Showing posts with label rebuild. Show all posts
Showing posts with label rebuild. Show all posts

Friday, October 11, 2013

Quality vs Speed: Hitting the mark during rebuild

The joists are dry as are the studs, and the requisite inspections have been conducted which means that a once disaster affected house is one step closer to again becoming a home. This is where many families find themselves in the Mid-Atlantic region with organizations and contractors feeling the urgency to get the work done--quickly. While the ideal for every homeowner would be to hire a professional restoration / reconstruction contractor to bring their house back to pre-disaster conditions, many homeowner's face financial shortfalls that prevent this from happening. As a result, these individuals and families come to rely on donated materials and voluntary labor to help cover any gaps that exist during the repair/rebuild process. However, a unique confluence of factors: changing weather, a strain on human resources, and a lack of finances "to do it right," has created an environment where two schools of thought have emerged centering around the speed at which homes are completed vs the level of quality in the finished product.

Speed Demons
One side views quantity as its highest priority, rebuild as many homes as possible, as quickly as possible. In this scenario homeowners are framed more as victims needing saving than as equals in the process; having already dealt with so much: shady contractors, trying to unravel FEMA's grant programming, the permitting process, and insurance companies, the view is that any help given should be welcomed. After all, without the assistance of voluntary resources and donated material, the work done for homeowners in need may never take place. And because of that, the best efforts of those who came to help should be enough, regardless of the quality of the finished product.

Quality over Quantity
The opposing view asks what's the point of having "finished" 100 homes if the homes completed have problems, or because of the workmanship will need to be fixed in 3-5 years? Those who believe quality should not be sacrificed take a tougher stance, believing that homeowner's with need shouldn't be viewed as charity cases waiting for someone's best effort to come along to help them. They believe that the work done on behalf of an individual or family that has gone through the trauma of a natural disaster deserves the best possible and most professional result.

Who's Right?
This debate, like many that surround how best to approach holistic community recovery is one where there doesn't seem to be a "right" or "wrong" answer. Given that both have what they believe to be the best intentions of the homeowner in mind, it's difficult to declare one approach as wrong.

Another example of the quantity vs quality debate is in Moore, OK. After the EF-5 Tornado in May, a discussion around whether a change in building codes should be made so that all the homes rebuilt would be more resilient in the face of future events. While the approval of revised building codes remains unclear, the discussion spurred a push to rebuild back as quickly as possible and not for the obvious reason. If permits were pulled prior to any change in the building codes, homes could be brought back without having the added expense of being "Tornado-proofed". In Moore, speed was, and to a certain extent continues to drive recovery.

At a certain point though, especially in a place like Oklahoma where Tornados are a part of life, building back stronger to reduce the impacts of future events only makes sense. The quality of the structure and the steps taken to integrate better building practices may come with an upfront expense and take longer to institute, but the benefits of less property damage, cheaper and faster recovery, and a greater resilience in the face of future severe weather would be the benefits.

Having this debate is good because it advances the conversation on an important issue, but unfortunately it's happening in a vacuum, because when a family with no place to go has the option of having their home rebuilt to the way it was pre-event, and done so by a largely unskilled group of people as the quicker option, it's difficult to tell them that they should wait and potentially spend more money they don't have.

So what do you think? Is one approach more valid than the other? Is there a way we can find a middle ground that pushes build timelines while not sacrificing the quality of the finished product and do so without breaking the bank? And how would Long Term Recovery Committees/Groups work in this new hybrid model? Thoughts?

Friday, August 9, 2013

Renters vs Owners

Disasters indiscriminately destroy whatever is in their path; its unbiased destruction puts many on equal footing regardless of socioeconomic status. While it's true that vulnerable populations tend to be disproportionately impacted by disasters, a flood doesn't care how much money you make, and where a tornado touches down has nothing to do with the strength of your investment portfolio. So if the damage caused by these community altering events doesn't discriminate, why do we when we respond?

Look pretty similar to me
Once the dust settles, the rush is on to cleanup and get back to the new normal; however, it's during response/recovery activities that something strange happens, organizations will choose to help one family over another. Of course every organization has the right to determine how they prioritize need based on their mission, but the result is that some families don't receive assistance as quickly because they rent and don't own their homes.

Now when I say "help," I refer to the cleaning and debris removal that needs to be done following an event. I understand that renter's have every opportunity to buy insurance for their belongings, but because they don't own the property, they are seen differently in the eyes of some response organizations.

This differentiation has to do with three factors:
  1. Liability. Finding the property owner to get a release signed so volunteer groups can safely and legally work on the property.
  2. The perception that Rental Properties are Income Properties and as such it is the responsibility of the landlord to take care of their tenant needs--not voluntary resources.
  3. Slumlords / Absentee Landlords. There is a general reluctance to help those individuals continue to profit from their questionable business practices.
Liability
There that word is again...who knew trying to help people could be so litigious. In order for groups to use Volunteers, they need to ensure that everyone on site has signed a release of liability and that the homeowner has signed one as well. Oftentimes trying to find and schedule a time when the landlord can meet to sign the necessary paperwork is difficult if not impossible, which is why many renter's are passed over.

Income Properties
Rental properties are income generating properties, this is true, and a myopic view in my opinion. Just like there are butcher's and accountants, there are landlords, people who make a living off renting property. When someone who has several rental properties in a community and all of them are impacted, two things happen: 1) The livelihood of the landlord is put at risk and 2) There are fewer housing units in that community for displaced people to go. 

Slumlords
This is a difficult situation; based on my experiences I've noticed that undocumented families tend to live in units where absentee landlordism is usually the case...as a result, a lot of help that could be given is not because of fear on part of the family and a reluctance on the part of organizations to help a landlord who clearly has no interest in upkeep on their properties.

While renter's are not completely without options, with SBA providing low interest rate loans up to $40,000 to help repair or replace damaged personal items, it still doesn't address the hurdles renter's face in order to receive assistance following disasters.

If a community has surplus rental units available, the issue of re-location for many renters can be dealt with; however, what happens to renters and homeowners in a community like Minot, ND? Minot suffered a critical housing shortage before flooding impacted their community in 2011 displacing the majority of the town. A real consequence of a scenario like this can be that the fabric of a community can dissolve due to families moving to other states and areas where housing stock is available. In the case of Minot, FEMA built temporary housing units, but the lack of housing in rapidly growing communities is a real concern given the challenges renters face when trying to recover from disaster.

I feel that this is something that communities don't realize will be an issue until it's too late, but am unaware of it being a part of the larger community resilience conversation. Regardless of who holds the deed, those four walls and a roof provided more than just shelter for a family, they provided stability and a base to grow this 'whole of community' movement. And while I don't have a clear idea of the steps that need to be taken to bring clarity to this issue, I hope that the groups who work in homes regardless of ownership status continue to do so, as they are providing a great service to help communities fully recover.

Thursday, August 1, 2013

The Road to Recovery

An area where I believe significant benefit can be derived that would aid in the mitigation of the groundhogs day scenario many communities face when responding to and recovering from disasters, is to spend time looking at how other communities faced similar events and then adapt and evolve what they did to suit the idiosyncrasies of their community.

In an effort to see what's being done along those lines, I've made an effort to get my hands on more articles coming from the world of academia, to broaden and challenge my views on what can and should be done to promote resilience at a local level. I can't remember how I stumbled upon this one, but it comes to us from the 'Lincoln Institute of Land Policy' and is titled "The Road to Recovery."

https://www.lincolninst.edu/pubs/dl/2259_1598_The_Road_to_Recovery_0713LL.pdf

While any event adversely affecting individuals and families is unfortunate, it's good to know that there are people out there looking at and learning from previous disasters trying to find commonalities and lessons that can be shared. While it's good to know, I have a concern, with no disrespect to the good people at the Lincoln Institute of Land Policy, who's reading articles of this nature outside of the academic community and socially challenged individuals like me? How are we broadening the circle of knowledge and experience when articles that examine and try to synthesize what's worked and what hasn't, exist in obscure publications that no one outside the academic circles have heard of?

I say this because what this article covers is important; it examines the role of the various levels of government in recovery and rebuilding trying to find commonalities in "disparate environments" to help the recovery of future communities impacted by similar disasters. At a quick 8 pages you can consider this bathroom reading...but it wasn't the length that struck me though, it was what was said about Collaboration:
Supporting Collaboration: Building sustainable capacity and capability for long-term recovery through genuine collaboration and coordination, both horizontally among local groups and vertically among different levels of government. Vertically organized, hierarchical agencies—with clear organizational charts and streamlined channels of communication—are usually not well suited to manage disaster recovery, because the lack of “connecting flow” across vertical hierarchies limits collaboration as well as the flow of new and updated information among organizations. U.S. National agencies involved in recovery, for example, are more adept at administering individual programs than they are at solving complex problems that cut across governmental institutional boundaries. By contrast, horizontally organized agencies can promote interagency coordination and information sharing, allowing individual groups to adapt to new contexts and information while remaining responsible to their parent organization. 
(Pg 18)
And...
The reason I was struck was because it's brutally honest and makes sense given what I've seen during the transition from response to recovery. How this plays out at a local level is that Long Term Recovery Committees (LTRCs) are the horizontally organized representative coalitions of local organizations described above tasked with solving the complex problem of Long Term Community Recovery.
Quick sidebar: Long Term Recovery Committees are coalitions of local organizations and agencies established to administer the long term recovery of a community, allocating dollars to individuals and families who go through the unmet needs / case management process while organizing the voluntary workforce to stretch recovery dollars. For more information on LTRCs go here.
So if LTRCs, these horizontally organized coalitions are the right tool for the job and the research reinforces it, why aren't more communities being educated and walked through the formation of an LTRC before the next event as a part of resilience programming?

When LTRCs are setup after a disaster there is often considerable turbulence due to: the stress of going through response, the amount of money they are responsible for, the politics and influence at play, the newness of the relationships of the constituent members, and the fact that a community is looking to them for guidance and direction on how best to quickly and effectively put the pieces back together.

By proactively addressing this, we would give communities time to deal with the many challenges that come with LTRC formation without the pressure of an ongoing response effort. This luxury would expedite the organization of how monetary donations are handled as well as work to fast track the start of case management and ultimately the work of repair and rebuild.

Don't get me wrong, creating an LTRC is no small feat, but if the upsides are so great and every community impacted by a disaster will need to form one, why isn't more being done?

LTRC Resources
Church World Service leads the way with free LTRC training, and as linked above, National VOAD has a manual that outlines the processes and best practices that come with forming an LTRC. In addition to the material resources available, there are countless communities that have gone through this with just as many individuals to tap for advice and guidance.

Lets start building the foundations required for each aspect of disaster response and recovery now so that when something happens this isn't a surprise, this isn't the first time people are meeting and hearing about LTRCs. This is the low hanging fruit with a potential for significant impact...proactive education is free, resources are available, and yet we see the groundhogs day scenario play out again and again making the road to recovery a long one.

Thursday, June 27, 2013

A Scar on the Earth

Earth Observatory - Moore, OK
In the image above, you can clearly see the path of Moore's EF-5 that did so much damage. The scar is a reminder of why being prepared and giving as much warning as possible to communities in the path of these storms is so vital. In addition to the lead time meteorologists can give communities of a storms anticipated path, it takes the will of those in positions of power to institute substantive changes to ensure that when storms of this magnitude impact populated areas, that the damage is minimized. For communities in Tornado Alley that 'will' should center on promoting stronger building codes, specifically with Tornados in mind. While momentum has been building around this issue, there is still no movement on adopting stronger codes so that when the repair and rebuild of Moore and the surrounding communities gets underway, they have to build back stronger.

The prevailing mindset is that to build homes to withstand these severe wind events would not be economical, however engineers are coming out saying that is a fallacy as illustrated by the 'Insight' article below. As population densities and suburban sprawl continue to transform the midwest, more communities are going to get "in the way", and by looking at the graphic below, they already are:
map created by IDV Solutions

Just like new flood maps take time to create, changing building codes isn't something that can happen overnight, but the 'can do' attitude that exists in Tornado country means that no one is going to wait to rebuild, revised codes or not. By waiting too long to strengthen codes many homeowners may face a similar fate next time the sirens go off.

Additional Reading:
Oklahoma’s Building Codes Don’t Factor For Tornadoes (kgou.org)
Insight - In U.S. tornado alley, building practices boost damage (uk.reuters.com)