You presume wrongly here. FEMA is taking the guy's trailer for no good reason, financial, "emergency management," whatever. At least for any reason related to FEMA's ostensible mandate.
If I was to presume any reason for this "policy," it would be that state provision of free housing to the poor and desperate, even grossly inadequate housing, is considered wrong, as dangerous to the system that the state is supporting. Which is correct--it is potentially dangerous. People might think housing is their due. That is in fact dangerous to "free" market capitalism.
FEMA has not failed here.
"Whereas it is not FEMA per se but the general lack of effective social support for ordinary citizens..."
"...effective social support for ordinary citizens?" Since when has this been understood as a legitimate government function? Have you somehow missed the last 30 years?
On Sun, May 10, 2009 at 3:52 PM, Peter Ward <nevadabob at hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
>
> Unfortunately the article leaves the impression that FEMA is the culprit. Whereas it is not FEMA per se but the general lack of effective social support for ordinary citizens that is to blame. But even if one assumes responsibility lies solely with FEMA the Times ignores investigating the reasons for the agencie's failures--presumably lack of funds and resources ...