I have a knack for catching just a few minutes of something on TV that I find disturbing and which sends me off to investigate. Darn! I like the idea that ignorance is bliss. I do. I don’t really want to be distressed any more than I have to!
A few weeks ago I turned on the weather channel to see our “Local on the 8’s”. But, of course, at that very moment a reporter for the channel was interviewing a woman, of at least middle age, whose Cordova, Alabama home had been knocked off its foundation in the tornado that had hit her town of 2,000 on April 27th. She had evidently applied and qualified for a single-wide mobile home provided by the Federal Emergency Management Agency. However, within a short distance of where her very damaged house was located those delivering that FEMA home were stopped. They were told to turn around; there would be no delivery because a city ordinance bans that type of mobile home in residential areas. If I remember correctly, the woman said she had been living in a motel but financially could not continue to do so. She did not know what she was going to do.
Now, here’s the kicker. Some of the city’s official buildings were temporarily housed in that same type of FEMA trailers!! So the report also included a clip of the reporter asking a city official, as well as the mayor, about the obvious discrepancy. The first official explained that the ban did not apply to businesses. The mayor said the city ordinance would remain. In other words, there would be no temporary waiver, as some other cities also destroyed by a tornado, were doing.
I didn’t know what to feel. I couldn’t decide which emotion was most prevalent at the moment. I was totally conflicted. Disbelief, disgust, distress, discouragement, and depression were all there. Instantaneously. All I know is that during the rest of the day I felt so sad for that woman. On top of probable feelings of loss, confusion, fear, uncertainty about her future, and any other emotion you might think of, she got rejection. She, in essence, was being told that her life was of no matter. An ordinance was valued more than she. That’s exactly how I see it. And I’ve said it before. I would very much like to think that everyone facing any of life’s disastrous events would receive the same kind of care and concern that we did. And to the same degree. No one can change the outcome of a tragedy. But the response makes the outcome more bearable. It helps to stabilize you at a time when you’re completely undone. It offers some comfort.
Several weeks later I had not heard any update about the matter, so I did a little research. Now, in fairness, I have not checked since then. So if things have changed that would be great. But, even if the city council has since temporarily waived the ordinance, the damage is already done. A waiver after the fact cannot take away the initial discouraging and hurtful response.
Here’s what I found from my research:
- One man, also made homeless by the tornado, thought he was finally getting help when a truck came to his property with his FEMA mobile home. He received a call that the home was illegal in the city.
- The mayor said that new single-wides aren’t allowed and a tornado isn’t any reason to change the law, even temporarily.
- One councilman with 30 years of service believes the ordinance should be rescinded for a period of 18 months. That period of time would coincide with the time frame for which FEMA trailers are intended.
- He has reported that no one else supports this proposal.
- On Wednesday June 8th there was a joint press conference with local, state and federal emergency management officials.
- The lone councilman mentioned above said he was disturbed that more Cordova residents were not notified of the conference.
At that press conference the mayor further clarified his position:
ü He believes the solution for the Cordova residents made homeless by the tornado, among other things, is to rely on church organized programs that fix existing homes for rent or for purchase. (Does that mean there were so many empty houses prior to the tornado that churches bought them as investments? Or does that mean you would give your house to the church and you could either rent it or buy it back once it was repaired? I hope someone asked for further explanation of that point. Again, in fairness, I am writing what I found on several different sites. It may be that the reporting is weak and that it was clear at the conference.)
ü He said ONE home has already been dedicated for use by victims free of charge and 12 more are lined up for POSSIBLE use. (Emphasis entirely mine. But that emphasis seems fair and appropriate. This was reported as being said at the press conference on June 8th. The tornado devastated the town on April 27th.)
ü Single-wide mobile homes would slow down the recovery process. The alternative is permanent housing. (I wonder if any reporter asked him why permanent housing of city buildings was not readily available.)
ü The city is going to be better and stronger.
ü They might be a little smaller, but they are going to be better.
ü The city has to look at the long-range plan.
ü Officials at the press conference could not say how many Cordova residents are still without adequate housing. (Will this hurt re-election campaigns for any of those elected to their positions, I wonder?)
ü “Cordova’s record stands for stubbornness. We don’t mind a good fight and never back down from anything.”
Wow! Where to start? How about the church thing? I assume the mayor’s contention that churches are the answer means he believes in them? Maybe even attends one? Doesn’t seem unreasonable, does it? Let me start there, but I will also assume he does not attend and explore that possibility in just a minute. Just to be fair.
§ What kind of church does he personally attend? If it is one of the Christian faith, I wonder what he does with the example of the Good Samaritan? Or the example of the friends of the paraplegic wanting to help so badly that they lowered the man down through a roof?
§ Do his Sunday beliefs not apply any other day of the week? Do they not apply at his work place? Do they not apply to his “neighbors” that Jesus spoke about? Nor to “the least of these”?
§ Can he cite any example where Jesus thought law was more important than human needs and hurts? I doubt it. Jesus even disobeyed the law against healing on Sundays!
And what about if this mayor does not personally attend church or have any personal religious beliefs? He still obviously thinks churches have a place in society, does he not? So, assuming this to be the case, I would ask:
§ Have the churches in his area organized themselves in such a way that they are ready at all times to provide major services in the event of a natural catastrophe?
§ Do they, especially in this economy, have the resources to continue to provide such services, even if they are organized to do so? Or, have they, like other charitable organizations been hurt financially?
I guess that’s enough about his church comment. How about his ready knowledge of relevant numbers? The terms “one” and “12 possible” don’t give me any confidence the churches are on top of the situation. But Mr. Mayor seems impressed. And what about the fact that not one local, state, or federal official could decisively say at the press conference just how many residents were still homeless? I’m being too hard on them, I know. There are, after all, a total of 2,000 residents. And don’t forget they only had 42 days to figure that out since the tornado struck. Maybe they should have asked for help from those church organizers.
While I’m talking about emergency services being provided, I can’t help but ask. How do you focus on “long-range plans” in the first days after devastation? Doesn’t the fact that you have emergency management agencies helping with city businesses indicate “immediate” and “urgent”? How do you skip over the immediacy and urgency of need for residents? Oh, sorry, I forgot. The churches have that one house ready and 12 possible others. That meets immediate and urgent need, I guess.
And, what about the mayor’s words: smaller, better, stubbornness, and never? (As in “We might be a little bit smaller, but we’re gonna be better.” And “Cordova’s record stands for stubbornness. We don’t mind a good fight and never back down from anything.”) I see them as flashing neon lights. “Smaller” is kind of faded and the light blinks on and off behind the word. So it could easily be missed. But, “better” is part of the same sign, and its bulb is burning steadily. So it makes the “smaller” easier to see too, as long as you read them together.
The “stubbornness” sign is meant to be impressive. But the lights around it are overly bright and right down gaudy. Next to a sign advertising “compassion”, for example, it would look like the cheap sign it really is. Along with its sister sign, “never”, the two remind me of a group of tacky lights on the strip of Las Vegas, flashy but promoting nothing of value or substance. A lighted sign reading “compromise” put next to the “never” sign would look like the Eiffel Tower lighted at night next to the half lit and broken neon sign of a roadside dive; one a beautiful monument to human work and interaction, the other signifying an isolated, uglier side of humankind.
I don’t know. My brain can’t grasp this particular situation. It just can’t. But I have figured out which emotions from my list of choices that I feel now. All of the above.
No comments:
Post a Comment