An excerpt from the Clarion Ledger article:
The good news is that this bill, if passed, would create a grant that would give homeowners up to $25,000 to help pay for “flood damage” from the storm surge.HB 41 would create the Mississippi Disaster Home Flood Grant Fund to grant a maximum of $25,000 to homeowners whose houses flooded in the storm surge from Hurricane Katrina and they did not have flood insurance. A requirement for the grant would be that residents have to take out disaster assistance loans from the Small Business Administration.
But did you notice the catch? To qualify for the grant, residents have to take out loans from the SBA. Now, as a small government kind of guy, I’m conflicted over all of this in the first place. But lets set that aside for a moment and think about the people who might be applying for this grant.
According to this site, the average home price in Harrison County is $120,143. In Gulfport it is $113,747. In Biloxi it is $125,421. In Ocean Springs it is $129,575. Nearer to the water (and subsequently nearer to the damage) the values are considerably higher. Anyhow, lets use the averages and say a homeowner/mortgage-payer who needs this grant has put 20% down on their home and paid down the mortgage for 5 years. This hypothetical Biloxi/OS/GPT homeowner in need of a grant has remaining debt of ~90,000 dollars, 25 years left on a 30 year loan at 5.5% and no house. Based on a $90/sf cost (before hurricane inflation and new building codes), to rebuild a 1,700 square foot home would be around 153,000.
153,000 Rebuilding Cost
- 25,000 Grant
+90,000 Original Debt
218,000 Total Debt
160,000 Rebuilt Value?
- 58,000 Differential
Before the storm the homeowner’s mortgage payment was around $550/month. Now to live in the same place in a comparable home, the payment is nearly $1,240/month, 225% more than a month ago AND in this example they have negative equity.
Now, I suppose the real estate market will adjust and comparable home prices will simply inflate to reflect the increased cost of ownership IF there are people who can afford to pay those kind of prices. But whether that happens or homeowners are left paying more than their homes are worth may be irrelevant if those same people can’t afford either scenario.
Now, I know that the MS legislators intentions are the best and they are likely trying to prevent abuse of the system. But frankly, people don’t need more debt. We need real relief (preferably from the insurance companies and not the state) and tying the state relief to additional debt will only increase the burdens of these people. If the homeowner in the above example could miraculously find a way... pool his own savings, this grant, maybe some other grants/gifts and not incur any more debt, why should the government discourage him from doing so?
Ya’ll tell me what you think. Am I being belligerent? Does the example hold water? Am I missing something?
B

















































