Topic: FEMA won’t let us rebuild our home

[Pandora]

Between the time the Taylors bought their home and the time it burned down, FEMA had changed the flood zone designation of their property.

"To rebuild post-Katrina, the federal government requires they build their home 20 feet in the air, which is 20 feet higher than any other home in their neighborhood, and not paid for by insurance. Local government officials concede it’s a de facto building moratorium that has left the Taylors with a useless house on which they must now pay flood insurance and a mortgage. They’re now forced to go to their federal representative to attempt to get a bill passed by Congress that would allow FEMA to grant variances to families in their position."

The issue for the Taylors is the Sacramento River.  It isn't made clear in the piece or the vid the river's proximity; however, it seems that after Katrina happened, FEMA went around the country re- and de-certifying levees, thus throwing millions more people into "flood zone" areas, many of which are incorrectly classified (but since when does *that* matter).  The upshot is building and rebuilding codes have gotten more stringent, effectively putting people out of their houses, no matter how they're damaged and despite their insurance coverage if they can't foot the bill out-of-pocket.

Can you say Agenda 21?

[IronDioPriest]

...They’re now forced to go to their federal representative to attempt to get a bill passed by Congress that would allow FEMA to grant variances to families in their position...

How naive, to believe that FEMA is not granting a variance because it is "unable".

Why do I suspect that if such a bill were indeed passed, the president would veto it, or, if he thought it politically untenable to do so, would sign it, and then FEMA would ignore the law, and block the ability of these citizens to rebuild by regulatory fiat?

It won't stop.

[Glock32]

It's what happens when a citizenry get fooled into thinking the government actually pays for anything (e.g. FEMA disaster funds). When you take the king's schilling, it comes with a lot of strings attached. We're now so normalized into accepting the idea of government involvement in the market, such as HUD/FHA with Fannie and Freddie and now our healthcare, that taking the king's schilling has become semi-mandatory. And that is entirely by design. It ties back into this general strategy they use of having you "voluntarily" relinquish your prerogative over your own life by claiming you don't have to participate in this or that thing. "Of course you still have 4th Amendment rights. If you don't want to waive them you don't have to take a commercial flight."

It occurs on a state level too. Practically everything a state does now involves grants from the feds. So by virtue of taking federal money, the feds get to set state policies. They swallow up our tax money into that gaping maw on the Potomac, then dole it back out after skimming 70% of it, and have the nerve to say they now get to call the tune since "they" are paying the piper. I believe Jefferson described this as "eating out our substance".

[Libertas]

Yes, Fed's butting into local affairs, that always generates a predictable and sorry result.

But, until it does get worse, and it will, and more widespread, and it will, people won't be in a mood to fight back...or they'll just give up...honestly I have no faith in the general gene pool to get my hopes up...