FEMA rules could devastate shore towns

Attention: open in a new window. PrintE-mail

To the editor:

New FEMA rules may devastate whole neighborhoods of our shore towns.  

FEMA seems intent on causing more damage than the actual storm. The federal government has no problem subsidizing just about everything under the sun, but insists that FEMA will be self-sustainable and plans to get it there by removing federal flood insurance premium subsidies while also increasing its rates. And as many locals have learned, the help it does offer is meager compared to the costs to rebuild to the agency’s radical new standards. 

Since it is FEMA's rules that will in the end devastate parts of our town and our region financially as costs increase, homes devalue and residents flee, why shouldn't the federal government return some of the vast sums our region sends to Washington to partially subsidize flood insurance premiums or to help people rebuild or raise their homes? We shared the risk all of these years through our flood insurance premiums, why is it now, when so many are in need, that the rules are changed? New Jersey receives less in federal funding back for every dollar it sends to Washington than most, if not all other states.

FEMA needs to take a more realistic look at its response to the storm and the crisis that the current course will create. 

John Piatt


blog comments powered by Disqus