FEMA can kind of suck
I own a small apartment house in Asheville. It doesn't make much money, I mainly do it to maintain my connection to the community and have a place to stay, all the rents are below market and I have a diverse group of folks there. I'm proud I'm able to participate in this way.
Lots of trees came down in the yard, thousands of dollars in damages, from Helene. I called FEMA. Their response was it's not your primary residence, no love. What about the other tenants? Common areas are not 'primary residences.' So I expressed some frustration, and the FEMA person really sucked at their response.
They said it was totally fair that I should be responsible, out of pocket for trees. I asked why that was? Their reponse was "this conversation is over," and they hung up. The answer from a decent person would be, I understand your frustration, but FEMA isn't set up to handle this circumstance. Please reach out to SBA.
Here's why this sucks. If I were a recent transplant to Asheville with my multimillion dollar single family residence right next door to my apartment house, thousands of dollars would flow to you from FEMA for your tree damage. I, and my low income tenants, get squat. That is a shameful misallocation of resources.
I've looked, and there is apparantly no assistance to folks in my situation (and nothing available to my tenants). Had the consequences been worse, I would be forced to sell my property, and five decent, hardworking folks would now be forced to find substandard housing. What a world we live in.
That sounds like an incredibly frustrating time for you. I'm sorry you're going through such an awful experience. But it doesn't look like FEMA provides any financial assistance with replacing trees, regardless of whether it's a primary residence or rental property. The FEMA simplified procedures policy (PDF warning) has only two mentions of trees, both in the context of tree removal regarding hazards that prevent access to the housing. The person on the phone was right that there wasn't assistance for your situation, but they seem to have been mistaken about why they weren't going to help you?
Not to say it isn't frustrating for NoblePath and details here are quite limited, but it seems to me (to play a bit of Devil's Advocate):
While their motivations might be noble, ultimately NoblePath's property is a business, not their primary residence, and the damage is inconvenient, but not actually impacting the actual residence itself. As a business and a landlord, it is ultimately NoblePath's responsibility to secure their business' property, not FEMA's.
I had considered giving a response along this vein, and decided that, while it may be true, it was less helpful to talk about landlords and homeowners than it was to try to cut to the core of the problem, which was a seeming misapprehension regarding what FEMA is actually there to help with.
I think you bring up a great point about the apartments being a business. It sounds like OP is running an apartment differently than most landlords, which is pretty cool, but when you do things differently sometimes the system screws you, because it's not designed for you. Apartments, all housing really, is a profit machine in the US and because of that decision, FEMA isn't designed to help them. In the American business world, you were responsible for aggressively raising rents to compete with other apartments and buying more property, investing, or at least saving some of the large profits you made from raising rent every year. That money pays for the tree repair.
I'm not saying any of that is true or accurate, just that FEMA doesn't serve you, because it sounds like you're not running your apartments to make the maximum profit. So you get screwed, because America values money over the human right to housing.
It’s not my primary residence, but it is that of the tenants. If the business has an enexpected emergency expense beyond what it can afford, suddenly those tenants are out of a home. It’s unfair that my affluent neighbors don’t have to absorb that cost, but my tenants do.
And this would be the case even at market rate property. Rents would be going up at those, renters are having to pay more than single family detached properties through no fault of their own.
In my case the trees were in fact posing hazards, they were threatening power drops. Pretty sure they are covered for single family detached housing.
What this does is force landlords like me raise rents, disadbantaging my tenants to the benefit of the already more privileged.
FEMA is totally overwhelmed right now. They had two major hurricanes in one year this year.
The worker shouldn’t have been rude with you on the phone, but basically if you’re able to wait for insurance to kick in, you don’t need the little bit of help they can give. That money is reserved for people who have lost their homes and are currently homeless and can’t afford a hotel.
FEMA needs more federal support. The storms are only going to get worse. They need probably like twice the budget they’ve got right now. They’re short staffed, the reserves they have to give out aren’t large enough and a lot of their protocols are outdated. We’re in trouble right now. Theres no help for a lot of people who need it.
Tbf we don’t know what
“expressed some frustration” means. FEMA operator may not be the one starting the rudeness.
For the record, my statement was “that seems really unfair to my tenants.”
Yep, and more than that, we really need a comprehensive nationwide infrastructure hardening project. Climate change is going to keep hitting, and it is going to keep hitting harder. Unfortunately, with how political and financial momentum work, we will almost certainly remain in a reactionary posture as these blows come.
Some of that has been happening in some places, though it's not big news. California is doing a lot of undergrounding of power and Internet lines, which protects them from fires and earthquakes. It's a slow process to dig trenches for every power line in the state, but it's happening little by little. There's also efforts to minimize gas infrastructure in favor of more robust electrical infrastructure, as power lines are easier to repair than gas pipes and generally more environmentally minded.
It makes sense to me that if any state is already working on this, it would be California. They are, by necessity, very aware of water issues and are just progressive in general on issues of science-fact and social issues... which strangely are both involved (if at a secondary effect level with the social aspect) when talking about hardening infrastructure.
Combine that with being both sea-facing and earthquake-active and it makes sense they would be leading on these issues.
As good as that is for California though... we really need it nationwide - and while the cost impact can be somewhat offset by the job creation and internal investment such a massive project represents, the expense will be enormous. Still, perhaps enough sense can push such a proposal through, otherwise it will get pushed by tragedy instead.
It can be the latest New Deal. The number of jobs required to harden the entire US against various disasters could keep a good chunk of the population busy for a good while. Assuming proper taxation (big assumption, I know) the government footing the bill just means that they'll get it back in taxes over the next few years.
Funny thing about that, turns out that in Florida, insurers are unsurprisingly not eager to pay out claims:
https://www.nbcnews.com/business/consumer/hurricane-milton-helene-insurance-nightmares-torment-florida-residents-rcna175088
I’m not sure this is how it’s working. Plenty of affluent homeowners are receiving significant aid if my information is correct.
I'm having a bad day at work today, so I'm going to reply to your one statement here and it honestly might be less than perfectly kind. The expectation that any publicly facing worker should realistically have to constantly empathize with every individual they interact with in every situation is totally wrong. All the while we dismiss any obligation of the person interacting with the worker to empathize with their situation at all. You're asking a call center worker to justify a government policy to you that they have no part in making.
That’s a decent reframe. It doesn’t excuse his behavior, though. Sure they’re overworked, but they’re decently paid. This wasn’t a call center person, this was a senior adjuster. Their job is to help residents, of which 5 families will be impacted by their actions. I run very small margins to keep rents low and people housed. I’ll be fine, but if I can’t make the finances work, those folks are out of a house.
I think it should be okay to share a story about bad customer service even if it’s also understandable that the other person in the phone conversation is under a lot of pressure, too. It’s a thing that happened. There is usually room for improvement.
And you should be able to do that without having all your decisions questioned. We only know what you tell us. But along those lines, it sounds like your margins might have been too small in retrospect? There wasn’t enough of a buffer to cover the deductible for unexpected expenses. Though, anticipating the effects of unexpected weather events can be hard to get right.
It’s annoying to see others get more disaster relief, but hard to judge without knowing their situation, too.
Hey, just wanted to say - yeah that’s shitty, especially in your situation where you aren’t owning the property as a retirement plan or to boost profits, but to provide affordable housing/community and basically just covering costs through rent.
It sucks that the only response from FEMA was basically telling you your best option is to get a disaster relief loan from SBA, especially since it looks like SBA isn’t even able to offer new loans right now. I certainly see how unfair it seems (to both you, and your tenants even) that personal homes that are owned by people who could more likely afford repairs without FEMA assistance are the ones getting the assistance.
I hope you are able to get something figured out, and are able to keep both you and your tenants safe & out of further harms way. Hopefully this doesn’t end up putting you too deep in a hole financially.
It is maybe worth going through insurance just in case something else happens, but that will likely raise your rates anyway even if you don’t meet the deductible. The whole situation stinks, it seems like a once in a lifetime disaster, that hopefully is only once in a lifetime. I think it does make sense that you might have to raise rent in this scenario, and hopefully your tenants are understanding, even though they were also likely impacted.
Thanks for hearing me.
I don't know anything about FEMA, or operating an apartment, but I do know sometimes I can get better customer service just by calling back and talking to someone else. Even if you get the same answer about the trees, someone who knows the system might be able to tell you about some benefit you are eligible for.
I don't know if your interaction with the first agent created some kind of a record or case file, but if so you'd want to take that into account when you call back. It is to your benefit (or at least does no harm) to be kind, and even sympathetic to their difficulties in those interactions. More flies with honey and all that.
I hope you're able to sort out the repairs soon and the overall impact on your situation is as low as it can be.
Wow, that’s terrible. It sounds like you don’t have insurance for this, either?
I don't know what kind of insurance NoblePath has but they're insanely slow right now/basically unresponsive. I have a place in Boston that has been dealing with water damage completely unrelated to anything going on with Florida and my insurance companies have been giving me the runaround about all this stuff, because they've been "doing work for the hurricane".
I do, but it’s a high deductible.
To me this is what your insurance is for and why high deductibles are risky. Yeah the guy on the phone was apparently rude, it happens and while not "appropriate" like, it's at best a "hey Bob, take your fifteen and be calmer on the phone" sort of a correction. And maybe you were the 35th conversation that day from a landlord wanting them to cover something.
It shouldn't make you raise rent because the cost of paying your deductible should be included in your business plan. It shouldn't make people homeless because you should be taking care of it.
When you said it wasn't fair to your tenants, that sounds like you actually felt it wasn't fair to you. Because the tenants fall under your business plan responsibility. I understand there's other aid out there for small business owners and I hope they're able to assist because tragedies like that do throw even good business plans askew, but I'd encourage you to lower your deductible if it's not affordable.
The business plan statement is fair, and i do have enough to cover the deductible.
You’re right, I am offended at injustice for anyone, and an injury to anyone is an injury to me. There are so many ways those struggling are disadvantaged extra just because they are disadvantaged. This one smarts more, though because it’s slapping right in the face right now.
And even if i have the money, there’s now improvements i can’t make because i had to spend the money on emergency repairs.
The real bottom line is the tenants have to pay more rent than they otherwise would because they can’t afford to live in a single family detached home. So much for incentivizing density I guess. We’ll just let the next one wash our community away.
Edit: and thank you for the sympathy.
You misunderstood me. Your statement about unfairness to the tenants was untrue. It was unfair to you, because you have to pay out of your pocket and not get the same help a homeowner gets, but not to them, because you are responsible for taking care of them. The person you spoke with may have shared that feeling
Natural disasters suck, I'm not denying that. Even small personal disasters suck, if my furnace goes out in my home it'll be a problem.
But this is a business which means you should request help from the business assistance folks. Not that you shouldn't get any, but you're either earning an income or maintaining a real estate investment, and the fact of a business is you're not guaranteed not to have setbacks and unexpected costs. You can't make improvements, sure because you might end up at a loss this year. If that's not financially viable, it's not a good business to be in.
But the idea that this means no one cares about dedensifying or that "we'll let the town wash away"... I mean first some of the town did wash away, right? Other towns too. Plenty of people are experiencing a lot worse than the financial cost of removing trees, some renters even probably have landlords that won't pay to take care of such things, because they're shitty landlords. This feels a bit petulant, like if you ran a small art gallery and had this same tree issue, it'd be like saying "I guess no one cares about the arts anymore!"
It's actually "no one cares about my problems" and feeling that way sucks. But people do care, you just called the wrong people and requested the wrong aid. There may or may not be enough assistance for you, and that does suck if there isnt, because this all sucks. Your problems suck. Disasters suck. But your framing isn't helping you.
Take care of your tenants and their safety. Postpone improvements if needed. Request business assistance. Reevaluate your insurance needs and business plan after as needed. It's ok to be dealing with how much things in general suck, but this response hit the wrong note to me. I hope you get the assistance to you need
In your worldview, are the tenants entitled to assistance to cover the unexpected increase in rent necessary for me to be prepared for disaster and improve their property?
I would feel fine if they are entitled to the equivalent assistance as their single family detached neighbors. Whether paid to me as owner or them as tenants makes no difference to me.
I mean I could get into the ethics of being a landlord and all that in my personal ideal worldview. In this current world, people are absolutely entitled to rent assistance, landlords have obligations to their tenants for safety and habitability, and generally "maintain" the property is the expectation - to a certain standard based on local laws and just being an ethical person. Because really if I'm sitting here going "what's in the best interest of the tenants" it would be "living somewhere where their payments earn them something long term."
They're entitled to the assistance that they get as people living through a disaster. You're entitled to the assistance of a business property owner. They're not entitled to property owner assistance (nor have the responsibilities) and you're not entitled to the "living through a disaster" assistance.
Like I said, it makes sense to be having strong feelings here, but I think you're displacing them by being angry at some guy who was having to deal with people whose entire lives have been wiped out all day and who was unsympathetic to you. If you have some secondary trauma from this how much might he have? But maybe he's just Bob the FEMA asshole. Who knows?
I just don't think you're upset on their behalf as a noble cause, because you could take the financial hit instead of passing it on. You pride yourself on taking good care of your tenants, I would hope that a natural disaster wouldn't change that. Raising rents for a one time expense is ethically questionable to me, but it's not my ethics that matter.
And maybe there isn't enough assistance out there for non-resident landowners right now, but that isn't Bob's fault. But I think your "let the town wash away next time" comment highlights how physically distant you are from what so many people are dealing with. I'm glad your property was relatively safe and that you or your tenants are not facing a much worse situation.
Perhaps this is where the rub lies.
I can be prepared for x degree of disaster, manage y amount of improvements, or limit rent to z dollars, but not all of them, at least not without external assistance. In other words, I can’t just take the financial hit. And, while I found bob to be excessively rude, my anger is more systemic. Although i am disappointed that bob buys into the systemic failure. The systemic failure here is that my tenants have to pay higher rent as a result of the disaster (if i am going to do both improvements and maintain an excess cushion for disasters), whereas single-family detached homeowners will not be required to make similar adjustments, they can rely on government compensation.
I haven't commented yet, but my experience as a lifelong tenant is that tenants generally don't get the political or government benefits home owners get, with some exceptions in certain cities. The tax code doesn't offer any comparable benefit to the home mortgage interest deduction.
I sincerely doubt that most homeowners, particularly homeowners on the lower end of the income scale, will be both fixing damage and "making improvements" this year. If my furnace goes out, I am not also installing a hot tub, the (hypothetical) hot tub money will be furnace money instead. And it's the same if it's a medical ceiling lift and not a "fun" thing.
It is not systemic injustice to not be able to do both things, even if it sucks not the get that lift. (It would be unjust maybe if "improvement" here means "make habitable" but that'd be an injustice started by the owner of the uninhabitable property. I'm assuming you're not a slum lord and the property was safe and habitable before the storm. )
And as the person insisting that they'll have to charge others more to avoid any financial hit, if you find yourself so deeply offended at systemic injustice, you could pivot to an RTO model where your tenants can be building equity with each payment in the property they live in, maybe as a co-op to manage those common areas. Because you're not engaging with that cognitive dissonance here at all. Raising prices to make "improvements" while going through a disaster would make most look at other businesses askance, especially those that provide the most basic of fundamental needs. If the grocery store uses this time to update it's POS system, and raises prices for that purpose, you'd be unhappy I suspect.
FEMA doesn't make people whole, it helps them with recovery. I understand if you cannot handle the financial hit of the trees. But you said you could before insisting you'd have to make improvements. This all feels like "look how the government is making me raise rent on my poor tenants who just experienced a natural disaster" and that falls flat to me.
Disasters absolutely throw all this off, and I understand not being able to afford everything and I hope that you instead seek the business assistance available to you.
It sounds like you could have this conversation with your tenants and explain how the improvements will not be possible due to the financial hit etc.
You could show them the numbers if they're not convinced.
I'm sure most tenants would be OK with their decent conditions not improving over having trees strewn about their homes.
Well some are on rent deferment because they lost their jobs, but eventually sure.
My beef is not with our ability to move forward, it’s that my tenants don’t benefit from fema assistance the way their single family detached home dwelling neighbors do.
edit. my beef is also with the guy. everyone desrves leeway here, but i deserve as much as him.