[StBernard] LRA cost me $24,000 & called to say "I was lucky."

[Westley Annis]

Wendy, and most everyone else here:

Sorry to nit pick and be so long winded but here goes.

I would like to start by saying that when you are talking to me, you are 
preaching to the choir as to the bottom line.  I am all for not deducting 
the insurance money.  In no way can the amount of money in dispute here, in 
any way, be construed as unjust enrichment if everyone is paid equally.  The

devastation, on so many levels, is far too severe, far too widespread.    
Beyond that, when you consider the cause, especially in St. Bernard Parish, 
we should be talking about federal reparations.   I, as you, believe the 
state has a conflict of interest when making the guidelines so tough.  The 
less they give us the more they get to keep for other projects.

All that said, I must point out two things.  1. You said, "WE PAID FOR 
INSURANCE this was not a dispersment for or from the federal government."  I

believe we paid insurance and as we bought it from FEMA at a premium that 
was subsidized by the federal government, and the claims were paid by FEMA, 
so technically it was a disbursement from the federal government.  Not an 
unjust one, but one none the less.

And 2. You said, "Yes we had insurance but our lives are no better for it,"

I beg to differ on that point.  Those of us with insurance were paid 
virtually immediately.   With many companies paying full policy limits over 
the phone, with a few people, and I do mean very few collecting far more 
than the value of the house from the insurance, then selling the house for 
30% of market value, leaving them far more than financially whole on their 
real estate losses.

So for most of us, the ones insured for market value or less, the majority 
for less due to rapid home value escalation in the for years pre-k, are 
better off than those that did not  have flood insurance because:

1.  Flood insured got paid their money over a year ago and have the option 
of using that money for any thing they wanted to.  The Money is 
unrestricted, you can invest the money and rent for life, move in with the 
kids, sell the house and move out of state.  All no problem  Example:  TRH =

40%  Penalty for moving out of state. Insurance and moving out of state = no

penalty, nada.  TRH  = 30% Penalty for being in a flood zone.   With 
insurance?  No penalty, Nope didn't happen.

People adequately insured, got paid and either replaced there homes, 
repaired their home, or banked the money and are drawing interest on the 
money and renting or living with relatives. All were outcomes that make the 
lives of those of us with flood insurance, far better than those of us 
without it.  To this date I don't know anyone uninsured that has gotten 
anything from The Road Home but a golden ticket IOU and nearly 17 months 
heartache and anxiety over the whole situation.  This has no doubt caused a 
few heart attacks and divorces over the stress.  So to me the statement that

"Yes we had insurance but our lives are no better for it," is a gross 
exaggeration.

Bottom Line
The insured are far better off, but equally deserving of the full benefits 
none the less.

Randy