Citizens' Road Home Action Team

Take our newest survey about Road Home problems (click here)

Participate in our letter-writing campaign to Gov. Jindal (click here)

Welcome to chatushome.com

• Get our free email newsletters

1. Send an emailto chatlra@yahoo.com
2. Put “Join CHAT” in the subject
3. Put your city in the text

New Orleans Home, Aug. 2007

Paybacks to Road Home For Their “Mistakes” By Decreasing Elevation Incentive Awards

From RH Change Policy Document #214 about how elevation awards are calculate (Feb. 14, 2007) :

LRA and OCD state that the elevation incentive award will be “$30,000 for all eligible site built homes” and “all applicants with similar homes are receiving the same amount of elevation assistance.”

Reality About Amounts of Elevation Incentive Awards

Applicants are telling us that they have to sign a contract renouncing their rights to any more RH money before they can get their elevation incentive award from the RH fund (although they should still be eligible for the HMGP-FEMA (Hazard Mitigation Grant Program) elevation grants if they sent in that form and when that program starts.

Important: HMGP elevation grants will probably require all receipts for elevation work so save them. However, you may not be eligible if you started elevation work on or after Mar. 16 and have not gotten your HMGP-FEMA approval, you will probably unfortunately be ineligible for the HMGP elevation grant.

Paul Rainwater, Executive Director of the LRA, told CHAT week that LRA was still accepting HMGP elevation grant request forms, especially because of the possibility of increasing the HMGP elevation limit beyond $30,000 for those who have subtractions from their elevation incentive award for those “mistakes.”

From the highly informative website http://LouisianaREBUILDS.info:

The deadline to submit your elevation funding request was June 16, 2008. If you have questions about the Road Home Elevation Incentive or the State HMGP Awards call the Road Home Elevation Technical Assistance Hot Line at 877-234-1513.

Additional Compensation Grant

• Paybacks to Road Home and Decreasing Elevation Awards

• Note that one of the “mistakes” for which LRA is asking for money back from applicants who got their grant already is the change in when the applicants’ qualifying salary is calculated for the additional compensation grant (ACG) for those earning less than 80% of the area median income.

• RH had changed the policy for when the annual income for eligibility is calculated. This change cannot be found in the ACG part of the homeowner policy guide (p. 35, internal number p. 27: http://road2la.org/Docs/policies/Homeowner_Program_Policies%20v5.2_5-6-08.pdf), but have been told that by OCD officials that previously income eligibility was calculated for one year either:

1. starting from the initial interview if the applicant presented all necessary salary documentation at that time
2. OR within 6 months of closing.

• Now it seems to have been changed to only within 6 months of closing, another change making grants smaller.

• One of the RH applicants who had her elevation grant decreased fell in that category AND she had one an appeal and was waiting for her money back

• So she was told that she had to abandon her appeal money, take a big cut in her elevation incentive award, and immediately sign on the dotted line to lose both of those sources of money which would allow her to get out of debt for rebuilding and elevating her house. (She refused to sign as this violated her rights and made her sign a statement implying that she got all the money due to her. The issue is pending.)

• LRA’s excuse for the decrease in her elevation incentive award was that HUD made LRA do it. But HUD approves all RH policy changes. A top OCD official even in Dec. 2006 related that OCD could not make a move without HUD approving and that “HUD is all over the place, always checking everything.”

• So why how could HUD belatedly “change the policy” on LRA-OCD and why don’t the rules spell out this policy which affects the RH applicants who need grant help the most, those with low income?

• RH is a program that is largely financed by HUD and supposed to favor low-income to moderate-income applicants (at least 50% of all RH grant money MUST go to low-to-moderate income applicants or the State of Louisiana has to pay back all the money to the federal government.

• Why then is RH asking for payback money for poorly explained rules to low-income applicants by taking it out of the elevation grants without the promised additional review, long-term payments, and forgiving of paybacks to financially challenged applicants who are rebuilding?

• Why is RH thereby discouraging building stronger, safer, and smarter?

• Will RH quickly send notice of HMGP grant eligibility and make up the difference in HMGP elevation funding to those with payback reductions in their RH elevation incentive grant?

• Will RH raise the level of HMGP grants to $60,000 for those with these paybacks as hinted at tin the newspaper article at the end of this message?

Four Popular Road Home Reform Bills Derailed By LRA-OCD & Misinformation

• The Bills

SB 740 (Senate bill, Road Home Applicants’ Bill of Rights)

SB 636 (Access to Courts for Road Home applicants)

HB 622 (House bill, about LRA Structure, to which a streamlined version of text of SB 740 was amended and then removed)

SB 755 (House bill that passed with some needed help for Road Home applicants but subject to unnecessary delays that LRA-OCD introduced into the bill’s language)

• Abbreviations
  RH, Road Home Program for homeowners who were victims of Hurricanes Katrina or Rita;
  tens of thousands of RH applicants at financial risk because of failed promises, bungling, and egregious insensitivity to their plight;
  LRA, Louisiana Recovery Authority;
  OCD, Office of Community Development within the Division of Administration, DOA;
  ICF, ICF International, the contractor for the Road Home with many subcontractors including First American Title and Shaw Group affiliates and the Jones-Walker legal firm
  LFO, Legislative Fiscal Office

• The Main Common Issue For All Four RH Reform Bills

The Main Common Issue For All Four RH Reform Bills: Mistakes And Stonewalling In Grant Processing And Lack Of Corrections Of Shortchanging Mistakes for Thousands Of Applicants

ICF makes large numbers of mistakes in grant processing. ICF and some of its subcontractors are non-transparent in their practices and often refuse to correct mistakes and give needed information to applicants about their own application.
LRA-OCD does not exercise nearly enough applicant-beneficial oversight of ICF and subcontractors to make sure those systemic problems in grant processing are fixed.
LRA-OCD has conflicting policies, some of which deviate greatly from best business practices and even from HUD practices.
In addition, LRA-OCD often does not follow its own most applicant-friendly policies.

• The Victory

SB 755 passed despite vehement opposition by the Executive branch. It could provide some relief to applicants, including in appeals (see details below).

• The Official Position of LRA and OCD about Access To Courts

LRA-OCD officially stated that the legislature rejected Road Home (RH) applicants having access to courts for unresolved issues with RH.

• The Facts About Access To Courts and Appeals Reform That Contradict LRA and OCD’s Official Position

Every one of four RH reform bills had a provision for allowing applicants to get out of the closed circle of mistakes by ICF and subcontractors judged only by ICF/OCD/LRA. Three of the bills had an access-to-court provision and two of them passed the House or unanimously passed the Senate but did not get final passage because of misinformation from LRA-OCD.

• The Not-Enough-Money Excuse from LRA-OCD

One argument that the Administration was using to defeat RH reform is that there is not enough RH money and the proposed reform would have cost hundreds of millions. Hardly any of the allocated $1 billion from the RH grant pot that is to be given for elevation grants has been given out. They could still follow the original promises and rely mostly on available FEMA-HMGP money for elevation grants of up to $60,000 for actual work done without duplication of benefits.

• Some Explanation of the Major Issues

Applicants should have the right to go to court for RH issues that they cannot get resolved by RH.
This right is denied by the closing documents that applicants have to sign to get their grant although the same closing documents have a contradictory statement that if an applicant goes to court for a RH issue, they must pay the attorneys fees for the state and its agent (ICF and its subcontractors!) if they lose. This would be the case even if the applicant was promised a grant, signed closing papers, and then was wrongfully denied the money or was asked to pay back a large amount of money because of a fraudulently alleged mistake in grant calculation.

SB 636 was a bill just for access to court for RH applicants. It was delayed an extraordinary 5 ? weeks before the House Appropriations Committee finally considered it. The fiscal note (http://www.legis.state.la.us/billdata/streamdocument.asp?did=501302) was $248 million based upon an estimate of 37,021 applicants appealing from LRA-OCD. This incredible estimate shows how much faith the executive branch has in the acceptance by applicants of the accuracy of grant determinations. The funds are not for court settlements but rather to help the contractor and subcontractors as well as OCD with legal preparation.

SB 740 would have given this access to court and protection against the unusual requirement mentioned above about an applicant having to pay attorney’s fees of the state and its contractors if the applicant lost.

SB 740 would have extended appeals to all applicants under an independent, fair system of administrative judges. These judges used to be at the last level of RH appeal and were well-received by applicants, but were inexplicably dropped from the RH in Nov. 2007.

HB 622 (awaiting the Gov. signature or else will become law if he does not sign and does not veto) involves LRA Board and staff structure. It was stripped of its RH reform amendment.

SB 755 passed both houses and may offer some reflief for RH applicants. See below for details.

• The Role of the Legislative Fiscal Office In Defeat of Reform By Incorporating OCD’s Inflated Costs Without Evaluation

The first fiscal note for SB 755 had a wildly inflated $3 billion price tag for the bill and did not even distinguish between RH funds and State General Funds for paying this although almost all the costs would be RH (federal dedicated) funds.

The Additional Compensation Grant: LFO (Legislative Fiscal Office), $1.5 billion; corrected to 0.
Apparently, SB740 was misread. There is no additional expense for this provision. It pertains only to “use of unobligated funds” from the Road Home Program. This $1.5 billion mistake was corrected in later versions of the fiscal note.

Highest of Multiple Valuations had huge price tags in the fiscal notes to SB 740 and SB 755.

Most applicants should have had only one home valuation.

• In the fiscal notes, OCD reveals that tens of thousands of applicants had multiple valuations and the highest valuation was not routinely used (fishing for lower valuations?)

Home valuations (pre-storm value, PSV, the starting point for calculation of most RH grants):
1. AVMs (only desk top and very inaccurate);
2. BPOs with drive-by done by real estate agents (a little better but still no one goes inside the house; these cannot be called appraisals because there is very little documentation of how they get the price and certified appraisers are not required; it all depends on comparables and we know from many sources that the comparables they used were often from far-away homes in very different types of neighborhoods when there were appropriate comps easily available);
3. drive-by appraisals (market analyses); these can be called appraisals because they are done by certified appraisers but they only have to drive by the house; not set foot in front of the house nor in it)
4. full certified appraisals (1004) (these are the only reliable ones, they are required by HUD for HUD/FHA financing of homes; they have much documentation; but RH very infrequently uses them and mostly just in appeals).

• ICF has done unnecessary repetitive valuations by inferior methods

The fiscal note declares that this was done on tens of thousands of applications 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 legislative fiscal office under the advice of LRA-OCD claimed a price of $1.3 billion in 1st fiscal note to give applicants the highest valuation in their file.

1st fiscal note for SB 740 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.

4th fiscal note for SB 740 and fiscal note for SB 755 http://www.legis.state.la.us/billdata/streamdocument.asp?did=497732 .

• At RH’s webpage road2la.org, it states that Road Home “Provides the applicant with the highest available pre-storm value”:http://road2la.org/Docs/policies/Homeowner_Program_Policies%20v5.2_5-6-08.pdf (p. 22/30):

• So why is LRA-OCD stating that it will cost 100’s of millions of dollars to do this?

Why was the LFO and OCD so inaccurate with numbers as to first use $1.3 billion and then use a number $0.8 billion less for their estimate of the cost of this provision of SB 740?

In addition, the 1st fiscal note for SB 740 stated that Road Home may have violated this highest valuation policy own policy in 65,000 cases
There are 156052-14135 (elevation only) = 141917 applicants for whom RH had to do a grant calculation as indicated at RH’s website: http://road2la.org/newsroom/stats.htm.

• It is implausible that of the 141,917 grants calculated, RH miscalculated by not using the highest valuation for 46% of the applicants eligible for a grant, as stated by LRO/OCD!

• Many applicants had their grants inexplicably decreased just before closing by RH lowering the PSV.

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 used a later lower one, even though none were the gold standard, full certified appraisal. The contractor, ICF, got more money for every valuation, unnecessary or not, accurate or not.

• Is limiting appeals a way to bury these and other RH mistakes?

It seems like this is part of a pattern of discouraging applicants from continuing appeals (applicants can’t get their elevation grant while appealing) and from initiating appeals under new supposedly better procedures announced recently by LRA.

• SB 755, the RH Reform Bill That Passed

Subject To Delays in Unnecessary Implementation by LRA-OCD
extra approvals (Action Plan Amendments approved by HUD, Gov. Jindal, the legislature once again). These were not required for dozens of other changes in LRA-OCD policies similar in scope.

http://www.legis.state.la.us/billdata/streamdocument.asp?did=502940

Difficult, delaying hurdles were added to the bill by the Legislative Fiscal Office at the direction of LRA-OCD about

Why Was SB740 An Essential Piece of Legislation?

• Many applicants are still being denied access to their complete files by the ICF.

• Many applicants are still being denied written notice of award amounts, dispute resolution decisions, and appeals decisions (in contradiction to RH Policy #189A).

• All applicants were never given notice that they are/were entitled to the above and to a written description of the current status of their application and details of missing information(in contradiction to RH Policies #188G, 189A, and 100C).

• Many applicants have been given confusing information about appeals & missed their appeal deadline

• There has been a chilling effect on appeals, e.g., applicants are prohibited from collecting their “elevation incentive” award if they are currently in appeals

• Many applicants missed the chance to appeal because their dispute resolution was left in limbo. The state has given extensions to ICF since Aug. 1, 2007, to prove that they don’t owe a fine for up to thousands of applicant disputes resolution that are unaccounted.

• Feb. 6, 2008 LA Legislative Audit: “We took a sample of 33, or 4%, of the 777 [dispute resolution] issues to determine how they were closed. We could not determine how 27 of the 33 (82%) files were closed because the comments did not provide sufficient details.”

• Applicants should not have to pay back grant money for RH mistakes because:
1. this disaster was unprecedented & the grants are often insufficient for rebuilding
2. the high error rate of ICF: more than half of applicants who did appeals won an average >$30,000
3. the difficulty that applicants have had in trying to get explanations of their award amounts
4. the complexity of the rules for grant determination and their changing applications.

• Why do we keep hearing that HUD requires new restrictive changes in the posted rules (that are making grants smaller and leading to demands for paybacks to RH after closing? HUD had to approve all those rules in the first place. Top state officials told us that HUD very frequently checks all the RH procedures?

• The RH program expires on June 11, 2009, and yet so many applicants have been shortchanged or wrongfully denied a grant with inadequate attempts at correction. For example, Easter Seal services for handicapped was discontinued, law services for indigent applicants is at risk, and applicants who sold at a loss were told that they probably will get not grant even though many sold because of mold and health problems.

• For the text of SB 470, see http://www.legis.state.la.us/billdata/streamdocument.asp?did=486620

• Road Home Programs official document specifying most recent categories of inactive applications is CP200A
  Earlier classes of inactive applications were defined in CP149C

• AUDITS, DISPUTE RESOLUTION, AND APPEALS

1. There are different types of audits of the Road Home Program for Homeowner Assistance (RH) that were done or are being discussed for the future.
2. One important source of audit information is the Legislative Audits, which were conducted on many aspects of state government and are independent of the people who run the RH.
3. Audits of ICF files would be missing data that it should have, including rejected third-party documentation that homeowners should have been allowed to submit to correct RH mistakes.
4. In addition, there might be inexplicably missing data from ICF’s files.
5. Therefore, it is essential that applicants be allowed to obtain their complete, unedited file according to Road Home Policy Number 189A (see CP links below). This policy is supposed to have been in effect since Jan. 1, 2008. This should be free of charge.
6. After applicants get a complete copy of their file, they should be given the chance to appeal mistakes under a greatly improved appeals system that is transparent, fair, unbiased, and not vague.
7. In addition, at the policy level, the most advantageous policies for calculating grants should be uniformly applied to applicants. This has been far from the case.
8. Previously conducted dispute resolutions and appeals had many irregularities, including applicants not being given their full files (unless they went to the higher level of appeal after initial appeal rejection), dispute resolutions with such vagueness that even the Legislative Auditor had trouble with it, and in-limbo dispute resolutions that disappeared in time for ICF to avoid a fine for not making a contractual benchmark.
9. We have learned that some applications in limbo in dispute resolution for a year are suddenly receiving letters from ICF stating that their dispute was concluded against their favor with no details. Such unfair letters may allow ICF, the contractor to escape a fine for dispute resolutions that were unattended for more than 2 months.
10. Here are some of the conclusions from the Legislative Audit reports on Dispute Resolution that you can find at http://www.lla.state.la.us/lla/padreports.htm

As of April 10, 2007… ICF does not have an effective process in place to ensure advisors resolve homeowners’ complaints consistently and accurately… We could not accurately determine the number of homeowners, the reasons people are in Resolution, or the aging of cases in Resolution … because the data is not reliable.

We conducted a survey of 30 applicants who are currently in or have completed Resolution… 71% of the applicants we surveyed were not satisfied with the Resolution process. Thirteen of the 15 (87%) of those still in Resolution did not think they received sufficient information on where their case is in the process. Twelve of the 15 (80%) who have completed the process did not think they received sufficient information about the status of their case. .. The 15 applicants whose issues have been resolved wre resolved in an average of 111 days…

In the Feb. 6, 2008 report is the following.
We took a sample of 33, or 4%, of the 777 [dispute resolution] issues to determine how they were closed. We could not determine how 27 of the 33 (82%) files were closed because the comments did not provide sufficient details.

OCD’s response to this report offers the following previously missing definition of when a dispute resolution is concluded.
“On Sept. 14, 2007, OCD accepted the ‘Resolved’ and ‘Closed’ as meeting the metric if the following definitions were followed;

Resolved- The applicant question, concern, or dispute has been researched and has reached final disposition to the extent possible within program policy. The final dispostion has been communicated to the applicant.

Now we are hearing that there will be no more dispute resolution but rather case managers called “PALs.” This report quotes OCD as stating that “All remaining applicants will be assigned a dedicated PAL.”

What about fairness for those who never had the type of resolution of their dispute as defined by OCD and were not able to get a fair appeal?

What about those applicants who, as we hear, still did not get a PAL or have problems with their PAL not following good resolution procedures or not returning calls?

What about those applicants who, as we hear, were told incorrectly that they could not appeal or were not informed about the requirements for appealing, or whose appeal letters were sent by certified mail but ICF said it never received them?

We Are Hearing Many More Accounts of Applicants in Great Distress

• While tens of thousands have been lucky and obtained fair grants to repair or rebuild their devasted homes, tens of thousands have not, for no fault of their own

• We have received reports that some Road Home staff are very helpful, polite, and dedicated to the applicants

• However, very often applicants are stranded because of major problems with their grant processing, often of an inexcusable driving applicants crazy and literally making them sick because this grant is often necessary for them to get out of a FEMA trailer or a dual rental/mortgage payment or to move back to Louisiana

• We get so many independent reports of repeated mistakes, confusion, or apparent disregard by staff of the Road Home Program contractor, ICF, or subcontractors, First American Title and HGI. This is confirmed by the report that more than half of the decided appeals resulted in increases of the award to the applicants, with “the average increase of about $24,000”: http://www.nola.com/news/t-p/editorials/index.ssf?/base/news-4/1207977682227240.xml&coll=1

• In addition, some of the policies designed by the officials supervising the program are very unfair. Click here for one of many examples.

If You Need Help With Road Home, Below Are Free Services Available To You

1. 504-301-3112 (For outside New Orleans: 1-888-409-3557) Acorn Housing for help with Your Road Home process or Option Letters, Closing Papers, or mortgage problems
2. Easter Seals’ contract with ICF to help elderly or disabled Road Home applicants was summarily terminated in Feb. with no explanation leaving applicants who were getting good help from them at a loss. http://www.nola.com/news/index.ssf/2008/04/road_home_subcontractors_make.html 1-866-996-4243 Easter Seals.
3. 504-301-3112 (For outside New Orleans: 1-888-409-3557) Acorn Housing for help with credit counseling or home repair loans
4. (504) 529-1000, ext. 242 New Orleans Legal Assistance for low income people, including help with appeals, www.nolac.org. Qualifications for free help are described at www.lawhelp.org/LA
5. 504 861-5596, Loyola Law Clinic for free help for low-income applicants, especially with appeals

• These problems are systemic as we know from more than 1150 responses to our online surveys, applicants speaking at our meetings, talking to neighbors, or hundreds of emails that we receive at chatlra@yahoo.com.

The Road Home Program Assessment Report by the Company (KPMG) Hired by the State Agency OCD and Paid by ICF

• A few major constructive points in the report

• The full report

Two New and Much Better Policies for the Road Home Program Advocated by CHAT for Many Months

• Please note that two new and important policies described below have been reported by many applicants not to be acknowledged by ICF staff. What is worse the applicant-friendly and sensible policy about homeowner-purchased appraisals (CP188G) was discontinued by LRA on Mar. 4, 2008 without telling applicants!

• The policy about homeowner-purchased appraisals was called the field review policy (CP188G) for those with ICF-rejected certified appraisals. This now secretly revoked policy can be read by clicking here.

• The second new policy is the written documentation policy (CP189A), which can be viewed by clicking here.

Friday, December 21, 2007

NEW ORLEANS (December 21, 2007) – Today the Louisiana Recovery Authority (LRA) and the Office of Community Development (OCD) highlighted two important changes that have recently been made to the Road Home program to assist applicants…

FIELD REVIEW APPRAISALS (Change Policy 188G; NOTE THAT THIS FAIR POLICY WAS ABRUPTLY TERMINATED IN MARCH WITH NO NOTICE TO THE PUBLIC!)

The Road Home program is conducting Field Review Appraisals for applicants who provided their own post-storm appraisals that were not accepted by the Road Home… The Field Review Appraisal process is automatically triggered when a homeowner submits their own post-storm certified appraisal that exceeds 120% of the pre-storm value as determined by the Road Home program…

In addition to this new procedure, for applicants who are currently in Appeals to dispute their pre-storm value, the Road Home program will now offer the option of having a full appraisal, known as a 1004 appraisal which is provided by the Road Home Program and conducted by a Louisiana certified appraiser.

This procedure is now in place and was effective as of November 9, 2007. All homeowners are being notified of this change and homeowners with questions are encouraged to contact a member of the dispute resolution staff of the Road Home.

WRITTEN DOCUMENTATION (Change Policy 189A)

In an effort to increase outreach to applicants and assist them to better understand their status in the Road Home program, this change provides a homeowner with written documentation at various stages of the Road Home process. Effective as of January 1, 2008, there are three key points of information that this change of communications will address:

The exact amount of grant awards under options 1, 2, and 3.
Details about dispute resolution status and outcomes.
Current status of the application and details about any information found to be missing from it…

Pre-storm value
Estimated Cost of Damages
The Road Home Program was designed by the LRA and is administered by the Division of Administration’s Office of Community Development (OCD) and its contractor, ICF International…

“Homeowners can now expect to get all the data for determining their grant award and commitments from Road Home staff in writing, and they can expect to get independent appraisals on their homes, said Melanie Ehrlich, a member of the LRA’s Housing Task Force and Co-Chairman of the Citizens’ Road Home Action Team (CHAT). “These new policies are important, and we want to make sure that homeowners know that these changes are now in place.”

Further Explanation From CHAT About These Two New Policies

Determining the pre-storm value of the applicant’s house is the starting point for grant calculations

CHAT was a major influence in acceptance of homeowner-purchased Louisiana-licensed appraisals by Road Home in January of 2006.

Full certified appraisals are the gold standard for determining the value of a house.

However, those appraisals were not be used, and often were not even put in the applicantsa€? file, if they were more than 20 percent higher than the less accurate determinations of pre-storm value by the RHP.

Therefore, the appraisals were not used in the cases of the most erroneous RHP valuations. RHP officials told CHAT that it is HUD regulations based upon fear of fraud that set the cap of no more than 20 percent difference.

More than one year later after many hours of discussion between RH officials and CHAT members, especially Mr. John Murden, a Louisiana certified appraiser, on Nov. 9, 2007, the FIELD REVIEW APPRAISAL policy was accepted.

That policy stated that the RH would have a certified appraiser check the accuracy of homeowner-supplied certified appraisals that were previously not accepted by the Road Home because they were too high.

We know of many instances of homeowners being told that ICF would not accept a copy of their appraisal for their file. We also know of applicants waiting fruitlessly since fall of 2007 for a field review appraisal of their purchased full certified appraisal so that it could be validated. NOW THE FIELD REVIEW POLICY, A FAIR ONE, WITH RH-APPOINTED FIELD REVIEW APPRAISERS TO VALIDATE APPLICANT-PURCHASED CERTIFIED APPRAISALS, HAS BEEN DISCONTINUED!

• This field review appraisal policy should have helped many applicants and can be read by clicking here) UNFORTUNATELY, THIS REASONABLE, ACCURATE HOMEOWER-FRIENDLY POLICY WAS DISCONTINUED, WITHOUT PUBLIC NOTICE, IN MARCH EVEN THOUGH IT WAS WORKING WELL FOR THE APPLICANTS.

CHAT Work on SBA Loan Deadline: Some Help in Sight and Links about Trying to Prevent Foreclosure

SBA may extend deadline for using home loan funds (Times Picayune)
Many people waiting on the Road Home

From a member of CHAT, these links are provided for those in danger of foreclosure on their home mortgages.

http://www.bankrate.com/brm/news/mortgages/20071018_foreclosure_counseling_a1.asp?caret=2

http://www.bankrate.com/brm/news/mortgages/20070906_mortgage_workouts_a1.asp?caret=1

http://www.homeloanlearningcenter.com/YourFinances/ForeclosurePreventionResourceCenter.htm

http://www.housinghelpnow.org/

HUD advice on foreclosure: http://www.hud.gov/foreclosure/index.cfm

IRS Questions and Answers on Home Foreclosure and Debt Cancellation http://www.irs.gov/newsroom/article/0,,id=174034,00.html

Where Is the Ombudsman Promised by ICF Over 1 1/2 Years Ago in Their Weekly Report to the State Agency, Office of Community Development?

Click here and see the bottom of the webpage for a link to all past pipeline reports (weekly updates from ICF, the contractor, to the state) including the Nov. 21, 2006 report with the promise of the ombudsman.

Anyone interested in the post-hurricane fate of South Louisiana is welcome to join our E-mail by sending an email to chatlra@yahoo.com with your name and city and in the subject line “Join CHAT.”

Release of a Report from KPMG on the Road Home Program in December

• Highlights of the report

• The full report

Road Home Program Misery Index Selected items from responses to CHAT’s online surveys and emails to chatlra@yahoo.com

Road Home’s Change Policy Documents: Learn Details About Rules of the Program by clicking on the links below

Important excerpts about Appraisals and Appeals

CP16A&17_ElderlyExempt_3&4Units

CP22-25C_Award Calculations

CP30&38_AdditonalCompensation_ExpressInterviews

CP_40-44_AssistCenters_47_Self Certification Insurance_49E_PSV&LA_CertAppraisals_1_14_07

CP53_54_55F_Demolished Houses_Condos

CP75 & 75 Single Family Multiunits and LA Certified Appraisals and Appeals

CP80-86 Option 2 Before Buying House and Applicants’ Data Overriding FEMA data

Mobile Home BPOs, Mineral Rights, and Military Forced To Move

CP100C Time Deadlines for Appeals

CP112B Minimally Damaged Manufactured (Mobile) Homes

CP123A-127 Condominium Replacement Cost Calculations, Income Verification for Additional Compensation Grant, and Appeals

CP131-135 Partial Disbursements (tender or close now and appeal later), FEMA Eligibility (minimum of damage necessary to qualify for a grant), and Insurance Penalties

CP140-149 Selling House Before Program-Ineligibily Letters Because of the Previously Projected Shortfall Before the Extra $3 Billion of Federal Funds, Death of an Applicant

CP157 Usufruct

CP165 Changing from Option 1 to Option 2 or 3

CP190 Option 3 for Applicants Moving Elsewhere in LA But Not Buying a House

CP200 inactive applications

For New Orleans Residents: New Orleans Redevelopment Authority (NORA) revised its plan for Road Home-acquired land after a public meeting on Nov. 28 in City Hall

• As CHAT urged, according to Principle 19 of the LRA Road Home Statement of Principles adapted from CHAT’s Bill of Road Home Rights, the revised and LRA-approved plan has much more emphasis on input from New Orleans planning districts and neighborhoods in determining what to do with land acquired by the Road Home Program (Louisiana Land Trust)

• NORA revised proposal was first approved by the City Council on 12/6/07 and then by the LRA Board on 12/11/07.

• To see this plan at NORA’s website: www.noraworks.org; click here

• For CHAT’s recommendations, many of which were incorporated into the revised NORA proposal, click here

Resources

• Latest Road Home Appeals Policy Available To CHAT from July 15, 2007

See the CHAT-derived Road Home Program Statement of Principles at the Road Home Program site http://road2LA.org under About Us.

These were unanimously endorsed by the Louisiana Recovery Authority Board in April.

• See the policies of the Road Home Program initially posted at CHAT’s urging over the course of 3 months.

Under Construction in Gentilly by Melanie Ehrlich.

Do You Have Difficulty Getting All the Information in Your Road Home File Despite the New Policy CP189A of the Road Home?

According to the law, the Road Home should then send to you a copy of all your records from the Road Home by sending a certified letter in a special format (click here for information). By law, you are supposed to get some meaningful reply from the State within 5 days. If you do not, send a copy of your letter to chatlra@yahoo.com, and we can give you a template for a follow-up letter. Legally, you have the right to sue for this information on your own application, although it is not easy to do and costs money.

Got a Question?

• Road Home Questions and Building or Contractor Information – Ask questions of other Road Home applicants and offer each other advice about specific good or bad experiences with contractors, building questions, and building methods and contracts.

• For those who want to aid in Louisiana’s recovery, please contact us at chatlra@yahoo.com

Getting a Rebuilding or Repair Contract? Protect Against Unfair Liens Being Placed On Your House by Unscrupulous Subcontractors

A contractor has the right to place a lien on a home if the owner does not pay for work done to the house. However, unscrupulous contractors may put an illegitimate lien on a property with damaging consequences to the homeowner.

See http://LouisianaREBUILDS.info

Contractor Guide under "Protect Yourself from Fraud" for information on avoiding and fighting bad liens.

Or click on: http://louisianarebuilds.info/node/2845

Website Help for Rebuilding:

• http://www.louisianarebuilds.info/contractor

A History of the Road Home Program in Articles About CHAT

What Are We Doing?

• CHAT submitted oral and written testimony for the May 24 Senate Subcommittee Hearing on Louisiana Disaster Recovery about real and not diversionary problems with the Road Home Program.
• Road Home Program – Research into the Road Home Program.
• Road Home Bill of Rights – A set of principles developed by CHAT for the Road Home Program.
  Read the original from CHAT
  The New Orleans City Council version
  The St. Bernard Parish version
  The Jefferson Parish version
  The Terrebonne Parish version
  The LRA adopted (in May, 2007) version
• CHAT Accomplishments – A list of CHAT accomplishments.
• CHAT Media Appearances – Many radio and more than 20 television appearances by CHAT members to discuss Road Home issues and more than 20 newspaper articles mentioning CHAT.
• CHAT Library – Documents obtained by CHAT through research and public records requests, including the June 6, 2006 Road Home legislation, the subsequent clarification to it, and an amendment changing disbursement of grants to lump sums
• Closing Documents posted by the Road Home at CHAT’s urging