DISASTER Displaced Maui fire victims given ultimatum

O

Old Gray Mare

TB Fanatic
AAUVQPO.img

AsAmNews


Displaced Maui fire victims given ultimatum​

Story by Randall
• 8h • 2 min read


Displaced Maui fire victims given ultimatum

Displaced Maui fire victims given ultimatum© Provided by AsAmNews
The state released a new plan Friday designed to speed up the placement of Maui fire victims to permanent housing.

However, Hawaii Public Radio reports if the families decline to accept any of the options offered, they are being given eight days to move out.

Households eligible for FEMA aid will get four options for accepting a housing plan that will provide housing for another 12-18 months. Those ineligible for aid will get two chances.

About 1400 households are still living in hotels at a cost of hundreds of millions of dollars to the state.

Last month, a coalition of non-profit and government partners came up with a $500 million dollar plan to provide interim housing.

Since then the number of households living in hotels has declined by 1,000 households as more have moved into housing with longtime leases funded by FEMA.

Some families have declined the offer because the homes would not accept pets or it was located too far from work and school. Some have also cited accessibility issues.

“Being in a shelter for a long period of time is not healthy for these families,” said Darrick Ching of Hawaii’s Emergency Management Agency. “They need to regain their resilience and their sense of normalcy. So I think just to emphasize that point this is for every family’s well-being, as well as for the state and being fiscally responsible.”

AAYNPd8.img
News Nation
Maui wildfires: Over 4,000 people still homeless | Cuomo


link to source:
 
O

Old Gray Mare

TB Fanatic
This is from two months ago.

The PTB aren't making rebuilding easy for locals.

Return to Maui: Lahaina reopens to residents after deadly wildfire, but heartbreak remains​


ABC7

Dec 29, 2023
It was August when a horrible, massive fire reduced the town of Lahaina to ashes. Now that months have gone by, you might assume things are getting better. Not even close.

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UcAQpwtkZ30

run time 5:56
 
O

Old Gray Mare

TB Fanatic
mikeabn said:
They should start speaking Spanish.
Click to expand...
Hawaiian is harder... trust me.

As for the gun thing? Locals are armed, maybe not Texas armed but armed and they know which end the bullet comes out. Bad new: the guns are registered with the state. Also a lot of retired military on the islands.

Locals have had to put up with a lot of crap not only from DC but from local PTB for over 100 years now. I don't know where their line in the sand is or will be. I do know I don't want to be in the way when they find it.
 
Last edited:
Melodi

Melodi

Disaster Cat
Not allowing them to take their pets should be illegal, as it is in Sweden—the same with apartments and other places to live. In Sweden, a landlord can limit the number of pets - the legal minimum is (or was) two cats, a dog, a cat, two small dogs, or one large dog. They don't require insurance, but some countries or locals are looking at similar laws that will allow a landlord an extra deposit or require damage insurance for people who have pets (sometimes waved for the elderly and disabled or paid by charities).

There is a push for Ireland to adopt something like this because every time there's an economic downturn or a housing crisis (like right now), people are forced into apartments that won't allow pets. Then rescues and animal control pounds are flooded with crying families forced to turn over their beloved pets. The government will take your kids away if you try to live in a car with the family dog.

I suspect that in Hawaii, either the hotel is allowing pets, or they are likely boarded at a local rescue center paid for by taxpayer and charity funding. Since Katria, when the "rescue" workers were caught shooting pets as they herded people onto buses, including poor little "Snowball." The video of the little boy crying for Snowball went viral, and the rage it caused in public backlash made even Homeland Security (or their Deep State handlers) realize they had gone too far.

If this housing is a "take it or leave it," it should be illegal for the government to provide (or acquire) housing, not to allow existing family pets. The alternative is simply a death sentence for most of the animals and an additional horrific trauma for the affected families who know their pet(s) will be euthanized. They can't do anything about it, especially if they have kids who could be taken by the courts for "neglect" if the family doesn't take the "provided" but "pet-free" housing.
 
W

WalknTrot

Veteran Member
These sorts of wipe-outs happen all the time here on the mainland to thousands of people at a time - mostly with hurricanes and tornados. Insurance companies move in, FEMA provides temp housing, and people either rebuild or move on. What's different? Did these folks have insurance? Why hasn't clean-up begun?

I have to wonder if island-think "mañana" mentality plus a danged corrupt state and local gov't has a lot to do with it. I mean jeepers - you can spout human interest stories all day (above video) but doesn't seem to me like anybody is getting to the grit of the matter.
 
Melodi

Melodi

Disaster Cat
WalknTrot said:
These sorts of wipe-outs happen all the time here on the mainland - mostly with hurricanes and tornados. Insurance companies move in, FEMA provides temp housing, and people either rebuild or move on. What's different? Did these folks have insurance? Why hasn't clean-up begun?

I have to wonder if the island-think "mañana" mentality plus a corrupt state and local government have a lot to do with it. I mean, jeepers, you can spout human interest stories all day (see the above video), but it doesn't seem to me like anybody is getting to the grit of the matter.
Click to expand...
I understand this was a relatively poor area, especially the burned part. Some very wealthy individuals and institutions had made many "plans" to "develop" the area, but there were all these pesky people in the way.

Now, intentionally or unintentionally, they are all "displaced," and few in the Local, State, or even Federal government have much incentive to bring them back. However, they have many incentives (some financial and other perks) to keep them away from their original areas of occupation.

It would be better to move them "temporarily" inland, away from all that wonderful beachfront property, which could be "converted" into local and state tax revenue with hotels, casinos, marinas, and maybe even a Yaught Club. The unsightly dwellings and businesses used by "the poor" residents will be removed from the area and also moved to the new "planned" accommodations (shades of FEMA trailers) further inland and out of sight.

I can't prove any of this, but I've been hearing this from the alternative media and interviews with locals, and it makes sense to me. All the more so now, with things like this "ultimate."
 
W

WalknTrot

Veteran Member
Thing is, if you own the property, and you have adequate insurance, you can rebuild. Sure there are always buzzard scammers out to rip off victims, (Florida or Carolina $$$ beachfront property after a hurricane?) but people resist, people cope, people rebuild or relocate at their own discretion.
 
Melodi

Melodi

Disaster Cat
Many of those affected were renting, and I'm sure they have their usual issues with insurance companies. I saw that directly with the Oakland Hills Firestorm. Many ended up just moving away (and selling the land in a desirable area to developers) because there were so many delays or "settlements offered" that people had to take to feed their kids and keep the family going.

I'm sure they are playing the same tricks here.
 
V

Voortrekker

Veteran Member
Those are "Hawaiian" people. Why would they want to relocate to somewhere else? That Island is their home, not an account for speculators and investment realtors. Some people still have an attachment to the land.

Multi-millionaires and billionaires make that decision based on "it's paradise" and those native savages don't need that land anyway, so let's take it!
 
O

Old Gray Mare

TB Fanatic
Squib said:
I don’t think $500 million would build more than a small percent of what is needed.

I would image building materials are expensive there?
Click to expand...
It takes many months to years to get building permits. I will not hazard a guess on the cost of just getting the permits and that's long before a stone is set or nail is hammered.
 
FMJ

FMJ

Technical Senior
Can you actually own land in Hawaii? I had heard that land on the island was owned by the state with a life time (yours) use permit and no rights of inheritance. Incorrect?
 
P

Publius

TB Fanatic
Tundra Gypsy said:
If it was me; I would clear my property and set up a large tent; bring in water. My property, they can't have it.
Click to expand...

This ^^ and how many own their property and even have it paid off and own it out right, government cannot tell them they cannot rebuild or live on it in a tent especially if there are few people even living there because of government interference.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top