Aid Programs Don’t Meet Needs of Quake Victims

* Your article “Quake Fails to Shake Valley’s Housing Glut” (March 27) failed to deal with two critical areas that have contributed not only to the “glut” but to a significant delay to true recovery for thousands of quake victims.

First, the Federal Emergency Management Agency’s policy is to provide significant aid to the single-family homeowner, including a large initial check for relocation, and continuing rental subsidies while the home is being repaired with additional FEMA grants.

The grants are based on an evaluation of need and continue as needed.

The renter however, receives no such aid. Regardless of need, the renter receives a check marked “two months rent” and then no further aid of any kind! Again regardless of need. In fact, while the renter has only the Individual and Family Grant Program (a state program funded by the department of Housing and Urban Development), FEMA has been unable to transmit the needed forms to the grant program office, resulting in additional difficulty for the quake victims.

The second area of problems lies in the fact that the Section 8 subsidy program will not allow the renter to add money to the subsidy. Rather the program has set severe limits on subsidy, based solely on family size, and will not allow any flexibility in decisions.

While the original thinking by HUD may have been to protect the renter from landlord abuse, this is a critical failure of the program, since it limits its value to the displaced middle class as well as to the working poor who have earned the right to improve their lot.

For example, my wife and I are senior citizens on Social Security and SSI. We are ineligible for Small Business Administration loans. We lost a two-bedroom apartment in the quake. We need the second bedroom to operate a home-based business. The Section 8 offer was for no more than a one-bedroom apartment subsidy of some $630. Our need for the second room is critical to our recovery. Needless to say, not only were we refused, nobody cared to ask if we needed further help.

The conclusion is that the programs that are out there are not enough to meet their intended goals and need to be changed. Unfortunately, no one seems to care.

MARK LANDON

Sherman Oaks