FEMA travel trailers and the bigger ones.

Page 1 of 3  
FEMA was in the process of providing two kinds of trailers for N.O. and the surrounding area.
Travel Trailers, that are the kind that could be pulled by any full-sized car. (Back when cars had frames. It wasn't necessary to have an SUV or a truck frame to pull these little things with rounded ends.
Bigger trailers, whose name I forget, that are meant to be hooked up to one or more external services, like propane or something. The pictures show that these are still pretty small.
There is a rule that the bigger trailers can not be located below the flood plain. On one of the Sunday morning TV news shows, someone was asked and said that was a FEMA rule. The interviewer asked if the rule could be changed, but somehow the question was never answered. What is the basis of the rule?
Now, some or most or almost all of these bigger trailers have been put into storage, in Arkansas or somewhere, and according to other news stories, they are already damaged and may not ever be able to be used. According to one story, they were stored too close together, and are now sinking into the ground (whenever it rains?).
There are iirc 30,000 larger trailers, worth more than 300 million dollars.
My speculation. A) They can't be located on land below the flood plain, because they can't be moved that quickly and will get ruined if there is another flood. However they are gettin ruined anyhow.
B) They couldn't be located on higher land because of NIMBY, people didn't want several of these things in the park across the street.
C) They could have been located in the driveway or yard of the person who was homeless, so that he would be close to his property, and could start rebuilding, or at least salvaging, cleaning, and/or destruction.. But what property was most likely to have damaged by the Katrina flooding? That which is below the flood plain, of course.
So either they ordered the wrong type of trailer. They should have ordered more travel trailers. OR There were no more travel trailers to buy, but having ordered the bigger trailers, they should have and should still allow them to be used below the flood plain, since they're going to be worthless in a couple years either way. and there might not be another flood in the same place for years.
--end speculation--
If they had used plywood below the trailers when they stored them, would that have kept them from sinking into the ground?
Please, I would be interested in answers to any of these questions or comments on any part of this post.
Although this relates to the news, it is actually on topic, I think.
Remove NOPSAM to email me. Please let me know if you have posted also.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Who care's about your opinion regarding FEMA's handling of trailers. You probably should be some where like Alt.Rec.Vehicles, who cares!!!!
Tom

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
I CARE! WHILE HOMELESS PEOPLE ARE SUFFERING THE BIG WHEELS DONT HELP!
I saw the sunday morning show, the idiot fema guy whjo was in charge during katrina and should of been fired was smoke and mirrors the real issues
in a big disaster, the fema trailers should go anywhere needed, including the affected folks driveways.
new orleans is a great example of government stupidity. the leeves should of been maintained better
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

They shoulds not get rebuilt behind the levee without bringing the dirt up to current FEMA standards. At least 11' above sea level.
Yeah that's a lot of dirt but there are barges, a river and a shitload of people out of work in the rust belt to fill the barges. Rebuild NOLA in a sustainable fashion or abandon it. Thats the rule here in Florida
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snipped-for-privacy@aol.com writes:

There are plenty of architecture styles that are used world wide in areas prone to floods. Stilts being one of them.
All new government funded construction should be done only to buildings in a way that even if/when the levees fail again damage will be minimal.
Build *above* sea level and leave the lower area available for parking, playground, etc.... the loss of a car/vehicle is a loss, but not as life changing as the loss of an entire house.
What's happened there is horrible... If I'm paying taxes to help these folks recover it needs to be done in a sustainable manner. But I object to paying twice.
I say the same thing for florida... everyone should be building concrete dome houses. If they did, insurance claims and rates should decline.
--
May no harm befall you,
flip
Ich habe keine Ahnung was das bedeutet, oder vielleicht doch?
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 23 Feb 2006 22:30:39 -0500, Philip Lewis

homes do fairly well. When you see wiped out houses they are either old or they didn't get built to code.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snipped-for-privacy@aol.com writes:

yeah, but concrete domed houses are neat... ;)     
--
May no harm befall you,
flip
Ich habe keine Ahnung was das bedeutet, oder vielleicht doch?
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 24 Feb 2006 10:42:27 -0500, Philip Lewis

Barrel Vaults are easier to build, easier to use, nearly as sturdy, and amenable to variations on the theme.
ONE dome is interesting. Because it's different. A bunch of them would just be ugly.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
writes:

level. The N.O. disaster was no suprise- see this spookily accurate 'what if' article from July 05: http://www.usnews.com/usnews/news/articles/050718/18neworleans.htm
Keep the port in operation, because there is nothing to replace it. The non-flooded areas can make it as a historical tourist destination. The non-historical low-lying areas- if someone has the money to rebuild on land they own- fine, let them, but with a signed 'at your own risk' waiver, and no flood insurance or federally guaranteed loans. For the others- offer an above-CURRENT- market-value buyout, to move elsewhere, above sea level. Another city, maybe 'New' New Orleans, on the north side of the big bridge. Sometimes life sucks, and the government should make sure nobody starves. But there is no obligation to restore the status quo ante. My family lost everything in WWII, and started over on this side of the pond. I own a house in Lake Charles, on the other end of the state, which also got nailed, thankfully not as bad. But it is above seal level, at least a little, and only had minor damage. If it had gotten destroyed, I wouldn't expect the taxpayers to replace it- that is why I have insurance.
aem sends...
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Philip Lewis wrote:

I would think they would require restrictions for rebuilding there, some kind of buy out and then not let residential buildings go up in the flood plain areas, only commercial building, parking, etc that can be built to withstand flooding and or levels raised above the flood levels.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

What opinions did I give? I gave facts to the best that I know them, I gave speculations, and I asked questions.

I appreciate the suggestion, but I don't want to read another group, this is within the range of subjects discussed here, and the larger trailers are not recreational vehicles.
I understand that you don't know enough to comment on the issues I raised, After all, I don't think you've ever tried to answer anyone else's questions either. But please don't give me a hard time.

Remove NOPSAM to email me. Please let me know if you have posted also.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Alt.home.repair hummmmm so lets talk politics, Hey AL,Gore and John Kerry lost the election, if you want to discuss your hot water heater or your plugged up toilet that's great but forget politics. This is not the place to discuss how the government is run! Or your views regarding politics.
Tom

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

a Louisiana rule. FEMA was willing to ship but LA wouldn't allow it. I assume the stated reason may be due to difficulty of moving the trailer should another flood come but I suspect the real fear is that if those trailers get into LA, the people living in them will never move back or up into a real house. Most of the trailers probably would offer better living conditions than some of the original housing. LA would become the biggest trailer park in the country...plus most municipalities realize little or no tax dollars from trailers.
Tom G.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

We have that problem here in Punta Gorda. Folks have been living in FEMA village since Charlie, coming up on 2 years ago.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
2 things to consider.
See this rather ooor disaster response?
ONE DAY IT MIGHT BE YOU WHO NEEDS HELP!
Wether from natural or man made disaster... terrorism...
The other issue is sea level is rising, the ice caps are melting fast, and can raise sea level several feet in the near future. The feds had already predicted new orleans will be a island surrounded by levees in 100 years. it might be better to move the entire city to higher ground or as another person posted bring in dirt by rail and raise the entire place.
long term people shouldnt be allowed to rebuild in flood plains, short term during a disaster fema trailers should go wherever needed.
In any case we all KNOW government really doesnt care:(
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

The problem with this thinking is you will make the next disaster worse if you have a significant number of people still living in the flood plain. Flooding is not just a summer thing.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
<The problem with this thinking is you will make the next disaster worse if you have a significant number of people still living in the flood plain. Flooding is not just a summer thing. >
If YOUR home were destroyed what would YOU prefer?
A trailer on site of old home?
B Homeless?
Trailer werent designed for permancy, and its up to everyone government, insurance companies and individuals to see rebuilding actually occurs!
Many were poor foilks who now have NOTHING because oif governmment incompetence! Caused by ignoring the levees!
I think the feds should pay for rebuilding for the poor without insurance
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

to rebuild a house for somebody in a flood plain.Especially when the house was probably paid for the first time with government checks...Money that was taken from hard working people who are striving to stand on their own 2 feet without a government handout. And don't start in about it being poor folk.I grew up in a poor agricultural area.I have harvested tobacco all day in 100 degree plus tempratures for $1.25 an hour.and peanuts..and hay.I am talking about real work that most of those "poor folk" would not even think of doing. Now I earn a decent living because I Learned skills and I still work harder than the average person.So don't start talkin about stealin my hard earned money and giving it to people who are not willing to work ..who are not even willing to move.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
nevertheless consider the following, the earths climate is changing.
what if your home were destroyed next, would you go away quietely? BIG storm rips across the US, it could easiy occur...
do we have a resonsiblity to the have little or have nots?
in the case of new orleans clearly the army corps of engineers didnt maintain the levees properly:( if anything like this happened because of private industry, they would be paying for the clean up and rebuild.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snipped-for-privacy@aol.com wrote:

was the responsibility of the US Army Corps of Engineers to maintain the levees that hold the water out of New Orleans. That responsibility lies with local flood control or levee boards. Those insular special purpose boards are notoriously corrupt and often serve as an employer of last resort for the ne'er do well relatives of LOCAL POLITICIANS. It was the local levee authority of New Orleans that refused the construction of flood gates for the cities canals because they did not want to bare the cost of maintaining them. All of the levee failures occurred on those same canals. Had the flood gates been installed as the corps had originally planned the flooding of the city would not have occurred. The Corps is supervising the reconstruction of the levees because the levee boards do not have the project management capabilities and they would divert far too much of the construction funds to other uses.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Related Threads

    HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.