Updates
Past Updates

 

Advocacy for Disaster Relief Victims

Administrative Petitions Challenging FEMA's Mismanagement of Disaster Relief

FEMA has a long history of systematically mismanaging disaster relief for low-income victims in violation of the Stafford Disaster Relief Act which is now repeating in the Katrina disaster. Three administrative petitions filed on behalf of low-income victims of several disasters document the unlawful mismanagement and propose a series of recommendations, many of which apply to FEMA’s mismanagement of the Katrina disaster. The petitions involve:

Litigation Against FEMA and Settlement Agreement For Earthquake Victims

Class action litigation in federal court against FEMA for its unlawful and discriminatory treatment of Loma Prieta Earthquake victims resulted in a settlement providing for comprehensive disaster relief, including rebuilding the Bay Area’s residential hotels in partnership with a coalition of non-profit providers. Pleadings from the litigation, captioned Smith v. FEMA, include:

 

AG Opinion

The Attorney General issued an opinion regarding a community's efforts to meet the Regional Housing Need Allocation (RHNA) in its general plan housing element. We summarize the May 18, 2005 opinion as follows:

The AG opinion answers the relatively uncontroversial question of whether the quantified objectives can be less than the RHNA if the community lacks sufficient federal or state funds to build the entire RHNA. As the AG points out, the statute already provides that quantified objectives may be less than the RHNA if the community lacks the available resources to meet the RHNA (Gov. Code Sec. 65583(b)). And the AG goes on to explain that insufficiency of federal or state resources by itself is not enough to justify establishing objectives lower than the RHNA. The community must evaluate all available resources, including the resources specified in 65583(a)(8) and (c)(6)-- the subdivisions that describe the resources that must be assessed in determining the community's ability to preserve at-risk subsidized housing. The opinion also notes that the validity of a determination that resources are inadequate to meet the RHNA may be challenged by an interested party pursuant to 65587.