Who’s Watching the Planners?
I received the attached notice showing that the City Council has unanimously accepted the “New Orleans Neighborhoods Rebuilding Plans” previously commissioned by the City Council. Further, the announcement indicates that these plans, along with recommendations from the Bring New Orleans Back Commission and a plan from the Sewage & Water Board are to presented to LRA on November 6th, presumably as the plans by which the City is requesting HUD-allocated recovery dollars.
First, I recommend that these plans be made publicly available in full, vetted by the City Planning Commission, and subject to a formal hearing before presentment to LRA as an official plan. Other than a one-time summary presentation by the drafters, the neighborhood recovery plans have not been thoroughly reviewed for quality or content. Likewise, neither the generalized BNOB recommendations nor the Sewerage and Water Board “plan” have been publicly vetted.
Second, there remains continued uncertainty that these plans possess the requisite specificity to be used as tools in seeking FEMA and LRA-administered funds.
In light of the two major funding sources – FEMA public assistance grants & LRA infrastructure funding – what assurances, if any, have been made to ensure that these strung together plans are consistent with the funding criteria used by federal and state officials? One would expect that these plans as presented and submitted offer such details, yet that is not evident.
By example, the LRA funds that would fund proposed neighborhood recovery projects, BNOB recommendations, and SW&B projects will be available under LRA’s “Local Government Emergency Infrastructure Program.” Given recent commitments to Entergy, this pool of funds is presently limited to approximately $340 million statewide.
LRA’s HUD-approved Action Plan states that this Program is to provide the required 10% FEMA Public Assistance projects to restore critical local infrastructure damaged by the storms and provide financial assistance towards infrastructure repairs that are ineligible under the FEMA PA grant program.
More specific, however, LRA has set out several criteria that must be addressed by any funding request by a local government. Relative to the plans about to be submitted the City must demonstrate the following:
- Submitted projects must be the result of a broad community planning process;
- Submitted projects must follow the best design for delivery of services in light of the population shifts and changed circumstances communities.
- Submitted projects must demonstrate that it is the most efficient and cost effective way to rebuild the infrastructure, or that the applicant has considered alternate methods of rebuilding to achieve the greatest efficiency of the infrastructure to serve the local as well as regional needs of the community as a result of the Public Assistance repairs or reconstruction; and
- Submitted projects must consider a mitigation plan to minimize damage for future floods or hurricanes.
Again, what assurances, if any, do we have that the plans to be submitted next week address the above criteria? Beyond LRA funds, what assurances do we have that the plans to be presented can pass muster in terms of Public Assistance grant applications to FEMA?
As I have come to understand this process, applications for funds should demonstrate an integration of the various components of a public project to be funded using government dollars. In this, the Lambert Plans detail proposed neighborhood projects with no integration of current or needed infrastructure. Likewise, the BNOB Commission recommendations that are to be presented have also not been sufficiently integrated into a master plan that identifies repair needs for roads, sewers, pipes, and other public property. Tacking on a proposed plan from 1 of the 14 city entities charged with funding and implementing public property repairs is insufficient.
To be sure, the City must do everything it can to expedite the flow of recovery dollars and actual repairs. The “Lambert Plans” coupled with BNOB Commission recommendations and the SW&B’s are important means for helping move this process along. However, without greater assurance that these plans contain necessary details and are sufficiently integrated, their presentment at this time may actually delay the funding and implementation process.
I strongly urge the Council to address this matter at its next general meeting or through a special hearing at which FEMA, LRA, and Nagin Administration officials testify publicly to the sufficiency of these plans and the rules for funding under the relevant government programs. Moreover, I recommend that these plans be made publicly available in total, along with details explaining how they are consistent with FEMA and LRA funding criteria and applicable rules.
This is an all-important inquiry by the City Council that will give our citizens the necessary assurance that the plans they worked so hard to develop will used in a manner consistent with funding rules so that they help maximize our local share of recovery funds.
Please do not hesitate to contact me with any questions at this email or 504-569-2986.
4 Comments | No Trackbacks |
comments feed  |
I agree with the plans being made public, my impression of the recovery is that too much of the planning is going on behind closed doors. I have a sneaking suspicion that personal and political agendas are being formulated behind the scenes only to be revealed when it is too late to do anything about it. City government is not giving the citizens the information they need to make good desicions. What does this mean? It means that the politics in New Orleans have not changed.
I’ve been fighting this secretive process since Halloween night, when it was brought to light. We need to make sure everything is above board. This whole process has been shocking, to say the least.
http://neworleans.indymedia.org/news/2006/11/9078.php
http://neworleans.indymedia.org/news/2006/11/9066.php
http://neworleans.indymedia.org/news/2006/10/9051.php
My feelings about the behind closed doors part of recovery are made worse when I attend meetings and all we seem to do is play games. Drawing on maps. Saying that, yeah, levees are a good idea. It’s participation. It doesn’t feel _public_ though. Not like having someone who is a professional ask the questions in a forum where the outcomes really matter.
The plans need to be made public prior to being given to the LRA. This will save time for the planning process, because, I hope, people like myself will demand to be able to read these documents and make comments on them before the LRA votes to accept anything sent in secretively.