Louisiana residents victimized by floods and hurricanes don’t need a reminder of the frustrating-ineptness of the Feeble Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) or of the soul-crushing corruption of the Department of Housing and Urban Discrimination (HUD).
FEMA trailers, more appropriately designed as egg incubators than dwellings for human beings, stand as mute testimony to mismanagement on a grand scale. At a COST of $150,000 to $170,000 per trailer, including purchase and set-up following the 2016 flood, only to SELL the units for as little as $5,000 each a year later, it’s difficult to imagine even the Pentagon being able to match FEMA in a waste-for-waste competition.
With 144,000 trailers PLACED following hurricanes Katrina, Rita, Gustav, and Ike, and another 4,500 (upgrades vastly superior to the earlier models but still little better than a tent) following the 2016 floods, one can readily see how FEMA now claims to be broke.
Another reason? Try this: Following Hurricane Katrina, The Shaw Group was contracted to place tarpaulins over damaged roofs at a rate of $175 per square (one hundred square feet per square) after Katrina. That’s $175 for draping a ten-foot-by-ten-foot square blue tarpaulin over a damaged roof. Shaw in turn sub-contracted the work to a company called A-1 Construction at a cost of $75 a square. A-1 in turn subbed the work to Westcon Construction at $30 a square. Westcon eventually lined up the actual workers who placed the tarps at a cost of $2 a square.
In normal circumstances, MIKE LOWERY, an estimator for an Austin, Texas, company, said, his company would charge $300 to tarp a 2000-square-foot roof in Austin. For that same size job, the government is paying $2,980 to $3,500, or about 10 times as much, plus additional administrative fees that couldn’t be readily calculated.
FEMA ISSUED 81,241 blue roof tarps across Louisiana after Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, said spokesman Aaron Walker ($14.2 million total cost: $8.1 million for Shaw as opposed to $162,000 for those who did the actual work).
But if you think that’s bad, consider this: “Overall, Restore Louisiana (the program set up to assist flood victims) has awarded $207 million of the $1.3 billion allotment from the federal government to homeowners,” according to a story in the Baton Rouge ADVOCATE. Of that amount, only $60.5 million has actually been paid to those driven out of their homes by the floods. The remaining $147 million is being paid in increments to contractors as work progresses.
At the same time, however, the state has shelled out $75 million to IEM, the contracted administrator for environmental reviews and program management. That means administrative costs are 23.4 percent higher than the amount actually spent helping flood victims. Said another way, the amount spent on actual work is only 80 percent of administrative costs so far.
IEM’s total contract to administer the $1.3 billion Restore Louisiana program is for an eye-popping $308 million. That computes to administrative costs that are 19.25 percent of the total contract but which appear to be running closer to 26.6 percent at the present time.
Contrast that, if you will, with contracts the Ruston firm of Hunt, Guillot has received to date to administer Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds for the recovery of hurricanes Katrina, Rita, Gustav, and Ike and to administer CDBG funds for the Restore Louisiana program set up immediately following the 2016 floods.
Hunt, Guillot received a contract for $18.2 million to administer the disbursement of $7.5 billion in grant funds for LOUISIANA. That contract ran from Oct. 31, 2007, to Oct. 30, 2010. The firm was given an additional contract of $3 million for the period of Feb. 1, 2011, through June 3, 2011 for Katrina and Rita recovery grant funds. IEM’s $308 million contract is 14.5 times the size of Hunt, Guillot’s $21.2 million in contracts even though Hunt, Guillot oversaw the disbursement of nearly six times the amount in federal grants that IEM is responsible for.
IEM’s contract was not without CONTROVERSY, but it probably didn’t hurt that IEM and the company’s CEO, Madhu Beriwal, combined to contribute $15,000 to the campaign of Gov. John Bel Edwards.
But even putting aside all the outrageous administrative costs that are eating up dollars intended to help flood victims, here is the one overriding factor that leads writers like Naomi Klein (The Shock Doctrine) and others to write INVESTIGATIVE REPORTS about the incestuous relationship between natural disasters and corruption?
Could it be that 19 months after thousands of Louisiana residents were forced out of their homes in South Louisiana, only $207 million of a total allocation of $1.3 billion for reconstruction has been approved and checks written for only $60 million even as administrative costs mount?
Could it be that a visit to observe activities at Restore Louisiana headquarters reminds visitors of the organizational skills of a sack of rats in a burning meth lab?
Could it be the frustration encountered by State Rep. Rogers Pope who, first told he qualified for an SBA loan of $250,000 (even though he never applied) but later told it was actually for a lesser amount, responded that he was not interested in a loan of any description but that $50,000 was nevertheless deposited in his bank account by the SBA—and when he insisted again that he did not want the money, was charged $384 in interest for the week that it was in his bank account? (for those of you who may be wondering, that computes to an annual interest rate of 40 percent.) And get this: Pope is a member of the Restore Louisiana Task Force and even he can’t deal with the feds.
Could it be that an applicant who applied for assistance was told that because he had obtained an SBA loan of $124,000, he was ineligible for a grant? The person in question here was yours truly and I was told that the loan was considered a benefit. I’m a 74-year-old retiree on a fixed income, with a brand-new $124,000 mortgage and I’m supposed to consider that a benefit?
What’s more, I’m told, even if I had been offered the loan, and turned it down, I’d still be ineligible because it was offered. (I think that’s what’s called a Catch-22.) And just to add insult to injury, I was told (after at least four separate on-site inspections by FEMA, Restore Louisiana, and Shelter at Home) I was only allowed $60,000 for reconstruction (someone needs to tell my contractor who charged what I considered to be a reasonable fee of $90,000 to make my home livable again—the remainder went to replace furniture and appliances).
I was told at the time of receiving the news of my ineligibility that I could, of course, appeal. “But the appeal won’t do any good,” the nice man said, “because we’re only going by the rules established by FEMA and HUD guidelines.” (A Catch-22 variable.)
It’s the kind of FUBAR guvmint that can send you to a padded room where you’re allowed only crayons as a means of communication.
And if you think I’m angry, consider the frustration level of Stephen Winham of St. Francisville.
Winham, often a LouisianaVoice guest columnist, for 12 years was the state’s budget director, serving under three governors, so he, of all people, should be accustomed to navigating the confusing waters of state bureaucracy. He was, nevertheless, finally moved to send the following email to an official of Restore Louisiana:
I have NEVER seen as poorly run a program as Restore Louisiana and I have seen some poorly run programs in my 21 years of state budget analysis. If the contractor for whom you work represents the benefits of privatizing public services we are in deep manure, particularly since our worst governor ever, Bobby Jindal, moved us to new heights in that direction.
I have talked on the phone and communicated with your company many times. I did not initially apply because I knew I was not eligible. I allowed one of your employees to talk me into applying anyhow, so I did – I assume this was done to get the numbers up. In subsequent steps, it was confirmed I was never eligible and should never have bent to the pressure put on me to apply. In other words, I was officially ruled ineligible months ago.
This correspondence and any phone conversations I might have with you would be a waste of my time – your company is apparently going to get its money no matter what so I have no interest in saving you money. Your company has spent $75 million on itself so far and only disbursed $60 million to the people who really need it – the homeowners. Do you not see a problem with that?
Although I am not eligible, I have a sister-in-law who is. My wife and I have tried to help her work through the many meaningless steps necessary to get her Restore Louisiana grant and she has not gotten a dime yet. My wife has hauled her down to Celtic Studios more than once. She has had visits from what I assume are project managers/coordinators many times. She has completed the necessary paperwork at every step. She has been advised of the amount of her “award” (her part of the $207 million in reported awards, $147 million of which apparently remain undisbursed), but has gotten ZERO. The people who live across the street from my East Baton Rouge property just started LAST WEEK on work to restore their home pursuant to their Restore Louisiana “award”
I think your company is taking the public for a ride – oh, I know, this is federal money – I am doing my federal taxes today – I guess that never was my money to begin with, or something. These things should be block granted. If the eligible recipients take their grants down to a convenient casino and blow it rather than fixing their homes, that’s their problem and it is also better than creating what to me is essentially a pyramid of contractors and sub-contractors each getting their golden crumbs as the grants trickle down to the people who should be getting the money.
Sorry for taking this out on you and you probably haven’t even read this far, but on the off chance you have, LEAVE ME ALONE and devote your attention to eligible recipients many of whom have been waiting over a year and a half for relief.
Your federal—and state—guvmint hard at work for you, Mr. and Mrs. Taxpayer. The best we can hope for is that we never need the their “help” in the future.
(Editor’s note: for the record, a class-action lawsuit is being considered because of the discriminatory policies of HUD and FEMA. More details on that as they are forthcoming.)
Louisiana Voice 
.. Thank you for bringing the facts to us!
If there is a class action lawsuit please put my name at the top of the page. We too were told by FEMA after we got a very small check .That if we wanted any more we would have to take out an SBA loan. we did and then when approved by restore we find out that all monies received count against what we would get from restore. They said it was a duplication of benefits? how can a grant be a duplication of a loan that has to be paid back? After moving out so the restore contractor could do the work we got a first completion date of 21 days .Then 29 days. 38 days later we moved back home. The work is half-assed but the restore inspector said it was good. Everyone got paid and now are no where to be found. The sub-sub contractor drug a 20 yard dumpster through my front yard creating 12-15″ deep ruts. He contractor kept telling me that he would repair it . The Sub contractor would not pay him to do it so the ruts are still there. I called restore who called the sub contractor who then called me at home and told me I could call the Governors office if i wanted to but he was not going to fix my yard. BE VERY CAREFUL DEALING WITH SOME OF THESE CONTRACTORS !! 2nd thing is why were all the other states exempted from this problem of duplication of benefits ? Texas , Florida , Puerto Rico and USVI were all given a pass??? The work was better than shelter at home and it is better than when i moved out. But every day we see more and more corners cut and shoddy work.
As may have been obvious, the email I got from Restore Louisiana yesterday, the latest of several such emails exhorting me to complete their process, was the final straw and prompted me to dash off the letter Tom cites to its writer, copying it to the governor’s office.
Though it was hastily drafted and sent, I would not change anything I said in it. As I told Tom, I continue to be amazed there is not more outrage over this program. The saddest thing to me is that the homeowners quoted in The ADVOCATE article Sunday were so grateful to have finally gotten something, anything from the confusing, frustrating, inefficient, wasteful program. And, remember, this program is administered by a PRIVATE contractor, not state employees.
The ADVOCATE, Tom and others have done a great job covering this. I wrote this column for LouisianaVoice a year ago, based on what was then known:
https://louisianavoice.com/2017/03/18/forget-blaming-fema-guest-columnist-area-reporters-correctly-place-fault-with-state-for-flood-recovery-failures/
Again, where is the outrage? I would beg those of you who have dealt with this program to send your assessments of it to the governor’s office. I used this portal:
http://gov.louisiana.gov/index.cfm/form/home/4
Our government is letting us down and we are letting our form of government down by our failure to address issues with it directly – It is our right and privilege to hold our elected officials accountable. Let’s start doing a better job of it and let’s remember everything at election time and see through the useless rhetoric and smoke of campaign ads. In other words, let’s be responsible citizens.
I emailed the Governors office twice during the restore application process. The 1st time i received a standard cookie cutter reply. We understand your frustration , we will look into it. One month later as a follow up to the first email i sent an inquiry as to any update ? No response.
I find the same pile of male bovine fecal matter when i email any politician. no matter what the topic.
I, too, have received no response from anybody in the governor’s office or at IEM to the email Tom posts. In fairness to them, I told them up front I did not expect a response. I did receive a response from my state representative, Kenny Havard, to whom I sent a link to this post and I plan to meet with him no later than early April. I am fortunate to have a state representative who will talk with me one-on-one whether he agrees with me or not. Other people may not have that luxury. I appreciate having it.
Dammit! Don’t tell me that John Kennedy is right and that we have a Spending Problem, not a Revenue Problem!
If Governor Edwards wants to know why he was a one-term governor, he needs look no further than to this fiasco and lack of leadership to get his answer.
Well said. Note Eric Prince contracting with the Russians; contracting with DOD/State Dept via Blackwater, and the Republicans and a few Democrats getting excess profits, FEMA is just part of their “business plan” and all of the rules are to protect the corporate excess profits. Recommend we, S****!, can’t put that in print, Jindal is watching with Eric Prince. ron thompson
Class action requires certification, and the only thing that can be certified is that the entire class is nuts.
[…] Tom Aswell at Louisiana Voice writes—Hurricane, flood recovery government contracts provide riches to consultants, little else but frustr…: […]
[…] Tom Aswell at Louisiana Voice writes—Hurricane, flood recovery government contracts provide riches to consultants, little else but frustr…: […]
I think I have finally figured out why there is not more outrage about this:
1. People hear so many huge numbers daily they have become desensitized to them. Therefore, paying a contractor $308 million to administer $1.3 billion in grants doesn’t raise a flag, red or otherwise with them, primarily because they have no real faith that either of the numbers is even real.
2. Only those of us who had flood damage and have dealt with Restore Louisiana care – though there are a lot of us we are a small percent of the population.
3. The people who have actually gotten money from Restore Louisiana and/or are awaiting money from it are afraid to complain in fear they will lose what little they have hope of ultimately getting.