Under the guise of safety and emergency response, working class families are being forced to either accept a buyout and leave their homes and often communities entirely, or remain in their homes and communities at the same unsafe elevation levels that led to devastation during Hurricane Ida.

Mid-way through navigating state-run but federally funded Ida Recovery programs – some Manville residents were told they could only apply for buyouts, and could not apply for the program to help them elevate their homes and repair Ida damages (HARP).  The HARP program, funded through Community Development Block Grant Disaster Recovery (CDBG-DR) funding, would have allowed them to elevate their homes to withstand future flooding safely.

Publicly available information states the reasoning for this state-level policy change: “… to support the state’s hazard mitigation priorities of saving life first and protecting property. Under this framework, buyouts will be the only recovery option offered…”

While this could seem like a logical policy to protect lives and communities, in practice it discriminates between those who can afford to elevate and repair on their own and those who cannot.   Our experience on the ground with survivors has demonstrated that low and moderate income families (LMI) are being forced out with negative impacts.  Meanwhile, anyone with funding can rebuild safely. This self-funded rebuilding is often literally across the street from LMI families who must choose between leaving their communities, which they cannot afford under the Blue Acres program, or living in a risky, unelevated home. And as new residents move in, they often have no idea of the flood risk they face.

The buyout program – Blue Acres – has not actually consistently helped families to purchase new homes in areas safer from flooding.  In some cases, families cannot afford to purchase again, and lose the security and equity of being homeowners to become renters when that was in no way their choice.  And so the actual impact of this policy is an absolute no win situation for working class storm survivors.

Manville is a community made up of 20% senior citizens, 30% people of color, 20% bilingual speakers.  We firmly believe that these actions are being taken in Manville, namely testing out a policy of forced-migration, because Manville is a low and moderate income community, and an EPA-defined disadvantaged community with a greater proportion of the population made up of people of color.  After Superstorm Sandy, which primarily impacted white homeowners in coastal communities, we saw no such provisions.  Further, by requiring families either apply for a buyout, or self-fund their repairs, working families who cannot afford to spend tens of thousands of their own money dollars on costly mitigation and rebuilding projects are essentially being left without a chance or a choice.

Five years after Hurricane Ida devastated communities across New Jersey, survivors have yet to realize the promise of a repaired home that is better prepared for future storms. New Jersey has a new governor this year which provides us a renewed opportunity to push back on this forced climate mitigation policy. This should not set a precedent for further inequity in storm recovery. We intend to highlight the failure of the previous administration’s policies. This is the year to get Governor Sherrill to do something different.

We need just policies informed by disaster survivors who are the experts on these impacts.  We need federal funding earmarked for low and moderate income communities to help those families rebuild safely and live in their existing communities when that is their wish.  We do not want people who struggled to own homes lose that financial security because of forced migration policies.  We do not want to see our state move out working class families so that folks with money have better flood protection.  We are requesting resources to support organizing, communications, and leadership development in order to reverse this policy and develop survivor-led policies the state can implement – that do mean we can move people out of their communities when that is the best choice, but that process is voluntary and deeply equitable.

We need a disaster recovery system that puts people first, gets them home and whole, better prepares us for future disasters, and does it right the first time and every time.  13 years after Superstorm Sandy despite the progress we’ve made, things are even harder now than they were before.  Five years after Hurricane Ida devastated communities across New Jersey, the opens in a new windowstate is requiring Manville families to either apply for a buyout, or self-fund their repairs – working families who cannot afford to spend tens of thousands of their own money on costly mitigation and rebuilding projects are essentially being left without a chance or a choice. They either must take an insufficient buyout which turns homeowners into renters or stay in their communities at the same elevation that left them devastated during Ida.  This is not acceptable.  We need just policies informed by disaster survivors who are the experts on these impacts.

If New Jersey will be implementing mandatory buyouts after a disaster, that policies must be shaped by us and our allies.  And must include the following pillars, which are completely absent from their current policy precedent.

• Equity – your income level does not dictate whether you stay or go, all community members must relocate regardless of socioeconomic status, not just low income families who need grants to rebuild.  The buyout programs must have independent funding streams – not just federal grants – so that people can remain homeowners and don’t end up forced into buyouts that are insufficient and force them into renting.
• Consent and conversations –  communities targeted for relocation after disaster should know and consent to that before disaster.
• Real alternatives – affordable housing should be built or able to be triggered immediately for construction post disaster so working class families who must relocate can afford to remain in their neighborhoods or as near as possible to their jobs, schools, and loved ones;
• Continuity – exceptions must be negotiated for and made when people must leave a critical geographical boundary.  For example, children who go to a special needs school who are forced to move out of the district should still be able to attend that school.

Winning the reversal of this precedent in Manville, will set us up for this next fight.