FEMA offers trailers as a solution to the temporary housing problem. Designed to temporarily house residents for a year to eighteen months. By August 2006 the final numbers are coming into focus. So far 70,906 FEMA trailers have been requested throughout the metro area including 23,000 in Orleans. 61,458 have actually been provided, and 3,427 have already been removed. At $20,000 each that these things should have cost roughly $1.4 billion. FEMA has paid more than 3 times that amount. It's a little disconcerting that 12 months after the storm there are still 9,000 people that have requested a trailer but not received one. 5,000 of those are in Orleans which may explain what is going on since the lower ninth ward is still not reopened. (August 2007 update 68,936 metro area trailers delivered, 33,494 occupied and 35,442 removed.)

The use of a trailer on a home site while it is being renovated is a good use of the technology. The home owner lives on his own property, can keep a close eye on the works and the property and remains part of his neighborhood. In a variation on this theme the home owner's displaced relative, friend or even a new friend (paying rent or not) lives in the trailer on the home owner's property.

The use of a group of trailers near a work site like a hospital, factory or even a restaurant is also viable although not as attractive as the home site. The workers can return and have a place to live while they work and wait for the permanent housing stock to be rebuilt. Unless these are to be come the "new sharecroppers" there should definitely be an expectation that the site is temporary.

The use of trailers in a massive group site is turning out to be problematic. The FEMA city experience in Punta Gorda suggests this is the least desirable use of this technology. The problems of the high density low income housing project need to be remembered as we consider this option.

In New Orleans, sites for these parks has become problematic as coordination between FEMA, the city administration, the Council and the public has broken down.

Physically, this is a relatively simple exercise with concrete observable results. Politically it isn't nearly so easy. The political morass reflects some inherent problems in the design. Realistically does it make sense at all to provide trailer cities? Shouldn't you concentrate efforts on rebuilding the permanent housing stock and bringing people back when they'll have a decent place to live. Read about the Punta Gorda and Baker trailer parks before you decide if you think this is a decent way to live.

Coordination is important and several levels of the federal, state and local bureaucracy are involved. Of course it has become a fiasco. With this kind of performance on a relatively simple task it's no wonder that disaster planning, rescue and most of all recovery have been such a cluster.

A new acronym has come into being as residents have objected to trailers being placed in their neighborhoods. NIMBY means "Not In My Back Yard." It has become code for yet another controversy. Those who always scream "racism" are accusing loudly and in the most ugly way possible.

It clearly makes sense to provide the housing to bring critical workers back to the city. The question is not being asked or debated fully as to whether it makes sense to bring others back to the city before vital infrastructure including permanent housing can be built. The mayor seems to be leading the drive to bring back anyone who wants to come back whether they have the means or not. Why? Placing these citizens temporarily in housing around the country makes more sense than placing them in temporary housing in a city that is struggling to survive.


Washington Post - FEMA's City of Anxiety in Florida