[FoCHAT] CHATNews: LRA Secrets About Who & How of State Appeals

Sun Jan 31 11:55:35 CST 2010

CHATNews:  LRA Secrets About Who & How of State Appeals 
Jan. 31, 2010 
Dear CHAT Members, 
>From an entry this week to our online survey : 
My husband is a Veteran and a retired postman. As an elderly retired couple living on a fixed income, we did not have any insurance on our property. We have been living in an apartment in Houma, LA. since Hurricane Katrina. We want to go home to New Orleans. We had hoped that we would receive a Road Home grant to repair our damaged home which had approximately five feet of water. Our home is registered with the city of New Orleans as a duplex, however Road Home officials classified it as a tri-plex rental property. Although we have provided official documentation from the city, we were denied a grant from the Road Home. 
 To take or update your survey go to: http://www.surveymonkey.com/s.aspx?sm=hdEchbm8Vl_2bWFDmxi7E_2f7w_3d_3d 
To read more about the Road Home Program (RH) and the state organizations that run it (LRA and OCD) selectively ignoring of third-party documentation that would help hurricane victims come home, see below. 
NOTE: $200 million to $300 million in "surplus" RH funds are available to fix at least some of the RH mistakes that have caused so many applicants to not be able to come home. 
Will they be used for this purpose or will the mistakes that those funds could correct continue to be buried? 
Will LRA and OCD, the state agencies in charge of the program just shut the door on consistency and fairness in the program whose name "Road Home" is a mockery for many applicants? 
Ø Chapter 3, Part 2: More State Secrets From Mr. Rees’ Mar. 2, 2009 Letter-- Who Is On the State Appeals Panel  & Applicant Documentation of Mistakes 

Mr. Reese sent a letter on Mar. 2, 2009 to my lawyer with some of  the missing documents requested on Oct. 20, 2008 
One of the documents provided was a description I had already received about the timeline for State Appeals 

The State Appeals Panel is supposed to “include at least 6 panelists with the state and adhoc members from the legislature.”

According to LRA (and contrary to state law), applicants have no right to go to court, so this panel is supposedly the last body who could review claims by applicants of RH mistakes or even misdeeds  

When I requested the names of the Panel members (in July 1, 2008), Mr. Rees finally responded on Mar. 2, 2009 that 
“It is not appropriate to be disseminating the personal information of non-management personal.” 

And, no, he wrote, state legislators (who at least would have provided some element of impartiality to the state-run appeals) had not been on the appeal panels (contrary to LRA rules). 

No rules were provided about what kinds of documents applicants should provide during state appeals

Documents, including photos of damage that had since been repaired, were often rejected by staff from the RH contractor

 Applicants seem to have been rarely, if ever, asked to give specific documents during State Review Panel proceedings

In fact, sometimes applicants told us that State appeals were decided so fast, “it would make your head spin” and other times their cases languished for many months, as if in limbo

So the State Appeals for RH, which were decided in the applicants’ favor only 6% of the time, were conducted by individuals whose identity was hidden from the public (even after a records request was filed) and the Panel used secret rules or no rules to arrive at their conclusions

Recently, LONG AFTER HER STATE APPEAL WAS DENIED, an applicant was told that she should have hired an appraiser to document a mistake in RH’s determination of the square footage of her house even though she previously provided three other forms of documentation to correct that mistake. 

This applicant, like many others, had SBA or municipal documentation correcting RH mistakes but this was ignored by the Appeals Board

Many applicants with obviously mistaken RH damage assessments had originally been told by RH staff that they had more than 50% damage but, later, had their damage assessments & grants reduced
This 50% damage threshold was a critical determinant of grant size 

Who were the lucky applicants who managed to win State Appeals? 

One lawyer, who wrote a very long and detailed legal-type document won his appeal about a damage assessment that violated RH rules

One elderly mother whose lawyer-son hired a surveyor to document that her single-story New Orleans home, which stewed in 9 feet of filthy water, really did have more than 50% damage

He hired the surveyor because he had been told that applicants appealing wrong damage assessments hardly ever win appeals 

Wrong damage estimates that deprived applicants of their rightful grants according to RH rules were the most frequent source of denied appeals, as a RH official told us and ICF staffers confirmed 

Paul Rainwater, former Exec. Dir. of LRA and now in Gov. Bobby Jindal’s inner staff, repeatedly argued that Charity Hospital with 20 stories, a flooded basement, and 3 ft of water in the first floor was more than 50% damaged  by Hurricane Katrina so that FEMA would give the state more money 

But, falsely and hurtfully to human victims of Hurricane Katrina, Mr. Rainwater would not reverse RH decisions that outrageously called one- and two-story New Orleans & St. Bernard homes with 5-12 feet of water less than 50% damaged 

Chapters 1 & 2 in our series “The Incredible Saga of Secrecy, Public Documents, and the LRA” are posted near the top of our CHAT website 
http://chatushome.com 

Tainted Drywall Problem 

http://www.cpsc.gov/info/drywall/InterimIDGuidance012810.pdf 
Identification of Homes with Corrosion from Problem Drywall 

Interim Guidance – Identification of Homes with Corrosion from Problem Drywall 1 by the Consumer Product Safety Commission 
http://www.cpsc.gov/info/drywall/hud10020.html 

Guidance will help property owners and contractors determine whether home has problem drywall 
WASHINGTON, DC – The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development and the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) today issued guidance on how to identify the presence of metal corrosion, as well as other indicators of problem drywall in homes. The guidance takes into account visual signs of metal corrosion, evidence of drywall installation in the relevant time period, and the identification of other corroborating evidence or characteristics. 
HUD and CPSC’s two-step guidance requires a visual inspection that must show blackening of copper electrical wiring and/or air conditioning evaporator coils; and the installation of new drywall (for new construction or renovations) between 2001 and 2008. To view the full text of this guidance, visit HUD’s website or CPSC’s website (both documents PDF). 
The guidance also describes obtaining additional corroborating evidence of problem drywall, since it is possible that corrosion of metal in homes can occur for other reasons. For example, homes with new drywall installed between 2005 and 2008 (and the significant increase in imported problem drywall due in part to Hurricanes Katrina and Rita) must meet at least two additional criteria related to: the chemical analysis of metal corrosion in the home; elemental markers in the drywall; markings on the drywall; or specific chemical emissions from the drywall. Homes with new drywall installed between 2001 and 2004 must meet a total of at least four of those criteria. Collecting evidence of these corroborating conditions may require professional assistance and analysis. 
“Families have the right to know if their homes contain problem drywall so they can begin the process of doing needed repairs,” said Jon Gant, Director of HUD’s Office of Healthy Homes and Lead Hazard Control. “This guidance offers homeowners, contractors and state and local authorities a course of action for knowing if they’re dealing with problem drywall or not.” 
“We are moving forward to help families who are suffering from problem drywall in their homes. We are committed to helping them, and we will continue to rely on solid science to identify the specific causes and remedies for problem drywall,” said CPSC Chairman Inez Tenenbaum. 
This preliminary identification guidance developed by the Federal Interagency Task Force on Problem Drywall is based primarily on the presence of metal corrosion in homes as well as other indicators of problem drywall. Additional analysis will continue to validate these methods and the identification guidance may be modified as necessary. 
FHA-insured families experiencing problems associated with problem drywall may be eligible for assistance to help them rehabilitate their properties. HUD’s Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Program may also be a resource to help local communities combat the problem. 
Homeowners who believe they may have problem drywall should immediately report to CPSC by calling 800-638-2772 or logging on to www.cpsc.gov/cgibin/drywall.aspx. Hearing- or speech-challenged individuals may access the phone number through TTY by calling the toll-free Federal Relay Service at 800-877-8339. 
--- 
HUD is the nation's housing agency committed to increasing homeownership, particularly among minorities; creating affordable housing opportunities for low-income Americans; and, supporting the homeless, elderly, people with disabilities and people living with AIDS. The Department also promotes economic and community development, and enforces the nation's fair housing laws. More information about HUD and its programs is available on the Internet at www.hud.gov and espanol.hud.gov. For more information about FHA products, please visit www.fha.gov 

There is a huge disconnect between the highlighted statement from HUD and Road Home Program reality. More about this in future newsletters. 

Best wishes, 
Melanie Ehrlich 
Co-Chairman, Citizens’ Road Home Action Team (CHAT); http://chatushome.com 
Member, LRA Housing Task Force 
You can comment at: 
http://www.chatushome.com/blog/?p=64 
http://pogoblog.typepad.com/pogo/2009/09/the-far-too-long-and-winding-road-home-program.html 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://chatushome.com/pipermail/fochat/attachments/20100131/ed0ecb2d/attachment-0001.html>