IE 11 Not Supported

For optimal browsing, we recommend Chrome, Firefox or Safari browsers.

Post-Disaster Recovery Expectations Under a Trump Administration

We can think of three types of adaptations following disasters — incremental, lurching and transformational.

When I began my service at Washington State Emergency Management Division back in 1991, Bob Freitag was working for the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Region X. We first crossed paths less than a month after I joined the civilian ranks as Bob and another cohort of his were coordinating an earthquake exercise called Response 91B (why I can remember that factoid — I don't know).

Bob moved on to another career after retiring from FEMA and is now with the University of Washington. I remember a few years back when we were at the same meeting (about the Washington State Resilience Plan) and I heard him make a comment. After he finished speaking I said, "Bob, you have turned into an academic!" An academic with a modicum of practical experience — I'll add.

Please see his short treatise below that I'm calling a "Guest Blog Post." I can't say that what he says will come true, but his reasoning appears to be on the money from my perspective and could likely be the type of thinking and action we can expect out of the next administration. We'll need a big disaster to prove Bob right or wrong, but I expect that will come along in due time.

“Post-Disaster Recovery Expectations Under a Trump Administration” by Bob Freitag, University of Washington
____________________
Will a Trump administration promote community resilience, as has the Obama administration? Will the Trump appointee try to improve a community’s ability to adapt following a disturbance?

I think yes, but not as we have been applying the concept. All depends on what community we are talking about. And, the resolve of state and local government.

To understand this new administration and how they will view resilience, it is helpful to remember that resilience is value neutral. There are winners and losers after any disturbance. And your team might not be the more resilient.

After the Mexico City earthquake, the financial interests were resilient and were able to rebuild and expand at the expense of temporary populations that had no legal claim to their land. After Hurricane Katrina, charter school systems replaced more traditional public education. After hurricanes, often single-family homeowners cannot afford the costs of reconstruction and meeting revised FEMA-imposed higher regulation, and must sell their land. Parcels are then re- assembled by more resilient interests, and developed to increased densities achieving “higher and best” economic uses.

This damage/re-development to higher and best use process often defeats the intended objective of the revised codes resulting in higher densities and placing more people at risk. At least over the short run. Trump’s campaign statements, his real-estate practice viewed along with the goals offered by his trusted adviser, the Heritage Foundation, all point to a preference in one key aspect of resilience — transformation. We can think of three types of adaptations following disturbances — incremental, lurching and transformational. Incremental and lurching adaptions to change assume that the change is stable and understandable. Transformational adaption refers to the pursuit of a new direction. Climate change is anything but understood and stable. Slow changes in the environment (sea level rise) along with increases in extreme events (hurricanes) will offer a bonanza of opportunities for transformational exploitation, especially if actions are unfettered by regulation. And, exploiting such opportunities is what Trump seems to pride himself on.

Just think of the increase in transformational opportunities available if a swath of coastline development is destroyed by a storm and homeowners are forced to sell. Resilient financial interests can create an LLC (limited liability company), buy and assemble the land relatively inexpensively, and build apartments and condominiums. Once these are sold, the LLC can be dissolved and all risks transferred to the new owners (and government).

You could make the argument that there is nothing wrong with this process. Don’t all benefit? The homeowner gets some cash, the developer and his architects and engineers get some profit, government added revenue and more residents can enjoy the coast. It seems very American at first blush.

But here is the kicker. What if the shoreline is retreating behind these newly developed properties? What if seas are rising and land subsiding? What if the intensity and frequency of extreme events is increasing? What if the risk of loss is projected to increase yearly and higher sea levels are expected to wash over the property within the life of the building, if not that of the buyer?

I feel all would justified if:
• buyers knew the risks
• funds for restoration were internalized by the developer
• life cycle costs and risks were reflected in the sales price
• structural building design reflected the risk and building life
• costly attempts at protection are avoided
• local taxpayers were not left holding the bag and could actually bank the short-term profits.

However, how convenient if you have an administration that pooh-poohs climate change, the need for adaptation, climate mitigation and other environmental concerns.

Our president-elect has made his money by transforming property to higher economic uses. He feels there is too much limiting regulation in the system today and has expressed little appreciation for the unimproved environment.

I feel we can expect increased interest in removing all barriers to transformation to higher and best uses. Think disaster capitalism!

Addressing the fallout will be left to state and local government. And government is up to the task if it takes that proverbial bull by the horns and exercises its legitimate and expected control.

Eric Holdeman is a contributing writer for Emergency Management magazine and is the former director of the King County, Wash., Office of Emergency Management.