12
New Orleans four years after Katrina
A look at K.C. King's house in the Gentilly area of New Orleans.
King family home in New Orleans
TEXT OF INTERVIEW
TESS VIGELAND: This weekend marks the fourth anniversary of Hurricane Katrina. About a year ago, I went to New Orleans and met with several families. We talked about what the storm had cost them -- in money, time and emotional turmoil -- while they waited for the government and insurance companies to keep their promises.
In the Gentilly neighborhood, not far from Lake Ponchartrain, I found K.C. King and his wife Kathi. In our story last year, as we looked out onto his backyard, K.C. described the damage from Katrina.
K.C. King: That's the London Avenue Canal levee wall.
Vigeland: You're living next to the canal.
King: Right.
Vigeland: So your house was fully underwater?
King: Yes. Nine feet for 15 days. So we decided to demolish and we did that in June of '06.
The couple had been living out of an RV and a FEMA trailer for three years. The money to build a new house just hadn't come through. But since our visit, the couple went ahead and built a new place. They're pretty sure it can weather any storm. I spoke with KC from his living room this week and asked him to tell us about it.
King: It's a different design, it's not your average house anywhere, let alone New Orleans. But we love it, it's got kind of a nautical motif. We found a 40-foot mast over it, Mississippi, that had drowned in Katrina and pulled it out of the mud and we're very delighted. It's painted blue and white with yellow accents here and there.
Vigeland: The issue that you and I discussed a year ago was the issue of elevation. Placing your home high, high above the ground. Talk to us about what your house actually looks like right now. How far off the ground is it?
King: OK. My first livable floor is 11 feet above the ground.
Vigeland: Eleven feet?
King: Eleven feet.
Vigeland: Boy, a year ago you were talking about nine feet.
King: Things happen in construction. And that's of course, the nine feet was the high water mark for Katrina.
Vigeland: The vast majority of your neighbors built right back on the ground where their homes once were; they did not elevate.
King:Yeah, absolutely. They did not elevate everything and then of those that elevated probably 85 percent elevated just to the legal limit.
Vigeland: How much did the house end up costing you altogether? And how much of that was paid for through FEMA grants and other government money?
King: OK, all together, I think we're looking -- because it was a one-off design and caused a lot of confusion -- I think we probably wound up paying over $300,000 for it. That was not the plan, but of that, about a $170,000 was paid for by grants the we received so far. We've still yet to receive what's called the "FEMA Hazard Mitigation Grant" and that's, we anticipate, will be about $100,000. So given that, we'll have covered all but maybe $25,000 to $40,000 with government assistance. For which we are eternally grateful.
Vigeland: Yeah, you know, when I was there a year ago, your frustration was palpable. You were very angry at the time it had taken for the government to get money to you. Now that you're in the house, has that subsided? What are your thoughts?
King: Well, the memory of the frustration is there, but at least it's not right in our face now. And the FEMA money looks like that will come along shortly, shall we say. I'm in a big hole for my life savings, being retired, that's all there is. I'm hoping that the last drips of money will kind of put me in at least an acceptable position from that standpoint. We still have credit card debt that we never ever carried before, hoping that this additional money will come.
Vigeland: And again, just to remind folks. The levee is literally in your backyard.
King: Yes ma'am. And it's the same as it was as the day before Katrina, in terms of maintenance and security. One of the things that's becoming very apparent -- and I think we talked about it -- is that there doesn't seem to be a concern on the part of leadership at all levels for the public safety element of flood protection. And so that's our latest crusade here is to get people to make it a safety issue and trying to get them to use best practices. The tragedy of Katrina was we missed an opportunity. When most of hour housing stock was wet, soggy, flattened and otherwise unlivable, we could've made a much better effort of protecting ourselves, individually and as a community.
Vigeland: Let me ask you again the question I asked you a year ago, which is why rebuild?
King: I'd have to say it's the culture of New Orleans. When we had the opportunity to decide "Where do we want to build?" we really did want to come back and enjoy that culture. And from where we sit, that culture pretty much survives. What we were looking for is still here in New Orleans. And two, when I looked at taking the risks and the aid that might come, it looked like financially it would be beneficial. It just took four years to get that. If I'd known it was going to take four years, I probably would've made another decision.
Vigeland: Well K.C., it's really nice to get an update from you. Please give your wife Kathi my best and maybe we'll check in again in about a year.
King: Thanks kindly Tess.
Pages
Here's another wrinkle to upset US taxpayers. I just purchased a gutted home the previous owners having received Road Home funds to repair it. Not only did they not repair it, they used the money to buy another home for investment purposes. They (the recipients) moved out of the State. In order for me to buy this home I had to sign a conveyance for the remaining 1 1.5 years left on the Road Home obligation. I asked the Road Home and associated agencies if I might be eligible for the home elevation funds which by the way have now increased from 30k to 100k and was told that I am not eligible since I didn't own it at the time of the storm. Even after what I thought were legitimate arguments to the contrary that if the obligation stays with the land why then am I not included in the program? Additionally, why were Road Home recipients allowed to take the money with out any enforcement that they money would be spent on the property for which is was allocated? I was told that there was no requirement to spend it on the house...as long as the property was held for the 3 year period..or in my case if the seller could have the new buyer to agree to keep it for the remainder of the 3 year period. It made me disgusted to find this out. When the Road Home was created one had 2 choices: to sell the property back, or receive funds to repair the home. Not take AND sell it especially with none of the money used to pay for repairs. I am still trying to find if I can qualify for mitigation funding since without elevating it I cannot obtain flood insurance. But I just thought all out there should be aware of the Program's major flaws. No wonder I've seen so many new cars around town. With no Road Home follow up on where & how the money was spent it seems it's just another government program that subsidized nothing but many recipients' instant gratification and failed to go where it was meant - rebuilding the 1000's of home destroyed in the wake of the flooding after Katrina. If someone out there has any advice for me I would certainly appreciate it. I fully realize that I've got to pay for all of the repairs...but since the government is still advertising that funding is available for elevation why is it limited to the property owners at the time of the storm?...Many have already taken their money and run with it...meanwhile the house still remain and the need to mitigate the flooding threats still exists.
Eric,
KC had the best insurance money could buy! But they wouldn't pay for damages based on several factors. Thousands of homes were damaged in Katrina. In Kc's Gentily neighborhood only a handful have rebuilt and even fewer rebuilt to standards that would prevent future catastrophe. He took it upon himself to do things right. KC really has built to a standard that more people should be building too. Would you have prefered a 150,000 dollar project that would of been destroyed in the near future. Before getting mad about wasted tax payer money think about this and put yourself in his shoes. You and your family, your job, your life is wiped out because of a failed government engineering project. Who should be held liable? Keep in mind these are not neighborhoods on the coast the face storm systems head on, New Orleans is hundreds of miles inland and KC's house flooded and was destroyed not by a hurricane but a failed engineering project built by our government. Not to mention industry destroying natural barrier islands and marsh's for shipping lanes.
Nicolai Alatzas
ICE, New Orleans
Theicenola.com
Mr. King’s statement in the interview, and the text thereof, states in plain language that “about a $170,000 was paid for by grants the (sp?) we received so far.†And the FEMA Hazard Mitigation Grant “we anticipate, will be about $100,000.†So how does he go from that to his written comments on your website dated the day after the broadcast where states that $220,000 was a low interest loan. I’m just an ordinary CPA, so maybe I don’t really understand government finance, but something doesn’t add up. (mild sarcasm intended)
There is not the space nor the time here to discuss the thoughts and feelings this issue generates in me. Suffice it to say that government programs of almost any kind will almost always be less effective than if we allow real free enterprise capitalism (with some very necessary oversight) to take care of most things.
What is missing from federal, state and scientific community is the exploration of alternate permanent solutions. the earlier Galveston flood was remedied by raising the land above flood level. the biologists call for redress of the channels and return of marsh wetlands to mitigate tidal water rise. habitat's build required complex pilings because they were only 3ft above the water table. The aged, handicapped and mobility challenged can't deal with 2nd floor housing. "houses on stilts" doesn't address the rest of a community - stores, restaurants, schools, emergency services, gas stations, city and hospital building etc. given that dubai created the palms by dredging, japan created their airport similarity, locally, waterways in marina del rey were dredged and moved by miles of conveyor belts to "replenish beach shoreline" - how about studying a permanent fix by raising the land level? prevailing levee risks of mechanical failure, disrupted pump power, undermining or overtopping could then be retired to zero. All city building functions would remain only to deal with hurricane damage and not flooding thereby improving a future recovery. maybe not all the land can be mitigated this way. quite possibly a demonstration neighborhood should be shown. but honestly, how much permanent fix could have been purchased with 7.2B+ of dredging rather than fighting the constant threat to the "bathtub".
btw, the shoreline restoration produced quite a smell. largely because it was distributed openly to the shoreline. nola could push back the topsoil, bury it and recover it just as "sanitary refuxe" sites use to mitigate their odors. Settling would need to be addressed but then again, we had 3 years and running so far.
I wanted to thank Mr. King for his very helpful responses to prior comments. I do understand his point of view and wish him and his family all the best - but I remain opposed to his choice to rebuild.
I wanted to point out that however his replacement home is funded he remains the beneficiary of enormous federal spending on flood control projects. His complaints about the ethics and competence of the various agencies, while certainly understandable, don’t get at what I believe to be the basic issue.
As a 50+ year old automotive engineer living in Michigan, I view Mr. King’s decision to rebuild as being a matter of life style choice. He may like his community – but so do hundreds of thousands of others facing a decision to relocate – be the reasons economic or geological.
If federal dollars are a fixed pie to be distributed, it strikes me as illogical to subsidize urban centers in hazardous locations. I suspect the majority of Americans would prefer that money was spent in some other way.
He has pointed out that regarding the levees and flood control infrastructure, nothing has changed. I’m curious about what he proposes should be done. How much money – obtained how – would guarantee what he would consider adequate protection?
A previous comment suggested a breakdown of the sources of the rebuilding funds. The actual cost of that house needs to account for not just the $300k direct costs but also the additional infrastructure his site requires as opposed to a similar site not subject to flooding.
These are old arguments, not to be settled here or today, but I believe many people remain disappointed and angry over heroic, expensive and ecologically unwise practices that benefit a relatively few. The outrage swells when this money is spent to allow a lifestyle choice - when vastly more Americans lack adequate food, education or medical care.
Bob Clapp's comments really go the heart of local building codes deterimining safe elevations. In a real sense, this is not a local decision but a FEMA decision. FEMA is responsible for certifying that a town or city has the policies in place to qualify its citizens for buying flood insurance. What happened in New Orleans is that FEMA wanted to partner with local government and all costs and regardless of the risk. It was FEMA that said that it was OK to use elevations below Katrina highwater. FEMA also allowed the city to select when policies would go into effect so that fewere residents would have to pay for higher and safer elevations.
If FEMA were a civil engineering organization it would subscribe to the American Society of Civil Engineers cannon of ethics which is to hold safety paramount. It is clear that FEMA has no such ethical standards and must partner with locals rather than ensure individuals are safe.
Mr Fugate may have 25 years of disaster management expericence but apparently does not bring the ethical behavior to put safety of people and their property first.
KC King
These are very understandable comments given the short interview and a very complex situation. Foremost $220,000 of the government money was in the form of a low interest loan from the Small Business Administration (SBA). Any additional funds will be used to reduce that loan.
I think its the colors that make this house seem huge and extravagant. In fact it has only 1450 sf of liveable space which is 75% of the pre-Katrina size for my house and that next door. 900 square feet of the structure is either an open park under garage or storage that is vented and sacrificial.
If there's any extravagance, it's the rebuilding 2 feet (free board) higher than Katrina's high water mark and 6 feet higher than the politically defined base flood elevation (BFE). The thing I can assure taxpayers is that I won't ever be tapping into the taxpayer-subsidized flood insurance.
In New Orleans, we live behind a Federally designed levee which is intended to make homes and businesses safe to concentrate in an urban environment. We are not in a coastal zone such as most of the Gulf Coast that have no protection from either wetlands or storm surge. In hindsight, we in New Orleans should take the Reagan view that anything Government does is bad including public safety from storms. If we all shared that view we should responsibly abandoned every coastal area in the nation. At this point that seems to be the most responsible position. I would prefer to focus on ensuring that government is in fact compentent and uses world class process to perform its protection mission. No more losing wars. No more breached levees. No more building faulty levees.
On other issues, yes I was protected for the amount of my mortgage and $10,000 for personal property by national flood insurance which was no where near replacement cost. No one ever told me we could buy private flood insurance to cover losses exceeding $259,000 offered by the national program. This was at the recommendation of my insurance company. I was protected for replacement costs by wind and fire but not flood. This is the tip of the iceburg regarding residents getting help in understanding their real risk. The Corps of Engineers which builds our levee told us that we had nothing to worry about. Their current story is that we had never been safer.
After all that, what do I think taxpayers are really paying for. First and foremost, they are paying for the consequences of bad engineering as documented by the Corps itself. Taxpayers are also paying for the failures of all levels of government to inform residents of the risks they face so that can make responsible decisions. These conditions have not only not improved but have gotten worse. No one in government is proactively recommending that people take responsiblility and raise their homes if they live in a flood plain. No one is explaining the alternative of relocating to higher ground. No one is question that basic assumptions of flood protection such as using a ludicrously low safety standard of a 100 year flood event.
As President Obama mentioned in his Saturday response to Tess's broadcast, individuals have to take their full measure of responsibility in partnership with Government. Unfortunatly, his solution is limited to building inadequate levees and restoring westlands which are and will continure to disappear. His administration has no program to insure that residents in flood plains are fullty informed of their risks and their options to avoid them or mitigate their effects
KC King, New Orleans
I enjoyed the interview with Mr, King and was glad to learn that the funds to rebuild came from numerous sourses, public and private, however I was astonished to learn that New Orleans zoning and building codes would allow anyone to rebuilt at a height less than the mean high-tide mark.
By comparison the local zoning mandated that my new house be built to similiar specs. By the way, my new flood insurance bill reflects a premium of just over $ 4000 annually. Home Owners is about the same cost. It costs a lot to build near the water.
Pages
