Disaster "Relief" in New Jersey

Find the article here! http://america.aljazeera.com/articles/2014/4/30/fema-sandy-aid.html

Although Superstorm Sandy occurred a year and a half ago, the people of the states of New Jersey and New York are still suffering. As devastating as the actual event was to the people living in the area, the aftermath and lack of support is the real tragedy. FEMA has just discontinued support although Many people relied on FEMA money after the hurricane to pay their high rents while their houses were being rebuilt. New York and New Jersey promised better support at the time of the incident, but little has been done to help former home owners; many are still paying for expensive temporary housing with little sign of return or aid to rebuild their old homes. These expenses leave very little money to pay to remodel homes to fit state standards, especially for people who were low-income to begin with. The applications for state government aid have been notoriously slow to respond, unclear in their language, and not reaching underserved populations such as non-English speakers. There have been many cases and paperwork lost as well. Clearly something is wrong with the process currently in place.

The Fair Share Housing Center, a legal team based in New Jersey, piloted the "Sandy Bill of Rights," a lists of the rights that people recovering from the superstorm should be entitled to. The legal team is urging the governor to sign the bill of rights to show his true commitment to the people of New Jersey. The rights include:  

-The right to a plain language explanation of the application process for any recovery funds;
• The right to know why an application is rejected and to appeal that rejection with a specified timeframe;
• The right to know current status of an application and position on any wait list;
• The right to access information in English, Spanish, and any other language spoken by impacted communities;
• The right to a review of racial and ethnic disparities in funding and corrections of any problems;
• The right to have funds distributed by amount of damage and not based on political or other considerations;
• The right to transparent information online about how funds are being distributed.

The Bill of Rights acknowledges that government-aided recourses are distributed unfairly, leaving poorer and more disadvantaged people even more at risk and in debt. This Bill of Rights seeks to provide better services to lessen the inequality of the resources distribution and make the modes of doing so more fair.

What do you think? Is this another Katrina? Do disasters and lack of relief reveal government insufficiency? Can grassroots organizations, like the Fair Share Housing Center, make a change in government operations?

Microfinance in the United States

            For my practice experience, I will be an intern at Kiva.org, the microfinance organization that allows anyone with a computer make small loans to poor entrepreneurs mostly in developing countries. The other day, as I was browsing borrower profiles, I came across one that surprised me. The profile featured a picture of a young man named Nicholas who wanted money for his apothecary shop, where he sells herbal tinctures. What caught my eye was that Nicholas is in Oakland, CA. Do people in the United States actually need the same services that Kiva provides in the developing world?

While microfinance in the United States isn’t new (one of the most famous organizations, Accion USA, was founded in the early 1990s), Kiva’s program seems to be a part of something more recent. Muhammad Yunus (who many call the pioneer of modern microfinance) founded a branch of the Grameen Bank, originally in Bangladesh, in Brooklyn in 2008. Kiva quickly followed suit, and launched its United States program in 2009. In one article, the author tries to explain the timing of the launch: “Kiva’s U.S. micro loans come at an interesting time, with the global economy shifting precariously and unpredictably, and government rescue plans aimed at huge banks and corporations. Through its person-to-person economic stimulus plan, Kiva is giving individuals a new way to decide where and how to put their money to work helping others” (Heim, Kristi. "Africans Loaning to Americans? Kiva Expands to US Borrowers." The Seattle Times 10 June 2009). What seems especially interesting is that Kiva’s United States program is understood in a specific economic context. Heim seems to think that the program will be successful because of the slow economic recovery after the recession in 2008.

The ideas behind using microfinance in the United States also seem reminiscent of current feelings about government actions. Heim’s idea of a “person-to-person economic stimulus plan” could pass as an Occupy Wall Street slogan, along with “we are the 99%.” Both suggest an understanding that the United States government is not providing enough of a safety net to protect its low and middle class citizens. In other words, Kiva’s program can be thought of as an alternative to poor government decisions.

But can we really compare the poverty in the United States to that in the developing countries Kiva was created to serve? Some say yes—even the “Obama administration is throwing its support behind micro-lending. Under the American Reinvestment and Recovery Act of 2009, $50 million was set aside for the Small Business Administration to lend to microenterprises” ("American Offshoots: Will Microfinance Ever Really Take Root in the U.S.?." Knowledge@Wharton. The Wharton School, University of Pennsylvania, [17 June, 2011]. Web.). But I wonder if Americans like the idea of microfinance in the United States not because it is really necessary but because they are frustrated that the government is not doing enough to prevent current inequality—the inequality that Robert Reich talks about in his new documentary Inequality for All. In other words, Kiva’s program seems to act as an alternative to a frustrating lack of policy in favor of poor Americans.

Disaster Relief and Corruption in Mexico.

There was Storm Manuel that hit Mexico’s Pacific coast, near Acapulco last month. Sources say that “Many of those deaths occurred in Acapulco's home state… and the mud completely blocked the entrance to a main hillside tunnel that lead into the city as waist-deep flood waters at the city's international airport prevented roughly 40,000 visitors from leaving. At least 58 people remain missing days after Manuel slammed the region.”

Although there was not much news coverage about this storm, it was a grave disaster to the vulnerable communities in the Pacific coast of Mexico, whom relied primarily from government disaster relief.

I did not experience the implication of this storm directly, but a friends’ relative did, and I was able to get a local perspective about how governmental/international distribution of water, food, and other emergency supplies sometimes do not reach the people and become lost or handed over by corruption dealings. The relative of my friend lived in Guerrero, Acapulco, and her homes were one of the many homes that were shattered by the impact of the storm. She claimed that she along with the family of 5 was forced to live in set up camps along with other victim families. The next day, when local Mexican authority had claimed that governmental aid supplies, and necessary supplies would come by in a few hours in trucks to be distributed to the families who lost everything, the families waited for that promised assistance. However, as soon as they herd the arrival of trucks loaded with supplies, the trucks simply kept going straight into the road, and never stopped. The supplies and the trucks never came, and they still do not know where those donation went. This story depict the immense corruption behind local aid distribution, in this case specifically target for disaster relief. I wonder to what extent were national actors involved in this type of doing, whether it was corruption by secondary hand, or already top-down dealings. The question holds, who is to be held accountable? Because the victims see only the governmetn as the ineffective provider.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/09/19/us-storm-manuel-idUSBRE98H1BQ20130919