Welcome, Guest! - or
Easy to remember!  »  VinNews.com

New York - Superstorm Sandy Battered The Poor Hardest, Studies Show

Published on: March 6, 2013 09:25 PM
By: Reuters
Change text size Text Size  
Aerial photo ot damage in Brick from Sandy (Tim Larson, Governor’s Office)Aerial photo ot damage in Brick from Sandy (Tim Larson, Governor’s Office)

New York - Superstorm Sandy punished low-income people in New York and New Jersey, especially renters who are now at risk of being unable to find new homes, according to a pair of studies released on Wednesday said.

Forty-three percent of the 518,000 households in New York and New Jersey asking for federal aid after Superstorm Sandy reported annual incomes of less than $30,000, according to the study from the affordable housing financing firm Enterprise Community Partners.


Of those making claims to the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) as of mid-February, 68 percent of renters and 24 percent of homeowners were low-income, the Enterprise study said.

Low-income renters were vulnerable to being left without affordable housing, according to another study from the Furman Center at New York University.

Sandy crashed ashore with a record sea surge on October 29, damaging or destroying hundreds of thousands of homes and commercial buildings, mostly in low-lying coastal areas of New York and New Jersey.

U.S. lawmakers approved a $50 billion federal aid package aimed at helping homeowners, businesses, states and cities. A full picture of the economic damage is still unfolding.

Floodwaters from the storm damaged 402 public housing buildings with more than 35,000 units in New York City, the Furman Center study found. That amounts to “more public housing units than the entire stock of any other public housing authority in the country” except Puerto Rico, it said.

The split of FEMA claims between New York and New Jersey residents was roughly equal. The number of homeowners with uninsured damage was 60 percent higher in New York, the Enterprise study said.

About a fifth of all FEMA claims were filed by households making more than $90,000 a year, Enterprise found.



More of today's headlines

AN FRANCISCO (Reuters) - Google Inc began testing a same-day delivery service with retailers in recent weeks, the latest move into Amazon.com Inc's e-commerce turf by... Boston - Mitt Romney has a new position with his son's Boston-area venture capital firm. Last year's Republican presidential nominee will serve as chairman of the...



Read Comments (3)  —  Post Yours »


 Mar 07, 2013 at 12:40 PM ShmuelG Says:

One of the concepts that are appear simple to the rest of us but never fail to confound dumb liberals (I know, it's redundant): that the difference between the well to do and the poor is that the well to do have more money, which enables them to acquire better things, such as better homes, and to be better equipped to deal with difficulties. Every time a liberal, who as we already mentioned, is nearly inevitably dumb, discovers the evidence of this simple concept, he is surprised and tells everybody who would listen, usually another dumb liberal, that he just uncovered some shameful truth.

You know, paying for the chasuna with 400 invited guests is difficult for me, but I know a very good man here in Baltimore who made bigger chasuna last year with ease. Where do I report that?


 Mar 07, 2013 at 01:25 PM Anonymous Says:

It sure did, all the Shuls in the poor neighborhood of Brighton Beach were badly damaged from Sandy, and also from poor planning by the Shuls themselves.


 Mar 08, 2013 at 01:01 AM HaveSomeSeichel Says:

This article is so dumb.
20% (1/5) of claims were by the "rich"- 90,000+ a year. They lived in the nice neighborhoods and coastal regions (beach homes and the like). They have nice views and maybe beach access.
Poor people will live in poor areas. These places are low-cost because there is some issue with the area/location. For instance- near a "slight" (highways, industrial areas) or because they may be harder-hit when a natural disaster strikes. Governmental housing will be in these poor areas because it costs too much to place them all in Manhattan penthouses! The government cannot buy homes for the poor in Beverly Hills. They buy them in not-so nice areas like near "downtown" LA.
Why should the government help pay for apartments and homes for people in areas the average person can't afford??? Should the unemployed (some by choice) live better than someone who has 2 jobs and is just trying to make ends meet?


to post a comment

Click here to sign-in.

Scroll Up

Sell your scrap gold and broken jewelry and earn hard cash sell gold today!