By John Q. Hosedrinker 
FEMA has denied Arizona’s request for a Major Disaster Declaration following September floods in Gila and Mohave Counties, citing the damage was not severe enough to warrant federal assistance. Arizona officials had estimated losses to be around $33 million due to the devastating floods. Governor Katie Hobbs criticized the decision, stating the damage exceeded thresholds typically used for federal aid, and vowed to appeal the denial. Local residents and officials in Globe expressed surprise and disappointment at the denial, highlighting the significant impact the floods had on their community.
Read the original article here
FEMA denies disaster declaration in Arizona counties: Gov. Katie Hobbs. This is a story that’s causing a lot of frustration, especially in the affected communities. It seems the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) has denied a disaster declaration for several counties in Arizona after some pretty severe storms. Governor Katie Hobbs has expressed her strong disapproval, and understandably so, considering the damage that was done.
Governor Hobbs, in her statement, highlighted that the documented damage from the storms exceeded the thresholds that are usually required to justify federal disaster assistance. The denial of this much-needed relief has left Arizonans feeling like they’re on their own, especially after homes, businesses, roads, and bridges were significantly damaged. She’s already stated that she plans to appeal this decision and continue to do everything in her power to ensure Arizona communities aren’t left to pay the price for what she views as senseless federal policies.
The response from the community has been one of surprise and disappointment. Imagine being a resident of Globe, a town that was hit hard. The mayor, Al Gameros, expressed his shock at the denial, particularly given the devastation, including the loss of life, caused by a flooding river. The owner of the Globe Antique Mall, Brenda Tyler, also shared her concern. She spoke about the financial implications of losing essential business tools and the urgency with which people need that money now, only to have their requests denied.
Now, a common theme in the reactions to this denial seems to be a frustration with the political landscape. Some people are pointing fingers, saying that the affected counties voted a certain way in the past, implying that this might be influencing the decision. Others believe that it’s a clear example of the current administration weaponizing the process, using the denial as a form of political leverage. This sentiment raises serious questions about the fairness and impartiality of how disaster relief is handled.
The very nature of how disaster relief is handled is brought to question here as well. The title itself suggests a problem. While it’s FEMA that gets the blame, the power to declare or deny an emergency rests with the President. This means the decision to provide aid comes from the highest levels of the government, and the potential for political motivation is clear. This has led to speculation about whether the agency’s funds have been redirected for other purposes, or if the aid is being used for political favors.
It’s been noted, as well, that the current administration seems to be taking longer to make these declarations than previous ones. Another key concern is the potential for unequal treatment of states based on their political leanings. There are claims of red states receiving significantly more declarations than blue states. This could lead to people questioning the integrity of the federal government’s response to disasters.
Of course, the debate around this also includes concerns about the future of FEMA itself. Some are questioning the very purpose of the agency if its aid is perceived as being withheld for political reasons. The fundamental question is: If a state’s citizens contribute to the system through taxes, should they be denied assistance when they need it, regardless of their political affiliation?
The core of the issue boils down to the feeling that the federal government is not acting in the best interest of all Americans. This can be viewed as an illustration of federalism working as it was intended, as some have said. But others are saying that it feels like punishment for the voters in those areas. This has sparked a broader conversation about the role of the federal government in times of crisis and whether political motivations should ever come into play when people are suffering.
There’s a lot of emotion tied up in this situation, and it’s understandable. People are frustrated, and they want answers. This case highlights how critical disaster relief is and how easily its administration can be influenced by political considerations.