NYT Editorial: More Housing Woes in Mississippi

September 27, 2007

As the poorest state in the country, Mississippi should have no trouble finding low- and moderate-income homeowners to share in the more than $5 billion in emergency federal aid funneled into the state after Hurricane Katrina.

But a startling new analysis by a coalition of state and national housing advocates accuses Mississippi of using loopholes in the law to spend far too much on middle- and upper-income households and far too little on those most in need of help.


The Department of Housing and Urban Development, which oversees the program, needs to take a close look at how Mississippi is spending that money.

The aid was channeled through the Community Development Block Grant program, which was set up by Congress in the 1970s to improve housing for the poor and provide a better quality of life and more economic opportunities. The law requires states and localities to spend 70 percent of the money they receive on projects that will clearly benefit low- and moderate-income people.

After Katrina, Congress lowered that requirement to 50 percent for the Gulf Coast states, partly because people at all income levels had lost their homes. That seemed reasonable, given the nature of the emergency.

Low-income housing advocates were rightly uneasy about a second provision that allowed the Gulf Coast states to waive the income test altogether for some projects. They feared that the states would use waivers to reward cronies and boost pet projects. Indeed, Mississippi’s critics now claim that only about 20 percent of the money spent so far has gone to help low- and moderate-income families.

Now Mississippi has floated a proposal that would divert $600 million from the housing recovery effort to a plan to rebuild the port at Gulfport. State boosters want to redevelop the area as a hub for casinos and cruise ships.

The state sees this as economic development. Housing advocates see it as an attempt to hijack money that should rightly be going to build and repair housing for displaced, low-income Mississippians. They also charge that the state has written the rules for its housing aid program in a way that denies help to large numbers of low-income homeowners, who would clearly be eligible under the same post-Katrina program in neighboring Louisiana.

Congress must revisit the waiver process to make sure that states aren’t using it to evade the income restrictions clearly laid out in federal law. And HUD needs to take a hard look at all aspects of the Mississippi program, and make sure that the remainder of the emergency aid money gets to the low-income families who are legally entitled to it and desperately need the help.

The New York Times published this editorial on September 27, 2007.

Return to A.M. in the Morning! Home

Read More......

Bush vows veto

Friday, September 28, 2007
By AMBER CRAIG

GAUTIER -- A bill designed to alleviate some of the insurance woes coastal residents have faced since Hurricane Katrina passed the House Thursday, but the representative who authored the windstorm provision does not understand why the White House has threatened a veto.

A provision authored by Democratic Rep. Gene Taylor was included in H.R. 3121, the Flood Insurance Reform and Modernization Act, as a provision to allow homeowners to purchase wind and flood insurance in a single plan.

Since the storm, policyholders have seen their rates increase by hundreds of dollars, have been dropped or have been denied coverage of wind damage in places where flood damage also contributed to structural damage.

Insurance companies have claimed that flooding, not winds, were responsible for hurricane-related damages, which would make the federal government liable for payment.

Taylor said Thursday he couldn't believe that the White House issued a statement against his provision of the bill.

According to the Associated Press, the White House released a statement saying the provision would shift too much liability to the federal government and would encourage people to take inappropriate housing risks.

The statement said the president would be advised to veto the bill if it passes the Senate with the windstorm provision.

Taylor said when President Bush visited Bay St. Louis on the second anniversary of Katrina, he seemed open to helping the area recover. Taylor said he hopes the statement is a result of a lack of communication with the president.

Taylor recalled a meeting with Bush, Gov. Haley Barbour, local mayors and other economic leaders.

"He (Bush) sat forward in his chair and said, What do we need to do?' Everyone at that table said, We need all-perils flood insurance,'" Taylor said.

The bill has not been voted on in the Senate yet, but Republican Sen. Trent Lott has already said he will consider adding wind damage. Lott has said he does have some reservations about putting more responsibility on the federal government.

Taylor said he does not know when the bill will be taken up in the Senate, but he expects that some "will try to make this as everything but what it is."

But what it's really about, Taylor said, is about fixing a problem that should not have ever existed, even before Katrina.

"If something horrible happens to you, like what happened in Mississippi, your policy's going to get paid," Taylor said.

Taylor, who lost his Bay St. Louis home in the storm, said he doesn't understand why insurance companies are coming out against the plan, because they have told coastal residents that they do not want their business. Taylor said State Farm told him that they would not pay for wind damage, even though his roof was found several hundred feet from his house.

This plan could end up offering a higher quality of coverage for less money, Taylor said, and that probably scares the industry.

"They don't want this business," Taylor said. "They have said that over and over again, by pulling out, by raising their rates."

Reporter Amber Craig can be reached at acraig@themississippipress.com or (228) 934-1428.

Copyright 2007 gulflive.com. All Rights Reserved.

The Mississippi Press published the original article on September 28, 2008.

Return to A.M. in the Morning! Home

Read More......

Opinion/Editorial: Surviving the Shards of Wars and Hurricanes

By Raymond M. Scurfield

GULFPORT, Miss. -- Besides the Vietnam War, I am a Hurricane Katrina survivor -- the Mississippi Gulf Coast and The University of Southern Mississippi Gulf Park campus were devastated. So many Americans continue to be deployed to Iraq and Afghanistan, stressed not only by exposure to combat but also perhaps by having their families at home facing the threat of new tropical storms, hurricanes and floods. While deployed, military personnel always feel helpless and inadequate, if not guilty and angry, when any serious problems confront their families back home. In turn, family members can be extremely upset at their deployed partner, who is absent, or at the military or the government.

The issues are compounded for the National Guard; its historic mission includes being available stateside in times of emergencies — and yet many Guard units and their equipment are overseas. I have heard active duty personnel and their families express their angst time and again at the protracted and repeated deployment policies and the resulting absences following the destruction of Hurricane Katrina, the inept response of too many federal programs that were overwhelmed by the demands, and how providing adequate federal funds for post-Katrina relief and recovery has been pitted against funding the massive war costs. These are yet more unacknowledged costs of the war.

Like many veterans on the Gulf Coast, from Florida through Texas, both the Iraq War and another hurricane season have propelled me back to poignant memories related to the war I survived. This is what can happen when current media coverage of the Iraq War or the threat of hurricanes might trigger memories of past combat or of past hurricanes like Georges or Andrew. Now, over 1.5 million American troops are having their own traumatic war experiences brought home — perhaps exacerbated by having family in harm’s way here from natural disasters or family crises while they have been or are deployed, or while facing yet another deployment.

I am propelled back to 1968, sitting on an airplane between Pittsburgh and Philadelphia en route to Vietnam. The plane is full -- except for the aisle seat next to me. Then, entering last, is a Vietnam veteran – a patch over his eye and using two forearm crutches. I watch, mesmerized, noticing the prostheses where his legs used to be, as he shuffles slowly down the aisle. Suddenly I realize, “Oh, no, he is going to sit next to me.” And he does. I awkwardly say hello and find myself preoccupied with self-centered thoughts about sitting next to this severely injured veteran while I am en route to Vietnam.

Eventually, he begins talking -- a conversation I will remember forever. “You know, it was really hard the last time I went home on convalescent leave from the hospital. A couple of my high school friends told me it was a shame that I lost my legs and eye for nothing . . .” Today I fear the same for many returning troops faced with the growing specter of no honorable way out of Iraq and the increasing divisiveness of the war. Will many troops be told by others, or tell themselves now or later, that their sacrifices had been for nothing? That would be very hard to live with.

Conversely, I derive solace still from that wounded soldier’s last words to me. “You know, sir. I was the lucky one. No one else in our foxhole survived.” I was amazed at his glass-half-full celebration of living. I find myself praying that decades later he still feels the same, rather than dwelling on what was irreparably damaged and lost -- and that thousands of severely injured and mental health casualties from Iraq and their families will feel similarly decades from now.

However, many of us know all too well that war is unforgettable and that the memories and the impact -- both the good and the bad -- are lifelong. An unlearned lesson is that time does not heal all wounds. Furthermore, salt is being poured into veterans’ wounds from revelations uncovered by the exposé at Walter Reed Army Hospital and investigations of the Department of Veterans Affairs. Will anything really change ultimately? One hopeful sign is the wave of concern and advocacy from veterans of prior wars and civilian activists determined not to let this current generation of warriors be forgotten like Korean War veterans, or mistreated and forgotten like many Vietnam vets were.

And a silver lining even exists related to the massive destruction and continuing hardships post-Katrina. A palpable spirit of caring and resolve persists that we will not let our nation’s worst natural disaster keep us down. I find people here are more sensitive and reach out to others more than before Katrina (and this always has been a friendly place). Tens of thousands of volunteers continue to offer assistance and caring, many with faith-based organizations, uniquely filling a desperate need that exceeds the inability of cumbersome federal programs to provide.

Should not this powerful post-Katrina spirit of appreciation and responsiveness to the inter-connectedness among us all, further illustrated by the massive national response to the mass murders at Virginia Tech, be channeled similarly into paying proper homage, respect and attention, not just now but for decades to come, to our nation’s finest who are suffering the price of having served in harm’s way, many with lifelong disabilities and hurt?

And yet, soon after the end of this ever-lengthening war, the metallic ribbons and bumper stickers will be gone, the war casualties increasingly distant from the front pages. Similarly, Katrina (other than New Orleans-related news) is seldom mentioned now, Rita is a non-existent afterthought and to most of the country Georges, Andrew and Camille are simply three people’s names. Are we moving along, inexorably, to have collective amnesia again about yet another era of veterans and their families, abandoning them to struggle with their personal demons resulting from having served in harm’s way? This is similar to how too often we forget about or dismiss the hurt and challenges that continue to face many survivors of devastating hurricanes like Katrina, Rita, and Andrew -- or from a new hurricane yet to be named.

___________________________________________________________________________
Dr. Raymond Scurfield, recognized internationally for his expertise in war-related trauma, has written a trilogy of books about war’s impact. The most recent is “War Trauma. Lessons Unlearned From Vietnam to Iraq.” He also has several writings about the impact of Hurricane Katrina. He is an associate professor and director of the Katrina Research Center at The University of Southern Mississippi Gulf Coast and can be contacted at raymond.scurfield@usm.edu . More information about Scurfield is found online at http://www.usm.edu/gc/gchealth/scurfield/index.html.

This press release can be found here.

Return to A.M. in the Morning! Home

Read More......

Plan to give funds to port ‘unconscionable’

By Dwayne Bremer
Sep 28, 2007

A plan by the Mississippi Development Authority to use $600 million from disaster relief accounts to help double the size of the Port of Gulfport has drawn the ire of several local, state, and civic leaders this week.

The Development Authority--a state run department-- is in charge of the $3.3 billion Mississippi Home Owners Grant Program.

The plan to redirect $600 million from the Home Owners Grant Program to the Port of Gulfport came to light at budget hearings in Jackson earlier this week.

The house and senate will not vote on the budget until January; however, this week was the end of the public comment period. Lawmakers including State Rep. Dianne Peranich of DeLisle have asked for an extension of the public comment period. The deadline was Monday, but, MDA Executive Director Gary Swoope said he would consider the request for the extension.

"I totally disagree with the redirection of the money until we have more time to look at it," Peranich said earlier this week. "I would think the homeowners money, should be for homeowners. They (MDA) have CDBG money for other projects."

The plan calls for the MDA to move $600 million from the Homeowners Grant Program to fuel a port expansion project that could potentially create thousands of jobs and create an economic boom along the Gulf Coast.

Officials at Gov. Haley Barbour's office said Thursday the diversion of funds is part of the "master plan" of the CDBG grants the state lobbied for after Hurricane Katrina, and it will not affect the individual assistance the program was designed for.

"There is plenty of money there for what it (home owners grant program) was intended for," Pete Smith of the governor's office said Thursday.

Officials at MDA said Friday money has been earmarked for the port ever since Nov. 2005.

"We are not taking money out of the hands of homeowners who received flood surge damage," Donna Sanford, director of MDA's disater recovery division said. "This is nothing new."

She said the program still has enough money to provide 30,000 eligible applicants an average grant of $70,000 each.

Stanford said the total amount of CBDG funds the state has received is about $5.5 billion. Of that $3.3 billion was designated for the housing program. Originally, the state used FEMA numbers to estimate that about 35,000 households would be eligible for grants. Once the applicants began coming in, she said, it became apparent that the number of applicants would be much lower. MDA was able to modify eligibility requirements as well as give additional money to applicants, she said.

"Local leaders questioned why the project is being presented now and what exactly is in the "master plan."

Some legislators said they have been frustrated with not being in the loop about the state's spending.

When the funding was secured in early 2006, the state house of representatives passed an oversight bill which would have allowed for legislative oversight of the CDBG funds. The state senate later killed the bill when it voted on it and thus the state has not shared information with the house and senate about the spending of the CDBG funds, officials said.

The "master plan" which Barbour and the state delegation presented to Congress has not been made public either, which has caused some concern.

"This is the first I have heard about it," state Rep. J. P. Compretta said Thursday. "I thought the money was intended for individuals. This may be contrary to Congress' intent."

Peranich, who serves on the budget committee, said she only heard of it a couple days before budget talks began. She said she wants to know what the port plans to do with the money and what is in the master plan.

"We don't know what is going on," she said. "We are not saying we're against the Port of Gulfport, but what are they going to do with the money? It may be 2012 before they create any jobs."

A request to the governor's office for a copy of the "master plan" was not provided by press time Friday.

Don Allee, the Executive Director of the Port of Gulfport said Friday that the port expansion plan has been in place since 2003, and the growth necessary to accommodate today's needs as well as future needs has increased since Hurricane Katrina. He said if the port gets the funding it will have a tremendous impact on the region.

"It's all about the people," Allee said. "With the type of infrastructure and jobs, it's a priority."

Allee said within 10 years the port expansion plan could generate as many as 2,000 more well paying jobs. Currently, the average salary for some of the port's lowest paid employees is between $40,000 and $50,000 per year.

Compretta said spending what is left over from the program on economic development might not be a bad thing in the long run, but the focus now should be on getting current applicants their money.

Compretta said his office receives about five calls a day from residents who still have not received their grant checks. He said in some cases, properties are being foreclosed on because of the slow process.

"Once the needs of the citizens are satisfied, then we can look at what is left over, not now," he said. "They are putting the cart before the horse."

Board of Supervisors President Rocky Pullman said Thursday the county has been lobbying the state for assistance for months.

"We have lobbied as hard as we can for help with the jail, EOC, and infrastructure improvements," he said.

Smith said most public assistance generally goes through federal programs and the Stafford Act.

Unfortunately for Hancock County and the cities of Bay St. Louis and Waveland, the Stafford Act has been one of the biggest hindrances in rebuilding local infrastructure. Many public projects have either not been approved or not fully-funded because of FEMA's duty to comply with the often critized Stafford Act.

In the case of the jail, FEMA will not fund the county for rebuilding a new jail because of disagreements about damage. The Bay-Waveland School Board has also had a nightmare with historical and elevation challenges in rebuilding its devastated schools.

Pullman said a little more help from the state would go a long way.

Compretta agreed.

"The needs of the county and cities should be looked at," he said.

A letter from the Steps Coalition--which represents more than 25 Gulf Coast Clergymen--urged MDA to use some of the money for low income housing.

"Given the housing crisis on the Gulf Coast, the diversion of funding from housing our community members in greatest need, including many elderly and disabled residents, to expanding the Port of Gulfport is unconscionable," the letter said.

"The Port of Gulfport is fortunately well on the road to recovery, and by its own data had by 2006 received 66 percent of the cargo it handled in 2005. In contrast, our 17,000 displaced Mississippi households in FEMA trailers are not yet 1percent of the way towards a permanent recovery. The Port of Gulfport sustained $50 million in damages; therefore we do not understand why the MDA is planning to provide twelve times the funding the Port of Gulfport originally requested when so many Mississippians are without housing. It is with this understanding that we have come together to ask that the Governor's Office desist in its plans to shift $600 million dollars from money earlier promised for housing reconstruction to a new project to expand the Port of Gulfport. We believe the diversion of funds from housing is a great injustice that will cause serious hardship for many of our brothers and sisters, including the poorest members of our community, who are still struggling to rebuild their homes and lives shattered in the storm.

Sanford said MDA is only trying to fulfill the original plan. She said local governments are receiving tremendous consideration and she pointed to nearly $300 million in CDBG funds which have been allocated for infrastructure.

She said the comment period was intended so that people and organizations could suggest ways of using the remainder of the funds. She said 99 percent of the request have to do with providing housing and assistance for renters. She said her office has received about 1,200 comments as well as a petition signed by 750 people.
"Everyone has ideas and they are good ideas she said."

© Copyright 2007 Bay St. Louis Newspapers, Inc.

Return to A.M. in the Morning! Home

Read More......

Our Opinion: Mr. Bush, don't kill the multi-peril bill

Sunday, September 30, 2007

With billions of dollars and millions of lives on the line, President George W. Bush announced that he will veto a bill to offer windpool insurance through the National Flood Insurance Program.

The announcement last week from the White House left U.S. Rep. Gene Taylor dumbfounded. Taylor is the author of the multi-peril insurance legislation.

He maintains it is needed along the hurricane-prone U.S. coastlines since private insurance companies jacked their rates up in the wake of Hurricane Katrina.

At first glance, it might seem reasonable that the insurance industry would raise rates. After all, the Aug. 29, 2005, hurricane caused billions of dollars in damages. After the storm left its devastating mark on Louisiana and Mississippi, the insurance companies operating on the Coast came under fire for denying claims, underpaying claims and refusing to write policies. Their actions have also spawned a host of lawsuits that are still winding through the court system.

And those are exactly why the multi-peril legislation is needed. Though some may consider it foolhardy to continue living on the waterfront, the simple truth is that in the United States the bulk of the population lives within 50 miles of a coastline. As insurance companies pull away from this region in the light of record breaking claims payments from Katrina, someone has to step into the breach and fill the gap.

The bill is headed for the Senate. Sen. Trent Lott, a son of Pascagoula who lost his home to Katrina and was a member of a lawsuit against insurance companies filed by Pascagoula attorney Richard Scruggs, said he has some reservations about adding additional responsibility to the federal flood insurance program. But, he's also said he would consider adding wind damage to similar legislation in the Senate.

Bush, Lott and Thad Cochran, Mississippi's other senior statesman in the Senate, need to seriously weigh the consequences of this bill. Not just the added burden to the federal government, but also the added burden to millions of homeowners who are increasingly being priced out of the insurance market because of the probability of a hurricane.

Let these men know your stand on the multi-peril bill. Share your views with the president by writing to The White House 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW Washington, DC 20500. Or call and leave your comments at (202) 456-1111.

Sen. Lott can be reached locally at (228) 762-5400 and Sen. Cochran can be reached through his office in Gulf Port at (228) 867-9710.

Copyright 2007 gulflive.com. All Rights Reserved.
The Mississippi Press published this editorial.

Return to A.M. in the Morning! Home

Read More......

Settlement reached in Katrina insurance trial

9/29/2007, 2:08 p.m. CT
By MICHAEL KUNZELMAN
The Associated Press

NEW ORLEANS (AP) — A federal trial over Hurricane Katrina damage ended abruptly with a settlement between the insurance company and the Mississippi couple whose property damage, a jury decided, had been caused by the storm's wind and should have been covered by the couple's policy.


Terms of the settlement between USAA Casualty Insurance Co. and Kevin and Sherrye Webster were not disclosed. But an attorney for the couple, Charles Merkel, called the outcome "very satisfying to everybody."

USAA spokesman David Snowden confirmed the settlement but declined comment.

On Friday, the eight-member jury concluded that all of the damage to the couple's beachfront house in Bay St. Louis, Miss., was caused by Katrina's wind, wind-blown debris or wind-driven rain — perils that are covered by the San Antonio-based insurer's policies.

The jury wasn't asked to specify how much money USAA owes the Websters for the damage.

USAA had argued that nearly all of the damage to the two-story home was caused by Katrina's flood waters and wasn't covered by the Websters' policy, but the jury disagreed.

"I think it's a big victory for all the homeowners on the Gulf Coast," said attorney John Cocke, who also represents the Websters.

Friday's verdict capped the first phase of a trial that started last week in Gulfport, Miss. The next phase had been set to resume Tuesday, with the jurors hearing testimony about damage to the contents of the two-story house. Ultimately, the judge was to be responsible for calculating what USAA owes the Websters, based on the jury's verdicts.

But the settlement, reached Friday after the jury had been sent home, eliminates the need for that.

USAA and other insurers say their homeowner policies cover damage from a hurricane's wind but not its rising water, including surge. The Websters didn't have a separate flood insurance policy.

USAA blamed most of the damage to the couple's house on Katrina's storm surge, but the couple argues that wind caused the house to collapse before surge reached it.

The Websters' policy had limits of $811,000 for the house, $81,000 for a barn on their property, $162,200 for living expenses and $760,480 for the home's contents. USAA paid them $10,944 for wind damage to the house and $42,929 for the barn.

Cocke said Friday's verdict means USAA will owe the Websters at least $800,000.

The Websters also are seeking unspecified punitive damages for the company's alleged bad faith, plus attorney's fees and expenses. Jurors won't be asked to consider punitive damages until later in the trial.

The couple is among thousands of Mississippi and Louisiana property owners who have sued their insurers after Katrina wiped out large swaths of the Gulf Coast in August 2005.

Several federal trials for Katrina insurance cases already have been held in Gulfport, Miss., yielding mixed results for policyholders.

In August 2006, U.S. District Judge L.T. Senter Jr. sided with Nationwide Mutual Insurance Co. and ruled that the company wasn't obligated to pay a Pascagoula couple for damage from Katrina's rising water. A federal appeals court in New Orleans later upheld that ruling.

In January, however, a jury awarded $2.5 million in punitive damages to a Biloxi couple who sued State Farm Fire and Casualty Co. for denying their claim. Senter later reduced the award to $1 million, though he said State Farm had acted in a "grossly negligent way."
_______

A.M. in the Morning! Note: On the heels of this story being published, the parties settled the case. See
Settlement reached in Katrina insurance trial

Return to A.M. in the Morning! Home

Read More......

Jury sides with policyholders in Katrina insurance trial

By MICHAEL KUNZELMAN
Associated Press Writer

NEW ORLEANS --

A federal jury in south Mississippi sided Friday with a couple who sued their insurance company after Hurricane Katrina for refusing to cover more than $1.7 million in damage to their beachfront home and property.

The eight-member jury wasn't asked to specify how much money USAA Casualty Insurance Co. owes Kevin and Sherrye Webster for damage to their home in Bay St. Louis.

But jurors concluded that all of the damage to the couple's house was caused by Katrina's wind, wind-blown debris or wind-driven rain - perils that are covered by the San Antonio-based insurer's policies.

USAA had argued that nearly all of the damage to the two-story home was caused by Katrina's flood waters and wasn't covered by the Websters' policy, but the jury disagreed.

"I think it's a big victory for all the homeowners on the Gulf Coast," said attorney John Cocke, whose law partner, Charles Merkel, represents the Websters.

Friday's verdict capped the first phase of a trial that started last week in Gulfport, Miss. In the next phase, which begins Tuesday, jurors are expected to hear testimony about damage to the contents of the two-story house.

At the conclusion of the trial, U.S. District Judge L.T. Senter Jr. will be responsible for calculating how much money USAA owes the Websters, based on the jury's verdicts.

USAA spokesman David Snowden said he wouldn't comment until after the trial concludes.

USAA and other insurers say their homeowner policies cover damage from a hurricane's wind but not its rising water, including surge. The Websters didn't have a separate flood insurance policy.

USAA blamed most of the damage to the couple's house on Katrina's storm surge, but the couple argues that wind caused the house to collapse before surge reached it.

The Websters' policy had limits of $811,000 for the house, $81,000 for a barn on their property, $162,200 for living expenses and $760,480 for the home's contents. USAA paid them $10,944 for wind damage to the house and $42,929 for the barn.

Cocke said Friday's verdict means USAA will owe the Websters at least $800,000.

The Websters also are seeking unspecified punitive damages for the company's alleged bad faith, plus attorney's fees and expenses. But the request for punitive damages couldn't be considered until later in the trial.

The couple is among thousands of Mississippi and Louisiana property owners who have sued their insurers after Katrina wiped out large swaths of the Gulf Coast in August 2005.

Several federal trials for Katrina insurance cases already have been held in Gulfport, Miss., yielding mixed results for policyholders.

In August 2006, Senter sided with Nationwide Mutual Insurance Co. and ruled that the company wasn't obligated to pay a Pascagoula couple for damage from Katrina's rising water. A federal appeals court in New Orleans later upheld that ruling.

In January, however, a jury awarded $2.5 million in punitive damages to a Biloxi couple who sued State Farm Fire and Casualty Co. for denying their claim. Senter later reduced the award to $1 million, though he said State Farm had acted in a "grossly negligent way."

The Sun Herald published this article on September 28, 2007.


Return to A.M. in the Morning! Home

Read More......

The Best of A.M. in the Mornin September 16 - 27, 2007

by Ana Maria

Blog Entries
Santa Barbara's ABC Affiliate Airs Compelling 2-Part Original Katrina Series 9.17.07
Tiny Katrina-Battered Miss.Town Triumphs Over Bush Administration 9.18.07
'Katrina Sign Maker' Joe De Benvenutti Tells His State Farm Story 9.19.07
Important Katrina Vote to Help Gulf Coast Recovery 9.24.07
American Soldiers: Caught in the Crosshairs of Iraq and Katrina 9.25.07
Bush, Barbour’s Katrina Housing Plans Smell Fishy 9.26.07
BIG Katrina Recovery Bill on House Floor Today 9.27.07
Taylor’s Tremendous Triumph: Family, Business Financial Security One Major Step Closer 9.28.07

News Items

A shocking slap at Americorps, heroes of Katrina Sun Herald 9.16.07

Legal tactics stall insurance reform Dallas Morning News 9.17.07
IRS has bad news on Road Home Times Picayune 9.17.07
Children Slipping Further Behind after Katrina Philanthro Media 9.17.07

Mississippi Insurance Commissioner's Race Has Far-Reaching Implications Policyholders of America 9.18.07
Merlin Group: 103 paid in State Farm settlement Sun Herald 9.18.07
Residents dispute corps plan Sun Herald 9.18.07
Al Showers Reports On The Need For Dredging In Bay St. Louis WLOX-TV 13 9.18.07

Land buyout plan shocks Hancock Sun Herald 9.19.07
Using crayons to ease the trauma of hurricane Katrina International Herald Tribune 9.19.07

Religious leaders protest port plan Sun Herald 9.20.07

Buy-outs may be ‘voluntary,’ but insurance a big question Sea Coast Echo 9.23.07

First trip to Coast since Katrina packs wallop on heart Northeast Mississippi Daily Journal 9.23.07
Hurricane Katrina Exacts Another Toll: Enduring Depression Washington Post 9.23.07

Buyout plan startles residents, businesses Sun Herald 9.24.07

Federal help sought for coastal insurance problem The Mississippi Press 9.25.07
Insurance bill up for voteSun Herald 9.25.07

Katrina victims ask Shelby for help Alabama Press Register 9.26.07
Breaking News: American Bankers Association Supports Muliple Peril Insurance Policy (H.R. 3121) 9.26.07


RAND study: Affordable housing lags in Miss areas hit by Katrina Sun Herald 9.27.07
Gulf Coast: Two Years Since Hurricane Rita WIBW-TV in Topeka, Kansas, 9.27.07

U.S. Coast Guard Wet Debris Removal In Final Stage 9.27.07
HOUSE APPROVES FLOOD INSURANCE REFORM BILL 9.27.07

House Approves Taylor Multi Peril Insurance Bill 9.27.07
House passes multi-peril bill; measure moves to Senate 9.27.07
House votes to expand flood insurance program Washington Post 9.27.07

© 2007 Ana Maria Rosato. All rights reserved.
Return to A.M. in the Morning! Home

Read More......

See Congressman Gene Taylor in Action on the Floor!!

See Congressman Gene Taylor (D-MS) on the Floor

“One of the gentlemen mentioned that the insurance companies have settled 90-something percent of the claims. Let me address that. I was pretty busy as you might guess after the storm. I put off meeting with my adjuster for two weeks.

By the time I met with my adjuster I had heard dozens if not hundreds of my constituents, as I’m going around passing out MREs, telling me ‘they already told me they are not going to pay me… I had a homeowners’ policy, they’re not going to pay me.’

So by the time they came to my policy, to my house, I asked my agent: ‘Please don’t say a word. Each one of my steps is about three feet, let’s just count the steps until we find my roof.’ We passed off about 150 of them, 450 feet. I showed them my roof. Pointed out it was tin. Reminded them that tin doesn’t float. Showed them the holes where it had been ripped from the bolts.

I said, ‘This is my roof, I’m the only guy in this neighborhood that has this style roof, this is my roof, and it’s 450 feet from where my house used to be. Now, let’s walk back to where my house used to be.’ ‘Miss, what do you have to say?’ - Ms Lecky King, the claims adjuster.

First words out of her mouth: ‘I see no evidence of wind damage. We are however prepared to pay you for flooding.’

To which I reminded her that was very sweet of State Farm, that’s not their money, that’s the nation’s money. What about the claim for that roof that flew over there?

The House has just passed the Flood Insurance Reform and Modernization Act of 2007 by a vote of 263-146. The bill reauthorizes for five years the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP), which was brought to the fore after Hurricane Katrina. The bill addresses many of the issues regarding insurance companies classifying damage as flood rather than wind so as to force the federal government to pay claims, which were brought up during extensive hearings in the new Congress.

The bill addressed the issues by expanding the NFIP to provide for multiple peril coverage (wind and flood), and with an amendment introduced by Rep. Gene Taylor (MS-04) which prohibits a company that sells and services flood insurance policies from including language in its own windstorm policies that would exclude coverage of wind damage solely because flooding also contributed to the damage.

It also provides for a new community outreach program, requires the updating and modernizing of flood maps, and addresses several other weaknesses in the program exposed by the 2005 hurricane season.

From Speaker Pelosi's blog, The Gavel.

© 2007 Ana Maria Rosato. All rights reserved.
Return to A.M. in the Morning! Home

Read More......

White House threatens to veto national wind insurance plan

By Ana Radelat
Clarion-Ledger Washington Bureau
September 27, 2007

WASHINGTON — A wind insurance plan proposed by 4th District Rep. Gene Taylor and championed by Democratic House leaders came under a White House veto threat Wednesday.

Taylor's proposal, embodied in a flood insurance reform bill the House plans to vote on today, would add wind coverage to the National Flood Insurance Program. That would allow homeowners who want to buy insurance against windstorm damage to purchase it with their flood policies.

But the Office of Management and Budget said shifting liabilities for windstorm damage from private insurers to the flood insurance program would be "fiscally irresponsible."

The federal government subsidizes flood insurance policies to offer homeowners in coastal and other flood-prone regions affordable insurance. Congress established the program in 1968.

But the OMB policy statement released Wednesday said adding wind coverage to flood insurance "would encourage individuals to task on risks that are inappropriate, putting themselves in harm's way because they would not have to bear the full costs of any subsequent damages."

It also said all taxpayers "would be subsidizing insurance rates for the benefit of people in those high-risk areas."

Taylor, a Democrat who lives on the Mississippi Gulf Coast, disagrees.

"They apparently didn't read the bill," he said of the OMB officials who recommended the veto.

Taylor said premiums collected from homeowners would pay all claims, without the need for taxpayer subsidies.

"At the end of the day, the homeowner will decide whether it's a good deal or not because he can choose whether to buy the policy," Taylor said.

Taylor proposed adding wind coverage to flood insurance after insurance companies denied Hurricane Katrina wind claims. Insurers maintained damage to coastal homes was caused by surging water, not winds.

Return to A.M. in the Morning! Home

Read More......