc.) Instead, LRA should use the FEMA Hazard Mitigation money for that. Thank you,Steve and Robyn Coulon
Slidell, Louisiana
August 15th, 2008 at 6:40 am
LRA should allow additional appeals because in some cases the appeals process was not fair. For the process to be fair an independent agency should be established to determine appeals.
August 15th, 2008 at 7:59 am
We have been waiting and still renting since 2005. We lost everything in Katrina and Rita and applied to LRA almost three years ago. We would like to have FEMA Mitigation Funds along with the little we hope to get soon from LRA before people who lost nothing are given the money.
August 15th, 2008 at 8:07 am
Sorry……….I sent out your letter, but I forgot to post it…….please contact me if further info may be needed for this or any other reason…….
Thanks so much for being here and doing a great job………..
August 15th, 2008 at 9:14 am
Public Comments on LRA Amendments 27 and 28
LRA has to open up appeals to applicants who did not have a fair appeal.
Public Comments on LRA Amendments 27 and 28
LRA has to open up appeals to applicants who did not have a fair appeal.
LRA needs to have appeals run by an independent agency under fair rules.
There must be detailed guidelines for how appeals are decided.
LRA should not spend grant money on individual mitigation measures
($7500 for shutters etc.)
Instead, LRA should use the Hazard Mitigation Money for that.
August 15th, 2008 at 9:43 am
OCD,
First, the RHP has a lot of nerve to impose short fuse deadlines on applicants after RHP’s untimely behavior. Does RHP understand they are killing people by stressing them out? Don’t force our citizens, made frail by circumstance, to make decisions where they feel all of their choices are unfair. Per ICF’s original contract, counsel those applicants with kid gloves and help them move forward. Be fair to citizens who lost everything, including their sense of security, to the federal levee failures. Grow a heart!
Second, don’t close the door on people still trying to close successions. Give them more time!
From the beginning, I’ve said this program should have operated from a flood zone. Baton Rouge might as well be on another planet.
RHP needs to do the right thing in regard to appeals. A little common sense and a commitment to fairness is in order. A lot of applicants have been coerced into inaccurate and unfair/unjust closings. Pre-storm values have systematically been undervalued. ICF has been threatened with fines for overvaluing homes and purposely low balled pre storm values to protect themselves. This is ruthless, wrong and is seriously impeding many home owners ability to recover from the levee failures. Due process is in order.
My family was lucky. Although we lost our Lakeview home and everything we ever owned, we closed a year ago and RHP only cheated us out of about $15k (and we are not appealing because I fear the additional stress would kill me). With our RHP grant, flood and wind insurance money and a SBA loan, we were able to rebuild our home, barely. It is only 75% the size of our pre-k house, but it feels great to be back home and I finally feel like my family might survive this thing. I am trying.
Compensation?!??!?? Phhjht!!! Do you have any idea what we lost? I cry for my dead neighbors and relatives every day. My very high IQ kids were kicked out of their high performing schools for not making good enough grades. My wife and I are constantly worried about our financial problems. Our soon to be paid off pre-k mortgage is now for another thirty years. I’ve lost most of my clients. I am an engineer and professional photographer, but lost all of my negatives and transparencies and all of my engineering reference materials and records in the flood not to mention family photos, artwork, heirlooms and precious keepsakes, furniture, tools, books, kitchen gear, clothes, everything. Post-k stress killed my little brother and his mother-in-law and my next door neighbor, and has my sister addicted to anxiety and sleep medications and unemployable. My mom still feels very unsettled in her rental. I’m on antidepressants. We wonder when our neighborhood will get its grocery, post office, library and public elementary school back. The street light in front my house remains dark. My sob story repeats in nearly every household in my zip code as well as over a dozen adjacent zip codes. Yet, I consider us very very lucky.
Do the right thing. Resist the temptation to seek the easiest path.
LRA has to open up appeals to applicants who did not have a fair appeal and must use the highest pre-storm value in an applicant’s file when fixing shortchanging mistakes.
LRA needs to have appeals run by an independent agency under fair rules with guidelines for how appeals are decided.
LRA should not spend precious flooded homeowner grant money on individual mitigation measures ($7500 for shutters etc.).
Instead, LRA should use the FEMA Hazard Mitigation money for that.
Ray Broussard
New Orleans
August 15th, 2008 at 10:42 am
Public Comments on LRA Amendments 27 and 28
LRA has to open up appeals to applicants who did not have a fair appeal.
Public Comments on LRA Amendments 27 and 28
LRA has to open up appeals to applicants who did not have a fair appeal.
LRA needs to have appeals run by an independent agency under fair rules.
There must be detailed guidelines for how appeals are decided.
LRA should not spend grant money on individual mitigation measures
($7500 for shutters etc.)
Instead, LRA should use the Hazard Mitigation Money for that.
JANET & GREG VILLAFRANCO
2105 ROSE DRIVE
GRETNA, LA 70053-7427
August 15th, 2008 at 7:36 pm
LRA has to open up appeals to applicants who did not have a fair appeal as well as use the highest pre-storm value in an applicant’s file when fixing shortchanging mistakes.
LRA needs to have appeals run by an independent agency under fair rules with guidelines for how appeals are decided.
LRA should not spend precious grant money on individual mitigation measures ($7500 for shutters etc.).
Instead, LRA should use the FEMA Hazard Mitigation money for that.
LRA should not dream up new rules as they drink their morning coffee every day and then try to pretend that they always existed.
LRA should realize that their original program rules were unuseable because they did not allow for payment in actual money and instead offered some “escrow account scheme” which was impossible to use. Incidently, if you want to “invent” a start date for LRA, you should choose a date AFTER you were successfully sued and forced to get rid of your original “escrow account” plan because no one could actually use the program until the courts forced you to pay people real money instead of “imaginary escrow account credits”.
W Vetch - New Orleans
August 16th, 2008 at 5:12 pm
LRA Amendments 27 and 28
From what I have seen, the Road Home is very unfair to those who are trying to close after two years of the grant program. People who are in the program need fair appeals extended to them if they didn’t have a chance for it.
Also, people got left out if you had your home from a will with usufruct and they were not informed about new rules allowing such applicants.
I agree with what CHAT says about fixing the appeals process.
I agree about using FEMA money for things like shutters and not Road Home grant money.
I agree about saving grant money for appeals.
Mary Ann Caron
New Orleans
August 16th, 2008 at 7:04 pm
The Road Home program has been fraught with difficulties and
inequities since it’s inception, to that end.
I attended this week’s Recovery Commitee at City Council, where they
adopted a resolution put forth by Davida Finger at Loyola Law Clinic.
As always I am struck by the passions and knowedge brought to the
table by citizens and victims.
LRA has to open up appeals to applicants who did not have a fair appeal.
Public Comments on LRA Amendments 27 and 28
LRA has to open up appeals to applicants who did not have a fair appeal.
LRA needs to have appeals run by an independent agency under fair rules.
There must be detailed guidelines for how appeals are decided.
Please heed the advice of those who have the most intimate awareness
of the program and the flaws therein.
Sincerely.
Karen Gadbois
Director Common Knowledge
August 16th, 2008 at 10:14 pm
Public Comments on LRA Amendments 27 and 28
LRA has to open up appeals to applicants who did not have a fair appeal as well as use the highest pre-storm value in an applicant’s file when fixing shortchanging mistakes.
LRA needs to have appeals run by an independent agency under fair rules with guidelines for how appeals are decided.
LRA should not spend precious grant money on individual mitigation measures ($7500 for shutters etc.).
Instead, LRA should use the FEMA Hazard Mitigation money for that.
Jacquelyn George
New Orleans, LA
August 17th, 2008 at 11:33 am
Public Comments on LRA Amendments 27 and 28
LRA has to open up appeals to applicants who did not have a fair appeal.
LRA needs to have appeals run by an independent agency under fair rules with guidelines for how appeals are decided.
LRA should not spend grant money on individual mitigation measures ($7500 for shutters etc.).
Instead, LRA should use the Hazard Mitigation Money for that.
Our grant has been delayed by policies and procedures that have changed, without notice, by an entity with no responsibility to the end user. This entire program has no valid checks and balances and changes people more often than any employer in existance, leaving us with no informed contact.
1. “Gold Letter” cover letter, not dated (why) Gold Letter dated Nov. 28, 2006, received Feb. ‘07. 2. Road Home has failed to enter revised Estimated Damage amt. $215,903 as stated to us on 5/23/07 @ 09:57 AM. Further conversations on 7/6/07 Supvsr. “Brian”; 1/8/08 “Zelda” then Supvsr “Monica” all w/ Closing Team & Resolution; Post Closing Team 1/08/ thru May ‘08. (I have experienced severe depression, medical and financial stress through all of this.) On 6/03/08 “Francis” confirmed all info, will pass to Supvsr. who w.c. back 4 days; 6/11/08 “Francis” said she had passed updated file to Supvsr. for action & call back on 6/03/08 and that Spvsr. not on-site, will try again.; 6/17/08 “Monica (?real name) “Must file FORMAL APPEAL VIA CERT. MAIL to B.R. address and ROAD HOME ATTN: Closing DEPARTMENT - Not “CLOSING TEAM” for danger of being thrown-out if addressed TEAM in lieu of DEPARTMENT. “Monica”, when asked for copy of file said “I can neither help or advise you on this matter”. When ask if filing an appeal prior to Resolution Team dertermination would violate policy and rules she repeated “I can neither…………….” I don’t know what to do now. Is there anybody out there.
“CONDITIONS FOR FILING A ROAD HOME APPEAL” instructions require “receipt of written notification of the Resolution Team’s decision”. We have not received written decision from Resolution Team.
I am elderly, disabled and still living above our garage with my wife & dog, under medical and phyciatric care. We have spent everything on construction, still not finished. No funds left for furniture & housewares or clothing We have stopped taking many Rx because we can no longer afford same.
On 5/23/07 @ 10:52 AM during a telephone conversation with Resolution Team, who confirmed receipt of our pre-storm appraisal and their re-evaluated Estimate of Damages, they told me a Compensation Grant was approved, amount to be determined. We complied with a fax on 5/24/07 @ 09:57 AM. We are in possession of this fax and confirmation sheet of same. We were told via phone on 5/23/07 @ 10:52 AM by Resolution Team (confirmed, by Fax as per their instructions, to request conclution) that we were eligable for Compensation Grant (amount to be determined) based upon our pre-storm value of $232,000, the revised Estimated Damage of $215,903. Resolution Team, however, has not entered revised Estimated Damage amount into permanent record, nor have they advised us in writing of their decision.
Road Home notified on 3/28/07 that we disputed pre-storm value and estimated damage amounts. We were directed to “Dispute Resolution Team”. Pre-storm value was corrected (per Pre-storm Appraisal, $232,000, and entered into e-grantplus record. Re-evaluation of damage amount was performed (by Brent) and revised damage amount was determined ($215,903) & confirmed with Resolution Team (5/23/07) but not entered into “Main Spread Sheet” or e-grantplus program. Resolution Team referred us to Closing Team Supvsr. “Brian” who said he submitted (7/06/07) request to Case Mgr. to up-date file. On 1/08/08 Monica w/Closing Team refered us to “Post Closing Team”. 6/3/08 “Francis” “will advise”
Kort Hutchison, Sr.
Lacombe
August 18th, 2008 at 10:38 am
Public Comments on LRA Amendments 27 and 28
LRA has to open up appeals to applicants who did not have a fair appeal as well as use the highest pre-storm value in an applicant’s file when fixing shortchanging mistakes.
LRA needs to have appeals run by an independent agency under fair rules with guidelines for how appeals are decided.
LRA should not spend precious grant money on individual mitigation measures ($7500 for shutters etc.).
Instead, LRA should use the FEMA Hazard Mitigation money for that.
August 18th, 2008 at 1:28 pm
Public Comments on LRA Amendments 27, 28, et al.
My understanding from reading Act 872 (La. Regular Session 2008) is that Amendments to the Action Plans are required to assure compliance with this new law. Much of the five amendments dated August 8 appears to have been created for this purpose.
After reading the proposed Amendments, I have three concerns.
One of the most important reforms of the entire Act, (A)(7), the opening of a meaningful and trustworthy Appeals process to those applicants who had poor experiences with the previous process, goes unaddressed by the Amendments. Technically, the Act mandates Action Plan Amendments only for (B). However,to genuinely restore public trust in the Road Home Program, it would be useful for LRA to take this opportunity to detail for the public how the appeals process mandated by the Act will be improved. Specifically, it would be helpful for the public to be assured, in writing and as part of the Actions Plans, that Appeals will now be handled by truly independent third parties who will interact as fully and objectively with the applicant/clients as with the contractor, DOA.
Although the potential return of the Individual Mitigation Measures (IMM) Program would ordinarily be welcome news, the Amendments would fund IMM with Supplemental CDBG money. However, last autumn, when FEMA was considering the state of Louisiana’s request to release 1.1 billion in Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP) funds, LRA stated that the HMGP allocation, not CDBG funds, would be the source of IMM grants and some elevation grants. The CDBG funds may still be needed for the Basic Compensation Grant Program: Applicant/clients need to be able to rebuild or replace their homes before they can consider applying storm shutters or other IMMs to them.
The provision in the Amendments for highest and most favorable Appraisal Determinations is an extremely welcome development that I believe has the potential to eliminate much of the complexity of the RHP, especially once it’s combined with the improved Appeals process. I hope that HUD approval is speedy, since the federal agency has already stated that it is giving Louisiana broad discretion in administering CDBG funds. If HUD has any lingering concerns about appraisals that vary by more than 20%, these concerns should be alleviated by the fact that many early valuations were grossly inaccurate.
Sincerely,Judy SturckenGreenwell Springs, LA
August 18th, 2008 at 3:51 pm
Public Comments on LRA Amendments 27 and 28
LRA has to open up appeals to applicants who did not have a fair appeal as well as use the highest pre-storm value in an applicant’s file when fixing shortchanging mistakes.
LRA needs to have appeals run by an independent agency under fair rules with guidelines for how appeals are decided.
LRA should not spend precious grant money on individual mitigation measures ($7500 for shutters etc.).
Instead, LRA should use the FEMA Hazard Mitigation money for that.
August 18th, 2008 at 8:07 pm
The entire Road Home process is a complete disaster. I was always told a Pre-Storm Value of my home which I agreed with. For 1.5 years I disputed the estimate of damage, which after finally being increased, they suddenly decreased the Pre-Storm Value with no explanation. I went through Appeals who sent me a letter with the option to calculate based on higher Pre-Storm Value, Lower Pre-Storm Value or the option to request a 1004 appraisal. I selected the first option to calculate the grant based on higher pre-storm value and even spoke to Appeals Rep who confirmed I just needed to select that option and return the letter. I then received a letter stating I selected the first option but they took it upon themselves to calculate based on the lower amount (second option). This was very deceiving because if I would have known they would do that, I might have selected the option to get the 1004 appraisal. I called and was told she was only doing her job and that I needed to file an appeal with the State.
Public Comments on LRA Amendment 27 and 28
LRA hs to open up appeals to applicants who did not have a fair appeal.
LRA needs to have appeals run by an independent agency under fair rules with guidelines for how appeals are decided.
LRA should not spend grant money on individual mitigation measures ($7500 for shutters, etc.)
Instead, LRA should use the Hazard Mitigation Money for that
August 18th, 2008 at 8:10 pm
HELP! It has been 2 1/2 years, numerous phone calls, etc., you all know the drill. The only person that really helped me and agreed that my case was taking to long was my liaison but he was let go in June and now my new liaison keeps telling me it will take time, but no time frame is ever given. I recieved and returned my yellow letter in April. I thought this was to prepare for closing but was told in June I needed a new appraisal. This was done in July. Now I am told my case is going through review. Isn’t that what they have been doing for the past 2 1/2 years? What is the RH’s obligation to give me a time frame? Any suggestions?
August 18th, 2008 at 9:37 pm
Public Comments on LRA Amendments 27 and 28
I was moved to write this in reply to an email I received regarding an elderly woman (80 years, with medical challenges) who is currently experiencing difficulty getting an appeal for Road Home grant funds.
The program was initially designed to assist in rebuilding Louisiana. We are embarking upon the three-year anniversary of Hurricane Katrina. Thousands of deaths later, along with a city in disrepair, we are still fighting for some simulation of dignity.
I have had my own bouts with The Road Home Program. I can use the computer to email and I can compose a decent letter. But, this senior citizen cannot. She does not have a vehicle which would lessen her pain in getting some attention to an ailing problem.
The recently signed bill (into law) is supposed to relieve the suffering from such citizens as this woman. But, the pain seems more pronounced and deliberate. The laws and by-laws and policies and procedures are carefully orchestrated rhetoric. Yes, the words sound well placed and the legal language is flawless. But, does the language have any room for an 80 year old woman struggling to keep a roof over her head? While politicians oscillate between using FEMA mitigation money or not, the money is not moving and this woman is still in crisis. There is no possible logical explanation for the serious lack of concern. There is no mechanism in place to cover this base.
I would recommend that you make this your personal sole responsibility. It is incumbent upon you to take a personal interest in resolving this very serious matter. The legal bindings of the federal grant mandate that your offices disburse the funds as quickly as possible to those in need. That has not been accomplished. Just take a ride around the city of New Orleans to see how many residents have resolved their property issues. To disclose the number of applications that have been closed is only a ruse to distract. This elderly woman is evidence of that fact. There are still too many stories, too many homeless, too many above the neck in debt residents to turn your head from this reality.
I have often referred to The Road Home Program as the Road to No Where because the initial intent of the program was good – until the money fell into the hands of opportunistic people. The problems that this elderly woman is facing are also evidence of this fact. The funds are allocated for the homeowners, not for subcontracted title companies, field appraisers, or independent consulting operations.
The mishandling of these funds MUST be accounted for. This grant is a result of collection of taxes from the American people. These funds are being mishandled and the American people have a right to know this.
There is no logical reason to double up on funding for elevation when FEMA is offering to pay for elevation. The Road Home money should be utilized for the citizens of Louisiana who have waited for THREE years. Three years is a long time to be patient.
Any government run program for Louisiana in relation to Hurricanes Katrina and Rita should be closed immediately – closed to ICF and any other independent agency involved with disbursing funds. Audits have been made and errors have been noted. There should be no errors with the sums of money that ICF has been paid. In the real corporate world, these kinds of mistakes would lead to immediate firing; however, not in this case. The State of Louisiana continues to hold meetings upon meetings upon meetings. In the meantime, people are growing more and more hopeless.
There are layers of bureaucracy deeply rooted into the policies and procedures of The Road Home Program that not even the representatives fully understand. It is next to impossible to get more than a pat response to most of the questions. None of these issues is a new issue. Your offices are well aware of the problems. You attempt to solve these problems by creating more layers.
It’s just not necessary. The program is collapsing under its own weight.
This 80 year old woman cannot fight anymore. Who knows how much time she has with us? I wonder how many others have died in the interim of waiting for Road Home money. I would like to have Road Home publicly disclose the deaths of people from time of applying to dying. Road Home has been responsible for a great deal of stress. It takes a supper person to deal with the “requirements” set forth by this program.
Two key questions come to mind when I read about the so-called progress of Road Home: 1. Can the program show (photographs) the world its progress in Louisiana? 2. Can the corporate executive of ICF go before a federal review board (along with CHAT as an advocacy agent) to answer questions about The Road Home Program?
The world will be waiting to hear from you.
I sincerely hope that you take the matter with this elderly woman seriously and help to bring it to a happy conclusion. The program needs to abandon any rules stating that applicants have to wait any longer. There is no need to muddle over what the state can take from the top. The entire nation already knows about Louisiana corruption. It’s no mystery. The sad thing here is that this time innocent lives are in peril. This is the time to take immediate action. There is no set precedence for rules governing this type of disaster. I would hope that another city would not rely on the components your offices have devised – for their cities would be in total chaos.
(I am not associated with any special interest group).
Yours in Christ,
Charlese Brown
August 18th, 2008 at 10:12 pm
I have been in appeal since may 17, 2007. they call and asked for a few more pieces of information and now I can not get in touch with no one to tell me something, I write letter and they go unanswer.
please help me
\
wlilma huggins
August 18th, 2008 at 10:17 pm
appears my appeal is finished, received a form to accept or deny my grant amount, everything seemed to be correct, returned my form with the appropriate designation certified mail.
have not received any other communication in over a month, pal won’t return phone calls, i guess i’m in limmmmmmmbo!
August 19th, 2008 at 10:11 am
where is my PAL?! I KEEP CALLING AND LEAVING MESSAGES. RECORDING SAYS SHE IS IN THE OFFICE AND ALWAYS RETURNS CALLS. WHY IS SHE NOT DOING SO? EVERY 15 DAYS SHE IS SUPPOSE KEEP ME INFORMED. IT HAS BEEN OVER 60 DAYS AND N O T H I N G!!!!
Janet and Greg Villafranco
2105 Rose Drive
Gretna, LA. 70053-7427
504-232-1492 cell
504-368-6024 home
August 19th, 2008 at 3:37 pm
The following is a copy of what I sent to OCD.
Public Comments on LRA Ammendments 27 and 28
The LRA MUST open up appeals to applicants who did not have a fair appeal and MUST use the highest pre-storm value in an applicant’s file when fixing shortchanging mistakes.
The LRA needs to have appeals done by an independent agency under fair rules with clear guidelines for how appeals are decided. The rules and guidelines to be available to the public.
The LRA should not spend flooded homeowner grant money on individual mitigation measures. Instead the LRA should use FEMA Hazard Mitigation money for that purpose.
Karen Sullivan
August 19th, 2008 at 4:18 pm
Public Comments on LRA Amendments 27 and 28:
LRA has to open up appeals to applicants who did not have a fair appeal.
LRA needs to have appeals run by an independent agency under fair rules with guidelines for how appeals are decided.
LRA should not spend grant money on individual mitigation measures ($7500 for shutters etc.).
Instead, LRA should use the Hazard Mitigation Money for that.
Peg Case, Director
Terrebonne Readiness & Assistance Coalition (TRAC), 985-851-2952/office,
August 20th, 2008 at 5:51 am
CHAT,
We are in what appears to be the final stage of our appeal. LRH has appraised our home (based on photos of the rubble of the damaged home - Rita), and have placed a value far less than the insurance estimate of the home. However, the LRH estimate of the reconstruction cost is more in line with current market values. We relocated 26 miles further north, in order to mitigate the chance of future flooding. We had to sell the damaged property at a catastrophic loss level. Our incurred cost of relocation is far less than the estimated reconstruction cost of the original damaged site. We recieved insurance in an amount far less than the actual estimated value of the home, that of which was determined by the insurance company. Will our grant be determined to be the amount of the LRH estimated reconstruction cost, minus the amount of the insurance proceeds, or will it be based on some other calculation that may make no sense at all?
God bless all of you who stand in our defense and support.
Pat Comeaux
August 20th, 2008 at 9:01 am
Public Comments on LRA Amendments 27 and 28
LRA has to open up appeals to applicants who did not have a fair appeal, as well as use the highest pre-storm value in an applicant’s file when fixing shortchanging mistakes.
LRA needs to have appeals run by an independent agency under fair rules with guidelines for how appeals are decided.
LRA should not spend precious grant money on individual mitigation measures ($7500 for shutters, etc.).
Instead, LRA should use the FEMA Hazard Mitigation money for that.
August 20th, 2008 at 1:16 pm
It is eeirly strange how everyone’s horror stories are all basicly the same….To make my story very short (in comparison to what we have all been through)…..We applied to sell our home and property to RH after Rita….We received a letter of approval with the amount of $101,000…….We went to the closing with American Title Co…..we did not sign to close…..because at that closing we found out that our closing amount had mysteriously dropped to $41,000 (for the sale of our 3 Bd./2 bath home on nearly 2 acres)………We then decided to stay in our home and received another amount of $101,000……..we agreed to this and went to closing in Baton Rouge where we too were herded through like cattle……I personally asked the lady in charge of closing if $101,000 was the correct amount that we would be closing for……she assured us that it definitely was the correct amount……..to make this story short…..We were totally surprised to find that we had closed for $41,000…..we keep waiting to see if they will ever send the remainder…….but so far there has been no other money……I filed an appeal on this matter…..never heard back……I have called numerous times……only to get the same answer……MY SUPERVISOR WILL RETURN YOUR CALL…..SURE THEY WILL……..AFTER THE DEADLINE …..MAYBE……..then we filed for elevation……denied……appeal………denied………But yet, we lived here on the property in a FEMA camper up until about 3 weeks ago…..and everytime the service people would come out; they would always call first to see if they needed to wear hipboots to come out here……..I have sent newer photos of our New Years Day flood………..but they too were ignored…….so I guess we will never get to appeal the elevation either…..
So when I hear of people getting money to put SHUTTERS on their homes……..I could simply cry……….
Good luck to everyone stuck in the same boat that we are in……..Let’s just pray for the politicians to just imagine themselves in our shoes…………
August 20th, 2008 at 1:39 pm
On 28 July 2008, we were once more promised assistance from the Road Home.
On 07 august 2008 the Road Home once more reneged on their promise.
When will the mental torture stop?
I divided 10.3 billion dollars by 120.000 applicants, my share is ‘zero’.
We sustained 100% loss of all our belongings and received nothing while we returned to Louisiana and rebuild at our own expense, even though our local and fema officials continuously prevented us from returning to our place for months.
So, because we decided to sell the mosquito infested swamp lot that was left behind and bought a place on higher, safer ground, and started to rebuild based on a 2 year long promise from Louisiana Road Home……..
Because of this action we are being punished at the tune of 150.000 dollars, while the Road Home people write themselves million dollar bonuses.
Thousands of applicants that never even had to leave their home and returned within a few days to find minor water damage and a few shingles missing received untold thousands of dollars.
When a next similar hurricane strikes, will our officials take responsibility for the misery and dead inflicted on their own people by forcing them to return to unsafe places?
I just wanted you to know,
I realise that nobody cares so I do no longer expect an answer or solution,
It would probably amount to more, mental torture.
Promise assistance, then take it away and, keep repeating the same until 10.3 billion of taxpayer’s dollars are totally erased.
We should have assigned this job to a class of 10th graders,the results would be much much better and cheaper.
Paul Delande
August 20th, 2008 at 7:21 pm
— On Wed, 5/14/08, Dennis Garcia wrote:
Subject: Road Home CAD dispute since June 2007 and not a single response from my over hundred contacts by every means: in person, fax, email, mail, telephone.
To: chatlra@yahoo.com
My application number is 06 HH 135 xxx.
I need a PAL?
I can’t get anybody to communicate with me.
I understand I will be awarded $x,xxx of my over $xx,xxx claim but cannot be told what I need to support the remaining non-payable amount as well as what is not being covered.
My award goes back to Feb 2008 pending final review for closing and it’s going on June 2008.
My CAD dispute started in June 2007 almost a year ago and not a single contact from anybody and I have made over a hundred attempts by every means : in person, fax, email, mail, telephone.
Dennis Garcia
Metairie, LA 70006
August 20th, 2008 at 8:13 pm
Dear Sir or Madam:
LRA Amendments 27 and 28 do not comport with the requirements of La. R.S. 40:600.66(A)(7) and (B), as amended by Act No. 872 (2008). In order comply with existing law, LRA Amendments 27 and 28 must be modified as follows:
(1) LRA must open up appeals to applicants who were not previously afforded a fair appeal.
(2) LRA must provide for appeals to be heard by an independent agency with established standards of review which can be consistently applied in each case.
(3) LRA must not permit grant money to be spent on individual mitigation measures (e.g., $7500 for shutters, etc.) Hazard Mitigation Money should be used for this purpose.
Thank you,
Jeffery D. Morgan
New Orleans, LA
August 20th, 2008 at 9:19 pm
Regarding the LRA Amendments 27 and 28
The LRA has to open up appeals to applicants who did not have a fair appeal.
The LRA needs to have appeals run by an independent agency under fair rules with guidelines for how appeals are decided.
The LRA should not spend grant money on individual mitigation measures ($7500 for shutters, etc.)
Instead, the LRA should use the Hazard Mitigation Money for that.
My name is Calvin Brazley, Sr., I am a 65yr. old disabled Viet Nam Veteran. I was told by the LRA that I was going to receive one amount, but, two days before closing, the LRA contacted me and informed me that I qualify for $50,000.00 less than what they originally told I was going to receive. I appealed to the LRA to no avail.
No one has contacted me from the LRA or ICF since that communication. I had to make a loan from a Credit Union and Family to continue the work on my House.
August 20th, 2008 at 9:23 pm
Public Comments on LRA Amendments 27 and 28
LRA has to open up appeals to applicants who did not have a fair appeal.
LRA needs to have appeals run by an independent agency under fair rules with guidelines for how appeals are decided.
LRA should not spend grant money on individual mitigation measures ($7500 for shutters etc.).
Instead, LRA should use the Hazard Mitigation Money for that.
At my initial interview with the Road Home I provided evidence that I received no funds from FEMA. At a later date I was told that my grant would be reduced by $7,200 because I was on a list provided by FEMA that said I received this amount of money. I once again provided evidence that FEMA denied me any assistance for my property and contents.
My appeal was approved March 15, 2008. I received the Appeal Determination Report April, o8. I have not yet received the $7,250 approval amount. It has been 5 months.
I have purchased a home in New Orleans with the initial grant money. The home is in need of repairs and the money I have left over is not sufficient to complete all the repairs. I am in need of the additional money that has been awarded to me.
Paula R. Mott
New Orleans
August 20th, 2008 at 9:34 pm
Public Comments on LRA Amendments 27 and 28
My home is in St. Bernard parish, the hardest hit parish by Katrina. We have a split level home with less than 800 square feet upstairs and over 2600 downstairs. We had 9 feet of water inside our home, how is this less than 50% damaged? In addition to the total loss of the first floor, we had roof damage causing sheetrock and flooring damage upstairs.
I filed my initial appeal in March 2007 to dispute the Pre-Storm value. The value was increased somewhat but not to the certified appraisal price that I submitted. It was in August 2007 that I was told the problem is the damage assessment is less than 50%. I then filed another appeal for that. I have disputed the CAD, turned in receipts and photos and am still in the appeal process.
LRA has to open up appeals to applicants who did not have a fair appeal.
LRA needs to have appeals run by an independent agency under fair rules with guidelines for how appeals are decided.
LRA should not spend grant money on individual mitigation measures ($7500 for shutters etc.).
Instead, LRA should use the Hazard Mitigation Money for that.
Robin Nuccio
Chalmette
August 20th, 2008 at 9:55 pm
This is my second message to you. The first message was written while I was sitting at my desk at work, in downtown New Orleans, where everything is pretty much back to “normal”. I’m now sitting at home, if you can call it that. My children and I sleep on air mattresses on the floor of a house which is still under construction. Less than half of my neighbors are back. My mother struggles to hold a job because she is still suffering from the stress of the nightmare of the flood and the subsequent nightmare of the Road Home Program. She has just a few years left before she can collect Social Security. Finding a job at her age is near, but she needs to in order to carry health insurance to afford the many prescriptions that she has added since the storm. My father is suffering from severe depression and high blood pressure. He had retired three months before the levee failure which took everything that we had. Now he spends his days working part time while he looks for something more. Everything that he had worked for his whole life was taken away in an instant when the levees failed. The local government threatens to take our formaldehyde ridden FEMA trailer away when they should be speaking on our behalf to you about the Road Home Program and moving that along.
We were one of the lucky few who got a fair grant from the Road Home Program after quite a very long wait. We spent that money on the house. We spent our insurance money on the house. We spent the ICC elevation grant money on the house. I emptied my retirement accounts and we used that money on the house, yet it’s still under construction. It’s still incomplete. You see, you may see the Road Home grant money as a generous hand out, but it barely scrapes the surface of what is required to rebuild a home, much less compensate a person for what they lost at the hands of a negligent government. I beg you to follow through, to revamp the appeals process, making it fair and complete. People have suffered enough. Please don’t use this program to further the suffering.
Yours truly,
Laura LeBon
New Orleans, Louisiana
August 21st, 2008 at 11:12 am
RE: OCD Policy on Condominiums
Dear Sir or Madam:
This is to request your assistance and to bring to your attention the serious impact of a recent Road Home policy change that was retroactively implemented on March 3, 2008. The policy change treats condominium owners differently than all other Louisiana homeowners by prohibiting condominium homeowners from exercising Options 2 or 3, limiting such homeowners exclusively to Option 1.
A huge disparity in compensation arises by limiting condominium owners to Option 1 because, unlike Option 2 which is calculated at the pre-storm value of the property, Option 1 is calculated at the much lower cost of damages. In my case, my compensation grant amount went from $150,000 to $0, and three of my neighbors are facing the same predicament.
Prior to Hurricane Katrina, I owned and resided in a condominium, located in downtown New Orleans. My condominium, and the entire building in which it was located, was completely destroyed in a Katrina-related fire. After all of my insurance proceeds were turned over to my mortgage company, I was still left owing substantial sum to the mortgage company. I applied to Road Home, and was offered a $150,000 compensation grant under Option 2. Under Option 1, I was offered $0. Since I was relocating within New Orleans, I quickly selected Option 2 and was awaiting my closing date when Road Home informed me by telephone that the policy had been retroactively changed. Road Home advised that, under the new policy change, I was only eligible for Option 1, which is an award of $0.
The stated rationale for the policy change is that the various restrictions associated with condominium associations make condominium homeowners reluctant to sign Road Home legal documents and make it difficult for the Louisiana Land Trust to effectively transfer ownership of units it might acquire. As explained below, this rationale is faulty on its face and does not justify the discriminatory treatment of condominium homeowners.
First, I have eagerly signed every Road Home document that has ever been presented to me, and would gladly sign any future documents necessary to exercise Option 2. Second, the purported restrictions associated with condominium associations place no greater burden on the Louisiana Land Trust’s ability to transfer ownership of condominium units than do the various restrictions associated with regular homeowner associations, yet the latter category of homeowners have not been limited to Option 1. Further, it is arbitrary and capricious to discriminate against an entire class of homeowners without even identifying the purported restrictions on transfer or examining these alleged restrictions on a case-by-case basis.
Road Home’s retroactive application of the condominium policy change to me and other condominium owners in my predicament results in severe hardship and is entirely inconsistent with the stated objective of the Road Home Program, which is “to provide compensation to Louisiana homeowners affected by Hurricanes Katrina or Rita for the damage to their homes.” This severe hardship could be corrected by allowing condominium owners to select Option 2, as other homeowners are permitted to do (or at least, not apply the policy change retroactively to those applicants who have already been offered Option 2). Alternatively, if Road Home insists on limiting the condominium owners to Option 1, the hardship could be easily corrected by using the pre-storm value of condos, rather than the estimated cost of damages, when calculating the Option 1 compensation amount.
Accordingly, I ask that you let me go to closing under Option 2, as Road Home has previously offered and I have previously accepted in writing. Alternatively, if you insist on limiting me to Option 1, as has been suggested to me over the phone, I request that I be permitted to receive the same compensation grant amount that I would have received under Option 2.
If you have any questions, I would be happy to provide you with additional information.
Sincerely,
Jeffery D. Morgan
August 21st, 2008 at 1:11 pm
Public Comments on LRA Amendments 27 and 28
LRA has to open up appeals to applicants who did not have a fair appeal.
LRA needs to have appeals run by an independent agency under fair rules with guidelines for how appeals are decided.
LRA should not spend grant money on individual mitigation measures ($7500 for shutters etc.).
Instead, LRA should use the Hazard Mitigation Money for that.
After submitting my application online and receiving an application number, I had not heard anything re the grant. After hearing Ms. Ehrlich and Mr. Leger at a briefing in October, 2007 I contacted Ms. Finger @ Loyola. (I live in the Washington, D.C. area and was visiting my family in Oct. of 2007.) When she and I contacted the Road Home representative, we were both told that although my application was “created” on line, I had failed to hit some key on the computer to “submit my application.” We both thought that was a rather weird reason to reject, especially since I had received an Application Number. Ms. Finger encouraged me to appeal this “decision.” I have heard nothing re the status of my appeal submitted March 12, 2008.
It is difficult to continue paying insurance and property taxes on a home which is unoccupied and unsaleable at this time. Either the City of New Orleans or the Sewerage and Water Board has posted something on the house (as per the neighbors who keep in touch with me.) I don’t know what implications that may have. I would so appreciate if someone would let me know what to do at this point. I am rather frustrated. Since there has been no communication from the Road Home Program regarding the appeal on this family home which belonged to my deceased Mother, I am continuing to pay insurance and taxes on a vacant, unusable home.
Eileen Mazaleski
Formerly, New Orleans
August 21st, 2008 at 6:17 pm
It is a “Sin and A Shame”. It is that a government of the United States of America to offer such excuses. An excuse is for those whom expects the other to recieve their apology. Well it is not acceptable to recieve an excuse from the Road2La and the State of Louisiana. The Sin is you know better the Shame is you do not care. If you really cared I would be living in my house since you don;t i am living at someone else’s,
August 21st, 2008 at 8:47 pm
The road2la is a poor excuse of the present administration of this united states for not giving the money it received from so many during the aftermath of Katrina to citizens of this developing city. Yes just as the government rushes to the help of foreign countries( with our money,)the road2la should have paved a direct path to our getting back home.The RED TAPE is a lot of BS.I had to mortgage my home to get the money to(repair) it,and I’m still in houston,tx.
August 21st, 2008 at 9:49 pm
This program is just a joke. A federal investigation is needed. I was told my settlement was $27,300 I told my case agent (Maria) that I would settle for that. When I attempted to settle Maria told me that my settlement was just over $600. Now she say she has no knowledge of that agreement. I was made to feel like she has just called me a lier. Please assign me a new case agent. I’m in Harvey, La. Was glad to see the Road Home was recently fined $100,000.
August 22nd, 2008 at 8:58 am
comments on Amend. 27 & 28
It is my understanding that HUD did not require that the “20% rule” be applied to private appraisals, and that it was an LRA/Road Home policy. I strongly urge that LRA and Road Home make every effort to be fair to the homeowner, and not create policies that are arbitrarily restrictive when they are not necessary. I purchased a private appraisal because I thought the valuations used by Road Home were inaccurate. At the time I was told that Road Home’s policy was to accept private appraisals. Road Home then told me my appraisal was being accepted and entered into my file. While waiting to go to closing, I purchased a modular home to replace my destroyed home. (based on what R.H. told me my grant would be, based on the private appraisal by a LA certified appraiser). Then, RH changed the amount they told me I would receive and disregarded my private appraisal due to the arbitrary & unreasonable “20% rule”. I had to deplete my life savings to cover what RH told me I would receive in order to live up to my contract for my modular home. I appealed to RH & OCD; the appeal process was not fair or clear. I never did receive a ruling by OCD; they referred my file back to RH. There are many more details of arbitrary application of and changes to RH policies since I have been dealing with them. As I said earlier, now is the time to Create Justice!!!
Melinda “Mindy” Milam
New Orleans
August 22nd, 2008 at 9:30 am
Public Comments on LRA Amendments 27 and 28
Fix Appeals
Our house in the Lakeview area was severely damaged by flood as the result of Katrina. We started the repair work with some of the insurance payout and our own money. The repair was more than 90% completed when the adjuster from the Road Home program arrived. So, there was a big discrepancy in the assessment of repair cost between the Road Home Program and our insurance company. This discrepancy is partly caused by the missing items in the calculation of the Road Home assessment, such as the flooring replacement of the entire house. We have been battling with the Resolution Team since January 2007 and lately with the Appeals Team in September and December 2007 via certified mails. Up to now, we still have not received any communication from the Appeals Team. I called the Road Home (general office) in February 2008 and was told that they received my letter. They said that they would get back to me in writing, which never happened. It seems that there is no alterative means that we can reach the Appeals Office other than mails, which always went unanswered.
While we have many more important responsibilities to carry out (for our work and life), we feel like giving up on them. On the other hand, we do not think it is fair for the Road Home Program not fixing their problems while collecting millions of tax-payers money.
Yan Cui
New Orleans
August 22nd, 2008 at 10:04 am
August 22, 2008
Dear Concerned Policy Maker:
Loyola Law School’s Katrina Clinic works with many Road Home applicants including primarily low income applicants. The comments below are submitted in response to the LRA’s Action Plan Amendments 27, 28, and 29. Thank you in advance for your thoughtful, thorough consideration of this submission, and we look forward to reviewing the next drafts of the amendments incorporating these suggestions.
Action Plan Amendment 27
The LRA’s proposal to allow up to an additional $7500 for individual mitigation measures beyond the existing $150,000 ceiling solves none of the myriad substantive defects in the Road Home Program. Indeed, it exacerbates them. Thousands of applicants whose awards were significantly smaller than $150,000 remain unable to rebuild because of the Road Home’s systematic “errors,” oppressive formulas, abominable communication, and exclusionary appeals procedures. Offering $7500 to help those who already received full $150,000 grants add shutters to their windows predictably carries on the program’s demonstrated record of indifference toward the individuals most in need of assistance.
Action Plan Amendment 28
This amendment’s requirement that the Road Home must use the method of determining pre-storm value that yields the highest value is a welcome change. Whether this language translates to tangible benefits for applicants depends upon its enforcement. Given the program’s consistent failure to honor highest pre-storm values under its existing policy, applicants and advocates have cause for more than a little scepticism and request clear implementing guidelines for the contractor with penalties for failure to properly implement this critical requirement.
That said, using the pre-storm value of homes is, in principle, unjust, as it has been from the start. A formula that awards homeowners the lesser of cost of damage and pre-storm value inherently short changes low-income applicants and disproportionately harms applicants of color. Individuals whose appraisals are valued lower than the amount of damage their homes suffered cannot, under such a formula, receive sufficient funds to rebuild. Although it addresses an important secondary issue, Amendment 28 ignores this fundamental injustice.
Policy changes omitted from Action Plan Amendments
Under ACT 872, the LRA and OCD are directed to provide applicants with appeals “the opportunity to have the third person or agency contracted by the division of administration to conduct the post-closing regulatory compliance reviews. The applicant shall be afforded the opportunity to receive any grant award or additional disbursement which the review process discloses were eligible amounts which should have been awarded.”
The LRA’s action plan amendments offer no improvements to the Road Home’s appeals process, which by all standards is beyond broken. The vague timeframes that govern the Road Home’s haphazard evaluation of appeals are regularly ignored, forcing applicants disputing their awards to spend many months navigating this ill-defined system. Moreover, appeals and other documents are frequently “lost,” appeal determinations are often not honored, and communications from the Road Home Program regarding appeals are still made verbally with confusing and contradictory information.
We respectfully request meaningful correction on these deficiencies to enable citizens, who, three years on, continue their struggle to rebuild and get access to Road Home rebuilding funds.
If you would like further input, please feel free to contact us at (504) 861-5596.
Sincerely,
/s/ Davida Finger
Davida Finger
Staff Attorney
Loyola Law School Katrina Clinic
August 22nd, 2008 at 10:33 am
Public Comments on LRA Action Plan Amendments and Act 872, a new Road Home law signed on July 9, 2008 by Governor Jindal
Act 872 http://www.legis.state.la.us/billdata/streamdocument.asp?did=504663
The Road Home Program (RH) has helped many people but it has deeply, cruelly, and unnecessarily decimated others as we know from data collected from a total of more than 1300 applicants, a small fraction of those who have been or are in great distress because of ill treatment from this federally funded program. For example, our most recent survey posted Aug. 5, 2008 for which we have 201 respondents as of Aug. 21 documents what we have learned from other sources, applicants’ needs for correction of mistakes are, in general, receiving even less fair attention now.
Public Comments on Action Plan Amendment 28, Which Deals With Pre-Storm Values
This Amendment Should Be Approved By HUD And Quickly Implemented By LRA But LRA Is Missing Real Appeals Reform Called For By Act 872
Amendment 28’s provisions for giving applicants the highest home valuation in their Road Home file are good and should be implemented without delay because this is already Road Home official policy (as posted at road2la.org but this is often ignored).
We are concerned that these good provisions of Amendment 28 will be delayed or also ignored.
It would be a big improvement for Road Home (RH) to use the highest of multiple house valuations (pre-storm values) in an applicant’s file for grant calculation as described in the Louisiana Recovery Authority (LRA) Action Plan Amendment 28.
However, LRA has not implemented the appeals reform specified by Act 872.
BACKROUND
Most applicants should have had only one home valuation.
In May and June, 2008, the Louisiana Office of Community Development (OCD) revealed in official documents (fiscal notes to Road Home reform bills) that tens of thousands of applicants had multiple valuations. Almost all of these were desktop or desktop with drive-by assessments of the house that did not even require the staff to get out of their car. Most are not even “appraisals,” but rather just valuations.
ICF International or its subcontractors have managed to do many valuations (sometimes four or more) on a single home without any full certified appraisal (the gold standard that should have sufficed as a single determination). This is not consistent with HUD/FHA policies that require a full certified appraisal for loans.
The error-filled fiscal notes (estimated price tags to the State General Fund) that helped defeat all but one RH reform bills came from the Louisiana Legislative Fiscal Office. These fiscal notes reveal the extent to which multiple valuations were done without giving the applicant the highest valuation in their file even though posted Road Home rules http://road2la.org/Docs/policies/Homeowner_Program_Policies_070908.pdf state that applicants will be given the highest valuation in their file.
The Legislative Fiscal Office under the advice of OCD claimed an outrageous price of $1.3 billion in 1st fiscal note for Road Home reform bill SB 740 to give applicants the highest valuation in their file.
http://www.legis.state.la.us/billdata/streamdocument.asp?did=488434
Subsequently, this $1.3 billion figure was revised by OCD to $0.5 billion on 5/29/08 after testimony from CHAT at the Senate Finance Committee.
http://www.legis.state.la.us/billdata/streamdocument.asp?did=497732 .
The revised $0.5 billion was based upon 25,000 applicants, a very large number, for whom Road Home may not have been following their own rule from their rulebook.
What makes this worse is that we at the Citizens’ Road Home Action Team (CHAT) know from emails, survey responses, and public testimony of more than 1300 applicants that many applicants had their grants inexplicably decreased just before closing by RH lowering the house valuation chosen for grant calculation (or the estimated cost of damage). For some of these applications, we know that the applicant did not object to the valuation by RH and yet RH did one or more additional valuations and sometimes used a later lower one. If this was a matter of more accurate valuations, there would be some justification. However, the only really accurate valuation is a full certified appraisal, and RH rarely did those for grant calculation. On the contrary, RH rejected many applicant-purchased full certified appraisals even with review by their own appraiser using an official appraisal review form. The contractor, ICF International, got more money for every valuation, unnecessary or not, accurate or not.
Why is the Louisiana Recovery Authority (LRA) not implementing Act 872’s reform of appeals to make appeals conducted by an impartial, independent group and not staff who determine grants or grant rules?
Why is LRA not opening up appeals to those who have never had a fair appeal, according to Act 872 and to discussions in July about Act 872 in a meeting with LRA Executive Director Paul Rainwater, LRA Housing Task Force Chairman Walter Leger, Act 872 Co-sponsor Rep. Sam Jones, Sen. A.G. Crowe, CHAT Co-Chairmen Frank Silvestri and Melanie Ehrlich, and Loyola Law Clinic Staff Attorney Davida Finger?
Why is LRA showing no sign of implementing real appeals reform?
Is it because the more appeals done, the more grant money would be used for its intended central purpose, compensation grants to homeowner-victims of the hurricanes-floods? The more appeals, the more acknowledgement of the mistakes of ICF International in calculations and the inconsistencies in LRA policy.
Discouraging applicants from continuing appeals (applicants can’t get their elevation grant while appealing) and from initiating appeals before closing might be a way to bury RH mistakes.
Many applicants were never able to appeal in the first place because they were abandoned during dispute resolution by ICF or did not get an explanation of the requirements to check a box on a form at closing and to send a formal letter within 90 days of closing. In addition, some applicants were erroneously told that they could not appeal by ICF personnel or had papers lost by ICF so that their appeal was not initiated or was aborted. Most applicants who want to appeal or did appeal have not obtained a full copy of their file so that they could know the details of what they are appealing. Lastly, some applicants are inexplicably waiting since the beginning for an award letter; therefore, they have nothing that they are allowed to appeal.
Public Comments on LRA Action Plan Amendment 27
LRA Action Plan Amendment 27 is counterproductive to Louisiana’s post-storm recovery and is unfair and should not be approved by HUD.
It is wrong to continue to spend precious grant money that was intended for compensation grants for mitigation funding ($7500 grants for things like storm shutters even for those who received grants of $150,000) when a separate fund for mitigation from FEMA has been available to Road Home applicants by the granting of a FEMA exception to its usually rules as of Jan. 2008. In 2007, LRA leaders said that this FEMA money was to be the source of house-elevation grants and the $7500 individual mitigation grants. In 2008, the policy shifted, despite the freeing of the FEMA money. Now much of the $1.2 billion FEMA fund which the state in 2007 had committed to Road Home applicants is being spent on others. The Road Home money by Congressional mandate can only be spent on Road Home applicants. This was not Congress’s intention and it is not fair to use more than $1 billion of this RH money for mitigation purposes rather than using it to fix RH’s voluminous mistakes, arbitrariness in some grant determinations, and systematic downsizing of grants after applicants received their initial grant determination.
When I have asked LRA officials about opening up appeals, I have been told that there is not enough money. And yet, we read the following in a recent newspaper article.
“The state now has so much extra money from the congressional bailout — about $1 billion — that it has redirected it to an elevation grant program.
Under an earlier plan, the money for that house-raising effort was supposed to come from FEMA, not the Road Home. But Rainwater says some of the 28,000 people who signed up for the Road Home elevation grants may not have qualified for the similar assistance from FEMA.
U.S. Rep. James Clyburn, D-S.C., the House majority whip who ushered the Road Home bailout through Congress, was surprised to hear that the money he helped deliver is not being used to pay compensation grants.”
http://www.nola.com/news/index.ssf/2008/07/rule_changes_frustrate_road_ho.htmlRule changes frustrate Road Home applicants, by David Hammer, The Times-Picayune
Friday July 25, 2008
Melanie Ehrlich
New Orleans
Co-Chairman, Citizens’ Road Home Action Team (CHAT)
Member of LRA Housing Task Force
August 22nd, 2008 at 11:42 am
I bought my flooded and gutted home in Feb 06 before LRA existed. I was denied assistance, but the previous home owner has gone through the application process for a grant. We have agreed to split any funds awarded since I am using person funds to rebuild. LRA employees have asked for my time, documents, signatures, and to enter my home for an assessment. Still as of yesterday the previous home-owner called me again for more documents. We hope that soon this nightmare will be over and he’ll/we’ll be compinsated on some loss and assistance to rebuild. I feel even worse for the citizens that are in much greater need than us. It is a shame the LRA still doesn’t have its act together!
August 22nd, 2008 at 2:08 pm
I am writing to urge you to approve the appeals process for the Road Home Program. Too many people are still not receiving satisfactory answers and/or assistance to be assured a fair outcome. The latest rules have not been posted for the public to see. Applicants with problems have not been able to get access to their files to determine exactly what the problem is. And the personnel who conduct the appeals should be independent - those who aren’t concerned about covering their tracks. As a neighborhood president and former president of the Gentilly Civic Improvement Association, I have heard too many complaints from residents about their experiences with the Road Home. Please ensure that all changes necessary are made to provide fair settlements to all of those who are still waiting for their cases to be resolved.
Angele Givens
President
Vista Park Civic and Improvement Association
504 302-2044
Immediate Past President
Gentilly Civic Improvement Association
August 22nd, 2008 at 3:40 pm
I believe the Road Home Program has proven to be dysfunctional. There is no way that victims of the levee failures should still be in turmoil almost three years after the hurricane/levee failure. The Road Home gave away thousands of dollars to people who did not receive any substanial flooding. I believe the money should have been given to people who were hardest hit by the failure of the levees, the money should have went to the victims who had severe flooding, and yet many who had moderate flooding, and some roof damaged received thousand dollars when they should not have received a dime from the Road Home because those losses should have been paid by their insurance company. The satelite images that were available should have been used if their were any confusion as to what part of Orleans received the most flooding. However, they let people get money that weren’t really deserving and I never could understand how that happened. They finger printed me, asked for documents, etc. These same measures should have been enforced for those who lived across the river. Yet, they received road home assistance and nothing has been done to address that to my knowledge. The people who received substantial flooding should have been the only people to receive road home money. Minor flooding, roof damage should have been paid by the insurance companies. Victims should have received adequate money to re-build their homes back to their original condition. Louisiana does not do right by the citizens here. This is why we don’t receive the compensation we should get, and why the government has a difficult time with sending us what’s needed. The politicians here find a way to devert the money for other uses and they fail to do what they were instructed to do. There is no way people still should be waiting this long to get the money they deserve to move forward. No one asked for this and this process shouldn’t take this long. It’s sad and sometimes I wish I could move to another state and start over. It is absolutely horrible how people are still in limbo, and how the road home has failed to funnel this money to be in a timely manner. There is no excuse for this.
August 22nd, 2008 at 5:02 pm
As President of the Gentilly Civic Improvement Association, and also the Mirabeau Gardens Neighborhood Association in New Orleans, I want to say that we oppose particular aspects of Amendment #28. Specifically, that those in the appeals process, and those who may have “completed” the appeals process cannot have or appeal to have the highest pre-Katrina valuation of their home in the grant determination. The appeal process with all of the changes, stalls, low grants is out of control and the people should be treated fairly. This amendment must be changed to be fair.
We also oppose Amendment #27 directing money from the Road Home pot to the Elevation Grant pot. It should be used on Road Home Grants!
August 22nd, 2008 at 6:05 pm
Public Comments on LRA Amendments 27 and 28
LRA has to open up appeals to applicants who did not have a fair appeal.
LRA needs to have appeals run by an independent agency under fair rules.
There must be detailed guidelines for how appeals are decided.
LRA should not spend grant money on individual mitigation measures ($7500 for shutters etc.).
Instead, LRA should use the Hazard Mitigation Money for that.
August 23rd, 2008 at 6:52 am
Spell Checked Version
The Road Home program is racially discriminatory. The May 27, 2008 article in the Times-Picayune (http://www.knowledgeplex.org/news/1801881.html) states and demonstrates as much. The result of the application of the Road Home rules and formulas is a disparate adverse impact upon minorities to return home and obtain housing. To the extent the Fair Housing Act applies to grant programs, this would constitute a violation of the Fair Housing Act. At the very least, HUD should have a review process to assure that the result of its funding programs does not have a disparate impact on minority communities — much the same way the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency requires an Environmental Justice review when it issues permits, for example.
Additionally, the article states that a 1500 square foot home in Lakeview would be valued higher than the same size house in the Lower Ninth Ward. Obviously, lot value is being taken into consideration. The decision to use lot value is arbitrary and capricious. Under FEMA rules to determine a property’s damage assessment which in turn determines whether a person must rebuild at the new base flood elevation (more than 50% damaged) or not (less than 50% damaged), “market value” specifically does not include lot value. So why does the valuation of a home under the Road Home program include lot value under this (Road Home) federal grant program?
The result of issues like these is while New Orleans is being physically rebuilt, the unfairness of programs will set New Orleans’ progress towards racial harmony back decades. This in turn will result in businesses not wanting to locate in a racially polarized community.
LRA has to open up appeals to applicants who did not have a fair appeal.
LRA needs to have appeals run by an independent agency under fair rules with guidelines for how appeals are decided.
LRA should not spend grant money on individual mitigation measures ($7500 for shutters etc.).
Instead, LRA should use the Hazard Mitigation Money for that.
August 23rd, 2008 at 11:15 am
Subject: Public Comments on LRA Amendments 27 and 28
My initial appointment with the Road Home was in October, 2006. Since that time I have been living in a nightmare caused by the Road Home. I still haven’t received the correct grant amount, and the Road Home refuses to correct their mistakes. I am out of work due to illness, am fighting to keep my falling down and leaking house, and sick to death of the indifference and illegal actions of the Road Home.
Katrina caused one corner of my home to sink one foot within three months of the storm. As leveling was expensive, my insurance companies wouldn’t pay, and I didn’t have the funds to repair, I applied to the Road Home. Per the LRA the Road Home considers leveling and elevation the same; so I was advised to elect elevation to cover the leveling repairs. I received, completed, and returned the Benefit Selection form which included elevation repairs. The CAD report sent to me included the cost of elevation. This was an admission by the Road Home to pay for my leveling damages.
When I went to my closing in June, 2007 the elevation funds were on hold and I received minimal funding. As almost two years had passed since Katrina, and by this time one room needed replacement due to further Katrina damages found by contractors, I decided to appeal with respect to the cost of damages, additional compensation, and a new home evaluation. I submitted explanations, recent estimates, and pictures. During this same time the state announced the State Hazard Mitigation program for elevation and mitigation repairs. After reading their letter I realized that I could not use elevation funds for leveling, and the Road Home needed to re-class the leveling from elevation to repairs. I forwarded this information to the Appeals office as well.
My appeal was denied because I did not submit an engineer’s report stating the damage was from Katrina. I had two weeks to submit the report. No mention was made of the leveling issue. I appealed again requesting more time, and was denied. One of the reasons was no one else in my neighborhood sustained leveling damages from the storm.
In February, 2008 I submitted a State appeal and was refused because the Road Home said I missed the deadline. Although I sent the Road Home copies proving that I was within their timeframe, they still refused to submit my State appeal. I wrote a letter to Al Blankenship, who said he would meet with his people and get back to me. No word.
In March, 2008 the Post Closing department began calling me, saying the Home Evaluation team was reviewing my file, would adjust if needed, and would send me word. By phone, they told me the Home Evaluation Coordinator said I had to prove that my damages were from Katrina. The Road Home had already approved my repairs; why did I have to prove anything?
Angry, I contacted a local TV station and explained my problems with the Road Home. They agreed to help.
Al Blankenship contacted me and said my appeal was now with the State. I thought my problems were resolved. I should have known better. Up to this time the last documentation received from the Road Home, other that a CAD, was the denial of my State Appeal in February, 2008. No further documentation has been received.
In July, 2008 a Home Evaluator, from Florida who was here helping the Road Home, contacted me to discuss my appeal. He said all they needed was an engineer’s report stating that the damage to my home was caused by Katrina. I told him that I was not paying $5000 for an engineer and besides I couldn’t afford the expense, that I am disabled and not working. As far as I was concerned the Road Home committed to leveling repairs when they noted elevation on my home evaluation. Also, that the LRA said that the Road Home considered leveling and elevation one and the same. FEMA does not; therefore, I cannot take the elevation money to level my home. I said that I worked for the Road Home for three months as a Housing Advisor when they first opened in August, 2006. During training the question was asked how would the Home Evaluator know whether the damages were from Katrina or from before the storm. The answer given by ICF officials was we take the home owner’s word and we don’t ask him to prove anything.
He said he agreed with me, but that he had certain guidelines to follow. He then told me to take the CAD report and my insurance breakdown of what they paid for, go line by line, and list anything on the insurance breakdown that’s not on the CAD report and send it to him for submission. This will drive up the dollar amount for damages that the Road Home will pay me. When asked if the Road Home would pay for leveling and the damaged back room, he said no. I asked if the Road Home would pay for damages not listed on the insurance breakdown, and his answer was no. I asked if I would receive a letter reflecting our conversation; he said no. We ended the conversation with him awaiting my email detailing the omissions from the CAD report, which I did not submit as I felt this was stealing.
I was paid for damages, other than leveling, by my insurance and the Road Home. As far as I am concerned what was suggested is stealing. The only omission from the CAD was the replacement of the one room and the leveling repairs which now the Road Home says they won’t pay for.
Why do I have to prove anything when ICF officials stated clearly that they take the homeowner’s word? Why did the Road Home wait two and one-half years before asking me for an engineer’s report? How does the Road Home reconcile only paying for damages that are listed on the insurance breakdown with homeowners who had no insurance and no breakdown yet still received grants for damages?
If my experiences, and those of other homeowners, are not sufficient proof that there needs to be major changes and intervention by our state government into the Road Home and its actions then the federal government needs to launch an investigation.
Open appeals now, LRA. Give those applicants who were unfairly treated a chance to be have a fair and impartial appeal.
Have an independent agency run appeals, LRA. Give us fair rules with guidelines for how appeals are decided.
Do not use our grant money for individual mitigation, LRA. Use these funds for what they were intended for-to repair our homes from Katrina damages. Use the Hazard Mitigation funds for mitigation measures.
August 23rd, 2008 at 12:02 pm
Public Comments on LRA Amendments 27 and 28
LRA has to open up appeals to applicants who did not have a fair appeal.
LRA needs to have appeals run by an independent agency under fair rules.
There must be detailed guidelines for how appeals are decided.
I asked for a copy of my file. I received a CD when I applied that was to have all of my application information but when I tried to see it 9 months later, it was blank.
I was eligible for the additional compensation grant because my income for 2005, 2006 was very low. I am a school teacher and did not work the last half of 2005 and the first half of 2006. They calculated my income according to the school year of 2006-2007; (the last half of 2006). I did not get a check until the end of August 2006 and a second on Sept. 15th. I went to closing after receiving my first two checks. Had I gone earlier I would have qualified. Since I had received two checks, my income was calculated on them. I was then ineligible.
My grant was delayed because I handed in my “yellow” letter forms to someone at the Poydras Street office instead of mailing them in. About five months later I called and found out that they had been lost and I had to reproduce them. Then the procedure was to start. For some reason they waited until I went back to work and had exactly 2 paychecks to calculate my income. Then I went to closing. I received my checks on 8-30 and 9-15. I went to closing about a week or so after that; 9-27 I think). They knew from my application that I was a teacher. I think that many teachers may have been put off until then. My assistant and the school’s secretary both applied at least 2-3 months after me and both received their money about 6 months before me.
I am trying to rebuild my torn down house but the costs to replace it exceed the grant amount and I would have to apply for a mortgage amount about the same as when I bought it the first time. I can retire in 3 years and do not want a 30 year note or a ten year one that I can’t afford to pay.
Melanie Vaughn
New Orleans
August 23rd, 2008 at 3:54 pm
In Re Act 872
To whom it may concern:
My name is Frank Silvestri. I am a lif-long resident of New Orleans , an attorney in private practice and co-chair of the Citizens Road Home Action Team, along with Professor Melanie Ehrlich. As such, we have witnessed the evolution and effects of the Road Home Program on thousands of people. Through CHAT surveys and meetings we have communicated information concerning problem areas since late 2006, working with members of the agencies and organizations involved at both te state and federal level.
Needed corrections for some semblance of fairness to large numbers of ignored applicants:
CHAT supported Act 872, along with our legislative initiatives that did not make it to final passage as desperately needed to restore fairness and consistency to thousands of Road Home applicants who have been the victims of the inconsistent and arbitrary implementation of rules that were intended to help applicants. Instead, in the hands of indifferent contractors coupled with poor oversight, we have seen many of the initiatives and program reforms rendered ineffective or even detrimental both in the awards process and particularly of late on appeal.
A fair and consistent appeals process with rules and policies provided, along with an opportunity for everyone who was not provided a fair grant, an opportunity to have their appeal heard by in an independent review is required.
The program started with the principle that the lesser of rebuild or pre-storm value would be used to determine grants. Program officials promised citizens that this conservative approach would be tempered with use of the highest appraisal in the applicants file. (CHAT was instrumental in getting the LRA to recognize the acceptance of appraisals from certified Louisiana appraisers was one means of insuring fair psv numbers). We came to learn over time, the contractor began using appraisals that appeared result oriented – that lower numbers were sought, not only by means of using lower appraisal values but other means to reduce grant awards. Our concerns that this problem was systematic and widespread, whether intended or not, was evident, expressed to officials, but to date with little sign that the problems were being addressed.
This bill is a start at restoring some measure of help to applicants. highest psv in principle should not pose a problem for HUD or the state. The federal government and state always have recourse if an applicant commits fraud in the process of submitting a false appraisal. By contrast, presuming fraud or the bad faith as inevitable or widespread does a disservice to the citizens of Louisiana . There is no reason to discount the various sources of psvs used to date, including those generated by the contractor, unless the presumption is those were the result of widespread incompetence.. To do so serves no purpose other than to penalize applicants, increase additional steps and delays in the process (which again, benefit none other than the contractor) and will not result in a fair and efficient final disbursement of grants.
Act 872 is not enough, but it is a beginning and should be supplemented in any way that the LRA and/or HUD can to contribute to fairer grants for every applicant.
CHAT respectfully submits until the issues of correcting the systematic downgrading of grants is addressed, including estimates of damage which are used in lieu of pre-storm value if the estimate is less than 51%, low estimates leading to little or no grant while neighbors with similar size homes got high awards, downgrading to reduce grant awards after applicants were notified of the amount of their grant; applicants who cannot get into appeals because they missed an unfair deadline due to arcane rules on how to appeal, misinformation about who can appeal, or documents lost by ICF; applicants buried in dispute resolution who could not appeal without a completed dispute resolution (ICF was fined for a small fraction of these but there was no discussion of restitution for the applicants); applicants who could not mount a successful appeal because they did not previously have a copy of their RH calculations so that they knew what mistakes they were appealing; applicants who have yet to be informed that higher psv estimates in their grant calculations were discarded and not provided, there is little hope of anything approaching due process or fairness by the state in the grant process.
Some applicants have been struggling for months to get documents they are entitled to under LRA policy but which have been denied by the contractor, with the tacit conset of the LRA/OCD preventing access to the records which are essential to a fair appeal., including: the estimate of damage report (CAD), which according to LRA-OCD official policy (posted at the CHAT website, chatushome.com) is supposed to have been sent to applicants automatically if the damage estimate was used for grant calculation instead of pre-storm value.
CHAT has repeatedly warned that applicants do not have a fair appeal if ICF, who determined the grant, plays any role in determining the appeal outcome. This practice, to our knowledge, continues today.
It must also be noted, at both the federal and state level, that the programs involved in the recovery, including the RHP have miserably failed homeowners with regard to elevation and has compromised the chance of any serious mitigation of damage from future flooding by failing to timely disburse elevation awards, by delaying the disbursements of funds, and finally by telling grant applicants t they had to surrender their appeals to have their elevation award processed.
In the context of this bill the federal and state governments should be mindful that CHAT has heard from numerous applicants who won their award months ago but cannot get the funds they agreed to accept and no one can explain why. Add to this applicants who are in limbo with respect to getting any word on their applications which should have been resolved months ago and the question that needs to be asked is how many applicants total have yet to receive any funds, or all that is due, that this program must address and should be of more concern that the needs of the contractor, the state or the federal government merely to get this mess over with and forgotten.
CHAT hopes that HUD appreciates the complexity of the issues and does not overlook the fact that lost in the details and questionable numbers presented to date, human lives and family futures are at stake and that the government’s role here must be, and should always have been, helping the people Congress intended to help with relief granted the victims of the storms of 2005.
Sincerely
Frank A. Silvestri
Co-chair Citizens Road Home Action Team
3914 Canal St
New Orleans , LA 70119
August 23rd, 2008 at 6:35 pm
Public comments regarding LRA Amendments 27 and 28
I agree with what CHAT says about fixing the appeals process.
I agree about using FEMA money for things like shutters.
I agree about saving grant money for appeals
I can’t type well, so I just copy and pasted, but I’ve been treated like crep by the Road Home employees, and I think it’s disgraceful.
August 23rd, 2008 at 7:35 pm
Public Comments on LRA Amendments 28 and 28
LRA has to open up appeals to applicants who did not have a fair appeal.
LRA needs to have appeals run by an independent agency under fair rules with guidelines for how appeals are decided.
LRA should not spend grant money on individual mitigation measures ($7500 for shutters, etc.)
Instead, LRA should use the Hazard Mitigation Money for that.
Other homes on my street and area was over 51% damaged but road home refuses to accept the city and insurance ruling of my home and decided that I was not qualified.
I have not been able to find out what happened to my dispute resolution.
My file is inactive
They stated they are not going to change anything.
Alma King
New Orleans
August 23rd, 2008 at 7:38 pm
Public Comments on LRA Amendments 27 and 28
LRA has to open up appeals to applicants who did not have a fair appeal
LRA needs to have appeals run by an independent agency under fair rules with guidelines for how appeals are decided.
LRA should not spend grant money on individual mitigation measures ($7500 for shutters, etc.)
Instead, LRA should use the Hazard Mitigation Money for that
Ms. Jimmie Lynn Dorsey
Lake Charles
August 23rd, 2008 at 10:22 pm
Additional Public Comments for LRA Action Plan Amendments 27 & 28
Today, I received an answer to my public records request about LRA projected and incurred expenses for the Road Home Program.
This information and insights from other public comments on these amendments merit additional statements about these Action Plan Amendments.
$650 million dollars of Road Home Community Development Block Grants (CDBG) funds are projected to be spent on Individual Mitigation Measures (IMM) if HUD approves LRA Amendment 27. LRA had said all along in 2007, that IMM funding would be from the $1.2 billion dollars of FEMA Hazard Mitigation Grant (HMGP) money set aside for mitigation right after the hurricanes and made officially available to Road Home applicants by FEMA as of Jan. 2008.
In addition to the IMM funds, LRA has appropriated $1.1 billion dollars of Road Home grant money for house-elevation grants that were supposed to be paid from HMGP money, not the Road Home grant/CDBG funds.
There have been outrageous delays in even setting up mechanisms for dispensing HMGP money for elevation grants and telling applicants whether they are eligible so that they can start elevating without losing eligibility. We wonder whether we will soon hear that the HMGP money cannot be spent for that purpose at all. We wonder where the $1.2 billion of FEMA money intended for Road Home applicants is going. We have not had this question answered by LRA although we posed it in a public records request 6 weeks ago.
Money diversion from compensation grants themselves to IMM and elevation conveniently robs applicants of $1.2 billion to fix their short-changing mistakes, which we know are not just “mistakes” but due to unpublicized, indefensible policies or practices that CHAT has had verified over and over again from multiple types of sources about downgrading grant amounts. Sometimes, this shortchanging involves grants shrinking from more than $50,000 in an award statement to a subsequent phone notice that the grant is now zero. Sometimes, it involves unjustifiably withholding money won in appeal for many months or money promised in a notarized closing document.
Small grants are built into new policies that ought to be great improvements. It is good that LRA has opened up grants (at CHAT’s and applicants’ urging to those who sold their homes at a loss. However, only $100 million dollars is projected to be spent on applicants who sold their homes at great losses due to financial exigency after the hurricane and before the program started.
There are abut 5000 applicants in that category and many more whom LRA is excluding because they sold at a loss between Sept. ’06 and Jan. 1, ’07, when the program had hardly paid out any money other than to the contractor and subcontractors. What is more, the applicants who are low income are excluded from an additional compensation grant to which all other applicants are entitled. What is the excuse given by LRA? They cannot determine the estimated cost of damage for those homes. However, they are getting official documents from applicants that can give the square footage of those homes and they could determine the estimated cost of damage from the square footage just as they do for demolished homes.
This squeezing of low-income applicants is mirrored in public comments about these amendments and abundantly in evidence from hundreds of low-income applicants responding to CHAT’s online surveys. It is illustrated by several of the public comments and by many written testimonials to CHAT about Road Home recalculating additional compensation grant eligibility at later and later dates so that applicants who had no or minimal earnings the year after hurricane become ineligible due to just getting a higher salary.
One of the public comments illustrates another frequent source of downgrading of grants, ignoring Road Home rules. There is a Road Home policy document, which CHAT obtained by public records request, that specifies the following. Two monthly check stubs can be used to extrapolate the yearly salary for determination of eligibility for an additional compensation grant but only if those two reflect the yearly salary. That makes sense. However, we have had multiple examples of applicants protesting that they only temporarily made more money, and the paystubs used to disqualify them (after they had been initially qualified) were not representative at all of their yearly income.
One of the reasons that Amendment 28 should be put into effect immediately is that CHAT knows from many sources that an unpublicized rule about deviations of Road Home determinations of pre-storm value by more than 35% often lead to not giving applicants the highest valuation in their file during appeals. This happens even though the publicly posted Road Home policy unambiguously provides for an applicant appealing their home valuation to receive notice of all the valuations in their file and to be able to choose the highest. This is the antidote to ICF accumulating multiple low-quality, erroneous valuations and picking the lowest for an applicant.
Very many applicants faced/face downsizing of grants from the systematic restricting of policy, especially in 2008, that made the rules for grant calculation yield decreases in grants over what applicants were told in their grant notification. As many applicants tell us, Road Home personnel tell them that their grant award notices are worthless and only to be ignored.
As detailed in many of the public comments to Amendments 27 and 28 and by hundreds of survey responses and testimonials at our meetings, LRA meetings, and town hall meetings, the appeals process is malfunctioning for most of the applicants who deserve a fair appeal.
Why should more be expected when ICF and its subcontractors still regularly and purposefully ignore phone calls and certified letters from applicants?
Why should more be expected when Road Home regularly ignores its deadlines that will help applicants but has recently imposed onerous, arbitrary and unjustified deadlines on applicants that even the New Orleans City Council objected to in a recent unanimous resolution?
Why should more be expected when ICF still makes so many uncorrected “mistakes,” LRA and OCD are still exercising far too little effective oversight, but ICF, LRA, and OCD staff make the decisions on appeals without representation by the applicants and often without any written explanation of denied appeals?
Why should more be expected when applicants still are reporting to us in droves that they cannot get a copy of their file?
Act 872, which engendered Amendment 28, specifies an independent appeals system that gets opened up to applicants who did not have a fair appeal in the past. LRA cannot have it both ways. If LRA continues to maintain that no action plan amendment is required for the appeals part of Act 872, why have they delayed the legally mandated appeals reform for a law signed into effect on July 9?
Why is LRA trying to spend grant money for purposes not intended for the CDBG funds and thereby pleading inadequate resources for extending appeals?
It is not because HUD mandated these applicant-hostile changes in policy because the Director of HUD’s Disaster Recovery Unit in letters to me and other CHAT members described the large degree of independence given to the States in managing and setting rules for CDBG programs.
We ask that the State of Louisiana not continue to let the Road Home Program be rushed to conclusion, thereby forgetting the ill-served applicants who need and deserve fair, independent, reopened appeals. The federal money given for this program should serve the storm victim-applicants’ pressing needs first and foremost and not, as often seems the case, last and grudgingly. The public comments made by applicants about LRA’s Action Plan Amendments are representative of large numbers of Road Home applicants and give evidence for the need for approval of Amendment 28, disapproval of Amendment 27, and opening up fair, independent appeals according to the intent of Act 872.
Melanie Ehrlich
Co-Chairman, Citizens’ Road Home Action Team (CHAT)
Member, LRA Housing Task Force
August 24th, 2008 at 10:58 am
i just want to move on with the fair amount. i have proved my point with the letters and appraisal i have sent to road home. there is no one at road home that can give you a straight answer about what is going on. they all refer to the guidelines posted on the internet. they will not answer a question they only tell you to look on line. i am very frustrated.
i faxed, e-mailed and sent a letter to road home a complete copy of my entire road home folder/file. the only response i was got was a copy of my yellow letter, nothing else. i was told i could not get a complete copy.
Public Comments on LRA Amendments 27 and 28
LRA has to open up appeals to applicants who did not have a fair appeal as well as use the highest pre-storm value in an applicant’s file when fixing shortchanging mistakes.
LRA needs to have appeals run by an independent agency under fair rules with guidelines for how appeals are decided.
LRA should not spend precious grant money on individual mitigation measures ($7500 for shutters etc.).
Instead, LRA should use the FEMA Hazard Mitigation money for that.
louis schneider
Arabi
October 1st, 2008 at 10:05 am
Dear Melanie and CHATUSHOME group,
Please publish my comments from the August mailing I sent. You are welcome to also use any information from my survey in the current campaign to the Governor.
Is there anyway we, as subscribers, can view what we’ve written, submitted? (Am not too computer-savvy so if possible, could you explain?)
Thanks again to Melanie and all!
Eileen Mazaleski
Falls Church, Va.
(703) 256-1619
April 20th, 2009 at 10:02 pm
Aafter 9 months and 3 requests for a copy of our file, we finally recieved a thick package from LRA. Enclosed was SOME of our info and also info on 3 other applicants. This included photo ID’s, names and addresses, S/S numbers and other “confidential” information, all of which we have destroyed. My question is now “Who else has OUR info?” SCARY!
September 10th, 2009 at 8:24 am
Hi! I was surfing and found your blog post… nice! I love your blog.
Cheers! Sandra. R.